(04-11-2016 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 08:55 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I don't think VT is a school ESPN would move just to move. The SEC would need to add someone at #15 that's very valuable and from outside the ACC and SEC. If the SEC added an OU, it would make sense, if no other B12 school of value could be added at 16, to switch VT from ACC to SEC in that instance and let the ACC add another market/school at that point.

I think the only way something like the move of a VT, or N.C. State occurs if if the bigger moves from the Big 12 to the ACC were already agreed upon and the SEC was going to take a couple of Big 12 schools as well. Let's say we added Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, and N.C. State for instance. The total value of that more than covers OSU. Iowa State, Kansas, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC then make sense. I'm not saying it has to be exactly these schools but the added value of a 6 team Western division would yield a network. Miami could play in the West as easily as anywhere else.

There you go again!
No college president is going to allow his school to join a conference where the heart of the conference is 1000 miles away. There are simple solutions. The problem is soothing egos.
The SEC is much like the Big 12 in that they abut more than one other conference. It is not logical to send any Big 12 school to the ACC (even Texas as a partial). The most logical conference to pull teams from is the SEC so that all conferences can be contiguous and somewhat regional.

To the PAC:
Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU

To the SEC:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
From the SEC:
Missouri to the B1G
South Carolina to the ACC

To the B1G:
Iowa State joins Missouri

To the ACC:
West Virginia joins South Carolina

Does the SEC need 5 schools in Texas....heck no. But it does "lock down" more population than is in the rest of the SEC combined sans Florida, and shuts the B1G and the PAC out of the Texas recruiting market while opening it up to the entire SEC. What is the cost to the SEC? Nothing more than cannon fodder that is replaced by teams that have shown the ability to play at a higher level than either South Carolina or Missouri which actually gives the SEC more content.

Regionalism sells, gets fans involved, sells tickets and most importantly generates excitement, plus it locks up as much inventory for ESPN necessary to feed multiple outlets as well as the SECN for football, basketball, and baseball plus a multitude of other sports for men and women.



Is it ideal? No, there is never going to be a perfect solution, but this one works pretty well.

Xlance cease with the South Carolina stuff. Even stop the Missouri stuff. The SEC isn't letting anyone go. If somebody want out it would be different. If we simply added Oklahoma and one other it would be enough for the SEC. We get a new state and DFW. Add West Virginia and N.D. and simply let the rest of the Big 12 figure out what they are going to do.

The SEC could add Oklahoma State, Kansas, or as second Texas school with the Sooners and it would still work out fine.

The issues for the ACC are adding enough to merit a network and keeping pace financially. Of course the two go hand in hand. You can add W.V.U. & N.D. and it will not be enough to assure your network. A western division would. So it's your issue and not that of the SEC.

It's not that anybody in the ACC really wants South Carolina back, but instead it's the logical move to free up space in the SEC to allow Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas in.
JR, you realize that Oklahoma and OSU need to stay together to protect Bedlam or Oklahoma and Texas need to stay together to protect the RRR otherwise it puts too much pressure on the OOC scheduling for both rivalries.
From an ESPN perspective the pair of Oklahoma and Texas is as close to ideal as is possible and the inclusion of Oklahoma State is the easiest way to grease the skids.
There was a time when you understood that the Mouse was doing things for the Mouse first and if it benefited the conferences, then so be it. If ESPN could land Oklahoma and Texas without having to engage the west coast (which is a losing proposition) and without having to take more than one of the other 8 of the Big 12, then that a BIG WIN for the Mouse. Unfortunately that puts the SEC over the 16 team limit, and the logical place to put an ESPN property is in the ACC (which is another ESPN property). It could just as well be Kentucky, Tennessee or Vanderbilt but those are all charter members of the SEC and it wouldn't be right. The overwhelming choice of the folks I know would be Florida, but again a charter member (plus the SEC wouldn't ever give up their 51% control of the state). That leaves the ONLY expendable SEC property that abuts another ESPN entity, which happens to be South Carolina.
None of our folks are delusional enough to believe that we will match the SEC or the B1G dollar for dollar in revenue (especially if the SECN included Texas and Oklahoma), but we do want to stay close enough (and I honestly believe that is the goal of ESPN too).
All you have to do is look at it on a map.
So don't lecture me about giving up on South Carolina because I really don't care about the chickens, you really need to be taking to Skipper. The move is logical and worth more in dollars than the collective bruised ego of the SEC or the pride swallowing of many schools in the ACC by allowing the Gamecocks to come back.
I understand you would be happy with Oklahoma and one other (you know that I always felt that school would be Baylor), but with the way things have progressed, I think ESPN feels that there is a real chance to land Texas in the SEC. And it would be a smart move on the part of the Longhorns too, because they would end up being an afterthought in the collegiate sports world if their two biggest rivals were playing in the SEC and they weren't.
Now if you are ready and willing to give up the Gators, let's talk.

