(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

If that's the only change from that round of realignment, I'd think the Big 12 is pretty much locked into taking Houston to replace both Texas and Texas A&M, who are roughly 2.5 hours and 1.5 hours away from Houston, respectively. Rice then gets called up to the Big East/American like SMU did to replace TCU. Depending on the timing of those moves, C-USA likely doesn't invite Western Kentucky until this past December after UAB dropped football. That invite would then be on short-notice for the 2015 season, and since the Sun Belt would have had 12 members for football for the 2014 season, it is possible UMass gets to move from the MAC on similarly short notice.

If any of the other P5 conferences start expanding as well, the Big 12 might bear a striking resemblance to today's American Athletic Conference - had it happened quickly enough, Big East football could have been shut down as all of its members would be invited to the Big 12. Kansas and Oklahoma are the first to go, and if the SEC is involved that likely takes out West Virginia as well. It would just be a question of who gets to tag along.

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

And they started their run in 2010. What else started in 2010? The Texas downturn. Coincidence? I think not. As soon as Texas gets it's act together Baylor is going to slide down the Big XII hierarchy.

Besides, if I were going to add one of the Big XII Texas privates I would add TCU. Much longer pattern of playing winning football and they are in rather than on the periphery of the DFW market.

(04-19-2015 08:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

I get that the world hates privates, but you do realize that we have one of he highest grossing athletic depts in the ACC, right? We also have elite basketball and historically good football. Enlighten me, please. What does Syracuse's athletic department we have in common with the athletic departments of Vandy,* Utah, WSU, OSU, etc.? I can see BC and Pitt (although we make substantially more than either school). The rest are a random assortment of names that are generally buried at the bottom of their conference.

*Or the equivalent thereof in Vandy's case.

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

And they started their run in 2010. What else started in 2010? The Texas downturn. Coincidence? I think not. As soon as Texas gets it's act together Baylor is going to slide down the Big XII hierarchy.

Kap - EXACTLY. They're a flavor of the week team.

John - You forgot SU and, including SU, you just named 9/14 ACC schools. That's a lot of rivalry games. Anyway, WVU has a good TV following and good basketball as well as football. They're already getting paid $20 million/yr to be an island in the Big XII, so the value is clearly there.

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

I get that the world hates privates, but you do realize that we have one of he highest grossing athletic depts in the ACC, right? We also have elite basketball and historically good football. Enlighten me, please. What does Syracuse's athletic department we have in common with the athletic departments of Vandy,* Utah, WSU, OSU, etc.?

Mostly, football attendance around 40K.

Quote:I can see BC and Pitt (although we make substantially more than either school). The rest are a random assortment of names that are generally buried at the bottom of their conference.

*Or the equivalent thereof in Vandy's case.

(04-19-2015 08:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

And they started their run in 2010. What else started in 2010? The Texas downturn. Coincidence? I think not. As soon as Texas gets it's act together Baylor is going to slide down the Big XII hierarchy.

Kap - EXACTLY. They're a flavor of the week team.

John - You forgot SU and, including SU, you just named 9/14 ACC schools. That's a lot of rivalry games. Anyway, WVU has a good TV following and good basketball as well as football. They're already getting paid $20 million/yr to be an island in the Big XII, so the value is clearly there.

Unless you're backfilling, you're making a move to add value. Sure, if an ACC school was raided again somehow, or just dropped out of FBS, West Virginia would be a plausible replacement. But the ACC isn't going to ADD West Virginia just because they'd boost everyone's attendance for 5K for one game every other year. The money has gotten too big for that sort of penny-pinching to be a factor.

(04-19-2015 08:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

The ACC needs top level football programs more than any of the other major conferences. You make a nice list of stats but I touch upon the need.

(04-19-2015 09:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Kap - EXACTLY. They're a flavor of the week team.

John - You forgot SU and, including SU, you just named 9/14 ACC schools. That's a lot of rivalry games. Anyway, WVU has a good TV following and good basketball as well as football. They're already getting paid $20 million/yr to be an island in the Big XII, so the value is clearly there.

Unless you're backfilling, you're making a move to add value. Sure, if an ACC school was raided again somehow, or just dropped out of FBS, West Virginia would be a plausible replacement. But the ACC isn't going to ADD West Virginia just because they'd boost everyone's attendance for 5K for one game every other year. The money has gotten too big for that sort of penny-pinching to be a factor.

