(03-06-2016 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason for Texas to go to the ACC

The Big 12 pays out more money than the ACC does so why would Texas leave the Big 12 to make less money from the ACC

and the ACC has more teams that no one cares about playing than the Big 12 so why go there

the sensible thing to do is have the Big 12 play fewer conference games and more OOC games and have a CCG and get paid for it as well while staying at 10 teams

it would be better for all the teams in the Big 12 and the Big 12 as a whole

I prefer this. Texas has too much baggage for the ACC to want to fool with them.

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason for Texas to go to the ACC

The Big 12 pays out more money than the ACC does so why would Texas leave the Big 12 to make less money from the ACC

and the ACC has more teams that no one cares about playing than the Big 12 so why go there

the sensible thing to do is have the Big 12 play fewer conference games and more OOC games and have a CCG and get paid for it as well while staying at 10 teams

it would be better for all the teams in the Big 12 and the Big 12 as a whole

I prefer this. Texas has too much baggage for the ACC to want to fool with them.

The only way that the Big 12 can play fewer conference games & still have a CCG is to split into 2 divisions. That would start a whole new argument.

In this case my suggestion would be to to play your 4 division teams, 1 permanent rival from the opposite division & then rotate 2-3 from the remaining 4 for a 7-8 game schedule.

Maybe something like this.

Oklahoma - Texas
Olk. State - Iowa State
Baylor - TT
TCU - WV
Kansas - Kansas State

Or play 3 permanent crossover rivals & rotate the last two.

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason for Texas to go to the ACC

The Big 12 pays out more money than the ACC does so why would Texas leave the Big 12 to make less money from the ACC

and the ACC has more teams that no one cares about playing than the Big 12 so why go there

the sensible thing to do is have the Big 12 play fewer conference games and more OOC games and have a CCG and get paid for it as well while staying at 10 teams

it would be better for all the teams in the Big 12 and the Big 12 as a whole

I prefer this. Texas has too much baggage for the ACC to want to fool with them.

Preferable or not, what Todge is suggesting is not permitted. If the B12 stays at 10 teams, then the only way they can have a CCG is to play the same full round robin they have now. That means no more OOC games.

Yes, Texas has baggage. Lots of it. Even so, if they were the price the ACC would have to pay to get Oklahoma, I think they would accept those two - and those two only - as full members.

Texas is perfectly content with the status quo, and they should be. It favors them like no other arrangement would. That being said, Texas doesn't need any more money. And they might want to be associated with schools they view as more academically prestigious than their current Big 12 partners. That is the only reason I could see for them changing conferences.

Oklahoma would probably need to have more money to get them to move. But I suspect Boren would also like to rub shoulders with academically prestigious schools, because he wants OU to be viewed as stronger academically than they currently are (viewed). I don't think either would object philosophically to being placed in the ACC Coastal division.

(03-06-2016 11:33 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 10:54 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Texas would loose a ton of money. B12 Revenue without Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would drop dramatically. Lets say 50%. All Texas home games would now belong to LHN. The normal 80/20 split now becomes something like 90/10, possibly 95/5. Texas revenue from the B12 would drop to roughly $1 million. Texas looses shared bowl revenue, bowl opportunities, and shared NCAAT revenue.

On the plus side they would get to keep all of their bowl/NCAAT money (I still think it is a loss). ESPN MIGHT give UT a bump since they now have access to more UT home games. ESPN is prbably losing money on the LHN so a bump is not likely.

I'm not sure how the RRR works. It is possible on the year that OU is the host the money would go to what ever conference OU is in. It is possible it becomes a 50/50 split.

How about this Texas and Notre Dame same deal with ACC. Then Kansas and Oklahoma as full ACC members. That is 16 in football and 18 in all other sports.

Notre Dame
Texas

Northern Division
Kansas
Oklahoma
Louisville
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Virginia Tech
Miami

Southern Division
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
FSU

Oklahoma recruits heavily in Texas....having a conference slate with no Texas teams probably won't work for them. If you're a Sooner fan, what's there to be excited about with that division?

