How do folks see some sort of a merge with the ACC and Big12 as a solution?

The whole issue is the weak demographics of much of the Big 12 and the massive amount of dead weight of the ACC.

Sure, if you take the prime parts of the Big 12 and ACC it works, but if you don't, you just have the same issue with only a larger conference. The prime parts of this massive conference will still get picked apart by richer conferences once the GOR expires.

Plus, you will never get Texas to give up the LHN or agree to any expansion that large.

(01-17-2016 09:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Personally I don't see the B12 imploding, but there is obvious a lot of smoke courtesy of Boren. So, assuming I am wrong and both OU and UT move resulting then in only 4 power conferences with ND remaining independent...

Let's assume the worse case scenario where the B1G and SEC somehow divvy up Texas and Oklahoma between them to bring about the massive discrepancy between them and the ACC and the PAC.

The fact remains that the ACC and the PAC will remain while the leftover B12 teams not taken as part of whatever expansion results from the above moves will limp along in a similar fashion as the Big East football schools did via the AAC.

The ACC becomes the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner by default. This by itself is a significant improvement in terms of what is happening now for the conference.

As long as no significant ACC team moves as #16 with OU or UT as part of this expansion, the ACC may actually be better off. Will it be significantly behind the B1G and the SEC in terms of $$$. Yes, but they are now.

Will the ACC actually be even or slightly ahead of the PAC, which they may or may not be now in terms of $$$. Yes.

But the ACC survives as a power conference in this scenario, whereas the B12 did not.

The key thing I guess I am saying is that this isn't the end of the world for ACC teams or programs. Now the SEC taking VT and NC State and the B1G taking UNC and UVa, now that would mark the end of the ACC. But something else could possibly replace it that would be better.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I think that scenario is possible if the PAC not only remains intact, but as you alluded to, but did not state, the PAC also remains the independent owner of the PACN. Should they sell a portion of their network to a major corporate network then they too would likely be involved in some of the raiding of the Big 12 for those central time zone slots if nothing else. Why? Their new partners would want those slots and would pay for them. It would no longer be a matter of PAC presidents weighing the value of second state schools from mid western states. If the PAC grows at all it increases the pressure for the ACC to do the same and to do so perhaps with less than ideal candidates, a scenario not unlike the one facing the Big 12 today.

I think one of the better stances by an ACC poster I've heard regarding the present situation (outside of your analysis of the permutations) is that of Esayem who says he has reconciled himself to the fact that the ACC doesn't have to remain as it was for his grandfather. If more people felt that way it would open to door to alternatives and deals that could be worked that would ensure your standing.

I posted and thought that 4 years ago we should have been working proactively to parse the Big 12 between our two conferences and have been open on the possibility of an SEC school and an ACC school being in position to switch between us to make that more feasible. Our past ability to work somewhat more closely with one another has been a strength that the Big 10 can't match. I think it is still the key to our mutual future success, especially as streaming emerges to replace present cable models.

I still believe that the ACC should try to offer a Western division to Texas. The only problem now is ESPN's willingness to sink cash into that venture, which if taken when it was offered in 2010 would have secured your future and your revenue.

Great post JR.

(01-17-2016 09:44 AM)nole Wrote:  How do folks see some sort of a merge with the ACC and Big12 as a solution?

The whole issue is the weak demographics of much of the Big 12 and the massive amount of dead weight of the ACC.

Sure, if you take the prime parts of the Big 12 and ACC it works, but if you don't, you just have the same issue with only a larger conference. The prime parts of this massive conference will still get picked apart by richer conferences once the GOR expires.

Plus, you will never get Texas to give up the LHN or agree to any expansion that large.

One way that it would help is in fan support. That area is all about college football & they have rabid fan bases. The ACC has large population markets but proportionately small college fan bases. The ACC footprint is largely pro sports driven. I'm not saying take any group because it would only work with a regional brand name. If you just put TCU, Baylor, Kansas St & Iowa State then they will fall far behind Texas, A&M & Oklahoma & become dead weight.

(01-17-2016 09:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Personally I don't see the B12 imploding, but there is obvious a lot of smoke courtesy of Boren. So, assuming I am wrong and both OU and UT move resulting then in only 4 power conferences with ND remaining independent...

Let's assume the worse case scenario where the B1G and SEC somehow divvy up Texas and Oklahoma between them to bring about the massive discrepancy between them and the ACC and the PAC.

The fact remains that the ACC and the PAC will remain while the leftover B12 teams not taken as part of whatever expansion results from the above moves will limp along in a similar fashion as the Big East football schools did via the AAC.

