I had some time to chime in on the recent Big 12 chatter and I think that the ACC should offer Texas a Notre Dame deal.


With his public comments, it’s no secret that OU isn’t happy. West Virginia is in support of expansion as well since they remain on an island by themselves. With the inner turmoil surrounding the Big 12, how can the ACC better itself as it gets closer to launching its own conference network? Offer Texas a “Notre Dame deal”. Lure the Longhorns by allowing them to participate in all sports while requiring a 5-game ACC football schedule. Like the Irish, Texas must sign the Grant of Rights and agree to join the ACC completely if or when they are forced to go all in to a conference. Texas-to-the-ACC isn’t as far fetched as it first appears. Back in 2011, UT was close to joining to ACC when it looked like the Big 12 was going to fall apart.

Thoughts?

It is intriguing...a pure numbers game to me.

How big do we get? 16 +2, 18+2, 20 +2

I think 16 + 2 is too small to bring in Tejas and to maximize georgraphy for a conference network

I'm thinking 20+2 is getting too huge...

So 18 +2

We would have 20 for all sports...easy to break up into 4 pods of 5 teams for Hoops and other non-FB team sports. Hoops would have to go to a 20 game league schedule...18 game could work still IMHO.

Football is more problematic...essentially you might look at 6 scheduling pods of 3 teams . One way would be to always put 2 of the Pods together...so you get a constant 5 games to build rivalries. The other 4 pods would rotate through an 8 year cycle on back to back home and aways. You could go once every 6 years by playing 9 league games for the outside 4 pods.

Take some stabs at building 6 Pods of 3

My 2 Pod always plays each other model

Pod 1: BC, Cuse, UConn
Pod 2: Pitt, Cincy, Ville

Pod 3: UVA, VT, Wake
Pod 4: UNC, Duke, NCSt

Pod 5: Clemson, GTech, Miami
Pod 6: FSU, Baylor, TCU

NO!

Texas is NOT ND! It does not deserve a ND type deal. Texas has no history or identity of being independent. So why give them such a deal. Furthermore it makes the ACC look weak by doing such a dumb thing. Although I don't like the deal that the ACC gave ND, at least I can understand why the ACC did it for ND.

(07-06-2015 11:54 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  NO!

Texas is NOT ND! It does not deserve a ND type deal. Texas has no history or identity of being independent. So why give them such a deal. Furthermore it makes the ACC look weak by doing such a dumb thing. Although I don't like the deal that the ACC gave ND, at least I can understand why the ACC did it for ND.

I'm going to agree and my beef is with the ACC "offering " ND a deal. With ND we are talking two different networks. With Texas, we are talking the same network.
If ESPN turns their back now.......well, how much can they be trusted by any
Partner?

If Texas would even want an ND type of deal, I'd gladly offer them one if it also brought along OU. The ACC already did something it said it'd never do in regards to a partial member. And they did it to keep the conference from becoming obsolete. That's what taking Texas would do, or would at least be in an attempt to do that.

(07-06-2015 01:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  If Texas would even want an ND type of deal, I'd gladly offer them one if it also brought along OU. The ACC already did something it said it'd never do in regards to a partial member. And they did it to keep the conference from becoming obsolete. That's what taking Texas would do, or would at least be in an attempt to do that.

It becomes a game of "keep away" at that point.

One good thing about conference realignment (well, the only good thing, I think) is that Buck is getting skewered on the WVU Scout Big 12 Realignment forum..........

Does TX even want a partial deal? I would think if they did they could have got that during the period when A&M and Mizzou left.

I do like the concept of a west pod based on B12 members.

Why would Texas want to give up their own conference whom the steamroll (except for OU)? They get conference money, a sweetheart TV deal that no one can touch and they have no issues of having to play nice with anyone. OU is the only team with prospects (they can jump to the SEC any time they wish) and they bring cache to any other conference. Every other team is stuck.

Then factor in the travel issues (Texas is watching WVU, as are all other Big 12 teams), Texas would be just one more school in the ACC (or B1G, SEC, PAC), Texas would have to schedule like ND to remain relevant in the playoff picture, their other teams are generally relevant (hoops, baseball, nothing else matters).

