(04-21-2015 08:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd prefer Miami, VT, Pitt and Louisville all join FSU and Clemson by becoming top 15 football teams - then I won't care about the rest.

P.S. If some other team wants to become top 15, that's fine too. As far as I'm concerned the whole league can be top 15 (as long as VT is ahead of UVa).

What do you think this is, Lake Wobegon?

I tend to agree that 16 teams should be the limit. And, I like the way things are now for the ACC. I could even agree with XLance that this is a stupid idea. But only if everybody in the league is happy with the way things are now, AND believes they can stay that way.

Here is how I view the status quo. The ACC is the weakest of the P5 conferences, in the sense that our on field performance puts us even with the other weak league, the Big Ten, while we are substantially weaker financially than they are. We are weaker on the field than the Big 12, and not significantly better off financially.

We have little upside if we just add two more teams, because the ones we could get provide neither an improvement in performance nor substantial markets. We have serious downside risk, in that all our on field strength is concentrated in a few teams on our southern flank. These schools don't value hoops as much as the rest of the league, and have expressed a willingness to consider other options in the past.

The Big 12, currently at 10 members, probably views itself as having a strong upside potential with the right expansion, coupled with a strong vulnerability to poaching if they remain static. They are good on the field, but outside the state of Texas their markets are small.

The SEC, Big Ten and PAC are basically invulnerable, in the sense that they don't need to do anything to remain economically powerful. Nobody from the other two P5's are going to poach them. So, if there is going to be any significant change within the P5, it will occur with either the Big 12 or ACC, or both.

My concern for the ACC is this. What might happen if the Big 12, recognizing their current limitations, puts the nuclear option in play? What if they get the four southern schools to agree in principle to switch leagues as a group, with the promise that the Big 12 will also add two more of the better ACC teams to join them in a Big 16?

If they could get that commitment, step two is to offer the other two spots to UNC and UVa. Personally, I doubt that works, because both those schools could become #15 and #16 in either the Big Ten or SEC in a heartbeat. Now, with those two off the table, you approach NC State, Va Tech and Louisville with this: We'll take the first two of you to commit. The other gets left behind in an ACC that is now a G6 conference.

So why might VT and State go to the SEC? To beat UNC and UVa to the punch, and avoid getting left behind.

Is that a lot of speculation? Sure it is. But if you are the ACC, and can conceive of some of that happening, you may want to strike preemptively. The only way the Big 12 pries FSU and Clemson loose is by taking enough regional partners along for the ride. The same would hold true if the ACC wants to get into Texas. Just inviting the Longhorns isn't going to make it happen. I believe four teams is the critical mass needed to get Texahoma to join the ACC. And with 14 current members, plus Notre Dame, I don't believe we have that many spots available without being way too unwieldy (especially in hoops where we would have 19 teams).

So my thought was that some movement in one direction or the other - either we raid the Big 12 or they raid us - is very likely to happen within five years. And if they raid us, we could be dead. That's why this isn't unthinkable.

(04-20-2015 09:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 03:50 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it'd take a larger agreement between the conferences. Maybe all P5 conferences even. There could be a way that everyone could make more money if they reorganized but nobody wants the process to come at their expense. So you pretty much have to ensure that everyone has a stake in the final outcome.

I don't get why the major conferences don't just pool their rights together.

I agree with this. ACC and SEC should work together more when their rights come up again for renewal. Could help both leagues.

If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

For Notre Dame, scheduling in the ACC in all sports besides football makes a fair amount of sense. Better than any other options they would have as an Indy in football.

For Texas, it's hard to see how scheduling makes any sense in the ACC. And I can't imagine any other P5 providing a home for their other sports without full membership.

I don't see Texas going anywhere on its own. They will need a partner, IMO, and maybe more than one.

(04-21-2015 09:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 08:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd prefer Miami, VT, Pitt and Louisville all join FSU and Clemson by becoming top 15 football teams - then I won't care about the rest.

P.S. If some other team wants to become top 15, that's fine too. As far as I'm concerned the whole league can be top 15 (as long as VT is ahead of UVa).

What do you think this is, Lake Wobegon?

Nah, that's too Big Ten. Let's go with Earth's Mightiest Heroes instead!

(04-21-2015 08:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd prefer Miami, VT, Pitt and Louisville all join FSU and Clemson by becoming top 15 football teams - then I won't care about the rest.

P.S. If some other team wants to become top 15, that's fine too. As far as I'm concerned the whole league can be top 15 (as long as VT is ahead of UVa).

I don't get why you (I think it's you, at least) have now listed Pitt as needing to be in the upper half of the ACC and a ranked team several times in the last few weeks. They really don't belong in the conversation with the others. Also, you left off GT, but I don't think they'll ever be consistently ranked with Johnson.

(04-21-2015 01:15 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 08:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd prefer Miami, VT, Pitt and Louisville all join FSU and Clemson by becoming top 15 football teams - then I won't care about the rest.

P.S. If some other team wants to become top 15, that's fine too. As far as I'm concerned the whole league can be top 15 (as long as VT is ahead of UVa).

