There have been a lot of rumors and news that affects realignment the last few months. I think a lot of it might be strategic leaks to signal different conferences and schools to get on board with a possible consolidation to a power 4. Looking at the rumors/news and who it affects positively or negatively. Feel free to add your own rumors/news and pro and con to it or agree or disagree with me on mine. At the end I add my thoughts on what it might mean to each conference.

OU wants B12 expansion
Pro: G5 B12 expansion candidates, B12 depending on who they expand with and what they gain from the expansion
Con: Texas's B12 power (who wants 10), other power conferences with B12 schools as expansion candidates and adds 2 more schools into the pie, B12 and it's schools if OU knows this is never happening and is using it as political cover to leave later or if the adds are seen as weakening the B12

ESPN cutting costs
Pro: FOX and maybe NBC, CBS if they get serious with their future bids
Con: B1G T1, ACCN, LHN maybe

OU to the SEC
Pro: SEC, ESPN
Con: B1G, B12 schools and conference, PAC, FOX

OU and KU to the B1G
Pro: B1G, FOX/ESPN depending on who wins B1G T1, ACC
Con: SEC, PAC, B12 schools and conference, ESPN if they lose B1G T1, FOX if they do not gain B1G T1

KU and Texas to the SEC
Pro: SEC, ESPN, ACC if a P4 is the goal
Con: B1G, PAC, FOX, B12 schools and conference, possibly the ACC if they want Texas

ACCN continues to be a definite maybe
Pro: B12, B1G, SEC
Con: ACC and its schools, especially FSU and Clemson

USF and UCF to the B12
Pro: USF/UCF, FOX, B12 gains FL recruiting, a CCG and divisions
Con: All other G5 B12 candidates, Miami, possibly UF and FSU, AAC, ACC as Miami is the brand most likely to be eroded by UCF/USF

PACN not paying out what was hoped
Pro: ESPN, FOX, B12
Con: PAC and it's schools

B1G conference payout hits $32M especially with T1 increase looming
Pro: B1G, any B1G expansion candidates, FOX though the B1GN
Con: ACC, B12, PACN

SECN is a success and projected to become more profitable
Pro: SEC, SEC expansion candidates, ESPN
Con: PACN, ACC, B12

My thoughts on each conference:

1: PAC is being signaled to sell to a piece of their network to FOX/ESPN to get their help getting greater carriage though bundling and the power they can exert with their other channels. The B1GN (FOX) and SECN (ESPN) are doing great. Let us help you. They are also being signaled that they are not a player for any of Texas, OU, and KU with the status quo in realignment. The money is not there to entice and overcome the time zone/travel issues.

2: B12 is being destabilized once again. OU is talking once again about stability and that means there is little. Complaints from within about lack of a B12N/LHN. Obvious dissension about staying at 10 or going to 12. Not having a CCG hurting it with the playoff committee. Rumors of the 3 money schools (UT, OU, KU) going to the B1G and/or SEC. The B12 is being made to look weak at a crossroads in it's existence. Might be signaling the weaker schools to go along with what will happen and be happy we will find you a home somewhere.

3: ACCN still in limbo with ESPN cutting costs. ACC is the lowest paid with little chance of growth. Being threatened with B12 expansion into FL. Is the ACC being signaled by ESPN to take Texas and some B12 friends to get the LHN converted into an ACCN and increase it's payout to make it more competitive with the SEC/B1G financially. If they don't play ball, they face the chance of no network and no Texas to help with T1/T2. This is not a happy financial future for the ACC.

4: B1G is being signaled that they need ESPN for T1 or ESPN will work to move deny OU, KU, and Texas to the B1G by trying to move them into the ACC and SEC. The cost cutting could be a signal to the B1G and FOX (misdirection so FOX bids lower?) as well that the ESPN bid will be lower than expected, but I think that threat will be used more against the ACCN (not having cash/valuable content to start it) than the B1G T1 which is extremely valuable. The B1G is signaling to everyone that they have money and more is coming soon so get on board this train.

5: The SEC is sitting pretty and should come out a winner no matter what. ESPN will take care of them. They also have a lot of flexibility with who they could add and create value.

