(01-15-2016 01:48 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Reading those two pieces has reinforced what I have already believed -- despite the rhetoric from our The Big XII is lying on a huge fault line.

----

Man, Boren simply put it out there...
Football Schools Contingent:


He all but indicated that OU is heading to the B1G at some point when the timing is right.
That timing will likely depend on guaranteeing that Oklahoma State has an SEC landing spot b/c that's the only way it'll work, because the B1G doesn't need two Oklahoma schools.

can you name a single poster on this board from the "Football Schools Contingent" that claimed the Big 12 was good shape, safe, or anything near those things?

(01-15-2016 02:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If OU does go to the B1G I consider the B1G to have reached original SoCon level instability. The only thing holding that band of REALLY far apart REALLY diverse interests together is huge paychecks. If at any point those paychecks are no longer bigger than everywhere else, there would be great instability along the fringes (Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma). I think Rutgers is still too powerless to do much more than go "WOW GUYS LOOK AT THESE NYC TV SET NUMBERS RIGHT??"

The core of B1G will likely remain stable ... but those fringe schools share nothing in common with the rank and file rust belt B1G.

It seems more and more, folks are ignoring that something has changed.

The loss of cable subscribers is pointing to schools like Mizzou, Rutgers, etc are going to be less valuable in the future because bundling is going away.

In the future, it will be about brands again and actually teams that draw ratings.


Yes, RIGHT NOW, there is value in being able to force entire states to pay for a channel they don't watch due to bundling......but this is changing REAL fast. In 3-5 years, it won't be there.


I think folks still have the mindset that there is value in a state, but not the brand.

Texas and Oklahoma as 15th and 16th ACC football schools would be sweet.

(01-15-2016 02:15 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma as 15th and 16th ACC football schools would be sweet.

I don't consider that viable or stable either ... in fact not even free of political and legal fallout.

So we need a ninja & not a ginja?

so if the big 12 fell apart would the ACC be interested in any of the scraps? Baylor? TCU? OSU? etc You could have them if you wanted them otherwise it would be the American and MWC for some of them.

(01-15-2016 02:25 PM)TopCoog2016 Wrote:  so if the big 12 fell apart would the ACC be interested in any of the scraps? Baylor? TCU? OSU? etc You could have them if you wanted them otherwise it would be the American and MWC for some of them.

I don't think so. ACC doesn't have a Network like the SEC/B1G where you can add the channel to the state cable bundle and rake in cash.

So you would just split the money with more teams.

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

Why the hate for Swofford in this thread?

ACC
South FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia

North ND, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, NC State, WF

Central Texas, TCU, Houston, Louisville, Miami, VT

Play 5 in division, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 in each division.

Rivals
ND-Texas
FSU-Miami
VT-Virginia
NC-NC State
Duke-WF
GT-BC
Clemson-Louisville
Pitt-TCU
Syr-Houston

Oklahoma, Oklahoma St,TT, Iowa St go to the PAC.

WV & Baylor to the SEC.

Kansas & UCONN to the B1G.

Kansas State replaces Houston in the AAC.

(01-15-2016 02:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

The ACC can absolutely make sure Texas lands here if they leave. Even better, we can do that while sucking all the Big XII's wealth into OU and Texas. All we have to do is offer Texas a ND deal.

Best case, the Big XII matches and OU then uses their position at the top of the conference to push through OU-friendly reforms.

Worst case, the ACC adds Texas as a partial.

Either way, we win. We are 100% in the driver's seat. Expanding across America by adding 3 terrible adds to get Texas isn't the best case. It's worse than the current case.

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

Lou,
Wouldn't you just want two Big 12 teams if Texas was indeed coming as a partial? That would give the ACC 16 full and 2 partial members.

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

Yup.

We are more likely to see the SEC adding Texas, OU, Kansas, & WVU with the ACC getting Baylor, Texas Tech, OSU & Kansas State than what you listed above.

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

Lou -- I respect your thoughts and opinions to the hilt.