(03-07-2016 11:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason for Texas to go to the ACC

The Big 12 pays out more money than the ACC does so why would Texas leave the Big 12 to make less money from the ACC

and the ACC has more teams that no one cares about playing than the Big 12 so why go there

the sensible thing to do is have the Big 12 play fewer conference games and more OOC games and have a CCG and get paid for it as well while staying at 10 teams

it would be better for all the teams in the Big 12 and the Big 12 as a whole

I prefer this. Texas has too much baggage for the ACC to want to fool with them.

Preferable or not, what Todge is suggesting is not permitted. If the B12 stays at 10 teams, then the only way they can have a CCG is to play the same full round robin they have now. That means no more OOC games.

Just to add to the conversation, it's been stated adding 2 teams for a championship game turns out to be a wash money-wise...so they really won't add anything to the bottomline by adding someone.

But if they DID add two teams, maybe they could go back to an 8 game schedule, and get another home game per team?

(03-06-2016 10:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  TX joins ACC with same deal that Notre Dame has.

Never happen. Fla. state and clemson not giving up their cakewalk autobid to the playoffs

(03-07-2016 12:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 10:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  TX joins ACC with same deal that Notre Dame has.

Never happen. Fla. state and clemson not giving up their cakewalk autobid to the playoffs

you do know they play each other?

Also, you do realize they both play 2 SEC opponents each?

They both play Louisville...FSU plays North Carolina and Miami too

(03-07-2016 10:41 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Let me be perfectly clear on this, because people just don't seem to understand: TEXAS WILL NOT GET A NOTRE DAME TYPE OF DEAL ANYWHERE. PERIOD. It won't happen because the Longhorn Network is losing money in the damned state of TEXAS for Christ's sake! If they can't draw the appeal necessary to keep a network deal going in their own damned state, why in pluperfect HELL would any network (like NBC to Notre Dame) give them one nationally!? Jesus H. Christ people, I really wish you'd start using your heads around here! Notre Dame's appeal as an independent is dwindling fast, and yet for some reason people are really gungho about thinking someone with such limited national appeal like Texas could pull it off....

1. the LHN is projected to show a small profit this year and increase from there

2. I am sure this is WAY over your head, but the Notre Dame Deal is for 100% of their home football games

the LHN deal is for one game a season that is generally the worst game of the year

3. the licensing deals and apparel deals and the sales of licensed merchandise pretty much prove you are clueless about the national appeal of Texas

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...sales-list

eight straight years and that was in 2013 and even if someone else is a bit higher right now surely Texas is right there in the top 5

get a clue and start using your head around here please

(03-07-2016 11:20 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:46 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 06:58 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is no reason for Texas to go to the ACC

The Big 12 pays out more money than the ACC does so why would Texas leave the Big 12 to make less money from the ACC

and the ACC has more teams that no one cares about playing than the Big 12 so why go there

the sensible thing to do is have the Big 12 play fewer conference games and more OOC games and have a CCG and get paid for it as well while staying at 10 teams

it would be better for all the teams in the Big 12 and the Big 12 as a whole

I prefer this. Texas has too much baggage for the ACC to want to fool with them.

Preferable or not, what Todge is suggesting is not permitted. If the B12 stays at 10 teams, then the only way they can have a CCG is to play the same full round robin they have now. That means no more OOC games.

Yes, Texas has baggage. Lots of it. Even so, if they were the price the ACC would have to pay to get Oklahoma, I think they would accept those two - and those two only - as full members.

Texas is perfectly content with the status quo, and they should be. It favors them like no other arrangement would. That being said, Texas doesn't need any more money. And they might want to be associated with schools they view as more academically prestigious than their current Big 12 partners. That is the only reason I could see for them changing conferences.