Once again, this is a school with extremely competitive basketball and football programs and a media value on par with the rest of the ACC. Additionally, it is a school with +50 years of history with half the conference, which, by your own estimation, translates into a rivalry game for 9 of the 14 members. Name a situation which could possibly be better, short of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, (insert pipe dream here), etc. joining (or joining as a full member in ND's case).

The ACC would be tangibly better off with WVU. If it doesn't happen it's because of the GoR, because WVU doesn't want to jump, because of a stupid 60 year old black ball, or because there isn't a 16th team to go with WVU.

(04-19-2015 09:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

The ACC needs top level football programs more than any of the other major conferences. You make a nice list of stats but I touch upon the need.

Baylor as a "top level football program" is a new development and, in the scheme of things, quite likely to be temporary. (Insert list of P5 schools who are currently mediocre who have top 5 finishes in the last 25-35 years).

(04-19-2015 11:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Once again, this is a school with extremely competitive basketball and football programs and a media value [b]on par with[/b] the rest of the ACC.

No doubt. If Syracuse or Clemson or BC or Virginia Tech disappeared tomorrow, and West Virginia were free to move, they are the most likely candidate. (BC and the southern football schools would block UConn). You could swap Pitt or NC State or Louisville for West Virginia, and the value of the ACC doesn't change much.

But we're talking about the ACC expanding, not backfilling. You don't expand if you don't raise the average value of the conference.

Quote:Additionally, it is a school with +50 years of history with half the conference, which, by your own estimation, translates into a rivalry game for 9 of the 14 members. Name a situation which could possibly be better, short of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, (insert pipe dream here), etc. joining (or joining as a full member in ND's case).

I think, at around $20M per school, that's the kind of candidate it would take to make a 15-team ACC make sense.

Quote:The ACC would be tangibly better off with WVU.

I disagree. West Virginia would be a middle-of-the-pack ACC school.

Quote:If it doesn't happen it's because of the GoR, because WVU doesn't want to jump, because of a stupid 60 year old black ball, or because there isn't a 16th team to go with WVU.

No, it's because it's very difficult to raise the value of a $250 or $300M a year conference.

"West Virginia to the ACC" is a lot like "SLU/Dayton to the Big East." Yes, the expansion candidate fits the profile. Yes, the candidate compares very well to the schools already in the conference. Etc etc.

But, given the current Big East valuation at $4M per school per year, Dayton or SLU don't bring $8M/year value.

Now if Notre Dame were joining the ACC for football, then WVU makes a lot of sense as #16. But West Virginia doesn't bring enough to the table to talk about them as #15. Much like Texas A&M made sense as #13 to the SEC, and Missouri was the best available fit for #14.

(04-20-2015 04:44 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 09:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

Small private school, minimal presence in DFW, the nearest big market. Not Ivy-caliber or near-Ivy caliber like Stanford or Duke or Vanderbilt. Football attendance usually around 40,000, caps out below 50,000.

As an institution and a brand, they slot in pretty well with the Wake Forests, Washington States, Purdues, Kansas States, Vanderbilts, Utahs, BC's, Syracuses, Pitt's, Oregon States, etc. But for the grace of a Lt Gov at the right time, Baylor could have been TCU or SMU or Rice. And Ken Starr knows it. So if you're ranking the P5 schools as valuable conference members, I'm pretty sure Baylor is #48 or below.

The ACC needs top level football programs more than any of the other major conferences. You make a nice list of stats but I touch upon the need.

Baylor as a "top level football program" is a new development and, in the scheme of things, quite likely to be temporary. (Insert list of P5 schools who are currently mediocre who have top 5 finishes in the last 25-35 years).

I don't see why it is inevitable that it will be temporary. I think you just use that talking point to support your preconceived notion that you don't like Baylor in the ACC.

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

And they started their run in 2010. What else started in 2010? The Texas downturn. Coincidence? I think not. As soon as Texas gets it's act together Baylor is going to slide down the Big XII hierarchy.

Besides, if I were going to add one of the Big XII Texas privates I would add TCU. Much longer pattern of playing winning football and they are in rather than on the periphery of the DFW market.