XLance there is nothing magical about 16. I think if the SEC thought it could land Texas and Oklahoma that they would take a Texahoma kind of deal and ESPN would do that as well. Quite frankly from a marketing perspective 3 divisions of 6 has numerous advantages over the 4x4. You have better divisional races and can have a wild card which keeps interest in far more fan bases late in the season.

So ESPN doesn't have to have symmetry between the ACC and SEC. The SEC won't be giving up anyone. And why would any of them want to leave. They are making significantly more where they are. If you guys won't budge on what you need to do to survive we'll keep the back porch light on for you if your house gets sacked.

SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

(04-11-2016 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

You could do it this way...

Let the SEC take Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia.

West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

If Notre Dame joins in full because there are no other options then the ACC could finish out with Cincinnati. I pick them because there are a ton of ND fans in OH and that will help the network subs. That and there are more recruiting opportunities there compared to WV or CT.

The ACC could then partner with a reformed Big 12 and share a network that spans numerous markets across the country. Let's say the new Big 12 looks something like this:

West: San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, BYU, Boise State, Colorado State, New Mexico
East: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

16 teams from the ACC and 14 teams from the Big 12...a shared network would cover more markets than any one conference feasibly could. In addition, ESPN would own more content in the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones and that would bolster their ability to cover more time slots whether it be for the conference network or for their other platforms. In addition, ESPN could bundle this network with the SECN and probably help carry them both into markets they would not otherwise be.

Figuring out a way to share the revenues would be a little trickier, but it may be the only way for the ACC to stay intact and for the majority of Big 12 schools to remain in a Power conference. I could see this being an intriguing idea for ESPN.

(04-11-2016 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only way something like the move of a VT, or N.C. State occurs if if the bigger moves from the Big 12 to the ACC were already agreed upon and the SEC was going to take a couple of Big 12 schools as well. Let's say we added Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma State, and N.C. State for instance. The total value of that more than covers OSU. Iowa State, Kansas, Texas, Baylor, West Virginia and T.C.U. to the ACC then make sense. I'm not saying it has to be exactly these schools but the added value of a 6 team Western division would yield a network. Miami could play in the West as easily as anywhere else.

There you go again!
No college president is going to allow his school to join a conference where the heart of the conference is 1000 miles away. There are simple solutions. The problem is soothing egos.
The SEC is much like the Big 12 in that they abut more than one other conference. It is not logical to send any Big 12 school to the ACC (even Texas as a partial). The most logical conference to pull teams from is the SEC so that all conferences can be contiguous and somewhat regional.

To the PAC:
Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU

To the SEC:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
From the SEC:
Missouri to the B1G
South Carolina to the ACC

To the B1G:
Iowa State joins Missouri

To the ACC:
West Virginia joins South Carolina

Does the SEC need 5 schools in Texas....heck no. But it does "lock down" more population than is in the rest of the SEC combined sans Florida, and shuts the B1G and the PAC out of the Texas recruiting market while opening it up to the entire SEC. What is the cost to the SEC? Nothing more than cannon fodder that is replaced by teams that have shown the ability to play at a higher level than either South Carolina or Missouri which actually gives the SEC more content.