The ACC becomes the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner by default. This by itself is a significant improvement in terms of what is happening now for the conference.

As long as no significant ACC team moves as #16 with OU or UT as part of this expansion, the ACC may actually be better off. Will it be significantly behind the B1G and the SEC in terms of $$$. Yes, but they are now.

Will the ACC actually be even or slightly ahead of the PAC, which they may or may not be now in terms of $$$. Yes.

But the ACC survives as a power conference in this scenario, whereas the B12 did not.

The key thing I guess I am saying is that this isn't the end of the world for ACC teams or programs. Now the SEC taking VT and NC State and the B1G taking UNC and UVa, now that would mark the end of the ACC. But something else could possibly replace it that would be better.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, I think that scenario is possible if the PAC not only remains intact, but as you alluded to, but did not state, the PAC also remains the independent owner of the PACN. Should they sell a portion of their network to a major corporate network then they too would likely be involved in some of the raiding of the Big 12 for those central time zone slots if nothing else. Why? Their new partners would want those slots and would pay for them. It would no longer be a matter of PAC presidents weighing the value of second state schools from mid western states. If the PAC grows at all it increases the pressure for the ACC to do the same and to do so perhaps with less than ideal candidates, a scenario not unlike the one facing the Big 12 today.

Some good things in your post and then one not so well thought out. I'll respond to the latter first.

I can't tell you how much I disagree with this notion of central time zone showings being of import. It's only important to a network if there are quality teams in those time zones that viewers will tune in to watch. Which for the B12 is Texas and Oklahoma.

As for the PAC, they have had plenty of opportunities to manufacture both central and even eastern time zone games from the talked about joint network with the ACC (that would likely have come with some type of scheduling agreement), to turning down the scheduling agreement with the B1G so as not to have give up the USC and Stanford ND games, to not offering an invite to Oklahoma and OSU back in 2011.

Now maybe they have rethought this, but unless the PAC gets one of those two (Texas or Oklahoma), I just don't see time zone location being a good enough reason for them to expand. And the scenario you are responding to involves the B1G and the SEC getting one each of Texas and Oklahoma.

As for the conference network, as we have seen, it works for the two conferences that have rabid fan bases in the South and the Midwest. Not so much for the PAC or the ACC. And despite what Boren may or may not think, I don't see it working for the B12 either. So again, with the scenario you are responding to, without Texas or Oklahoma, I just don't see how OSU, TTU, Baylor, and TCU would help in terms of a PACN.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-17-2016 09:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Personally I don't see the B12 imploding, but there is obvious a lot of smoke courtesy of Boren. So, assuming I am wrong and both OU and UT move resulting then in only 4 power conferences with ND remaining independent...

Let's assume the worse case scenario where the B1G and SEC somehow divvy up Texas and Oklahoma between them to bring about the massive discrepancy between them and the ACC and the PAC.

The fact remains that the ACC and the PAC will remain while the leftover B12 teams not taken as part of whatever expansion results from the above moves will limp along in a similar fashion as the Big East football schools did via the AAC.

The ACC becomes the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner by default. This by itself is a significant improvement in terms of what is happening now for the conference.

As long as no significant ACC team moves as #16 with OU or UT as part of this expansion, the ACC may actually be better off. Will it be significantly behind the B1G and the SEC in terms of $$$. Yes, but they are now.

Will the ACC actually be even or slightly ahead of the PAC, which they may or may not be now in terms of $$$. Yes.

But the ACC survives as a power conference in this scenario, whereas the B12 did not.

The key thing I guess I am saying is that this isn't the end of the world for ACC teams or programs. Now the SEC taking VT and NC State and the B1G taking UNC and UVa, now that would mark the end of the ACC. But something else could possibly replace it that would be better.

Cheers,
Neil

I think one of the better stances by an ACC poster I've heard regarding the present situation (outside of your analysis of the permutations) is that of Esayem who says he has reconciled himself to the fact that the ACC doesn't have to remain as it was for his grandfather. If more people felt that way it would open to door to alternatives and deals that could be worked that would ensure your standing.

I posted and thought that 4 years ago we should have been working proactively to parse the Big 12 between our two conferences and have been open on the possibility of an SEC school and an ACC school being in position to switch between us to make that more feasible. Our past ability to work somewhat more closely with one another has been a strength that the Big 10 can't match. I think it is still the key to our mutual future success, especially as streaming emerges to replace present cable models.