I would not have a problem with UT joining the ACC (especially if OU tags along - and I could agree to let them bring along two more, except for TTech, K-State, Iowa State). Simply, what reason does Texas have to make the jump?

Texas would take the partial deal. Look at this schedule.

OOC games

Texas vs Oklahoma
Texas vs Notre Dame
Texas vs Texas Tech
Texas vs SMU (fill in any lesser Texas program)
Texas vs UTSA (Same with SMU)
Texas vs UCLA

ACC games

Texas vs Baylor
Texas vs Florida State
Texas vs Georgia Tech
Texas vs North Carolina
Texas vs Syracuse
Texas vs Pitt

Texas folks love this kind of flexibility with their scheduling and ACC scheduling is pretty good for what they want. These ACC schools wont lean as heavily upon Texas recruiting as the likes of ISU, KSU, Kansas and Oklahoma State do.

Texas isn't going to sign off on the overall plan though unless Oklahoma does Not end up in the SEC. Sorry.

If you are worried about the Network, Texas will probably have to agree to have the LHN rolled into an ACC Network. People trying to find reasons why not to bring in Texas with a partial contract are simply missing the big picture and letting their bruised ego's get in the way.

(07-06-2015 07:08 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Why would Texas want to give up their own conference whom the steamroll (except for OU)? They get conference money, a sweetheart TV deal that no one can touch and they have no issues of having to play nice with anyone. OU is the only team with prospects (they can jump to the SEC any time they wish) and they bring cache to any other conference. Every other team is stuck.

Then factor in the travel issues (Texas is watching WVU, as are all other Big 12 teams), Texas would be just one more school in the ACC (or B1G, SEC, PAC), Texas would have to schedule like ND to remain relevant in the playoff picture, their other teams are generally relevant (hoops, baseball, nothing else matters).

I would not have a problem with UT joining the ACC (especially if OU tags along - and I could agree to let them bring along two more, except for TTech, K-State, Iowa State). Simply, what reason does Texas have to make the jump?

Texas steamrolls their own conference? When? Their conference plays up for their games against Texas more than any others. That has to be getting annoying for Texas.

Texas doesn't even get votes in it's favor all the time. No one else voted for the Big 12 Network that Texas was trying to push before they ever started the LHN. That is a pretty big vote that Texas didn't control. Kind of blows up the false argument that people make all the time about Texas controlling the conference. They only do that when they can leverage the votes. More often than not, angst at Texas makes the opposite happen.

(07-06-2015 07:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2015 07:08 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Why would Texas want to give up their own conference whom the steamroll (except for OU)? They get conference money, a sweetheart TV deal that no one can touch and they have no issues of having to play nice with anyone. OU is the only team with prospects (they can jump to the SEC any time they wish) and they bring cache to any other conference. Every other team is stuck.

Then factor in the travel issues (Texas is watching WVU, as are all other Big 12 teams), Texas would be just one more school in the ACC (or B1G, SEC, PAC), Texas would have to schedule like ND to remain relevant in the playoff picture, their other teams are generally relevant (hoops, baseball, nothing else matters).

I would not have a problem with UT joining the ACC (especially if OU tags along - and I could agree to let them bring along two more, except for TTech, K-State, Iowa State). Simply, what reason does Texas have to make the jump?

Texas steamrolls their own conference? When? Their conference plays up for their games against Texas more than any others. That has to be getting annoying for Texas.

Texas doesn't even get votes in it's favor all the time. No one else voted for the Big 12 Network that Texas was trying to push before they ever started the LHN. That is a pretty big vote that Texas didn't control. Kind of blows up the false argument that people make all the time about Texas controlling the conference. They only do that when they can leverage the votes. More often than not, angst at Texas makes the opposite happen.

