(04-22-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fine and dandy. Do you agree with my position with regards to what would finally put the ACC on equal terms or not? Let Texas share their attitude with their brothers at Chapel Hill. Let's rescue N.C. State, Virginia Tech and let the ACC build brand with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (another of their ilk) and call it a day! Clearly the SEC doesn't have to have more football chops, but we do need markets of almost 19 million people to facilitate the SECN. Since the ACC is likely to be our partner in the future and we both share ESPN affiliation let's put our rivals over there and lets reduce the redundancy of their footprint in the process. Then the SEC can be the SEC, realignment can end, we can limit Big 10 incursion into our region and get on with the business of education and sports.

Truly if Texas and Oklahoma go to the Big 10 or SEC it creates too much of an advantage for one or the other. If they go to the PAC it builds that brand. If they go to the ACC it builds that brand. We can have access to their national draw and not have to live with them if they go to the ACC and a strong ACC keeps things on the East coast in balance without having to grow to 20 or more in a conference. It's a huge win for the ACC and a win for us as well.

If you were ESPN management what would you want to know before you pulled the trigger to move Texas to the ACC?

What questions would finally need to be answered. What could actually make the mouse the most money and get the highest ratings not only for the ESPN family of networks, but ABC, the SECN, and if there ever is one an ACC network. Also what properties would you be willing to give up to reach your ultimate goals?


Is there already an agreement in place for the Irish to join the ACC at a pre-determined date?
Which schools are on the list of Notre Dame's preference for #16.
The #1 question that I would want answered would be: is there any possibility at all to get Penn State to leave the B1G and join the ACC?

(04-23-2014 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fine and dandy. Do you agree with my position with regards to what would finally put the ACC on equal terms or not? Let Texas share their attitude with their brothers at Chapel Hill. Let's rescue N.C. State, Virginia Tech and let the ACC build brand with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (another of their ilk) and call it a day! Clearly the SEC doesn't have to have more football chops, but we do need markets of almost 19 million people to facilitate the SECN. Since the ACC is likely to be our partner in the future and we both share ESPN affiliation let's put our rivals over there and lets reduce the redundancy of their footprint in the process. Then the SEC can be the SEC, realignment can end, we can limit Big 10 incursion into our region and get on with the business of education and sports.

Truly if Texas and Oklahoma go to the Big 10 or SEC it creates too much of an advantage for one or the other. If they go to the PAC it builds that brand. If they go to the ACC it builds that brand. We can have access to their national draw and not have to live with them if they go to the ACC and a strong ACC keeps things on the East coast in balance without having to grow to 20 or more in a conference. It's a huge win for the ACC and a win for us as well.

If you were ESPN management what would you want to know before you pulled the trigger to move Texas to the ACC?

What questions would finally need to be answered. What could actually make the mouse the most money and get the highest ratings not only for the ESPN family of networks, but ABC, the SECN, and if there ever is one an ACC network. Also what properties would you be willing to give up to reach your ultimate goals?


Is there already an agreement in place for the Irish to join the ACC at a pre-determined date?
Which schools are on the list of Notre Dame's preference for #16.
The #1 question that I would want answered would be: is there any possibility at all to get Penn State to leave the B1G and join the ACC?

A. I would want to know that Oklahoma was locked up to come as well and that Oklahoma State was going to be PAC bound with Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech. I would also want to know if Baylor was a requirement or would West Virginia work just as well as the third.

B. I wouldn't be concerned who Notre Dame wanted as #16 and I would place the full membership ball in their court squarely. If they wanted in great. If they wanted out I would invite Kansas in their place. I would be only concerned that enough open dates would remain after a 9 game conference schedule was set that the Irish (if they stayed) could continue to play U.S.C., Stanford, and a Big 10 school of their choosing (provided Navy was not available for scheduling).

As to the Irish and full membership the reason I would put them to the question is because if Texas and Oklahoma are joining the ACC there is no place else for them to go. They hate the Big 10. They have precious little in common with the SEC other than a love of football and money and contempt for the Big 10, otherwise they are completely alien to the SEC. And, the PAC is too danged far for them to go for just two games that they want. The ACC gives them access to New York, New England, the Atlantic Seaboard and the Southeast. Being in a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State only wakes up the echoes of past glory and gives them entrance to the ripest two recruiting areas in the nation. If that isn't enough to get them to fully commit then the hell with them. They've got nowhere else to go and we will be structuring everything for a P4 playoff structure and 64 other schools don't have to compromise for 1.

C. I wouldn't care about Penn State unless Penn State wanted it and then I would pursue getting the go ahead to front them the buyout money. But if Penn State wanted in Texas and Oklahoma would have to come as a pair and not a trio and that might be a deal breaker for them.

(04-23-2014 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fine and dandy. Do you agree with my position with regards to what would finally put the ACC on equal terms or not? Let Texas share their attitude with their brothers at Chapel Hill. Let's rescue N.C. State, Virginia Tech and let the ACC build brand with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (another of their ilk) and call it a day! Clearly the SEC doesn't have to have more football chops, but we do need markets of almost 19 million people to facilitate the SECN. Since the ACC is likely to be our partner in the future and we both share ESPN affiliation let's put our rivals over there and lets reduce the redundancy of their footprint in the process. Then the SEC can be the SEC, realignment can end, we can limit Big 10 incursion into our region and get on with the business of education and sports.

Truly if Texas and Oklahoma go to the Big 10 or SEC it creates too much of an advantage for one or the other. If they go to the PAC it builds that brand. If they go to the ACC it builds that brand. We can have access to their national draw and not have to live with them if they go to the ACC and a strong ACC keeps things on the East coast in balance without having to grow to 20 or more in a conference. It's a huge win for the ACC and a win for us as well.

If you were ESPN management what would you want to know before you pulled the trigger to move Texas to the ACC?

What questions would finally need to be answered. What could actually make the mouse the most money and get the highest ratings not only for the ESPN family of networks, but ABC, the SECN, and if there ever is one an ACC network. Also what properties would you be willing to give up to reach your ultimate goals?


Is there already an agreement in place for the Irish to join the ACC at a pre-determined date?
Which schools are on the list of Notre Dame's preference for #16.
The #1 question that I would want answered would be: is there any possibility at all to get Penn State to leave the B1G and join the ACC?