I don't get why you (I think it's you, at least) have now listed Pitt as needing to be in the upper half of the ACC and a ranked team several times in the last few weeks. They really don't belong in the conversation with the others. Also, you left off GT, but I don't think they'll ever be consistently ranked with Johnson.

Actually, what I wrote was "I prefer"...

Look, one of the Northern teams - Pitt, Syracuse, or BC - needs to be competitive (i.e. it can't be JUST the Southern teams, IMO).

(04-21-2015 09:56 AM)ken d Wrote:  The ACC is the weakest of the P5 conferences, in the sense that our on field performance puts us even with the other weak league, the Big Ten, while we are substantially weaker financially than they are. We are weaker on the field than the Big 12, and not significantly better off financially.

I don't agree with this....I think the Big XII is by far the weakest right now.

I do like two things with your original premise though:

--16 teams, 4 "scheduling pod"....I think the idea of divisions will go away, but P5 conferences will want to go to 16 teams to make scheduling easier. You'll have 4 unofficial "divisions".....but the two top teams will play in the conference championship game

--the ACC and Texas...I don't know if the ACC can land UT, but I think it would be smart to grab Texas teams for markets and recruiting. Baylor and TCU would be good steals from the Big XII, but I also like Houston and Rice. I think Texas schools have a lot more upside than Northeast schools, including UConn and Cincinnati. Texas and Florida are the goldmines of college football....

(04-21-2015 02:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 01:15 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 08:51 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'd prefer Miami, VT, Pitt and Louisville all join FSU and Clemson by becoming top 15 football teams - then I won't care about the rest.

P.S. If some other team wants to become top 15, that's fine too. As far as I'm concerned the whole league can be top 15 (as long as VT is ahead of UVa).

I don't get why you (I think it's you, at least) have now listed Pitt as needing to be in the upper half of the ACC and a ranked team several times in the last few weeks. They really don't belong in the conversation with the others. Also, you left off GT, but I don't think they'll ever be consistently ranked with Johnson.

Actually, what I wrote was "I prefer"...

Look, one of the Northern teams - Pitt, Syracuse, or BC - needs to be competitive (i.e. it can't be JUST the Southern teams, IMO).

good luck with that.....Northeast football is not good. Penn State is about as good as you're going to get....

the ACC needs to get their foot into Texas....Texas is where its at

For that matter, EVERY conference should try and get into Texas.

The Big 10 is stupid in how they've expanded....Florida and Texas A&M are AAU, contiguous states be damned

SEC-they got A&M, smart smart smart

the PAC 12 tried at least....

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

(04-21-2015 07:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

It's a strategic move, Marge... take UF just to get the SEC out of Florida.
And I'd still take USC even if they are 2,000 miles away - just for the away games!

(04-21-2015 07:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

I'm not totally against it, just think we should wait until Notre Dame is done transitioning before bringing in another partial member. One at a time.

Also, not sure why Texas would need a transition period at all. Their fans are quite used to the idea of Texas being in a conference. Why wouldn't they just join fully right away, like Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville?

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 11:18 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If Texas eventually wants to move, it will have its choice among the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC. The ACC's only advantage in such a competition would be its ability to offer partial membership a la Notre Dame, which would allow Texas to make its own national deal for football.

I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

and no Hawaii? I want that 13th game...

(04-21-2015 08:11 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 07:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

I'm not totally against it, just think we should wait until Notre Dame is done transitioning before bringing in another partial member. One at a time.

Also, not sure why Texas would need a transition period at all. Their fans are quite used to the idea of Texas being in a conference. Why wouldn't they just join fully right away, like Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville?

IMHO, the only way TX comes in fully is if ND does and the ACC brings along 3 of their friends. UT has an ego of epic proportions.

(04-21-2015 08:11 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 07:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 03:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  I don't think we'd take more than one partial/transitional member at a time.

I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

I'm not totally against it, just think we should wait until Notre Dame is done transitioning before bringing in another partial member. One at a time.

Also, not sure why Texas would need a transition period at all. Their fans are quite used to the idea of Texas being in a conference. Why wouldn't they just join fully right away, like Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville?

Lol, what transition? From five games to five games?

(04-21-2015 08:46 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 08:11 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 07:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 06:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-21-2015 05:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that the ACC might do that for Texas. It would be a smart move, in my opinion.

Also Southern California and the University of Florida... but that's my limit.

What? Heck no. USC is too far west. UF isn't "needed" like a Texas could be. If anything, Ohio State and Michigan would be worthy of similar deals, but that's about it.

And TerryD is right. It'd be smart to give Texas a similar deal to Notre Dame if that's what it took. I don't know if that would make the ACC more or less stable, but it's better than the alternative of letting Texas slip away to a different conference and allowing the ACC to fall farther behind.

I'm not totally against it, just think we should wait until Notre Dame is done transitioning before bringing in another partial member. One at a time.

Also, not sure why Texas would need a transition period at all. Their fans are quite used to the idea of Texas being in a conference. Why wouldn't they just join fully right away, like Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville?

Lol, what transition? From five games to five games?

Sure.