(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 07:20 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  As I've said before: If the B1G could just get whoever they wanted, why didn't they get more than Maryland when the opportunity was presented to the other schools? It's a question that none of these ACC Doomsdayers have been able to answer. I'm still trying to figure it out.

They couldn't get them then, but that doesn't mean a school saying no today is a school that will say no tomorrow. TAMU said no to the SEC in 1989-90, and again when Pac-16 was under failed construction. Notre Dame nearly joined the ACC in 1999.

But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 07:20 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  As I've said before: If the B1G could just get whoever they wanted, why didn't they get more than Maryland when the opportunity was presented to the other schools? It's a question that none of these ACC Doomsdayers have been able to answer. I'm still trying to figure it out.

They couldn't get them then, but that doesn't mean a school saying no today is a school that will say no tomorrow. TAMU said no to the SEC in 1989-90, and again when Pac-16 was under failed construction. Notre Dame nearly joined the ACC in 1999.

But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

So what you're saying is that you don't really HAVE a legit reason, therefor giving out a bunch of vague BS? Got it.

(08-03-2015 01:27 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 07:20 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  As I've said before: If the B1G could just get whoever they wanted, why didn't they get more than Maryland when the opportunity was presented to the other schools? It's a question that none of these ACC Doomsdayers have been able to answer. I'm still trying to figure it out.

They couldn't get them then, but that doesn't mean a school saying no today is a school that will say no tomorrow. TAMU said no to the SEC in 1989-90, and again when Pac-16 was under failed construction. Notre Dame nearly joined the ACC in 1999.

But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

So what you're saying is that you don't really HAVE a legit reason, therefor giving out a bunch of vague BS? Got it.

Didn't claim that anyone would leave so not sure why the jerk attitude is on display unless that's just your inherent nature but one thing I've learned in intercollegiate athletics, the fastest way to be proven a fool is declare some school would never do something.

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 07:20 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  As I've said before: If the B1G could just get whoever they wanted, why didn't they get more than Maryland when the opportunity was presented to the other schools? It's a question that none of these ACC Doomsdayers have been able to answer. I'm still trying to figure it out.

They couldn't get them then, but that doesn't mean a school saying no today is a school that will say no tomorrow. TAMU said no to the SEC in 1989-90, and again when Pac-16 was under failed construction. Notre Dame nearly joined the ACC in 1999.

But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

(08-02-2015 06:08 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 08:01 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  The Big12 ending up as C-USA 4.0 could happen. None of this will happen quickly. 2-3 teams will jump. 4-5 teams will get invited. A year or two will pass. 2-3 more schools jump. 2-3 new schools get invited. A year or two will pass. The dominos will fall. The Big12 will NOT DIE. It will live on with new members and reinvent itself. At the bottom, the Sunbelt, however, might die. Might. Depends on what C-USA, or the AAC, does.

If B1G could take Rutgers, they can take West Virginia which has stronger football and basketball program. Both has similar academics standing although Rutgers is a touch better.

Eventually I think

B1G - add West Virgina, Kansas.
Pac 12(16)- add Texas, another Texas school, Oklahoma, OK state.
SEC- stay put.
ACC- stay put.

Big 12- become the second AAC. They will replace 6 schools from pool of SunBelt and Conference USA. I don't think any AAC schools will jump into a depleted Big 12.

PAC16 coastal division: 4 California schools, 2 Washington schools and 2 Oregon schools.
PAC16 eastern division: Utah, Colorado, 2 Arizona schools, 2 Texas schools and 2 Oklahoma schools.

The remains of the Big 12 would be 2 Texas schools (probably Baylor and TCU), Iowa St, and Kansas St. My guess is that group would be fairly attractive to many western division AAC members as well as BYU and Boise. Add Boise, BYU, Houston, SMU and you have a decent 8-team core to build from. My guess is lots of G5 schools would be wiling to join that core in order to get to 12 teams. You could stay mostly central time zone with a bit of the Mountain time zone. Or you could go really big---and go for a nationwide best of the rest. Grab schools like UConn, ECU, UCF, Boise, BYU, Houston, SDSU, Navy, and others to finish up at 12-16 teams.

I still maintain that all but maybe one or two from the BigXII will end up in the new P4.

(08-03-2015 07:15 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I still maintain that all but maybe one or two from the BigXII will end up in the new P4.

As long as you realize the amount of money that the one or two will threaten to sue for should that happen?

Hence the "Maybe"...I'm primarily of the opinion they all land on their feet.

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It's whether or not the ACC is collapsing.

They stabilized when they signed the long GOR, and the odds are quite strong that they will be stable through to near the end of the GOR ... which is about a decade away, and the media marketplace will have changed nearly beyond recognition in that time.

I know a lot of people predict with confidence what things will be like, but the past history is that in these kinds of transitions, there's always something that catches people by surprise.

So the predictions being made for that far in the future seem to be mostly people who want to believe the ACC will hold together projecting changes that are favorable to the ACC and those who want to believe it will fall over in a heap projecting changes that are unfavorable.

If the ACC is collapsing and the Big Ten is still at 14, where 18 is workable (though far from ideal), consider the AWRU/US 2014 rankings:
#17, TSUN
#18, Whiskey
#20, Northwestern, Illinois (tied)
#22, Minnesota
#23, Duke
#27, UNC
#30, Maryland
#34, Rutgers
#37, Penn State
#38, Purdue
#40, tOSU
#52, Georgia Tech
#53-64: Indiana, MSU, Virginia
#65-77: Iowa, UMiami, NC State
#78-104: FSU, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech
#105-125: UConn, Wake Forest
#126-146: BC, Clemson, Syracuse

Not Ranked: Louisville

It seems likely that there could be a mix of 4 schools in there including Georgia Tech that could make the jump ... if a decade from now UNC has decided to give up on the ACC. But that's a hell of a premise to be reaching that conclusion about where things will stand a decade or so from now.