A. I would want to know that Oklahoma was locked up to come as well and that Oklahoma State was going to be PAC bound with Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech. I would also want to know if Baylor was a requirement or would West Virginia work just as well as the third.

B. I wouldn't be concerned who Notre Dame wanted as #16 and I would place the full membership ball in their court squarely. If they wanted in great. If they wanted out I would invite Kansas in their place. I would be only concerned that enough open dates would remain after a 9 game conference schedule was set that the Irish (if they stayed) could continue to play U.S.C., Stanford, and a Big 10 school of their choosing (provided Navy was not available for scheduling).

As to the Irish and full membership the reason I would put them to the question is because if Texas and Oklahoma are joining the ACC there is no place else for them to go. They hate the Big 10. They have precious little in common with the SEC other than a love of football and money and contempt for the Big 10, otherwise they are completely alien to the SEC. And, the PAC is too danged far for them to go for just two games that they want. The ACC gives them access to New York, New England, the Atlantic Seaboard and the Southeast. Being in a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State only wakes up the echoes of past glory and gives them entrance to the ripest two recruiting areas in the nation. If that isn't enough to get them to fully commit then the hell with them. They've got nowhere else to go and we will be structuring everything for a P4 playoff structure and 64 other schools don't have to compromise for 1.

C. I wouldn't care about Penn State unless Penn State wanted it and then I would pursue getting the go ahead to front them the buyout money. But if Penn State wanted in Texas and Oklahoma would have to come as a pair and not a trio and that might be a deal breaker for them.

I think the Penn State ship sailed once the B1G landed Rutgers and Maryland. PSU also fits institutionally much better in the B1G (large state flagships with research emphasis) than the ACC (smaller elite state or private universities); however, I think until the last B1G expansion that PSU would have thought hard about the ACC, if invited, as they were isolated on the far eastern edge of the B1G, the ACC had added a bunch of NE schools since PSU joined the B1G, and PSU was not happy about some of the stuff that happened related to Sandusky.

Texas and OU will not come to the ACC as a pair only as full members. I think the ACC would need 4-6 schools at least from the B12. Similar to how FSU and Clemson were not going to join the B12 in 2011 as a pair without 2-4 other SE ACC schools. They still need that regional flavor and footprint. They also have political hurdles that mean OSU and most or all of Baylor/TCU/TTU need good homes to make moving easier. That is the issue for both the ACC and B12 with expanding with schools from each others conferences. You have to take enough schools so that the schools added are not regionally isolated (see WVU - which I think will not be in the B12 in 10 years unless the B12 expands east).

OU has options as well and I think the ACC is option 4 or 5 right now well behind the PAC, SEC, B1G, and maybe even behind keeping the B12 together. Texas is the only school that seems to give any serious thought to the ACC and that is probably only with a ND type deal and 2 TX schools (Baylor, TCU) getting full membership as well. Bevo loves Leprechauns.

OU is the key. They are willing to move for the right offer (PAC/SEC taking OSU too or B1G invite), their fans are the least happy with the current B12, and they would be accepted almost anywhere alone or with the right partner(s). They also are fine with not being the king of a conference as long as they hold some power. NU was kind of the king of the Big 8 (OU was the queen like in the B12 now) and that is why Texas and NU butted heads often in the Big 12. NU was no longer king as Texas took that power. I really think that if the B12 is killed by a school leaving it will be OU holding the sword and not Texas.

Notre Dame will hold on to independence as long as it can. I still think you are more likely to see Texas and ND form their own conference than either join the ACC as presently constructed as full members. It will be an easier sell to their alums for ND to give up independence if they are seen as being the king or co-king of a conference they helped form. I think that ESPN would be fine with this as long as the schools they care about in the B12 and ACC stay under their control (Irish Steer Conference or SEC) and would be elated to have full control of ND and Texas.

(04-24-2014 12:51 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fine and dandy. Do you agree with my position with regards to what would finally put the ACC on equal terms or not? Let Texas share their attitude with their brothers at Chapel Hill. Let's rescue N.C. State, Virginia Tech and let the ACC build brand with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (another of their ilk) and call it a day! Clearly the SEC doesn't have to have more football chops, but we do need markets of almost 19 million people to facilitate the SECN. Since the ACC is likely to be our partner in the future and we both share ESPN affiliation let's put our rivals over there and lets reduce the redundancy of their footprint in the process. Then the SEC can be the SEC, realignment can end, we can limit Big 10 incursion into our region and get on with the business of education and sports.

Truly if Texas and Oklahoma go to the Big 10 or SEC it creates too much of an advantage for one or the other. If they go to the PAC it builds that brand. If they go to the ACC it builds that brand. We can have access to their national draw and not have to live with them if they go to the ACC and a strong ACC keeps things on the East coast in balance without having to grow to 20 or more in a conference. It's a huge win for the ACC and a win for us as well.

If you were ESPN management what would you want to know before you pulled the trigger to move Texas to the ACC?

What questions would finally need to be answered. What could actually make the mouse the most money and get the highest ratings not only for the ESPN family of networks, but ABC, the SECN, and if there ever is one an ACC network. Also what properties would you be willing to give up to reach your ultimate goals?


Is there already an agreement in place for the Irish to join the ACC at a pre-determined date?
Which schools are on the list of Notre Dame's preference for #16.
The #1 question that I would want answered would be: is there any possibility at all to get Penn State to leave the B1G and join the ACC?

A. I would want to know that Oklahoma was locked up to come as well and that Oklahoma State was going to be PAC bound with Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech. I would also want to know if Baylor was a requirement or would West Virginia work just as well as the third.

B. I wouldn't be concerned who Notre Dame wanted as #16 and I would place the full membership ball in their court squarely. If they wanted in great. If they wanted out I would invite Kansas in their place. I would be only concerned that enough open dates would remain after a 9 game conference schedule was set that the Irish (if they stayed) could continue to play U.S.C., Stanford, and a Big 10 school of their choosing (provided Navy was not available for scheduling).

As to the Irish and full membership the reason I would put them to the question is because if Texas and Oklahoma are joining the ACC there is no place else for them to go. They hate the Big 10. They have precious little in common with the SEC other than a love of football and money and contempt for the Big 10, otherwise they are completely alien to the SEC. And, the PAC is too danged far for them to go for just two games that they want. The ACC gives them access to New York, New England, the Atlantic Seaboard and the Southeast. Being in a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State only wakes up the echoes of past glory and gives them entrance to the ripest two recruiting areas in the nation. If that isn't enough to get them to fully commit then the hell with them. They've got nowhere else to go and we will be structuring everything for a P4 playoff structure and 64 other schools don't have to compromise for 1.