I still believe that the ACC should try to offer a Western division to Texas. The only problem now is ESPN's willingness to sink cash into that venture, which if taken when it was offered in 2010 would have secured your future and your revenue.

Some good thoughts here, but I think the Western division would only work if the ACC expanded to 20:

East - WVU, Pitt, Louisville, BC, and SU
Mid-Atlantic - UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, and Duke
South - FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and Wake
West - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Baylor, and TCU

If let's say OU and KU to either the B1G or SEC then

West - Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU, and Houston maybe

And I just don't see that happening myself. If conferences decide to grow beyond 16, might as well just have two conferences under the B1G and SEC umbrellas.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-17-2016 11:04 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 09:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Personally I don't see the B12 imploding, but there is obvious a lot of smoke courtesy of Boren. So, assuming I am wrong and both OU and UT move resulting then in only 4 power conferences with ND remaining independent...

Let's assume the worse case scenario where the B1G and SEC somehow divvy up Texas and Oklahoma between them to bring about the massive discrepancy between them and the ACC and the PAC.

The fact remains that the ACC and the PAC will remain while the leftover B12 teams not taken as part of whatever expansion results from the above moves will limp along in a similar fashion as the Big East football schools did via the AAC.

The ACC becomes the SEC's Sugar Bowl partner by default. This by itself is a significant improvement in terms of what is happening now for the conference.

As long as no significant ACC team moves as #16 with OU or UT as part of this expansion, the ACC may actually be better off. Will it be significantly behind the B1G and the SEC in terms of $$$. Yes, but they are now.

Will the ACC actually be even or slightly ahead of the PAC, which they may or may not be now in terms of $$$. Yes.

But the ACC survives as a power conference in this scenario, whereas the B12 did not.

The key thing I guess I am saying is that this isn't the end of the world for ACC teams or programs. Now the SEC taking VT and NC State and the B1G taking UNC and UVa, now that would mark the end of the ACC. But something else could possibly replace it that would be better.

Cheers,
Neil

I think one of the better stances by an ACC poster I've heard regarding the present situation (outside of your analysis of the permutations) is that of Esayem who says he has reconciled himself to the fact that the ACC doesn't have to remain as it was for his grandfather. If more people felt that way it would open to door to alternatives and deals that could be worked that would ensure your standing.

I posted and thought that 4 years ago we should have been working proactively to parse the Big 12 between our two conferences and have been open on the possibility of an SEC school and an ACC school being in position to switch between us to make that more feasible. Our past ability to work somewhat more closely with one another has been a strength that the Big 10 can't match. I think it is still the key to our mutual future success, especially as streaming emerges to replace present cable models.

I still believe that the ACC should try to offer a Western division to Texas. The only problem now is ESPN's willingness to sink cash into that venture, which if taken when it was offered in 2010 would have secured your future and your revenue.

Some good thoughts here, but I think the Western division would only work if the ACC expanded to 20:

East - WVU, Pitt, Louisville, BC, and SU
Mid-Atlantic - UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, and Duke
South - FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, and Wake
West - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Baylor, and TCU

If let's say OU and KU to either the B1G or SEC then

West - Texas, TTU, Baylor, TCU, and Houston maybe

And I just don't see that happening myself. If conferences decide to grow beyond 16, might as well just have two conferences under the B1G and SEC umbrellas.

Cheers,
Neil

I had in mind a more optimistic scenario. Remember I still favor 18 because once we are reduced to a P4 what the ACC asked for this year will become very beneficial to the SEC and Big 10 at that time.

Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame*, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Baylor, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas*, T.C.U.

This format works for whether Texas and Notre Dame are partial or full members. If partial their 5 conference games of 6 are played against their division. Win their division and they get a spot in the 4 team playoff round where the three division winners and the best remaining full member have a slot. They each play a 6th conference game every year against the Central division members. Every 6 years Texas and Notre Dame rotate through the central division.

If everyone is a full member you move to 9 conference games. You play the 5 in your division and rotate two each from the other two divisions annually. In three years you've played all schools.

Wait....the ACC is 14 and Big 12 is 10.....so if you guys want a 20 team conference.....who are you kicking out?

(01-17-2016 12:05 PM)nole Wrote:  Wait....the ACC is 14 and Big 12 is 10.....so if you guys want a 20 team conference.....who are you kicking out?

Whether a conference is 16 or 18 members they still need divisional changes to make scheduling easier.

If you take enough schools to move to 18 then you can accommodate Texas and/or N.D. as a full member or a partial one. The SEC would simply move to 16 and the Big 10 as well. There is no need of a 20 team conference if the ACC secures itself and the SEC will be fine with 1 more brand and a traveling companion.

