Lets dust of the crystal ball.

I can see the B12 announcing that they will be expanding by two. In February they will announce that a search committee will be formed to study the candidates & decide whether 2 or 4 will be added. Sometime between November & February they well announce who they will add for the 2019 season, allowing them to give proper notice to their conference, & that a CCG will be added. They will then begin discussions on the divisional breakdown. They will then begin a viability study for a B12N. In 2019 they will announce that they will partner with Fox on a B12N starting in time for football season in 2021. However, after the 2019 football season, Oklahoma announces that they will be leaving the B12 with Oklahoma St for the SEC for the 2022 season citing discord over divisional lineup & unfair considerations for Texas over the LHN. This ends the B12N. They will forgo their last 3 years of the GOR. Texas & Kansas soon after announce their plans to join the B1G in 2022 as well. Eventually TCU, Baylor, WV & Iowa State work out a deal to join the ACC for 2023 & the ACCN launches in 2023. The timeline could be speeded up to 2021 as well. Essentially these will be stall tactics to ride out the GOR.

Autonomy will be passed by the P4 that starting around 2022 a 4 team CCG series can be played & allow for more than 2 divisions. The CFP adopts a champion only model which leads to ND joining the ACC with Houston around 2025.

ACC
North ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, WV

South FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, WF

West TCU, Baylor, Houston, Iowa St, Louisville

East NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State

ACC plays 4 division, I rival & 1 from 3 other divisions for 8 games.

(01-15-2016 06:02 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  What if Texas as partial meant a bump up in the TV contract & a network? Would that additional revenue be worth taking a partial Texas with TCU & Baylor as full members?

No.

Texas wants too much and I'm not sore any conference is going to acquiesce to all of their demands but they hold all the cards since all the other conferences would take them in a minute.

I just don't see anyone except Oklahoma or Texas from The Big 12 that would add any value to The ACC (In my best WVU impersonation.)

I've read that statement for years from those idiots in Morgantown on this board, on the Louisville boards, all over Twitter, all over the Internet.

WVU fans told us for years how The ACC would never get a GOR. Then WVU fans told us how The ACC would never make the CFP. (Ironic that The Big 12 got left out last year and had no business being in this year judging from their representatives performance.)

With all that's going on in The Big 12, I would like nothing better than to see that conference implode and force WVU back to where the came from.
CJ

(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.

Swofford should be on the phone with boren and Sankey to figure out how to invite 8 of the 10 between them, whether it be 6-2 or 4-4.

(01-17-2016 05:20 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Swofford should be on the phone with boren and Sankey to figure out how to invite 8 of the 10 between them, whether it be 6-2 or 4-4.

I would certainly hope that some calls have been made.

(01-18-2016 09:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:20 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Swofford should be on the phone with boren and Sankey to figure out how to invite 8 of the 10 between them, whether it be 6-2 or 4-4.

I would certainly hope that some calls have been made.

Problem is it's Swofford so if he made any calls it was probably just to Kansas.

Did anyone see the Texas response from President Gregory L. Fenves?

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/sports/c...ial/np6YY/

“The University of Texas is a proud member of the Big 12,” Fenves said. “It is a vibrant and competitive conference with a great future, and I look forward to discussing ideas for a conference championship game at the Big 12 board meeting next month.”

“I am also proud of the television partnerships that we have both as a conference, with ABC/ESPN and Fox, and as a university, with the Longhorn Network,” he said. “UT is committed to these long-term partnerships, which showcase athletics teams from multiple sports across the conference. After realignment in 2010 and 2011, all Big 12 universities agreed they could develop individual partnerships to complement the conference television agreements. All of the universities have done so, including UT through our partner, ESPN, with the Longhorn Network.”

(01-18-2016 10:31 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 09:46 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 05:20 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Swofford should be on the phone with boren and Sankey to figure out how to invite 8 of the 10 between them, whether it be 6-2 or 4-4.

I would certainly hope that some calls have been made.

Problem is it's Swofford so if he made any calls it was probably just to Kansas.

..................

I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Conference with 16 or more teams don't need a pod system. That might suit some conferences and not others. Every conference has its unique dynamics - they don't all have to be in lockstep.

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Have you got a link to the verbiage?

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

(01-18-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

Which would mean the CCG deregulation was really about leverage and why a prior 10 or 11 team conference couldn't get an exemption.

(01-18-2016 07:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

Which would mean the CCG deregulation was really about leverage and why a prior 10 or 11 team conference couldn't get an exemption.