{Indeed, if FSU has continued to climb in the research rankings over the coming decade, even FSU might be in the mix.}

More vagueness and no substance...

(08-03-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 09:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  They couldn't get them then, but that doesn't mean a school saying no today is a school that will say no tomorrow. TAMU said no to the SEC in 1989-90, and again when Pac-16 was under failed construction. Notre Dame nearly joined the ACC in 1999.

But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

No to FSU.

GT doesn't need Florida players. Georgia has quite a bit of talent.

(08-03-2015 10:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 05:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  But why couldn't they? There was no GOR in place at the time. I thought the B1G and SEC could poach whoever, whenever? Isn't that the narrative around here? The getting was good, Maryland was leaving...so what stopped them from taking more if it was TRULY what the B1G wanted to do as everyone here seems to say? Is it, maybe, because those schools just aren't interested in leaving where they are?

Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

No to FSU.

GT doesn't need Florida players. Georgia has quite a bit of talent.

It's not just about recruiting.

(08-03-2015 10:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 08:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Circumstances change, and leaders who are resistant to change have more time to contemplate the situation. Sometimes you are just in a bad place internally to make changes. When Big 10 was sniffing around, Georgia Tech was in administrative transition. Leadership teams change as well. University presidents on average serve 7 years and AD's on average 6.75 years. The leadership team that says no in 2012 is likely not just gone but gone several years in 2019.

If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

No to FSU.

GT doesn't need Florida players. Georgia has quite a bit of talent.

It's not just about recruiting.

Is GT research being funded by the state of Florida? Please elaborate.

(08-03-2015 10:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 09:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If there's any way for the B1G to get Georgia Tech, they need to throw themselves at the chance.

I just don't think it's possible.

It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

No to FSU.

GT doesn't need Florida players. Georgia has quite a bit of talent.

It's not just about recruiting.

Is GT research being funded by the state of Florida? Please elaborate.

Georgia Tech is on the rise locally. They are finally getting some respect again. If they head North without a proper accompaniment of Southern programs, they risk what they are gaining. While Georgia recruiting is good, having strong Florida recruiting as well is pretty damn good.

It's more than just one reason is what I am saying.

(08-03-2015 10:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:43 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 10:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-03-2015 06:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It was only ever possible with the 18-20 team angle that would include Florida State so that GT wouldn't be the Southern most school nor would it lose connection to Florida within conference.

No to FSU.

GT doesn't need Florida players. Georgia has quite a bit of talent.

It's not just about recruiting.

Is GT research being funded by the state of Florida? Please elaborate.

Georgia Tech is on the rise locally. They are finally getting some respect again. If they head North without a proper accompaniment of Southern programs, they risk what they are gaining. While Georgia recruiting is good, having strong Florida recruiting as well is pretty damn good.

It's more than just one reason is what I am saying.

Why do they risk it? And what is "proper" Southern accompaniment?? That sounds like something illegal, if you catch my drift.

You're still too cryptic for me, I'm afraid.

Pac 12 adds Texas, Texas tech, OU, Ok state, K state, Iowa state

Big 10 adds Kansas

SEC adds WVU

ACC adds Tcu, baylor and uconn

Thus, the pac 12 and ACC go to 18 with 3 pods of 6 while the Big 10 and SEC go to 15 with 3 pods of 5. Each league has a 2 game playoff of the 3 pod winners with the highest rated team getting a bye + 1st round on campus 1st week of december.

(08-04-2015 08:58 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Pac 12 adds Texas, Texas tech, OU, Ok state, K state, Iowa state

Big 10 adds Kansas

SEC adds WVU

ACC adds Tcu, baylor and uconn

Thus, the pac 12 and ACC go to 18 with 3 pods of 6 while the Big 10 and SEC go to 15 with 3 pods of 5. Each league has a 2 game playoff of the 3 pod winners with the highest rated team getting a bye + 1st round on campus 1st week of december.

Why would the Big Ten add Kansas alone? At best, Kansas is a 16th to even up the numbers if there is a compelling 15th available and there is no 16th available that is better than Kansas.

And the Pac-12 already turned down OkU and OkSU as a pair, so you are saying that Texas is worth adding Texas Tech, OkState, KS State and Iowa State? Not even Texas has enough value to justify adding so many schools that the PAC12 would otherwise not add.

This is the problem with realignment fever ... people get so involved in working out systems that they forget to work out why the clubs of schools that they are sending schools off to would actually be interested in adding those schools to their club.

I think that setup would work for everybody. I mean not everybody gets all the gold but each league lands a prime school + the key is the rules are changed and the the 4 power leagues can have a 2 game playoff of pod winners. THe big 10 and SEC might only be adding KU and WVU but those are solid additions + they get an extra playoff game. THe pac 12 gets texas and OU while the ACC gets some texas content…espn could pull off an acc network and take some ownership the pac 12 network. OF course, i think the better move for ESPN would be to broker a pac 20. Move the 6 school's of texas, texas tech, ou, ok state, Ku and K state to the pac 12 + convert ownership of LHn into shares of pac 12 network. It doesn't really matter who the final 2 school's for the pac 12 would be….just need to move 2 more from the big 12 into either the pac 12 or ACC to dissolve the league. I would guess ESPN + ND would want 1 from TCU or Baylor to move to the acc for some texas coverage for the ACC, so send TCU to the pac 20 and baylor to the ACC.