It is a move that would restore stability.

(01-17-2016 12:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-16-2016 11:22 PM)nole Wrote:  How come nobody ever gets made at Apple and their cash reserves? Think they don't use slave labor to make Billions and hold pools of cash?

Same with Nike, Microsoft, etc,, etc.

If the left loves you you get a pass.....if you are conservative from Ark, the skewer you.

At the end of the day....nobody has principals.....just political teams they root for called Dem/Rep.

Not an attack JRsec, you are a solid poster, but I find the subject distasteful and dishonest.

LOL! I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I didn't say the other's weren't corrupt. But I witnessed the other in my first life, and back when Wal Mart was a more wholesome company than it is today.

Democrats and Republicans are paid for by the same corporate money. It's true one wears blue and the other red on election day, but they all get their green from the same pockets and they don't work for us. They give you issues like pro gay / anti gay, pro gun / anti gun, pro abortion / pro life, etc, etc, etc, but all of those issues are the fodder for the masses so that they believe when they go to the polls and vote they have made a difference. Meanwhile back at the Hill it is business as usual for conglomerates and their lobbyists.

So while you find the subject "distasteful and dishonest" I just find it is more than the average American wants to digest. The reason is simple. Either most of us, or our children or grandchildren have to earn a living for one of those giants of trade and to speak out against them at a time when almost everything we say or do is recorded makes us fearful, if not for ourselves, for our loved ones. Now that's honest, but still very distasteful. I just hope someday we collectively have the guts to deal with it, but in a way that is legal and peaceful.

BTW for disclosure purposes I am a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. I believe in a strong national defense and the rights guaranteed to the citizens by the constitution, and the obligation of the citizens to support their government through their involvement in the process. What I don't believe in are 30 second sound bites to influence the masses instead of in depth explanations of complex problems which the public needs in order to be better informed if they are to make informed decisions as its citizens. I can't believe what the election process has turned into today. But I won't trouble this thread with more. It's just that the Wal Mart remark was inflammatory and I saw it as an opportunity to inform.

JR, love to see a fellow free thinking Libertarian who really is aware of what is going on. Kudos sir.

As long as WVU doesn't get an invite to The ACC I'm good. I would take anyone else in The Big 12 and just about anyone in The AAC over WVU. I don't want to ever travel to Morgantown again.
CJ

(01-17-2016 03:40 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  As long as WVU doesn't get an invite to The ACC I'm good. I would take anyone else in The Big 12 and just about anyone in The AAC over WVU. I don't want to ever travel to Morgantown again.
CJ

Jim, even though I cant stand WV and what they stand for I would love to see them in the ACC. SU fans get up for that game similar to the way we get up for BC. I have no hate for BC but I love it when we play them, ever since Diamond Ferri was tackled into the stands at BC by frustrated BC defenders, back in 2004.

(01-17-2016 05:26 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 03:40 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  As long as WVU doesn't get an invite to The ACC I'm good. I would take anyone else in The Big 12 and just about anyone in The AAC over WVU. I don't want to ever travel to Morgantown again.
CJ

Jim, even though I cant stand WV and what they stand for I would love to see them in the ACC. SU fans get up for that game similar to the way we get up for BC. I have no hate for BC but I love it when we play them, ever since Diamond Ferri was tackled into the stands at BC by frustrated BC defenders, back in 2004.

+1

WVU is one of the great evils, but games against WVU always mean something - no matter the sport, no matter how good either team is.

(01-17-2016 10:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:26 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 03:40 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  As long as WVU doesn't get an invite to The ACC I'm good. I would take anyone else in The Big 12 and just about anyone in The AAC over WVU. I don't want to ever travel to Morgantown again.
CJ

Jim, even though I cant stand WV and what they stand for I would love to see them in the ACC. SU fans get up for that game similar to the way we get up for BC. I have no hate for BC but I love it when we play them, ever since Diamond Ferri was tackled into the stands at BC by frustrated BC defenders, back in 2004.

+1

WVU is one of the great evils, but games against WVU always mean something - no matter the sport, no matter how good either team is.

As much as it pains me I would have to agree as well. West vu in the ACC would mean about 4-6 INSTANT Rivalries......and I mean HEATED Rivalries!!!!!

I would vote them in but I would throw tomatoes at them while doing it.
FLossY Out...

How do you collect on both an exit fee and a GoR? Could a departing team not be shown on TV without a breach?