TCU was on their run longer than Baylor's. I would not see them faltering, but Baylor could. But, Texas's clout has run dry with all the negativity right now.

If I were the ACC commissioner and I could pick either TCU or Baylor but not both, I'd take TCU in a heartbeat. However, IF the ACC ever expands into Texas, they'd want two teams, IMO.

(04-20-2015 04:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 11:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Once again, this is a school with extremely competitive basketball and football programs and a media value [b]on par with[/b] the rest of the ACC.

No doubt. If Syracuse or Clemson or BC or Virginia Tech disappeared tomorrow, and West Virginia were free to move, they are the most likely candidate. (BC and the southern football schools would block UConn). You could swap Pitt or NC State or Louisville for West Virginia, and the value of the ACC doesn't change much.

But we're talking about the ACC expanding, not backfilling. You don't expand if you don't raise the average value of the conference.

Quote:Additionally, it is a school with +50 years of history with half the conference, which, by your own estimation, translates into a rivalry game for 9 of the 14 members. Name a situation which could possibly be better, short of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, (insert pipe dream here), etc. joining (or joining as a full member in ND's case).

I think, at around $20M per school, that's the kind of candidate it would take to make a 15-team ACC make sense.

Quote:The ACC would be tangibly better off with WVU.

I disagree. West Virginia would be a middle-of-the-pack ACC school.

Quote:If it doesn't happen it's because of the GoR, because WVU doesn't want to jump, because of a stupid 60 year old black ball, or because there isn't a 16th team to go with WVU.

No, it's because it's very difficult to raise the value of a $250 or $300M a year conference.

"West Virginia to the ACC" is a lot like "SLU/Dayton to the Big East." Yes, the expansion candidate fits the profile. Yes, the candidate compares very well to the schools already in the conference. Etc etc.

But, given the current Big East valuation at $4M per school per year, Dayton or SLU don't bring $8M/year value.

Now if Notre Dame were joining the ACC for football, then WVU makes a lot of sense as #16. But West Virginia doesn't bring enough to the table to talk about them as #15. Much like Texas A&M made sense as #13 to the SEC, and Missouri was the best available fit for #14.

The per team Big XII payout is bigger than the per team ACC payout. This isn't a SLU/Dayton to the Big East.

(04-20-2015 07:55 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If I were the ACC commissioner and I could pick either TCU or Baylor but not both, I'd take TCU in a heartbeat. However, IF the ACC ever expands into Texas, they'd want two teams, IMO.

I could see why you would want TCU more but to be honest with one's self, one has to admit that TCU already has the history with the West and aren't as connected as Baylor is.

(04-20-2015 07:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 04:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 11:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Once again, this is a school with extremely competitive basketball and football programs and a media value [b]on par with[/b] the rest of the ACC.

No doubt. If Syracuse or Clemson or BC or Virginia Tech disappeared tomorrow, and West Virginia were free to move, they are the most likely candidate. (BC and the southern football schools would block UConn). You could swap Pitt or NC State or Louisville for West Virginia, and the value of the ACC doesn't change much.

But we're talking about the ACC expanding, not backfilling. You don't expand if you don't raise the average value of the conference.

Quote:Additionally, it is a school with +50 years of history with half the conference, which, by your own estimation, translates into a rivalry game for 9 of the 14 members. Name a situation which could possibly be better, short of Alabama, Notre Dame, Michigan, (insert pipe dream here), etc. joining (or joining as a full member in ND's case).

I think, at around $20M per school, that's the kind of candidate it would take to make a 15-team ACC make sense.

Quote:The ACC would be tangibly better off with WVU.

I disagree. West Virginia would be a middle-of-the-pack ACC school.

Quote:If it doesn't happen it's because of the GoR, because WVU doesn't want to jump, because of a stupid 60 year old black ball, or because there isn't a 16th team to go with WVU.

No, it's because it's very difficult to raise the value of a $250 or $300M a year conference.

"West Virginia to the ACC" is a lot like "SLU/Dayton to the Big East." Yes, the expansion candidate fits the profile. Yes, the candidate compares very well to the schools already in the conference. Etc etc.

But, given the current Big East valuation at $4M per school per year, Dayton or SLU don't bring $8M/year value.