C. I wouldn't care about Penn State unless Penn State wanted it and then I would pursue getting the go ahead to front them the buyout money. But if Penn State wanted in Texas and Oklahoma would have to come as a pair and not a trio and that might be a deal breaker for them.

I think the Penn State ship sailed once the B1G landed Rutgers and Maryland. PSU also fits institutionally much better in the B1G (large state flagships with research emphasis) than the ACC (smaller elite state or private universities); however, I think until the last B1G expansion that PSU would have thought hard about the ACC, if invited, as they were isolated on the far eastern edge of the B1G, the ACC had added a bunch of NE schools since PSU joined the B1G, and PSU was not happy about some of the stuff that happened related to Sandusky.

Texas and OU will not come to the ACC as a pair only as full members. I think the ACC would need 4-6 schools at least from the B12. Similar to how FSU and Clemson were not going to join the B12 in 2011 as a pair without 2-4 other SE ACC schools. They still need that regional flavor and footprint. They also have political hurdles that mean OSU and most or all of Baylor/TCU/TTU need good homes to make moving easier. That is the issue for both the ACC and B12 with expanding with schools from each others conferences. You have to take enough schools so that the schools added are not regionally isolated (see WVU - which I think will not be in the B12 in 10 years unless the B12 expands east).

OU has options as well and I think the ACC is option 4 or 5 right now well behind the PAC, SEC, B1G, and maybe even behind keeping the B12 together. Texas is the only school that seems to give any serious thought to the ACC and that is probably only with a ND type deal and 2 TX schools (Baylor, TCU) getting full membership as well. Bevo loves Leprechauns.

OU is the key. They are willing to move for the right offer (PAC/SEC taking OSU too or B1G invite), their fans are the least happy with the current B12, and they would be accepted almost anywhere alone or with the right partner(s). They also are fine with not being the king of a conference as long as they hold some power. NU was kind of the king of the Big 8 (OU was the queen like in the B12 now) and that is why Texas and NU butted heads often in the Big 12. NU was no longer king as Texas took that power. I really think that if the B12 is killed by a school leaving it will be OU holding the sword and not Texas.

Notre Dame will hold on to independence as long as it can. I still think you are more likely to see Texas and ND form their own conference than either join the ACC as presently constructed as full members. It will be an easier sell to their alums for ND to give up independence if they are seen as being the king or co-king of a conference they helped form. I think that ESPN would be fine with this as long as the schools they care about in the B12 and ACC stay under their control (Irish Steer Conference or SEC) and would be elated to have full control of ND and Texas.

Evidently the folks in Greensboro still believe that Penn State is a possibility.
ESPN is unfortunately not really concerned about fit when it comes to making money. Penn State along with Notre Dame and Syracuse would provide as much of the New York market as possible for collegiate football.
I figure ESPN would give up Missouri to get Penn State.
You could see Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State to the B1G, while Texas Oklahoma and Oklahoma State move to the SEC.
Oh! Well, it looks good on a map.

(04-24-2014 12:51 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 08:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Fine and dandy. Do you agree with my position with regards to what would finally put the ACC on equal terms or not? Let Texas share their attitude with their brothers at Chapel Hill. Let's rescue N.C. State, Virginia Tech and let the ACC build brand with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame (another of their ilk) and call it a day! Clearly the SEC doesn't have to have more football chops, but we do need markets of almost 19 million people to facilitate the SECN. Since the ACC is likely to be our partner in the future and we both share ESPN affiliation let's put our rivals over there and lets reduce the redundancy of their footprint in the process. Then the SEC can be the SEC, realignment can end, we can limit Big 10 incursion into our region and get on with the business of education and sports.

Truly if Texas and Oklahoma go to the Big 10 or SEC it creates too much of an advantage for one or the other. If they go to the PAC it builds that brand. If they go to the ACC it builds that brand. We can have access to their national draw and not have to live with them if they go to the ACC and a strong ACC keeps things on the East coast in balance without having to grow to 20 or more in a conference. It's a huge win for the ACC and a win for us as well.

If you were ESPN management what would you want to know before you pulled the trigger to move Texas to the ACC?

What questions would finally need to be answered. What could actually make the mouse the most money and get the highest ratings not only for the ESPN family of networks, but ABC, the SECN, and if there ever is one an ACC network. Also what properties would you be willing to give up to reach your ultimate goals?


Is there already an agreement in place for the Irish to join the ACC at a pre-determined date?
Which schools are on the list of Notre Dame's preference for #16.
The #1 question that I would want answered would be: is there any possibility at all to get Penn State to leave the B1G and join the ACC?

A. I would want to know that Oklahoma was locked up to come as well and that Oklahoma State was going to be PAC bound with Iowa State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech. I would also want to know if Baylor was a requirement or would West Virginia work just as well as the third.

B. I wouldn't be concerned who Notre Dame wanted as #16 and I would place the full membership ball in their court squarely. If they wanted in great. If they wanted out I would invite Kansas in their place. I would be only concerned that enough open dates would remain after a 9 game conference schedule was set that the Irish (if they stayed) could continue to play U.S.C., Stanford, and a Big 10 school of their choosing (provided Navy was not available for scheduling).

As to the Irish and full membership the reason I would put them to the question is because if Texas and Oklahoma are joining the ACC there is no place else for them to go. They hate the Big 10. They have precious little in common with the SEC other than a love of football and money and contempt for the Big 10, otherwise they are completely alien to the SEC. And, the PAC is too danged far for them to go for just two games that they want. The ACC gives them access to New York, New England, the Atlantic Seaboard and the Southeast. Being in a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State only wakes up the echoes of past glory and gives them entrance to the ripest two recruiting areas in the nation. If that isn't enough to get them to fully commit then the hell with them. They've got nowhere else to go and we will be structuring everything for a P4 playoff structure and 64 other schools don't have to compromise for 1.

C. I wouldn't care about Penn State unless Penn State wanted it and then I would pursue getting the go ahead to front them the buyout money. But if Penn State wanted in Texas and Oklahoma would have to come as a pair and not a trio and that might be a deal breaker for them.