Wonder if FSU's BOT believes they were promised a conference network......



https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1758834

"A few minutes later, after the discussion turned to finances, Burr raised a topic that he described as the "800-pound gorilla" in the room - conference television networks and the money they can generate for member institutions.

"All of the Big Five is going to have one except for us if we don't get something moving soon," Burr said. "And that's a major revenue source."

The Big Ten and Pac-12 both had cable channels up and running when the ACC signed its Grant of Rights, and the SEC Network went live last summer. That leaves the ACC and Big 12 as the only Power Five conferences without one … and the millions of dollars they can generate for each school each year.

The ACC never projected it would have a cable channel in place by now - the earliest goals mentioned by conference athletic directors and presidents have been 2016 or 2017 - but Burr said he would like to see signs of tangible progress. He reminded the other trustees that the channel's viability was one of the reasons FSU agreed to the Grant of Rights. Before that agreement was approved, Swofford traveled to Tallahassee and met individually with each trustee to offer them assurances about the conference's future.

There was "a big commitment from the conference to this university a few years ago on that issue. I'm sure no one's forgotten," Burr said. "

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/col...s/2113527/

But instead of attending the public workshop in St. Teresa, he and Jordan opted to meet one-on-one with any trustees who might be interested the day before, March 6, at FSU's Turnbull Center. By meeting individually, those discussions were kept private, legally circumventing the state's sunshine laws.

It is believed every trustee except Joseph Camps, and the faculty and student board members, came for individual meetings with Swofford and Jordan.

"The huge differentiator is a network," Barron said. "The Big Ten Network is the biggest differentiator in finances going into a conference budget. I believe the SEC is busily working at it, and so is the ACC."

WVU games with Louisville and Pitt were some of the best Sports bar action going. Always emotional and highly entertaining to watch over some Beers ! I would vote Them in but I won't go to Morgantown to watch .

(01-18-2016 09:09 PM)nole Wrote:  Wonder if FSU's BOT believes they were promised a conference network......



https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1758834

"A few minutes later, after the discussion turned to finances, Burr raised a topic that he described as the "800-pound gorilla" in the room - conference television networks and the money they can generate for member institutions.

"All of the Big Five is going to have one except for us if we don't get something moving soon," Burr said. "And that's a major revenue source."

The Big Ten and Pac-12 both had cable channels up and running when the ACC signed its Grant of Rights, and the SEC Network went live last summer. That leaves the ACC and Big 12 as the only Power Five conferences without one … and the millions of dollars they can generate for each school each year.

The ACC never projected it would have a cable channel in place by now - the earliest goals mentioned by conference athletic directors and presidents have been 2016 or 2017 - but Burr said he would like to see signs of tangible progress. He reminded the other trustees that the channel's viability was one of the reasons FSU agreed to the Grant of Rights. Before that agreement was approved, Swofford traveled to Tallahassee and met individually with each trustee to offer them assurances about the conference's future.

There was "a big commitment from the conference to this university a few years ago on that issue. I'm sure no one's forgotten," Burr said. "

Good find. Seems pretty clear.

Mark,
What is tough for FSU, is when this point is made and FSU gets shouted down as liars or complainers.

Yet, it is clearly true.

Things are not good when this is the type of atmosphere in the ACC. It is tough enough have revenue issues....but when it is a situation where it is that toxic.....tough to live with

Swofford didn't meet with individual FSU BOT members IN PRIVATE, including one at his home, in order to promise them nothing. Was FSU's BOT foolish to believe him YES....ABSOLUTELY.

But the same folks who instantly resort to "it's FSU's own fault" are the same who are mad FSU doesn't trust Swofford now.

The ACC simply isn't a healthy conference and these situations are toxic.

Not good.

(01-19-2016 10:12 AM)nole Wrote:  Mark,
What is tough for FSU, is when this point is made and FSU gets shouted down as liars or complainers.

Yet, it is clearly true.

Things are not good when this is the type of atmosphere in the ACC. It is tough enough have revenue issues....but when it is a situation where it is that toxic.....tough to live with

Swofford didn't meet with individual FSU BOT members IN PRIVATE, including one at his home, in order to promise them nothing. Was FSU's BOT foolish to believe him YES....ABSOLUTELY.

But the same folks who instantly resort to "it's FSU's own fault" are the same who are mad FSU doesn't trust Swofford now.

The ACC simply isn't a healthy conference and these situations are toxic.

Not good.

If a conference commissioner resorts to lying to member school BOT representatives, that commissioner should be fired immediately.