Yes with regards to the Big 12. No with regards to the ACC. The unspoken issue with the ACC's seeking deregulation was that the unintended consequences for the Big 10 and SEC would be schools like Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, etc., seeking to avoid all of their round robin divisional play. That would have created political chaos for both conferences with regards to the schools that depend upon those top brands coming every other year to promote season ticket book sales. While we sell out a high percentage of our venues a season ticket book for a Western Division school is quite the prize. Take out Alabama, or L.S.U. regularly and that prize is quite deflated. So what works for the ACC might be a bane for other conferences.

ACC leaders didn't know what they wanted, so they asked for complete deregulation. Had they made up their minds and asked for something specific (like the freedom to skip one team in division every year), that would've been much more likely to pass. But the B1G and SEC were spooked by a wide-open rules.

(01-18-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

In theory, but of course in practice with 14, it has been a pain for the B1G, SEC, and ACC. Don't see that improving much expanding to 16. Do you?

And of the three, I believe only the B1G has officially decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-18-2016 10:39 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

In theory, but of course in practice with 14, it has been a pain for the B1G, SEC, and ACC. Don't see that improving much expanding to 16. Do you?

And of the three, I believe only the B1G has officially decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

No Neal it's not in theory for the SEC. We will move to 9 when we get paid to do so. Expansion would do that. All we need are two to the West:

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Addition 1, Addition 2, Texas A&M

The only two quasi rivalries lost here are Miss State and Alabama which is overwhelmingly one sided and L.S.U. / Alabama which the Tigers from the bayou would love to escape. Their oldest rivalry from decades ago was A&M and they have a new found hatred of the Hogs, and their bitterest SEC rival is Ole Miss.

It works great for us.

(01-18-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 10:39 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 03:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:50 PM)JAE_VT Wrote:  I just have to ask, why on Earth would any conference expand beyond 14? It already feels like the Atlantic and Coastal are two separate conferences who happen to share the same name and just have a scheduling agreement. I get the whole pod system, but has anyone read the new conference championship game rule. In the compromise for the Big 12 they still referenced "full round robin play." Since the ACC has more than 12 teams, it would still have to have two divisions with full round robin play within those divisions. The rules, as they are currently written, do not seem to allow the pod system that would be needed for a conference with 16 or more teams.

Exactly which is why the B1G amendment and subsequent SEC support of that amendment indicates to me that despite what we have been told by some of the best conference realignment thinkers/posters, neither the B1G nor the SEC are ready yet for further expansion.

My own belief is that they want to settle at 14 for now and think about expansion (if indeed they do expand) sometime in the next decade.

I don't believe the ACC proposal was about further expansion either. I think it was more about the not having to play everyone in your division every year. So I see the passing of the B1G amendment over what the ACC proposed as another misfire by Swofford.

Cheers,
Neil

At 16 with a 9 game conference schedule it is still quite workable provided:
1. You place all important rivalries within the same division
2. You have no permanent cross over games.
3. You rotate two schools from the other division every year and then reciprocate the home and away after 4 years.

by doing that you can maintain two 8 team divisions that play a full round robin within the division and rotate two schools each year from the other division and cycle through the entire conference every 4 years.

Now that said as to the rules on more than two divisions, once we are down to a P4 all it would take is the utilization of the aforementioned scheduling model for 1 year and a new vote on divisions could permit whatever is needed.

Besides, those members of the new P4 might only need to invoke "autonomy" at that point to achieve their ends at a called meeting of just their representatives. If that is not permitted there is always the option to breakaway.

In theory, but of course in practice with 14, it has been a pain for the B1G, SEC, and ACC. Don't see that improving much expanding to 16. Do you?

And of the three, I believe only the B1G has officially decided to go to a 9 game conference schedule.

Cheers,
Neil

No Neal it's not in theory for the SEC. We will move to 9 when we get paid to do so. Expansion would do that. All we need are two to the West:

SEC East:
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Miss State, Missouri, Addition 1, Addition 2, Texas A&M

The only two quasi rivalries lost here are Miss State and Alabama which is overwhelmingly one sided and L.S.U. / Alabama which the Tigers from the bayou would love to escape. Their oldest rivalry from decades ago was A&M and they have a new found hatred of the Hogs, and their bitterest SEC rival is Ole Miss.

It works great for us.

Unless of course you don't get either Texas or Oklahoma for one of the two western additions. Without knowing who the additions are at this time, three of the four current brand names in the above set-up are in the East.

Cheers,
Neil