TLDR: Rumors, news, and speculation on realignment as usual.

I can't say as I disagree with very much of what you have posted. I just see the nuances a little differently. Plus there are some points that nobody bothers to mention that are quietly very relevant. I start with those.

ACC: Even if they finally agree to take Texas and friends, without N.D. going all in as well, would the new ACC payout be worth it for Texas in the long run, or would it lock the Horns into a less than optimum TV contract. It is very likely that even with Texas the ACC payouts would ultimately be below those of the Big 10 and SEC. Even if they are close why would Texas want to take less than they could earn in either of the other two conferences.

IMO this is the Achilles heel of this scenario. If N.D. goes all in that's a game changer. And it might very well be what Pinkel was alluding to.

PAC: Ditto everything I said about Texas to the ACC only without any N.D. to make it viable and with even more travel. The only way I see this working is if the friends permitted to travel with Texas were extensive in both number (I'm thinking UT + 5 more) and quality (OU, KU, TTU, OSU, KSU). I also find this highly improbable as even with Texas and OU in the PAC I don't think that drives West Coast interest so Texas really only stands to gain what it brings with them which is not a NET win for the Horns.

Big 10 and SEC: Both would take all three of KU, OU, and Texas. FOX and ESPN would have to have some serious coordination for that to happen, so it won't happen. Oklahoma and Kansas are only slightly bound to their respective Network affiliations. Either could go in either direction separately or together. Texas is going to get stuck with ESPN.

I don't mean to tick anybody off, but I don't see how Texas comes out a winner by going anywhere. The lesser of all evils for them would be the SEC. For all their bravado they have always made sound business moves.

The PAC is less money and more travel expense and is a mixture of academic and cultural similarities and dissimilarities.

The Big 10 is less a cultural fit, more an academic fit, and more money and more travel.

The SEC is more a cultural fit, less an academic fit, more money and slightly more travel.

The ACC is not a cultural fit, is an academic fit, could be less money and more travel.

If Texas is forced to stay with ESPN, can't have their own conference, and is forced to move then I like the SEC's chances for them. We reunite their old rivalries for them, would be acceptable to the majority of their fans outside of Austin, and would be the closest geographically for both divisional and non divisional play.

What I'm not sure about is the long term viability of the ACC. ESPN still maximizes their value while cutting overhead by parsing out the ACC. Plus a new conference built around Texas and Oklahoma would be superior to any built around North Carolina and Duke.

In terms of markets and $, my guess would be Texas will eventually cave and allow Big 12 expansion. Might not stop Kansas or Oklahoma from leaving at the end of the GOR, but it would make more money now (assuming the CCG is profitable with 12/14 teams - BYU, Cincy, UCF and Houston/Memphis/USF?).

Right now I am more interested in what I perceive as a reemergence of old rivalries. What I mean is that everyone seems to understand that the AAC is Conference USA 2.0 and the ACC has taken over most of the former Big East schools. My question is if this is happening elsewhere?

My example: If OK/Kansas go Big 10, then Nebraska, OK, and Kansas are all from the original Big 8.
SEC grabbed Mizzou from the Big 8, but Arkansas/Texas A&M are from the Southwest. I highly doubt Mizzou moves away from the SEC but a Big 10 move to create a former Big 8 division with Nebraska, Mizzou, OK and Kansas might be hard to pass up. On the other hand, the SEC may have an incentive to grab OK/OK State from the Big 8.

If any of this happens, then conferences are really just merging from the past:
SEC + Big 8/Southwest
Big 10 + Big 8 (I recognize they added Maryland and Rutgers too)
ACC + Big East

If any of the realignment moves discussed happened and Texas wanted to keep the Big 12, it would have to be Big 12 + AAC or MWC.

(07-21-2015 10:41 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  In terms of markets and $, my guess would be Texas will eventually cave and allow Big 12 expansion. Might not stop Kansas or Oklahoma from leaving at the end of the GOR, but it would make more money now (assuming the CCG is profitable with 12/14 teams - BYU, Cincy, UCF and Houston/Memphis/USF?).

