Everyone is throwing out their guesses on realignment but I think Texas and Kansas would be the best pick ups for the ACC, the SEC/ACC challenge could add Texas/A&M and Missouri/Kansas.

(07-29-2015 03:38 PM)Hitman Hart Wrote:  

...without Oklahoma and Notre Dame, too!

I'm all up in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. The acc needs to sell its soul to those schools.

(07-29-2015 07:46 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I'm all up in Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma. The acc needs to sell its soul to those schools.

And bring ND all in.

Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

I would take TCU, but agree on the others.

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

Would you consider moving BC and Syracuse to the Coastal Division, and adding Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to the Atlantic? Or putting Miami in the Atlantic and West Virginia in the Coastal?

ACC would have to add either one or three schools to accommodate adding ND if/when that ever became a possibility. Adding UT would be monumental from a respect standpoint. If that brings ND to the table the ACC is right there with the big boys from a perception standpoint. A top tier of ND, UT, FSU, Clem is strong. When your middle tier is UofL, Mia and VT you are a very good conference.

(07-30-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

Would you consider moving BC and Syracuse to the Coastal Division, and adding Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to the Atlantic? Or putting Miami in the Atlantic and West Virginia in the Coastal?

If you add that many schools you would have to go to pods wouldn't you? You are talking nine schools per division if not. Even with a nine game conference slate you would only play the teams in the other division every nine years

(07-30-2015 01:35 PM)Jimi357 Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

Would you consider moving BC and Syracuse to the Coastal Division, and adding Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to the Atlantic? Or putting Miami in the Atlantic and West Virginia in the Coastal?

If you add that many schools you would have to go to pods wouldn't you? You are talking nine schools per division if not. Even with a nine game conference slate you would only play the teams in the other division every nine years

I would play an 8 game schedule with no crossovers except in the CCG.

How about 3 divisions of 6

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Miami, Louisville, WF

ND, VT, Pittsburgh, BC, Syracuse, NC State

FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

Play 5 division games plus 1 set rival & 1 from each division for 8 games.

Set rivals could be;
Texas-ND
Virginia-VT
NC-NC State
Duke-WF
Clemson-Oklahoma
FSU-Miami
UL-Pittsburgh
Kansas-Syracuse
GT-BC

(07-30-2015 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

Would you consider moving BC and Syracuse to the Coastal Division, and adding Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to the Atlantic? Or putting Miami in the Atlantic and West Virginia in the Coastal?

18 teams? Makes it hard for cross division play, Home and Home every 18 years. May as well go to 20 with four 5-team pods. I am still not convinced WVU will be welcomed to the ACC with open arms.

I am not as fixated on divisions as many. I like playing FSU (always liked B. Bowden), Pitt (long history, not an exciting rivalry, but a good friend) and Louisville (usually interesting games). I don't hate BC as many Orange fans do, mostly they have been irrelevant when the two teams played, though there were a few games. Regardless, if that is what it takes to get UT and OU in, I am OK with it.

Putting FSU, Clemson, UT, OU, Louisville, WVU, NCState, Kansas and Wake in one division virtually guarantees that the Coastal will win the conference championship year in and year out. Balancing the divisions would be hard, and nobody would want to travel to the Toto-land, regardless of the strength of their division. (If you were going to keep your division, move Wake, too, so the power division would have their built in win as incentive to travel to Kansas).

Personally, living in H-Town, I would be happy because I can travel to Austin and to Norman for games. I even have a place to stay free in Norman (TexanMark, my daughter and son-in-law would make room for you).

(07-30-2015 07:05 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 07:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma, yes. Kansas if necessary. No to OSU, Texas Blech, Baylor, TCU and KSU as tag-alongs.

I would take TCU, but agree on the others.

I like their current play but they are a small private school and do not have a history of sustained commitment to any sport. Plus, they bring no market. Assuming that UT and OU were to join, they carry more of DFW than TCU, Baylor and SMU thrown in for good measure.