Regionalism sells, gets fans involved, sells tickets and most importantly generates excitement, plus it locks up as much inventory for ESPN necessary to feed multiple outlets as well as the SECN for football, basketball, and baseball plus a multitude of other sports for men and women.



Is it ideal? No, there is never going to be a perfect solution, but this one works pretty well.

Xlance cease with the South Carolina stuff. Even stop the Missouri stuff. The SEC isn't letting anyone go. If somebody want out it would be different. If we simply added Oklahoma and one other it would be enough for the SEC. We get a new state and DFW. Add West Virginia and N.D. and simply let the rest of the Big 12 figure out what they are going to do.

The SEC could add Oklahoma State, Kansas, or as second Texas school with the Sooners and it would still work out fine.

The issues for the ACC are adding enough to merit a network and keeping pace financially. Of course the two go hand in hand. You can add W.V.U. & N.D. and it will not be enough to assure your network. A western division would. So it's your issue and not that of the SEC.

It's not that anybody in the ACC really wants South Carolina back, but instead it's the logical move to free up space in the SEC to allow Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas in.
JR, you realize that Oklahoma and OSU need to stay together to protect Bedlam or Oklahoma and Texas need to stay together to protect the RRR otherwise it puts too much pressure on the OOC scheduling for both rivalries.
From an ESPN perspective the pair of Oklahoma and Texas is as close to ideal as is possible and the inclusion of Oklahoma State is the easiest way to grease the skids.
There was a time when you understood that the Mouse was doing things for the Mouse first and if it benefited the conferences, then so be it. If ESPN could land Oklahoma and Texas without having to engage the west coast (which is a losing proposition) and without having to take more than one of the other 8 of the Big 12, then that a BIG WIN for the Mouse. Unfortunately that puts the SEC over the 16 team limit, and the logical place to put an ESPN property is in the ACC (which is another ESPN property). It could just as well be Kentucky, Tennessee or Vanderbilt but those are all charter members of the SEC and it wouldn't be right. The overwhelming choice of the folks I know would be Florida, but again a charter member (plus the SEC wouldn't ever give up their 51% control of the state). That leaves the ONLY expendable SEC property that abuts another ESPN entity, which happens to be South Carolina.
None of our folks are delusional enough to believe that we will match the SEC or the B1G dollar for dollar in revenue (especially if the SECN included Texas and Oklahoma), but we do want to stay close enough (and I honestly believe that is the goal of ESPN too).
All you have to do is look at it on a map.
So don't lecture me about giving up on South Carolina because I really don't care about the chickens, you really need to be taking to Skipper. The move is logical and worth more in dollars than the collective bruised ego of the SEC or the pride swallowing of many schools in the ACC by allowing the Gamecocks to come back.
I understand you would be happy with Oklahoma and one other (you know that I always felt that school would be Baylor), but with the way things have progressed, I think ESPN feels that there is a real chance to land Texas in the SEC. And it would be a smart move on the part of the Longhorns too, because they would end up being an afterthought in the collegiate sports world if their two biggest rivals were playing in the SEC and they weren't.
Now if you are ready and willing to give up the Gators, let's talk.

XLance there is nothing magical about 16. I think if the SEC thought it could land Texas and Oklahoma that they would take a Texahoma kind of deal and ESPN would do that as well. Quite frankly from a marketing perspective 3 divisions of 6 has numerous advantages over the 4x4. You have better divisional races and can have a wild card which keeps interest in far more fan bases late in the season.

So ESPN doesn't have to have symmetry between the ACC and SEC. The SEC won't be giving up anyone. And why would any of them want to leave. They are making significantly more where they are. If you guys won't budge on what you need to do to survive we'll keep the back porch light on for you if your house gets sacked.