I think the Penn State ship sailed once the B1G landed Rutgers and Maryland. PSU also fits institutionally much better in the B1G (large state flagships with research emphasis) than the ACC (smaller elite state or private universities); however, I think until the last B1G expansion that PSU would have thought hard about the ACC, if invited, as they were isolated on the far eastern edge of the B1G, the ACC had added a bunch of NE schools since PSU joined the B1G, and PSU was not happy about some of the stuff that happened related to Sandusky.

Texas and OU will not come to the ACC as a pair only as full members. I think the ACC would need 4-6 schools at least from the B12. Similar to how FSU and Clemson were not going to join the B12 in 2011 as a pair without 2-4 other SE ACC schools. They still need that regional flavor and footprint. They also have political hurdles that mean OSU and most or all of Baylor/TCU/TTU need good homes to make moving easier. That is the issue for both the ACC and B12 with expanding with schools from each others conferences. You have to take enough schools so that the schools added are not regionally isolated (see WVU - which I think will not be in the B12 in 10 years unless the B12 expands east).

OU has options as well and I think the ACC is option 4 or 5 right now well behind the PAC, SEC, B1G, and maybe even behind keeping the B12 together. Texas is the only school that seems to give any serious thought to the ACC and that is probably only with a ND type deal and 2 TX schools (Baylor, TCU) getting full membership as well. Bevo loves Leprechauns.

OU is the key. They are willing to move for the right offer (PAC/SEC taking OSU too or B1G invite), their fans are the least happy with the current B12, and they would be accepted almost anywhere alone or with the right partner(s). They also are fine with not being the king of a conference as long as they hold some power. NU was kind of the king of the Big 8 (OU was the queen like in the B12 now) and that is why Texas and NU butted heads often in the Big 12. NU was no longer king as Texas took that power. I really think that if the B12 is killed by a school leaving it will be OU holding the sword and not Texas.

Notre Dame will hold on to independence as long as it can. I still think you are more likely to see Texas and ND form their own conference than either join the ACC as presently constructed as full members. It will be an easier sell to their alums for ND to give up independence if they are seen as being the king or co-king of a conference they helped form. I think that ESPN would be fine with this as long as the schools they care about in the B12 and ACC stay under their control (Irish Steer Conference or SEC) and would be elated to have full control of ND and Texas.

My first ideas on this matter were in the form of a 6 for 2 with the ACC.
N.C. State and Virginia Tech leave to go to the SEC. Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Baylor join the ACC.

The SEC gets Oklahoma State and Kansas to get to the 8 needed to dissolve the conference and move to 18 with N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The SEC and ACC then partner up as two 18 full member conferences and both are organized in 3 six team divisions. The conference championship then becomes the 3 divisions champs and the best at large. The schedule consists of the 5 teams from your division and the rotation of 2 from each of the other 2 divisions and everyone plays everyone else every three years.

ACC:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

SEC:
Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Va Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Plan B was the 4 for 2 swap where the SEC still gets N.C. State and Virginia Tech while the ACC picks up a pod of 4 from the Big 12. Texahoma if buddies have to be taken, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas or Kansas State if not.

JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

(04-24-2014 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

From an overhead perspective for ESPN and also from a content perspective, having something like the two proposed 16 team ACC & SEC
conferences, or even the two 18 team ACC & SEC conferences, would make a lot of sense, and save a lot of money. By combining the LHN, and proposed ACCN with the SECN and paying tier 3 distributions for the whole market would maximize involvement while trimming overhead. If the two conference become virtual mirror images of one another with both possessing a few exclusive markets each the cost of operating two networks less might just cover most of the redundant schools that don't already carry their weight in performance and profitability.

(04-24-2014 11:59 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

BBB, Vanderbilt could be accommodated on an everything but football kind of deal with the SEC. We would agree to play them a certain number of games against conference football teams to help them with their numbers. IMO this is the way to compromise on Duke and Wake and possibly B.C. in the ACC.

If the ACC and SEC divvy up the Big 12 I would be in favor of adding Tulane and Rice as everything but football members for the SEC and relegating Vanderbilt to the same. What we would be doing by agreeing to 5 or 6 games on each of their schedules is replacing the old rent-a-kill games with schools who want to play better competition, need a key game or two on the home schedule, and who would benefit the conference with academics and other sports. Four such schools for each conference would be a good thing.

Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and S.M.U. for the SEC and Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, and Connecticut for the ACC.

That way the SEC could add three to 16 and the ACC could add 4. If the ACC gives up N.C. State and Virginia Tech then they could add 6.

As for the partial memberships, basketball, and baseball can easily handle 4 more schools with the way the schedules and seasons go. We would no longer need to schedule any G5 schools with the football independent privates (and UConn) on the list. Of course if N.D. chooses to remain independent in football then the ACC would be in a position to add 7.
Lets say that B.C., Duke, Wake, and N.D. are the four football independents for the ACC. The could add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Baylor. The new ACC would look like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

plus 24 games against (N.D., B.C., Duke, and Wake Forest)

The SEC given your proposal would be:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

plus 24 games against (S.M.U., Tulane, Rice, and Vanderbilt)

Thoughts?

Just for fun let's play with a model we haven't examined. Let's assume that with more permissive scheduling approval by the NCAA that we look to go to fifteen school models and to eliminate a little more of the dead weight.

The ACC loses Wake Forest who decides it's not going the stipend route so they add West Virginia to reconnect their footprint and get Notre Dame all in.

ACC:
Duke, Boston College, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Virginia

Louisville, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina

The SEC adds Oklahoma.

SEC:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

The Big 10 adds Kansas

Big 10:
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

The PAC encourages Washington State to leave and adds 4.

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California

Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Utah

Cold? Yes Efficient? More so. 7 Big 12 teams are taken and (if Vanderbilt drops down the SEC can take Kansas State and the PAC can take Texas Tech and dissolution can occur.)

The New P4 has internal playoffs of the three division champions and the best at large to determine their champion. 4 champions play for the title and everyone else with a winning record goes bowling.

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:59 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

BBB, Vanderbilt could be accommodated on an everything but football kind of deal with the SEC. We would agree to play them a certain number of games against conference football teams to help them with their numbers. IMO this is the way to compromise on Duke and Wake and possibly B.C. in the ACC.