Right now I am more interested in what I perceive as a reemergence of old rivalries. What I mean is that everyone seems to understand that the AAC is Conference USA 2.0 and the ACC has taken over most of the former Big East schools. My question is if this is happening elsewhere?

My example: If OK/Kansas go Big 10, then Nebraska, OK, and Kansas are all from the original Big 8.
SEC grabbed Mizzou from the Big 8, but Arkansas/Texas A&M are from the Southwest. I highly doubt Mizzou moves away from the SEC but a Big 10 move to create a former Big 8 division with Nebraska, Mizzou, OK and Kansas might be hard to pass up. On the other hand, the SEC may have an incentive to grab OK/OK State from the Big 8.

If any of this happens, then conferences are really just merging from the past:
SEC + Big 8/Southwest
Big 10 + Big 8 (I recognize they added Maryland and Rutgers too)
ACC + Big East

If any of the realignment moves discussed happened and Texas wanted to keep the Big 12, it would have to be Big 12 + AAC or MWC.

You can't escape who you are and your past is always a strong part of that. I'd say Texas prefers the old SWC to the Big 12 for sure. Oklahoma just needs to learn to live without Texas again.

The choice is do you want to play L.S.U., Missouri, A&M, the Mississippi's, and a traveling companion probably of your choice, if you are Oklahoma, or do you want to play Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa instead of Iowa State, Minnesota and Wisconsin?

It just seems they are recreating destroyed rivalries. What they are really doing is taking the pieces that they think will land them the other schools they want. And, they are doing that around the edges of their old core boundaries. IMO this is why the ACC expansion is so weak. Their footprint is a long line, not a spreading amoeba.

(07-21-2015 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 10:41 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  In terms of markets and $, my guess would be Texas will eventually cave and allow Big 12 expansion. Might not stop Kansas or Oklahoma from leaving at the end of the GOR, but it would make more money now (assuming the CCG is profitable with 12/14 teams - BYU, Cincy, UCF and Houston/Memphis/USF?).

Right now I am more interested in what I perceive as a reemergence of old rivalries. What I mean is that everyone seems to understand that the AAC is Conference USA 2.0 and the ACC has taken over most of the former Big East schools. My question is if this is happening elsewhere?

My example: If OK/Kansas go Big 10, then Nebraska, OK, and Kansas are all from the original Big 8.
SEC grabbed Mizzou from the Big 8, but Arkansas/Texas A&M are from the Southwest. I highly doubt Mizzou moves away from the SEC but a Big 10 move to create a former Big 8 division with Nebraska, Mizzou, OK and Kansas might be hard to pass up. On the other hand, the SEC may have an incentive to grab OK/OK State from the Big 8.

If any of this happens, then conferences are really just merging from the past:
SEC + Big 8/Southwest
Big 10 + Big 8 (I recognize they added Maryland and Rutgers too)
ACC + Big East

If any of the realignment moves discussed happened and Texas wanted to keep the Big 12, it would have to be Big 12 + AAC or MWC.

You can't escape who you are and your past is always a strong part of that. I'd say Texas prefers the old SWC to the Big 12 for sure. Oklahoma just needs to learn to live without Texas again.

The choice is do you want to play L.S.U., Missouri, A&M, the Mississippi's, and a traveling companion probably of your choice, if you are Oklahoma, or do you want to play Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa instead of Iowa State, Minnesota and Wisconsin?

It just seems they are recreating destroyed rivalries. What they are really doing is taking the pieces that they think will land them the other schools they want. And, they are doing that around the edges of their old core boundaries. IMO this is why the ACC expansion is so weak. Their footprint is a long line, not a spreading amoeba.

I think I know what you mean but can you clarify your last paragraph?

(07-21-2015 02:34 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 10:41 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  In terms of markets and $, my guess would be Texas will eventually cave and allow Big 12 expansion. Might not stop Kansas or Oklahoma from leaving at the end of the GOR, but it would make more money now (assuming the CCG is profitable with 12/14 teams - BYU, Cincy, UCF and Houston/Memphis/USF?).

Right now I am more interested in what I perceive as a reemergence of old rivalries. What I mean is that everyone seems to understand that the AAC is Conference USA 2.0 and the ACC has taken over most of the former Big East schools. My question is if this is happening elsewhere?