But -- there's no way we in the ACC want Texas Tech and Kansas State. None. We'd stomach Baylor if it meant getting both Texas and Notre Dame to commit to competing for an ACC FB championship.

(01-15-2016 01:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Talk about leverage, B1G contract coming up, PAC 12 network issues, LHN losing huge money, pro rata pay for additions and the fear of them leaving with OSU.
Boren just grabbed Texas by the throat and squeezed.

You are insane if you think Texas isn't sitting perfectly happy. Nobody has Texas by the throat.

Texas is actually making more money with the LHN than they'd be making in ANY other conference. Up until this year the LHN was losing money for ESPN, but Texas has been absolutely banking. It's profitable now for ESPN but it doesn't matter to Texas if they're profitable or not in the short term because the money Texas makes is contracted. They make what they make through the length of the contract.

What's the worst case scenario for Texas? It's not like they won't have a home in another P5 conference if it all falls apart.

(01-15-2016 04:56 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:17 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Talk about leverage, B1G contract coming up, PAC 12 network issues, LHN losing huge money, pro rata pay for additions and the fear of them leaving with OSU.
Boren just grabbed Texas by the throat and squeezed.

You are insane if you think Texas isn't sitting perfectly happy. Nobody has Texas by the throat.

Texas is actually making more money with the LHN than they'd be making in ANY other conference. Up until this year the LHN was losing money for ESPN, but Texas has been absolutely banking. It's profitable now for ESPN but it doesn't matter to Texas if they're profitable or not in the short term because the money Texas makes is contracted. They make what they make through the length of the contract.

What's the worst case scenario for Texas? It's not like they won't have a home in another P5 conference if it all falls apart.

Texas doesn't look happy to me.

(01-15-2016 04:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

Lou,
Wouldn't you just want two Big 12 teams if Texas was indeed coming as a partial? That would give the ACC 16 full and 2 partial members.

If Texas was given the ND deal, I would become the biggest ACC hater on this board and on Twitter. I would be for FSU leaving the ACC alone for the Big 12 before that.

I hope that the minute that comes up for discussion in the ACC, FSU excuses themselves from the room and calls the Big 12 and tells them to hold tight, daddy's coming.

I don't have a problem with the ND deal, but Texas is not remotely Notre Dame and there is no reason for the ACC to give them that type of deal. And to take two other Big 12 teams as full members that are not Texas and Oklahoma would make it infinitely worse. A conference that gets abused by Texas that way is not worth being in.

Texas is NOT Notre Dame. They don't have ND's aura, they don't have ND's national fan base, they don't have ND's presence in the ACC footprint. Nobody in the ACC footprint gives two craps about Texas.

If the ACC wants to sign a scheduling agreement with Texas football that helps them be independent instead of joining the B1G by guaranteeing them four games against ACC schools, that's fine. But allowing them to park their non-revenue sports in the ACC and take bowl games...sorry, Texas doesn't remotely merit that. Let alone place two of their worthless little brothers in the conference.

(01-15-2016 05:34 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 04:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 03:36 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 02:35 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  http://m.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/john...l?mode=jqm

And..

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...7e19e.html

In a nutshell...wants Big 12 to expand, add a championship game, get rid of the LHN and start a Big 12 network.

And he wants it all at once and soon. And if not...Oklahoma is willing to walk. They're willing to challenge the GOR and have always been in contact with other conferences.

This could get crazy. If you're an ACC fan, at least one concerned with revenue, you DON'T want this to happen. If the SEC and B1G carve up OU/Texas and friends, seemingly insurmountable deficits to those conferences become completely hopeless. ACC is better off being a close fifth of five than an incredibly distant fourth of four.

Until the day when realignment puts ND and/or Texas in the ACC, we need status quo. I don't think it's inconceivable that such a day could come, but I have a hard time believing that day is now if the spit hits the fan.

I disagree about the status quo. We need to make sure that Texas comes here if they do leave, and we need to squeeze Baylor, TCU, KSU, WVU, and TT out of being highly competitive. That means concentrating all the Big XII's wealth in Texas and OU. They've already exhausted diminishing returns with their spending.