If the ACC and SEC divvy up the Big 12 I would be in favor of adding Tulane and Rice as everything but football members for the SEC and relegating Vanderbilt to the same. What we would be doing by agreeing to 5 or 6 games on each of their schedules is replacing the old rent-a-kill games with schools who want to play better competition, need a key game or two on the home schedule, and who would benefit the conference with academics and other sports. Four such schools for each conference would be a good thing.

Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and S.M.U. for the SEC and Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, and Connecticut for the ACC.

That way the SEC could add three to 16 and the ACC could add 4. If the ACC gives up N.C. State and Virginia Tech then they could add 6.

As for the partial memberships, basketball, and baseball can easily handle 4 more schools with the way the schedules and seasons go. We would no longer need to schedule any G5 schools with the football independent privates (and UConn) on the list. Of course if N.D. chooses to remain independent in football then the ACC would be in a position to add 7.
Lets say that B.C., Duke, Wake, and N.D. are the four football independents for the ACC. The could add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Baylor. The new ACC would look like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

plus 24 games against (N.D., B.C., Duke, and Wake Forest)

The SEC given your proposal would be:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

plus 24 games against (S.M.U., Tulane, Rice, and Vanderbilt)

Thoughts?

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

XLance there is still a slim hope for PSU. ESPN would love to strip them from the B1G if they lose the B1G T1 to FOX; however, I am not sure what they can offer that would pry them away from the B1G. Maybe if they make an emotional decision while under duress from the whole Sandusky scandal or if ND went all in as 15 and PSU was 16 then that would see a substantial increase in ACC payout since PSU and ND would be on T1 level games often.

I definitely agree with you about fit. ESPN cares about only one fit - if the extra money from moving a school will fit in their wallet.

If the SEC ever can bag OU alone, alum and fan pressure on Texas would be intense to go to the SEC as well. All three of their traditional rivals would be in the SEC: OU, A&M, and Arkansas. A nightmare scenario for Texas. They might not have any choice but to join the SEC, if invited, unless they wanted a fan mutiny on their hands.

(04-24-2014 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  My first ideas on this matter were in the form of a 6 for 2 with the ACC.
N.C. State and Virginia Tech leave to go to the SEC. Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech and Baylor join the ACC.

The SEC gets Oklahoma State and Kansas to get to the 8 needed to dissolve the conference and move to 18 with N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The SEC and ACC then partner up as two 18 full member conferences and both are organized in 3 six team divisions. The conference championship then becomes the 3 divisions champs and the best at large. The schedule consists of the 5 teams from your division and the rotation of 2 from each of the other 2 divisions and everyone plays everyone else every three years.

ACC:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

SEC:
Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Va Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Plan B was the 4 for 2 swap where the SEC still gets N.C. State and Virginia Tech while the ACC picks up a pod of 4 from the Big 12. Texahoma if buddies have to be taken, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas or Kansas State if not.

This would be a great scenario for both. The ACC really needs to rid itself of one or more of the NC schools and losing another duplicate VA school would not hurt if they added OU, UT, and friends. Basically they would add the B12 footprint minus WV (or Iowa if WVU is picked over ISU) and at the cost of losing only 2 schools in markets they would still control. Still have 2 slots available for ND and friend, if ND finally decides someday to join a conference.

(04-25-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='bigblueblindness' pid='10698994' dateline='1398358764']
[quote='XLance' pid='10698957' dateline='1398358042']

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

I think the vast majority agree with your view on Vandy, Medic, including me. What has been tossed around on here is not dropping Vandy but rather what could happen should this separation of the top tier produce a gap that most of the private schools would not want to cover. Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC can and should stick with the top tier. Vandy, Northwestern, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse... I'm just not convinced it will be a good investment any longer. Baylor and TCU are good schools, but they are not quite at that academic tier that athletics is no longer necessary for prestige.

The only way Vandy would "drop" in any sense if it was agreed by both Vandy and the SEC and that Vandy felt that their position was bettered. There are some win/win scenarios for both Vandy and the SEC to strike a Notre Dame type deal that would reduce the inventory of Vandy football games but keep them for all other sports and purposes. The low ratings and lost home game revenues for all schools when they play at Vandy could be easily calculated, and Vandy could still be compensated for lost revenue as a part timer, and they may all come out ahead. Does the SEC want to be prominent in Nashville? Absolutely, but playing actual games at Dudley Field? That one is a loser all around at the SEC level.

However, as JR pointed out, the Dudley Field experience for schools like Rice, Tulane, Duke, Wake Forest, and Northwestern would be on par or better than their current circumstance. Syracuse and Boston College probably fall in that camp, as well, and I would have said the same about Baylor and TCU just a few years ago. It was disappointing to many people when Vanderbilt canceled the series with Northwestern a few years ago. That is a winning relationship, and Vanderbilt needs to be freed up to continue the overwhelmingly positive relationship they have with the SEC while also being able to stretch out to true peers. This is exactly what Notre Dame is doing with the ACC. Could this not be a great model for the schools I mentioned above, including Vandy?

(04-25-2014 12:28 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  [quote='bigblueblindness' pid='10698994' dateline='1398358764']
[quote='XLance' pid='10698957' dateline='1398358042']

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

I think the vast majority agree with your view on Vandy, Medic, including me. What has been tossed around on here is not dropping Vandy but rather what could happen should this separation of the top tier produce a gap that most of the private schools would not want to cover. Notre Dame, Stanford, and USC can and should stick with the top tier. Vandy, Northwestern, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse... I'm just not convinced it will be a good investment any longer. Baylor and TCU are good schools, but they are not quite at that academic tier that athletics is no longer necessary for prestige.

The only way Vandy would "drop" in any sense if it was agreed by both Vandy and the SEC and that Vandy felt that their position was bettered. There are some win/win scenarios for both Vandy and the SEC to strike a Notre Dame type deal that would reduce the inventory of Vandy football games but keep them for all other sports and purposes. The low ratings and lost home game revenues for all schools when they play at Vandy could be easily calculated, and Vandy could still be compensated for lost revenue as a part timer, and they may all come out ahead. Does the SEC want to be prominent in Nashville? Absolutely, but playing actual games at Dudley Field? That one is a loser all around at the SEC level.