My example: If OK/Kansas go Big 10, then Nebraska, OK, and Kansas are all from the original Big 8.
SEC grabbed Mizzou from the Big 8, but Arkansas/Texas A&M are from the Southwest. I highly doubt Mizzou moves away from the SEC but a Big 10 move to create a former Big 8 division with Nebraska, Mizzou, OK and Kansas might be hard to pass up. On the other hand, the SEC may have an incentive to grab OK/OK State from the Big 8.

If any of this happens, then conferences are really just merging from the past:
SEC + Big 8/Southwest
Big 10 + Big 8 (I recognize they added Maryland and Rutgers too)
ACC + Big East

If any of the realignment moves discussed happened and Texas wanted to keep the Big 12, it would have to be Big 12 + AAC or MWC.

You can't escape who you are and your past is always a strong part of that. I'd say Texas prefers the old SWC to the Big 12 for sure. Oklahoma just needs to learn to live without Texas again.

The choice is do you want to play L.S.U., Missouri, A&M, the Mississippi's, and a traveling companion probably of your choice, if you are Oklahoma, or do you want to play Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa instead of Iowa State, Minnesota and Wisconsin?

It just seems they are recreating destroyed rivalries. What they are really doing is taking the pieces that they think will land them the other schools they want. And, they are doing that around the edges of their old core boundaries. IMO this is why the ACC expansion is so weak. Their footprint is a long line, not a spreading amoeba.

I think I know what you mean but can you clarify your last paragraph?

They aren't rebuilding rivalries as much as they are taking in schools they believe will lure the prime target schools to join as well. Big 10 takes Nebraska and hopes for Kansas and Oklahoma. The SEC takes Arkansas, A&M, Missouri and hopes for Oklahoma and/or Texas. The Big 10 takes Maryland and Rutgers to go with Penn State and hopes to land Virginia. That's what I mean. They take pieces of a set of prime schools in hopes of landing the whole set.

(07-21-2015 09:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I can't say as I disagree with very much of what you have posted. I just see the nuances a little differently. Plus there are some points that nobody bothers to mention that are quietly very relevant. I start with those.

ACC: Even if they finally agree to take Texas and friends, without N.D. going all in as well, would the new ACC payout be worth it for Texas in the long run, or would it lock the Horns into a less than optimum TV contract. It is very likely that even with Texas the ACC payouts would ultimately be below those of the Big 10 and SEC. Even if they are close why would Texas want to take less than they could earn in either of the other two conferences.

IMO this is the Achilles heel of this scenario. If N.D. goes all in that's a game changer. And it might very well be what Pinkel was alluding to.

PAC: Ditto everything I said about Texas to the ACC only without any N.D. to make it viable and with even more travel. The only way I see this working is if the friends permitted to travel with Texas were extensive in both number (I'm thinking UT + 5 more) and quality (OU, KU, TTU, OSU, KSU). I also find this highly improbable as even with Texas and OU in the PAC I don't think that drives West Coast interest so Texas really only stands to gain what it brings with them which is not a NET win for the Horns.

Big 10 and SEC: Both would take all three of KU, OU, and Texas. FOX and ESPN would have to have some serious coordination for that to happen, so it won't happen. Oklahoma and Kansas are only slightly bound to their respective Network affiliations. Either could go in either direction separately or together. Texas is going to get stuck with ESPN.

I don't mean to tick anybody off, but I don't see how Texas comes out a winner by going anywhere. The lesser of all evils for them would be the SEC. For all their bravado they have always made sound business moves.

The PAC is less money and more travel expense and is a mixture of academic and cultural similarities and dissimilarities.

The Big 10 is less a cultural fit, more an academic fit, and more money and more travel.

The SEC is more a cultural fit, less an academic fit, more money and slightly more travel.

The ACC is not a cultural fit, is an academic fit, could be less money and more travel.

If Texas is forced to stay with ESPN, can't have their own conference, and is forced to move then I like the SEC's chances for them. We reunite their old rivalries for them, would be acceptable to the majority of their fans outside of Austin, and would be the closest geographically for both divisional and non divisional play.