I disagree.
The media would like to see a four conference ....champions only playoff.
ESPN would like to see more conferences with less power that would be responsible to generate their own income and would provided targeted inventory.
No conference would want to put themselves at a disadvantage re: playoffs. An 18 team SEC that included Texas and Oklahoma with more mouths to feed than anyone else and less chances for any one team to make it to the championship game won't make anybody happy (especially "the media").
If the PAC stays at 12 and the SEC is at 18, who gets the most championship appearances, Southern Cal or Oklahoma? When the focus shifts to the playoff model instead of the "season" model, the 18 team conference regardless of their strength gets left behind.
I still don't think there is a good way to end up with 4 x 16. And because of it eventually the 4 team championship model will be replaced with an 8 team model, which in turn will allow for as many as 6 conferences with some at large entries into the championship and/or room for a G5 entry.
Money is not the be all, end all in CR. This was a hard lesson for the professional leagues to learn and it will be for the collegiate ranks too.

(04-12-2016 07:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 07:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  There you go again!
No college president is going to allow his school to join a conference where the heart of the conference is 1000 miles away. There are simple solutions. The problem is soothing egos.
The SEC is much like the Big 12 in that they abut more than one other conference. It is not logical to send any Big 12 school to the ACC (even Texas as a partial). The most logical conference to pull teams from is the SEC so that all conferences can be contiguous and somewhat regional.

To the PAC:
Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, KSU

To the SEC:
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
From the SEC:
Missouri to the B1G
South Carolina to the ACC

To the B1G:
Iowa State joins Missouri

To the ACC:
West Virginia joins South Carolina

Does the SEC need 5 schools in Texas....heck no. But it does "lock down" more population than is in the rest of the SEC combined sans Florida, and shuts the B1G and the PAC out of the Texas recruiting market while opening it up to the entire SEC. What is the cost to the SEC? Nothing more than cannon fodder that is replaced by teams that have shown the ability to play at a higher level than either South Carolina or Missouri which actually gives the SEC more content.

Regionalism sells, gets fans involved, sells tickets and most importantly generates excitement, plus it locks up as much inventory for ESPN necessary to feed multiple outlets as well as the SECN for football, basketball, and baseball plus a multitude of other sports for men and women.



Is it ideal? No, there is never going to be a perfect solution, but this one works pretty well.

Xlance cease with the South Carolina stuff. Even stop the Missouri stuff. The SEC isn't letting anyone go. If somebody want out it would be different. If we simply added Oklahoma and one other it would be enough for the SEC. We get a new state and DFW. Add West Virginia and N.D. and simply let the rest of the Big 12 figure out what they are going to do.

The SEC could add Oklahoma State, Kansas, or as second Texas school with the Sooners and it would still work out fine.

The issues for the ACC are adding enough to merit a network and keeping pace financially. Of course the two go hand in hand. You can add W.V.U. & N.D. and it will not be enough to assure your network. A western division would. So it's your issue and not that of the SEC.

It's not that anybody in the ACC really wants South Carolina back, but instead it's the logical move to free up space in the SEC to allow Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas in.
JR, you realize that Oklahoma and OSU need to stay together to protect Bedlam or Oklahoma and Texas need to stay together to protect the RRR otherwise it puts too much pressure on the OOC scheduling for both rivalries.
From an ESPN perspective the pair of Oklahoma and Texas is as close to ideal as is possible and the inclusion of Oklahoma State is the easiest way to grease the skids.
There was a time when you understood that the Mouse was doing things for the Mouse first and if it benefited the conferences, then so be it. If ESPN could land Oklahoma and Texas without having to engage the west coast (which is a losing proposition) and without having to take more than one of the other 8 of the Big 12, then that a BIG WIN for the Mouse. Unfortunately that puts the SEC over the 16 team limit, and the logical place to put an ESPN property is in the ACC (which is another ESPN property). It could just as well be Kentucky, Tennessee or Vanderbilt but those are all charter members of the SEC and it wouldn't be right. The overwhelming choice of the folks I know would be Florida, but again a charter member (plus the SEC wouldn't ever give up their 51% control of the state). That leaves the ONLY expendable SEC property that abuts another ESPN entity, which happens to be South Carolina.
None of our folks are delusional enough to believe that we will match the SEC or the B1G dollar for dollar in revenue (especially if the SECN included Texas and Oklahoma), but we do want to stay close enough (and I honestly believe that is the goal of ESPN too).
All you have to do is look at it on a map.
So don't lecture me about giving up on South Carolina because I really don't care about the chickens, you really need to be taking to Skipper. The move is logical and worth more in dollars than the collective bruised ego of the SEC or the pride swallowing of many schools in the ACC by allowing the Gamecocks to come back.
I understand you would be happy with Oklahoma and one other (you know that I always felt that school would be Baylor), but with the way things have progressed, I think ESPN feels that there is a real chance to land Texas in the SEC. And it would be a smart move on the part of the Longhorns too, because they would end up being an afterthought in the collegiate sports world if their two biggest rivals were playing in the SEC and they weren't.
Now if you are ready and willing to give up the Gators, let's talk.