However, as JR pointed out, the Dudley Field experience for schools like Rice, Tulane, Duke, Wake Forest, and Northwestern would be on par or better than their current circumstance. Syracuse and Boston College probably fall in that camp, as well, and I would have said the same about Baylor and TCU just a few years ago. It was disappointing to many people when Vanderbilt canceled the series with Northwestern a few years ago. That is a winning relationship, and Vanderbilt needs to be freed up to continue the overwhelmingly positive relationship they have with the SEC while also being able to stretch out to true peers. This is exactly what Notre Dame is doing with the ACC. Could this not be a great model for the schools I mentioned above, including Vandy?

BBB covered most of this, and covered it well. Medic, Texas and Oklahoma need to move together, period. They need to continue to play one another and yet still have an OOC game against Oklahoma State or another Texas school for the Horns. If the SEC landed only Oklahoma and Texas went to the ACC then the Sooners have a difficult time finding time for Oklahoma State. By keeping the two together this is much less of a problem no matter where they wind up.

In the 6 for 2 the SEC moves to 18 with Va Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, and Kansas. Then at the year's end they essentially pair off against the ACC West. OU/OSU, KSU/KU, UT/A&M, Baylor/LSU, Ark/TT, etc. Kansas will get Missouri in their division. ISU could finish the year against Mizzou. So logistically this kind of setup works better for the Big 12 teams making the move so that they can rely upon the crossover rivals they need.

On the business end several things have to be accounted for.
1. Almost 19 million added viewers in Virginia and North Carolina for the SECN.
2. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will not be taken together by anyone because it duplicates a really small market. So, OSU only really has value to the SEC if it comes alone. But, taking OSU means we already get the % of DFW that we are seeking and therefore have no need of T.C.U. or Baylor.
3. From ESPN's perspective Texas and Oklahoma would add value to the SEC no question, but it would bring up the value of their product in the ACC even more.
4. The ACC won't encourage Virginia Tech or N.C. State to move unless the upside is significantly better, and with Texas and Oklahoma it would be.
5. It takes moving 8 to dissolve the Big 12 so 6 - 2 is the way to go for the ACC. It gives Texas a division with 5 other of its present conference mates to form a core of familiar games and it allows for a geographically balanced grouping into 3 divisions of 6 each for their conference. The SEC gains two to the East and two to the West and it sets up more balanced divisions for us as well.

Now as to the Vandy issue. All of the privates have another benefit by considering an all but football membership for their respective conferences or new conference homes. If Vandy, Duke, Wake, Rice, Tulane, etc all play 5 P5 schools where 1/3rd of those on average are at home and then play other privates with which they have much in common then it sets up not only a marketable home ticket package but also a much better possibility of winning enough games to make annual trips to the bowls.

Face it one of the reasons it's hard to sell more than 35,000 tickets for most of these schools is because buying season football tickets for Vandy or Duke means you get to see Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, L.S.U., South Carolina, and Florida come in a frequently put a beat down on your team. Get three of those in one year (and you would in any division) and couple that with games against Appalachian State, Furman, The Citadel, and others of that ilk and suddenly the season is just not compelling. BBB hit on this in his remarks. But let's say Vanderbilt had road trips to Miss State, Missouri, and N.C. State with home games against Kentucky and Tennessee and then had Tulane, Rice, Wake Forest, Duke, Northwestern, and S.M.U. on their schedule. Then a game against a Sun Belt team wouldn't be a great deterrent to fan interest. In the ACC Duke could stand games against F.S.U., Virginia Tech, and B.C. on the road with a home game against North Carolina and Virginia, play the other privates mentioned in my listing for Vanderbilt, and have a U.T. Chattanooga on the schedule and their fans could stay jazzed.

I think it's a much better situation than being set up annually as a whipping boy. In fact if both the SEC and ACC had four such independents for football that were members for all other sports then there would be an annual pool of 7 other schools with which to find 5 or 6 games, or for that matter just play the 5 against the P5 and all of the other 7 like it was your own mini conference championship. That would mean that the SEC and ACC could keep schools that benefit us academically, without hurting the football draws, use them to replace FCS and G5 games, and spread our markets even further for the conference networks.

Just a follow-up to JR's comments, which are spot on... Vanderbilt, Duke, and Northwestern have all shown signs of life in football over the last few years, and that should not be discounted. However, this is a blip on their historical radar, and it is in the current landscape where their financial obligations are not dramatically different than what it would be for an FCS program like Villanova. Yes, it is more expensive, but the lucrative conference TV deals make it palatable. The actual football revenues for Vanderbilt, NW, Duke, and many of the private schools is really not that good; they get bolstered by TV money and basketball, in some cases.

I just don't feel confident that the amount they will lose each year will prove to be their best financial strategy. After living with Vandy students and alumni for the last 10 years (I went to school down the street at Lipscomb), athletic prowess is a passing conversation. They care more about Vandy's medical school ranking than football poll ranking. The struggles to fill their small stadium even during these James Franklin years is well documented around here, and it was not for lack of trying. I understand that Duke, Northwestern, and many similar private school student bodies and alumni feel the same way.

(04-25-2014 03:16 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just a follow-up to JR's comments, which are spot on... Vanderbilt, Duke, and Northwestern have all shown signs of life in football over the last few years, and that should not be discounted. However, this is a blip on their historical radar, and it is in the current landscape where their financial obligations are not dramatically different than what it would be for an FCS program like Villanova. Yes, it is more expensive, but the lucrative conference TV deals make it palatable. The actual football revenues for Vanderbilt, NW, Duke, and many of the private schools is really not that good; they get bolstered by TV money and basketball, in some cases.

I just don't feel confident that the amount they will lose each year will prove to be their best financial strategy. After living with Vandy students and alumni for the last 10 years (I went to school down the street at Lipscomb), athletic prowess is a passing conversation. They care more about Vandy's medical school ranking than football poll ranking. The struggles to fill their small stadium even during these James Franklin years is well documented around here, and it was not for lack of trying. I understand that Duke, Northwestern, and many similar private school student bodies and alumni feel the same way.

With the new SECN and the money that Vandy brings in every year as a member of the SEC, it might be worth the effort to hang with the big boys.

(04-27-2014 04:02 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 03:16 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Just a follow-up to JR's comments, which are spot on... Vanderbilt, Duke, and Northwestern have all shown signs of life in football over the last few years, and that should not be discounted. However, this is a blip on their historical radar, and it is in the current landscape where their financial obligations are not dramatically different than what it would be for an FCS program like Villanova. Yes, it is more expensive, but the lucrative conference TV deals make it palatable. The actual football revenues for Vanderbilt, NW, Duke, and many of the private schools is really not that good; they get bolstered by TV money and basketball, in some cases.