Oklahoma would probably need to have more money to get them to move. But I suspect Boren would also like to rub shoulders with academically prestigious schools, because he wants OU to be viewed as stronger academically than they currently are (viewed). I don't think either would object philosophically to being placed in the ACC Coastal division.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

actually what I am proposing IS PERMITTED under the rules changes

allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

the best alignment would be this

Texas, Baylor, ISU, WVU, Texas Tech

OU, TCU, KSU, KU, OkState

play each team in the division, a fixed cross over game (the teams above and below) and two other teams (rotating) from the other division for 7 total conference games

that alignment keeps pretty much 100% of the rivalries in the Big 12, those divisions would be the most balanced divisions of any conference and each team would play the other teams in the conference as frequently as any other conference out there

also Texas has no "baggage" that is all people that do not have a clue how the realignment went down or what pushed it or how the teams that left the Big 12 voted on the major issues that effected the Big 12

Nebraska and A&M were always 100% in favor of unequal revenue sharing and the Nebraska Chancellor Perlman has stated such and Nebraska and A&M were ALWAYS against a conference network and Nebraska was further along on having an independent network than Texas was and A&M was offered a chance to work with Texas on a network and declined

CU was always looking to leave the Big 12 and go to the PAC 10 and it was the idiot david boren running his mouth that pushed out MU and made MU think the Big 12 was unstable because OU was still looking around

1.

Quote:the best alignment would be this

Texas, Baylor, ISU, WVU, Texas Tech

OU, TCU, KSU, KU, OkState

Why have ISU randomly in the south and TCU randomly in the north? Switch those two and its a lot better, especially since TCU is the other strongest Texas team right now.

2.

And yeah, UT does have baggage. First they have the LHN which no self respecting power conference would ever let them keep if they wanted to join them BUT is still at the mercy of ESPN (The Mouse doesn't HAVE to let UT out of LHN if it doesn't serve their interest to do so). Secondly, they have the same little brother tag-along issue KU and OU has but worse since it's really 3 of them who have little to no hope of getting a Power Conference invite without UT but who will be very hard to shake loose.

(03-07-2016 12:52 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 12:00 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-06-2016 10:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  TX joins ACC with same deal that Notre Dame has.

Never happen. Fla. state and clemson not giving up their cakewalk autobid to the playoffs

you do know they play each other?

Also, you do realize they both play 2 SEC opponents each?

They both play Louisville...FSU plays North Carolina and Miami too

Yeah...welll...whats your point. The acc is a 2 team league

I have that alignment for the balance of power

also to prevent having too many Texas teams in the same division (TCU was fine when they played off on their own in the WAC and MWC) and so that teams in both divisions have a chance to play in Texas about equally for recruiting

with that alignment and if you blocked left to right TCU would be playing fixed rival Baylor every year and then Texas and ISU in a block and then Texas Tech and WVU in a block so they would have two Texas teams every year VS three right now and TCU plays SMU most every year as well so that is a game not only in Texas, but right in the same metro area and there are plenty of other D1-A Texas teams if TCU or anyone else wants another game in Texas

in that alignment TCU and ISU are probably the ones "giving up" the most, but TCU is new in the conference and while I do not want that to mean "screw them" they made their way being purposefully independent of other Texas teams especially conferences with large groups of them and they can and should continue to work that method......ISU just needs some wins and while being in a division with KU and KSU could help them there the truth of the matter is with 5 OOC games they should be able to get traction with "wins" against any warm body possible and their fans would get to see some good games in the divisions I have them in now and their fans have kept showing up through tough times to they get rewarded (and they miss out really only on KU yearly which is not a huge rivalry game for either of them especially when they are both terrible)

if you switched TCU and ISU the other division becomes much weaker and that should be avoided and too many teams in the same conference from the same state is bad and it is worse in the same division especially smaller divisions like divisions of 5

also that is the alignment that allowed the best fixed rivalries because KSU and ISU have "Farmageddon" and KU and KSU can still play just like OU and OkState still play or Texas and Texas Tech