What I'm not sure about is the long term viability the ACC. ESPN still maximizes their value while cutting overhead by parsing out the ACC. Plus a new conference built around Texas and Oklahoma would be superior to any built around North Carolina and Duke.

Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

(07-23-2015 11:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

I think the SEC would certainly take Texas. I even think Texas would be best served by going to the SEC even though I don't think that's what they want.

I don't believe Texas is powerful enough though to force the SEC to not take OU. That's especially true given their track record of wanting to run the show. OU is an extremely valuable property and I think if the two parties agree then the deal will be done regardless of Texas' preferences. The SEC will say to UT..."You want to be in our league? Great, we'd love to have you, just sign here. What's that? You want to dictate who else we take? Sorry, that's not how it works."

In truth though, I don't think UT would want to block OU. I think they like being in the same league and I've thought for a while they would ultimately move together because their relationship is mutually beneficial. Might not work out that way though.

(07-23-2015 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

I think the SEC would certainly take Texas. I even think Texas would be best served by going to the SEC even though I don't think that's what they want.

I don't believe Texas is powerful enough though to force the SEC to not take OU. That's especially true given their track record of wanting to run the show. OU is an extremely valuable property and I think if the two parties agree then the deal will be done regardless of Texas' preferences. The SEC will say to UT..."You want to be in our league? Great, we'd love to have you, just sign here. What's that? You want to dictate who else we take? Sorry, that's not how it works."

In truth though, I don't think UT would want to block OU. I think they like being in the same league and I've thought for a while they would ultimately move together because their relationship is mutually beneficial. Might not work out that way though.

You might want to let 10th know that. He seems to think that A&M won't let the SEC any other Texas team.

(07-24-2015 07:51 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

I think the SEC would certainly take Texas. I even think Texas would be best served by going to the SEC even though I don't think that's what they want.

I don't believe Texas is powerful enough though to force the SEC to not take OU. That's especially true given their track record of wanting to run the show. OU is an extremely valuable property and I think if the two parties agree then the deal will be done regardless of Texas' preferences. The SEC will say to UT..."You want to be in our league? Great, we'd love to have you, just sign here. What's that? You want to dictate who else we take? Sorry, that's not how it works."

In truth though, I don't think UT would want to block OU. I think they like being in the same league and I've thought for a while they would ultimately move together because their relationship is mutually beneficial. Might not work out that way though.

You might want to let 10th know that. He seems to think that A&M won't let the SEC any other Texas team.

He might be right. My bet is the SEC would take Texas because there's too much to gain to say no, but UT isn't really necessary because we already have A&M. That and I completely understand why A&M wouldn't want them in the league. We'll see if the SEC execs can persuade the A&M leaders to vote their way. That is, assuming UT even becomes an option which I still think is unlikely.

ACC is fine the way it is. it is not unstable and it is making money even if less than other conferences. the point is to win games, not make the most money. it is football and sports, not wall street

(07-24-2015 03:53 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  ACC is fine the way it is. it is not unstable and it is making money even if less than other conferences. the point is to win games, not make the most money. it is football and sports, not wall street

You can't win without money. If that weren't true then the AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, and CUSA would all be just as competitive as the Power 5.

The ACC is in the Power 5 so yes, they are better off that some others, but they will have serious issues in the future if they can't get a network. It's not just about the money. It's about exposure. College athletics exist to promote their respective institutions. The farther you fall behind in that area then the harder it will be to be successful.

I'm not saying the ACC is on the verge of collapse, but a couple of years ago they did not have a GOR. They had to put one in place to keep the league from imploding. It has systemic issues that have not been solved by a GOR.

(07-24-2015 04:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:53 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  ACC is fine the way it is. it is not unstable and it is making money even if less than other conferences. the point is to win games, not make the most money. it is football and sports, not wall street

You can't win without money. If that weren't true then the AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, and CUSA would all be just as competitive as the Power 5.

The ACC is in the Power 5 so yes, they are better off that some others, but they will have serious issues in the future if they can't get a network. It's not just about the money. It's about exposure. College athletics exist to promote their respective institutions. The farther you fall behind in that area then the harder it will be to be successful.