I just don't feel confident that the amount they will lose each year will prove to be their best financial strategy. After living with Vandy students and alumni for the last 10 years (I went to school down the street at Lipscomb), athletic prowess is a passing conversation. They care more about Vandy's medical school ranking than football poll ranking. The struggles to fill their small stadium even during these James Franklin years is well documented around here, and it was not for lack of trying. I understand that Duke, Northwestern, and many similar private school student bodies and alumni feel the same way.

With the new SECN and the money that Vandy brings in every year as a member of the SEC, it might be worth the effort to hang with the big boys.

And I believe they will. We were just examining some workarounds if the full cost becomes too much, or if the union issue rears its head, or if they would like to be a part of the conference but not locked into losing so many conference games. Really Medic I'm just exploring options that allow more of the privates that have been a part of college football for 100 years to find a way to hang with the football first crowd. When I've smoothed out some kinks I'll discuss it more fully.

(04-25-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:59 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

BBB, Vanderbilt could be accommodated on an everything but football kind of deal with the SEC. We would agree to play them a certain number of games against conference football teams to help them with their numbers. IMO this is the way to compromise on Duke and Wake and possibly B.C. in the ACC.

If the ACC and SEC divvy up the Big 12 I would be in favor of adding Tulane and Rice as everything but football members for the SEC and relegating Vanderbilt to the same. What we would be doing by agreeing to 5 or 6 games on each of their schedules is replacing the old rent-a-kill games with schools who want to play better competition, need a key game or two on the home schedule, and who would benefit the conference with academics and other sports. Four such schools for each conference would be a good thing.

Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and S.M.U. for the SEC and Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, and Connecticut for the ACC.

That way the SEC could add three to 16 and the ACC could add 4. If the ACC gives up N.C. State and Virginia Tech then they could add 6.

As for the partial memberships, basketball, and baseball can easily handle 4 more schools with the way the schedules and seasons go. We would no longer need to schedule any G5 schools with the football independent privates (and UConn) on the list. Of course if N.D. chooses to remain independent in football then the ACC would be in a position to add 7.
Lets say that B.C., Duke, Wake, and N.D. are the four football independents for the ACC. The could add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Baylor. The new ACC would look like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

plus 24 games against (N.D., B.C., Duke, and Wake Forest)

The SEC given your proposal would be:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

plus 24 games against (S.M.U., Tulane, Rice, and Vanderbilt)

Thoughts?

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

some of you southern fans are showing that southern education. Really now? ACC to grab UT and OU? Do you know what the ACC stands for Atlantic Coast Conference, now do you see the picture? OU and UT not atlantic....?


you might be able to take Vtech or NC.State... I have told you folks countless times. No one is getting UVA, UNC, or DUKE out of ACC... That's like Alabama or Auburn leaving SEC for Big 12... lol

(04-27-2014 09:22 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:59 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  JR, things could transpire just as you have them laid out, but, ESPN will want to know who all of the players are before they allow schools to start moving. If there is a possibility of taking Penn State away from the B1G, I'm sure ESPN wouldn't mind waiting a few extra years, same for Notre Dame.
I really don't think that any conference would get any bigger than 16 if they didn't have to.

In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

BBB, Vanderbilt could be accommodated on an everything but football kind of deal with the SEC. We would agree to play them a certain number of games against conference football teams to help them with their numbers. IMO this is the way to compromise on Duke and Wake and possibly B.C. in the ACC.

If the ACC and SEC divvy up the Big 12 I would be in favor of adding Tulane and Rice as everything but football members for the SEC and relegating Vanderbilt to the same. What we would be doing by agreeing to 5 or 6 games on each of their schedules is replacing the old rent-a-kill games with schools who want to play better competition, need a key game or two on the home schedule, and who would benefit the conference with academics and other sports. Four such schools for each conference would be a good thing.

Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and S.M.U. for the SEC and Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, and Connecticut for the ACC.

That way the SEC could add three to 16 and the ACC could add 4. If the ACC gives up N.C. State and Virginia Tech then they could add 6.

As for the partial memberships, basketball, and baseball can easily handle 4 more schools with the way the schedules and seasons go. We would no longer need to schedule any G5 schools with the football independent privates (and UConn) on the list. Of course if N.D. chooses to remain independent in football then the ACC would be in a position to add 7.
Lets say that B.C., Duke, Wake, and N.D. are the four football independents for the ACC. The could add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Baylor. The new ACC would look like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

plus 24 games against (N.D., B.C., Duke, and Wake Forest)

The SEC given your proposal would be:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

plus 24 games against (S.M.U., Tulane, Rice, and Vanderbilt)

Thoughts?

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

some of you southern fans are showing that southern education. Really now? ACC to grab UT and OU? Do you know what the ACC stands for Atlantic Coast Conference, now do you see the picture? OU and UT not atlantic....?


you might be able to take Vtech or NC.State... I have told you folks countless times. No one is getting UVA, UNC, or DUKE out of ACC... That's like Alabama or Auburn leaving SEC for Big 12... lol

It will all boil down to earnings disparity. And when it comes to Southern Education I got my masters at a top 20, AAU, university and finished top 3. How about you? Come here with insults and you'll get banned. Come here for discussion and it will be well received. Back up your claims about UVa and UNC. North Carolina was in dialogue with the SEC at the time it looked as though the ACC would implode and Virginia was in discussion with the Big 10. Were they wanting to leave? No. Did they feel vulnerable? Apparently so! They were planning contingencies for worst case scenarios.

Furthermore Oklahoma and Texas have had talks informally with the ACC, and Deloss Dodds admitted as much. They know the tenuous nature of the Big 12. While the SEC and Big 10 are getting larger increases due to networks and new contracts the Big 12 has likely seen its largest payday. The GOR is up in about 10 years which is not a long time for a football conference. ESPN owns the options on Texas until 2031 and on Kansas for a decade. OU would like to stay with Texas. Since FOX is pushing for Big 10 T1 rights ESPN may look to lock up all the property they desire to keep in the two conferences they own, the ACC and SEC. But hey I guess you have to think more than just regionally to see the upside to that. So put up your reasoning or your evidence, or shut up. And consider that to be an official verbal warning for this board.