He means that in terms of decisions, Texas dominates because most of the other universities are terrified of Texas leaving (and possibly taking Oklahoma with them). That leaves Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and TCU in an uncomfortable position. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

(07-06-2015 09:35 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(07-06-2015 07:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2015 07:08 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Why would Texas want to give up their own conference whom the steamroll (except for OU)? They get conference money, a sweetheart TV deal that no one can touch and they have no issues of having to play nice with anyone. OU is the only team with prospects (they can jump to the SEC any time they wish) and they bring cache to any other conference. Every other team is stuck.

Then factor in the travel issues (Texas is watching WVU, as are all other Big 12 teams), Texas would be just one more school in the ACC (or B1G, SEC, PAC), Texas would have to schedule like ND to remain relevant in the playoff picture, their other teams are generally relevant (hoops, baseball, nothing else matters).

I would not have a problem with UT joining the ACC (especially if OU tags along - and I could agree to let them bring along two more, except for TTech, K-State, Iowa State). Simply, what reason does Texas have to make the jump?

Texas steamrolls their own conference? When? Their conference plays up for their games against Texas more than any others. That has to be getting annoying for Texas.

Texas doesn't even get votes in it's favor all the time. No one else voted for the Big 12 Network that Texas was trying to push before they ever started the LHN. That is a pretty big vote that Texas didn't control. Kind of blows up the false argument that people make all the time about Texas controlling the conference. They only do that when they can leverage the votes. More often than not, angst at Texas makes the opposite happen.

He means that in terms of decisions, Texas dominates because most of the other universities are terrified of Texas leaving (and possibly taking Oklahoma with them). That leaves Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and TCU in an uncomfortable position. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

A reasonable assumption but an incomplete one. Three Universities in the big 12 currently have the position of being able to elicit discomfort from their big 12 "brethren". That would be Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas because all three have unofficial invites to other conferences when the time is right. The rest know that they may indeed be left behind if they don't take the present day deal from the Networks.

As I said though, that doesn't work for all decisions. Those other schools, well some of them, are more likely to like the Big Plan that the Networks are pushing instead of being pushed into a heavily unbalanced division when compared to the Texas and Oklahoma division. Hell, even the Texas and Oklahoma schools don't like it. They will play each other every year as they want but that also means that they will beat each other up every year while the weaker division has teams get better records than teams in the Southern division that are better teams.

The situation is insolvable. Thus, implosion happens.

Texas doesn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

Truth be told Notre Dame didn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

The ND deal helped greatly to stabilize the ACC back in 2012-13.

Texas and ND affiliated with the ACC is the best way that the ACC is ever going to improve its status and ensure its survival.

(07-07-2015 12:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Texas doesn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

Truth be told Notre Dame didn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

What does Notre Dame really get?
- No ACC TV money for football (though they did contribute to an increase)
- No share of ACC Orange Bowl or CFP money
- a share of lower bowl money, but only 1/15th, and only if they are in one.
- no say in which ACC teams they play each year

It seems like the whole anti-Notre Dame argument rests on the possibility that they might bump an ACC team out of a low-level bowl spot... not THAT big of a deal, IMO.

Did their presence help the ACC get better bowls this time around? It's hard to say since the bowls were being juggled anyway (and the ACC was definitely losing the Peach Bowl no matter what). You can make an argument that ND helped get the Gator Bowl shared and the provisional Capital One Bowl link, plus probably the Pinstripe and Detroit Bowls... but maybe the ACC gets those without ND?

All in all I just don't think the ACC gave up all that much and maybe got a little in return...

(07-07-2015 12:20 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Texas doesn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

Truth be told Notre Dame didn't bring enough to the table for a ND type deal.

Texas would bring an ACC network with them, that's enough right there. Unless you don't want more $$$.

(07-07-2015 06:42 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The ND deal helped greatly to stabilize the ACC back in 2012-13.

Texas and ND affiliated with the ACC is the best way that the ACC is ever going to improve its status and ensure its survival.

If adding a part-time member is/was required to stabilize a conference it should have been allowed to die.

(07-07-2015 07:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What does Notre Dame really get?
- No ACC TV money for football (though they did contribute to an increase)
- No share of ACC Orange Bowl or CFP money
- a share of lower bowl money, but only 1/15th, and only if they are in one.
- no say in which ACC teams they play each year

It seems like the whole anti-Notre Dame argument rests on the possibility that they might bump an ACC team out of a low-level bowl spot... not THAT big of a deal, IMO.