I'm not saying the ACC is on the verge of collapse, but a couple of years ago they did not have a GOR. They had to put one in place to keep the league from imploding. It has systemic issues that have not been solved by a GOR.

lol nobody watches the SEC network except people who already like the SEC. It is a lot of games causual fans have no interest in, like SC vs MS State.

ACC only had 1 team leave and it only wanted to leave b/c it had huge financial problems.

ACC is making money and you only need so much money to recruit players. Clemson is building new facilities all over campus so there isn't a lack of money.

I have not heard anybody at the ACC office or at one of the ACC schools say the ACC has systemic problems.

(07-24-2015 04:52 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 04:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:53 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  ACC is fine the way it is. it is not unstable and it is making money even if less than other conferences. the point is to win games, not make the most money. it is football and sports, not wall street

You can't win without money. If that weren't true then the AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, and CUSA would all be just as competitive as the Power 5.

The ACC is in the Power 5 so yes, they are better off that some others, but they will have serious issues in the future if they can't get a network. It's not just about the money. It's about exposure. College athletics exist to promote their respective institutions. The farther you fall behind in that area then the harder it will be to be successful.

I'm not saying the ACC is on the verge of collapse, but a couple of years ago they did not have a GOR. They had to put one in place to keep the league from imploding. It has systemic issues that have not been solved by a GOR.

lol nobody watches the SEC network except people who already like the SEC. It is a lot of games causual fans have no interest in, like SC vs MS State.

ACC only had 1 team leave and it only wanted to leave b/c it had huge financial problems.

ACC is making money and you only need so much money to recruit players. Clemson is building new facilities all over campus so there isn't a lack of money.

I have not heard anybody at the ACC office or at one of the ACC schools say the ACC has systemic problems.

An ACC school with financial problems left the league? If the league is fine financially then why did a founding member look outside the league to solve its problems?

The ACC nearly collapsed a couple of years ago. There were several schools talking about leaving. I don't know who you're referring to at the "ACC office" or at any of the "schools," but if you don't think the league has issues then I won't try to convince you. It's pretty evident. If you want to deny it then that's your decision.

Also, there are plenty of people watching the SECN around the country. There's a reason it had by far the shortest negotiating period of any of the league networks. It's in more homes than any of the other league networks. It made a good bit of money in year one when they didn't even predict it to be profitable until year 3. It's a big deal.

(07-24-2015 09:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 04:52 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 04:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:53 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  ACC is fine the way it is. it is not unstable and it is making money even if less than other conferences. the point is to win games, not make the most money. it is football and sports, not wall street

You can't win without money. If that weren't true then the AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, and CUSA would all be just as competitive as the Power 5.

The ACC is in the Power 5 so yes, they are better off that some others, but they will have serious issues in the future if they can't get a network. It's not just about the money. It's about exposure. College athletics exist to promote their respective institutions. The farther you fall behind in that area then the harder it will be to be successful.

I'm not saying the ACC is on the verge of collapse, but a couple of years ago they did not have a GOR. They had to put one in place to keep the league from imploding. It has systemic issues that have not been solved by a GOR.

lol nobody watches the SEC network except people who already like the SEC. It is a lot of games causual fans have no interest in, like SC vs MS State.

ACC only had 1 team leave and it only wanted to leave b/c it had huge financial problems.

ACC is making money and you only need so much money to recruit players. Clemson is building new facilities all over campus so there isn't a lack of money.

I have not heard anybody at the ACC office or at one of the ACC schools say the ACC has systemic problems.

An ACC school with financial problems left the league? If the league is fine financially then why did a founding member look outside the league to solve its problems?

The ACC nearly collapsed a couple of years ago. There were several schools talking about leaving. I don't know who you're referring to at the "ACC office" or at any of the "schools," but if you don't think the league has issues then I won't try to convince you. It's pretty evident. If you want to deny it then that's your decision.