(04-27-2014 09:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-27-2014 09:22 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 12:26 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 11:59 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In such a case, JR's Plan B works well. I think the SEC would be thrilled for #15 and #16 to be Virginia Tech and NC State, and the ACC should be excited by the Texoma package. You would need some help from the PAC and/or Big 10 to dissolve the Big 12. I would imagine Kansas and Iowa State to the Big 10. However, if they catch you sniffing around Penn State, they would gun for your Cavaliers and Tar Heels with reckless abandon. That leaves all of Kansas State, Baylor, TCU, and West Virginia for the PAC... that is not happening. The following would work, though, and is at least in the realm of possibility. This assumes Notre Dame being a partial #17 in the ACC so that the other 4 conferences are at 16 each:

ACC - Drops NC State, Virginia Tech. Picks up Vanderbilt, Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma

Big 10 - Picks up Kansas and Iowa State.

PAC - Take the Big 12 little brothers, which actually aren't too bad compared to what else is available to them: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, TCU

SEC - Drops Vanderbilt, picks up NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia (only place they will fit since the ACC pretty much hates them)


The ACC compromises on Baylor, the Big 10 compromises on Iowa State, The PAC compromises on TCU, and the SEC compromises on West Virginia. Nobody should feel shafted here.

BBB, Vanderbilt could be accommodated on an everything but football kind of deal with the SEC. We would agree to play them a certain number of games against conference football teams to help them with their numbers. IMO this is the way to compromise on Duke and Wake and possibly B.C. in the ACC.

If the ACC and SEC divvy up the Big 12 I would be in favor of adding Tulane and Rice as everything but football members for the SEC and relegating Vanderbilt to the same. What we would be doing by agreeing to 5 or 6 games on each of their schedules is replacing the old rent-a-kill games with schools who want to play better competition, need a key game or two on the home schedule, and who would benefit the conference with academics and other sports. Four such schools for each conference would be a good thing.

Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt, and S.M.U. for the SEC and Wake Forest, Duke, Boston College, and Connecticut for the ACC.

That way the SEC could add three to 16 and the ACC could add 4. If the ACC gives up N.C. State and Virginia Tech then they could add 6.

As for the partial memberships, basketball, and baseball can easily handle 4 more schools with the way the schedules and seasons go. We would no longer need to schedule any G5 schools with the football independent privates (and UConn) on the list. Of course if N.D. chooses to remain independent in football then the ACC would be in a position to add 7.
Lets say that B.C., Duke, Wake, and N.D. are the four football independents for the ACC. The could add Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and Baylor. The new ACC would look like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville
Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

plus 24 games against (N.D., B.C., Duke, and Wake Forest)

The SEC given your proposal would be:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

plus 24 games against (S.M.U., Tulane, Rice, and Vanderbilt)

Thoughts?

Dropping Vandy, IMO, would fly in the face of what the SEC stands for. What makes this conference such a well-respected conference and popular proposition for prospective schools, is that we look out for every member equally. That differentiates us from some of the other dog eat dog conferences. I just don't see any school being invited to leave the SEC against their will. I also believe letting the ACC grab UT and OU is a very high price. I love the idea of NC State and Va Tech in the SEC but we need OU as well. How about we take Okie State and OU in the west, Va Tech and NC State in the east and let the ACC deal with UT and whoever else they choose. KU will probably take an invite to the B1G with, say, UConn and maybe Iowa State. JMHO of course.

some of you southern fans are showing that southern education. Really now? ACC to grab UT and OU? Do you know what the ACC stands for Atlantic Coast Conference, now do you see the picture? OU and UT not atlantic....?


you might be able to take Vtech or NC.State... I have told you folks countless times. No one is getting UVA, UNC, or DUKE out of ACC... That's like Alabama or Auburn leaving SEC for Big 12... lol

It will all boil down to earnings disparity. And when it comes to Southern Education I got my masters at a top 20, AAU, university and finished top 3. How about you? Come here with insults and you'll get banned. Come here for discussion and it will be well received. Back up your claims about UVa and UNC. North Carolina was in dialogue with the SEC at the time it looked as though the ACC would implode and Virginia was in discussion with the Big 10. Were they wanting to leave? No. Did they feel vulnerable? Apparently so! They were planning contingencies for worst case scenarios.

Furthermore Oklahoma and Texas have had talks informally with the ACC, and Deloss Dodds admitted as much. They know the tenuous nature of the Big 12. While the SEC and Big 10 are getting larger increases due to networks and new contracts the Big 12 has likely seen its largest payday. The GOR is up in about 10 years which is not a long time for a football conference. ESPN owns the options on Texas until 2031 and on Kansas for a decade. OU would like to stay with Texas. Since FOX is pushing for Big 10 T1 rights ESPN may look to lock up all the property they desire to keep in the two conferences they own, the ACC and SEC. But hey I guess you have to think more than just regionally to see the upside to that. So put up your reasoning or your evidence, or shut up. And consider that to be an official verbal warning for this board.

I am sorry, NC is a southern state as well. However, it is extremely annoying to see some of these SEC individuals from their respective schools get their panties all waded up over getting Duke or UNC. They know absolutely nothing about the state on NC. The rivalry is the biggest in College sports... Comparable to auburn and Alabama in football. They are pretty much inseparable, anchor programs of the ACC. Maryland leaving had ACC riled up, what makes you think the leaders of (UNC or Duke) second biggest conference would jump the ship to be the punching bags of a conference which doesn't even cater to their major sport. They have way more in store for them to stay then to leave. The sec pays 30? ACC pays 20? Sec revenue comes primarily from football and ACC from basketball.

The addition of louville is a major plus for ACC. If you want to cripple the ACC, take NC. If you want to take NC, make the 4 ACC teams irrelevant by introducing SEC to NC. If you want to Introduce SEC to NC. Pick up ECU. We might not be good enough for you guys now but wait and see. I am not really worried about us being picked up by p5. When the next big team moves, ECU would be a hot commodity for that conference to reload. Whoever does, they basically control NC during the football season.


No one gives a rats ass about football in NC, except ECU with a yearly revenue of 40 million which is dwarfed by UNCs 85 million.


Also masters in what exactly if you don't mind me asking? Anyway some of these folks need to lay off the chronic because they are simply having a wet day dream of cluster packing all the best teams in the country into the SEC to make it some juggernaut of a conference.