Now if Notre Dame were joining the ACC for football, then WVU makes a lot of sense as #16. But West Virginia doesn't bring enough to the table to talk about them as #15. Much like Texas A&M made sense as #13 to the SEC, and Missouri was the best available fit for #14.

The per team Big XII payout is bigger than the per team ACC payout. This isn't a SLU/Dayton to the Big East.

The point isn't whether West Virginia would want the move, or whether the Big XII payout or the ACC payout is $1M/year bigger or smaller. It's that West Virginia would be an average ACC school, much like SLU or Dayton would be average Big East schools, and that adding an average school doesn't increase the value of the conference enough to have the move make sense.

Adding West Virginia (or Kentucky, or Rutgers, or a Maryland reunion) doesn't increase the ACC value from $250M or so a year to around $300M. That's what it would take to go from 14 teams @ $18M to 15 teams @ $20M. Without a conference network, you'd need a school who brings $50M to the table. You need a locomotive, not just a workhorse who pulls its fair share.

(04-21-2015 04:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  The point isn't whether West Virginia would want the move, or whether the Big XII payout or the ACC payout is $1M/year bigger or smaller. It's that West Virginia would be an average ACC school, much like SLU or Dayton would be average Big East schools, and that adding an average school doesn't increase the value of the conference enough to have the move make sense.

Adding West Virginia (or Kentucky, or Rutgers, or a Maryland reunion) doesn't increase the ACC value from $250M or so a year to around $300M. That's what it would take to go from 14 teams @ $18M to 15 teams @ $20M. Without a conference network, you'd need a school who brings $50M to the table. You need a locomotive, not just a workhorse who pulls its fair share.

Where are you getting an arbitrary $50 million dollars/yr? Adding WVU would be accretive. I think that even you agree with me there, even if you are substantially downplaying the benefits. By definition of the add being accretive, so long as it doesn't block off a better move, it should be pursued. That fact begs the question of whether adding WVU blocks off a better move? I don't think it does. If anything, it increases the liklihood of adding PSU down the road.

And, FWIW, the ACC makes a min of over $20 million. I don't think that changes the dynamics, though.

john needs to get out of NYC once in a while. There's more to the world outside NYC than Jersey.

(04-20-2015 07:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 08:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-19-2015 05:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 04:28 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ... the conference is pretty happy as is.

Indeed.

Quote:You are also ignoring how lucrative WVU would be/has been for a number ACC schools. For example, the Backyard Brawl (as well as other WVU-based rivalry games) was incredibly lucrative for both schools (WVU and Pitt in this case) and attendance/interest was strong. Denying that is a little much.

It's a rivalry game for Pitt. I could see a few thousand transplanted and road-tripping Mountaineers showing up at Louisville, VT, UVA and the NC schools. But that's not really enough to base a $20M/year decision on.

Quote:Expanding into a distant state to pick up a flavor of the week team is not a good idea.

Expanding into Texas is an attractive proposition for any conference, but taking one of the bottom quarter of the P5 to do it is very iffy.

The only Texas school that has a chance at the ACC is Texas.

Anyone for a what-if thread on Texas and Notre Dame signing indy/ACC deals in September 2011?

Baylor is hardly a bottom quarter part of the P5. They bring a football program that shows the ability to reload with top talent. They have a brand new stadium made for TV. They have top notch basketball for both men and women. Your attempt to label them as "bottom quarter" is a pretty poor judgement. Hell, they damn near made it into the very first College Football Playoff.

And they started their run in 2010. What else started in 2010? The Texas downturn. Coincidence? I think not. As soon as Texas gets it's act together Baylor is going to slide down the Big XII hierarchy.

Besides, if I were going to add one of the Big XII Texas privates I would add TCU. Much longer pattern of playing winning football and they are in rather than on the periphery of the DFW market.

TCU was on their run longer than Baylor's. I would not see them faltering, but Baylor could. But, Texas's clout has run dry with all the negativity right now.

Yeah OK.

That's why they have been consistently out recruiting Baylor and why the vote to add them to any conference except the SEC would take just long enough to count the number of "Yea" votes. The only reason I didn't include the SEC is the fact that A&M would definitely fight against it, and I truly believe at this point so would LSU, Arkansas, and Missouri.