Also, there are plenty of people watching the SECN around the country. There's a reason it had by far the shortest negotiating period of any of the league networks. It's in more homes than any of the other league networks. It made a good bit of money in year one when they didn't even predict it to be profitable until year 3. It's a big deal.

no the Big East collapsed, the ACC poached their best programs. ACC has the most new members of any conference yet you say it was close to collapsing. lol

Maryland made a lot of poor finanicial decisions, they decided moving to BIg 10 would help them make more money but it will be a long time before they even break even due to the large exit fee they paid. they were trying to do something to bring some excitement to their program and since they recruit PA hard, playing Penn State every year probably helps them more in recruiting.

I can't see most people outside of the SEC states caring about every SEC matchup. ESPN and the other networks cover the matchups b/t ranked teams, and the state rivalry games.

(07-24-2015 03:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 07:51 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

I think the SEC would certainly take Texas. I even think Texas would be best served by going to the SEC even though I don't think that's what they want.

I don't believe Texas is powerful enough though to force the SEC to not take OU. That's especially true given their track record of wanting to run the show. OU is an extremely valuable property and I think if the two parties agree then the deal will be done regardless of Texas' preferences. The SEC will say to UT..."You want to be in our league? Great, we'd love to have you, just sign here. What's that? You want to dictate who else we take? Sorry, that's not how it works."

In truth though, I don't think UT would want to block OU. I think they like being in the same league and I've thought for a while they would ultimately move together because their relationship is mutually beneficial. Might not work out that way though.

You might want to let 10th know that. He seems to think that A&M won't let the SEC any other Texas team.

He might be right. My bet is the SEC would take Texas because there's too much to gain to say no, but UT isn't really necessary because we already have A&M. That and I completely understand why A&M wouldn't want them in the league. We'll see if the SEC execs can persuade the A&M leaders to vote their way. That is, assuming UT even becomes an option which I still think is unlikely.

Nobody would turn Texas down and it wouldn't matter to the SEC what A&M wanted. Texas would be a net gain for the entire conference and A&M would have to put aside their pride/fear and do what is best for the conference.
Even if Texas ends up in the ACC, my bet would be that the Longhorns would end up playing the A&M every year on rivalry weekend when the rest of the ACC/SEC games take place (the ACC was 4-0 against the SEC last year).

(07-25-2015 02:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 03:33 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2015 07:51 AM)BaylorFerg Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 01:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 11:42 AM)XLance Wrote:  Some have been saying that realignment would be over when Texas decided what they would do.
The turmoil of today is the direct result of Texas' indecision. Texas to the ACC was all set.....right? I believe that Texas is having second thoughts. And the primary concern is that Oklahoma is set to move to the SEC just as soon as the Longhorns head to the east coast and that is not setting too well in Austin.
To shorten a long story, it may be that Texas is now considering a move to the SEC as long as the Sooners are NOT included.

I think the SEC would certainly take Texas. I even think Texas would be best served by going to the SEC even though I don't think that's what they want.

I don't believe Texas is powerful enough though to force the SEC to not take OU. That's especially true given their track record of wanting to run the show. OU is an extremely valuable property and I think if the two parties agree then the deal will be done regardless of Texas' preferences. The SEC will say to UT..."You want to be in our league? Great, we'd love to have you, just sign here. What's that? You want to dictate who else we take? Sorry, that's not how it works."

In truth though, I don't think UT would want to block OU. I think they like being in the same league and I've thought for a while they would ultimately move together because their relationship is mutually beneficial. Might not work out that way though.

You might want to let 10th know that. He seems to think that A&M won't let the SEC any other Texas team.

He might be right. My bet is the SEC would take Texas because there's too much to gain to say no, but UT isn't really necessary because we already have A&M. That and I completely understand why A&M wouldn't want them in the league. We'll see if the SEC execs can persuade the A&M leaders to vote their way. That is, assuming UT even becomes an option which I still think is unlikely.

Nobody would turn Texas down and it wouldn't matter to the SEC what A&M wanted. Texas would be a net gain for the entire conference and A&M would have to put aside their pride/fear and do what is best for the conference.
Even if Texas ends up in the ACC, my bet would be that the Longhorns would end up playing the A&M every year on rivalry weekend when the rest of the ACC/SEC games take place (the ACC was 4-0 against the SEC last year).

Texas AM will never play Texas again. They think it would help Texas with recruiting to play a SEC team and all the former big 12 teams think Texas had too much power in conference.