Did their presence help the ACC get better bowls this time around? It's hard to say since the bowls were being juggled anyway (and the ACC was definitely losing the Peach Bowl no matter what). You can make an argument that ND helped get the Gator Bowl shared and the provisional Capital One Bowl link, plus probably the Pinstripe and Detroit Bowls... but maybe the ACC gets those without ND?

All in all I just don't think the ACC gave up all that much and maybe got a little in return...

The only bowls we added were the mediocre Pinstripe and some low level bowls.

In regards to the Gator and Capital One.....we were going to pick up the part-time deal anyway. The Big 10 stated several years ago that they wanted to cut back on their Florida bowls so who else were those two bowls going to sign with?

ACC schools gave up scheduling flexibility, nearly every year will lose out on one of our adequate bowl slots because of the parasites because ND isn't going to play in the #7/8/9 slots or one of the two conditional bowls, give up bowl money that the addition of ND didn't clearly add to, and we have to house every sport besides hockey at ND that isn't a national draw.

(07-07-2015 07:25 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Texas would bring an ACC network with them, that's enough right there. Unless you don't want more $$$.

But I thought according to you rainbow and unicorn folks we were guaranteed to get a network without adding another parasite. Y'all need to get together and make up your minds.

.

(07-07-2015 07:25 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Texas would bring an ACC network with them, that's enough right there. Unless you don't want more $$$.

But I thought according to you rainbow and unicorn folks we were guaranteed to get a network without adding another parasite. Y'all need to get together and make up your minds.
[/quote]

I'm not sure why you grouped me in with others but even adding Texas to an existing network would result in a significant increase of $. If the goal is to close the gap on the SEC $ then Texas is a good starting point. Now having Texas & ND all in is the ultimate goal. I'm not a fan of either of the parasites but I will take the extra $ they bring.

(07-07-2015 08:40 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  The only bowls we added were the mediocre Pinstripe and some low level bowls.

Pinstripe ($2.0M) pays nearly as much as the Gator and Music City Bowls ($2.75M each), about the same as the Sun Bowl ($2.1M), and more than the Belk Bowl ($1.7M). If revenue is your thing (and it seems like it is), this was a good add... even better, the Pinstripe is MUCH more likely to take Notre Dame than Clemson, so you don't have to brave that NYC winter.

Quote:In regards to the Gator and Capital One.....we were going to pick up the part-time deal anyway. The Big 10 stated several years ago that they wanted to cut back on their Florida bowls so who else were those two bowls going to sign with?

The Big XII, maybe? They've stated they want MORE Florida bowls...

Quote:ACC schools gave up scheduling flexibility...

How so? Because Clemson is "forced" to play a home-and-home with Notre Dame once every 6 years? Oh, yeah, Clemson pretty much got to pick the years, too... give me a break!

Quote:...nearly every year [the ACC] will lose out on one of our adequate bowl slots because of the parasites because ND isn't going to play in the #7/8/9 slots or one of the two conditional bowls, give up bowl money that the addition of ND didn't clearly add to...

Well, let's see... FSU was not affected... Ga Tech was not affected... Clemson was not affected... Louisville, Duke and Boston College all unaffected too.
That takes us Va Tech, Miami and UNC. VT was the only one of those that won their bowl game anyway; would I rather LOSE the Music City Bowl or WIN the Military Bowl? In a year like last, I don't mind the fact that Notre Dame bumped the Hokies down a notch, because quite frankly, that put VT into a more appropriate bowl anyway. COULD it happen that the Irish bump them below what they "deserve"? Yeah, I suppose so - but your claim of "nearly every year" just isn't very likely to hold up, IMO.

Quote:...and we have to house every sport besides hockey at ND that isn't a national draw.

Um, Notre Dame is actually bringing in MORE money for ACC basketball... as for housing their other sports - who cares? Why SHOULD anyone care?