But the ACC can't "make sure Texas comes here". The ACC has some things to offer Texas, but so do other conferences. And Texas can go literally anywhere, or probably nowhere. They could strike a ND-deal with the remaining Big 12 and go independent.

The ACC isn't calling the shots here. Unless Swofford and ESPN can pull together something out of thin air and win the day, this will end up worse for the ACC than better.

The best scenario for the ACC would be the SEC and ACC expanding to 18 at the same time with the SEC taking:

Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, WVU

And the ACC taking:

Texas, TT, Baylor, KSU

I don't see Texas coming as a full member without a Texas contingent in full tow. A move like that, could it be colluded, checks a ton of boxes:

- Eight B12 teams for dissolution, goodbye GOR
- Texas-OU, WVU-Pitt, KU-KSU added to the four current ACC-SEC rivalries
- OU keeps their presence in Texas
- KU-MU resumed, Bedlam retained, TX-TAMU occurs semi-regularly like UF-Miami and UGA-Clemson
- Texas gets to bring in-state vassals that no other conference will take
- Longhorn Network is preserved in some form as a branded arm of the ACC Network
- The SEC keeps the B1G out of the south

Beside the fact I don't know how you schedule for 18, that's about a clean a break as you're going to get.

And that presupposes the SEC would take OSU, Kansas and WVU, none of which will set SEC SEC SEC hearts aflame. But they might do it if it keeps TX and OU out of the B1G and the B1G out of the south.

Lou,
Wouldn't you just want two Big 12 teams if Texas was indeed coming as a partial? That would give the ACC 16 full and 2 partial members.

If Texas was given the ND deal, I would become the biggest ACC hater on this board and on Twitter. I would be for FSU leaving the ACC alone for the Big 12 before that.

I hope that the minute that comes up for discussion in the ACC, FSU excuses themselves from the room and calls the Big 12 and tells them to hold tight, daddy's coming.

I don't have a problem with the ND deal, but Texas is not remotely Notre Dame and there is no reason for the ACC to give them that type of deal. And to take two other Big 12 teams as full members that are not Texas and Oklahoma would make it infinitely worse. A conference that gets abused by Texas that way is not worth being in.

Texas is NOT Notre Dame. They don't have ND's aura, they don't have ND's national fan base, they don't have ND's presence in the ACC footprint. Nobody in the ACC footprint gives two craps about Texas.

If the ACC wants to sign a scheduling agreement with Texas football that helps them be independent instead of joining the B1G by guaranteeing them four games against ACC schools, that's fine. But allowing them to park their non-revenue sports in the ACC and take bowl games...sorry, Texas doesn't remotely merit that. Let alone place two of their worthless little brothers in the conference.

I feel the same way and have stated this many times. Forget Texas and a partial deal. Texas is NOT ND.

I'm probably in the minority but I don't think the Notre Dame deal is a bad thing for the ACC at all. What does the conference get out of it?
- keeps Notre Dame out of any other conference
- guarantees an average of 5 quality match-ups per year
- gets a little more TV money from ESPN
- gets a little more money from some bowls (NOT all)
- ND earns more NCAA basketball credits than they take

IMO, Texas can check those same boxes. No problem with Olympic sports in the ACC either. The only things you'd have to be cautious about are:
- don't give Texas too much bowl access; I'd start them at the Sun Bowl instead of the Russell Athletic (like ND).
- don't give Texas too much influence (not sure they'd get it anyway)

Other thoughts:
- I'd also explore adding them to the Orange Bowl deal if possible (instead of Notre Dame 2x in 12 years, make it either ND or Texas 2x). More likely to happen (ND is not guaranteed to get ANY Orange Bowl bids - ever)
- Don't want anyone else, but I'd entertain the idea of 2 more Texas teams (say Baylor and TCU), PROVIDED that was used as leverage to get a conference cable network the way the SEC used Texas A&M and Missouri.
____________________

"May you live in interesting times"