XLance there is nothing magical about 16. I think if the SEC thought it could land Texas and Oklahoma that they would take a Texahoma kind of deal and ESPN would do that as well. Quite frankly from a marketing perspective 3 divisions of 6 has numerous advantages over the 4x4. You have better divisional races and can have a wild card which keeps interest in far more fan bases late in the season.

So ESPN doesn't have to have symmetry between the ACC and SEC. The SEC won't be giving up anyone. And why would any of them want to leave. They are making significantly more where they are. If you guys won't budge on what you need to do to survive we'll keep the back porch light on for you if your house gets sacked.

I disagree.
The media would like to see a four conference ....champions only playoff.
ESPN would like to see more conferences with less power that would be responsible to generate their own income and would provided targeted inventory.
No conference would want to put themselves at a disadvantage re: playoffs. An 18 team SEC that included Texas and Oklahoma with more mouths to feed than anyone else and less chances for any one team to make it to the championship game won't make anybody happy (especially "the media").
If the PAC stays at 12 and the SEC is at 18, who gets the most championship appearances, Southern Cal or Oklahoma? When the focus shifts to the playoff model instead of the "season" model, the 18 team conference regardless of their strength gets left behind.
I still don't think there is a good way to end up with 4 x 16. And because of it eventually the 4 team championship model will be replaced with an 8 team model, which in turn will allow for as many as 6 conferences with some at large entries into the championship and/or room for a G5 entry.
Money is not the be all, end all in CR. This was a hard lesson for the professional leagues to learn and it will be for the collegiate ranks too.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets assume it is just 16 and that nobody leaves the SEC or ACC. Your solution is fairly obvious. You either add West Virginia and N.D. all in, or UConn and N.D. all in.

If that is the case and Texas must remain in a majority owned ESPN conference then Texas comes to the SEC and Baylor comes with them. Why? The LHN becomes the SECN, Baylor doesn't have a home outside of the ACC or SEC and Texas politics gives Bevo the excuse of saying we went to the SEC to keep Baylor alive. The PAC could then pick up a brand and some markets with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. The Big 10 picks up Kansas and Iowa State. Depending upon who the ACC gets the last two into the Big 12 are the first two out of the final 64, or T.C.U. is the only one out.

(04-11-2016 08:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

(04-12-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

(04-12-2016 08:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 01:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Xlance cease with the South Carolina stuff. Even stop the Missouri stuff. The SEC isn't letting anyone go. If somebody want out it would be different. If we simply added Oklahoma and one other it would be enough for the SEC. We get a new state and DFW. Add West Virginia and N.D. and simply let the rest of the Big 12 figure out what they are going to do.

The SEC could add Oklahoma State, Kansas, or as second Texas school with the Sooners and it would still work out fine.

The issues for the ACC are adding enough to merit a network and keeping pace financially. Of course the two go hand in hand. You can add W.V.U. & N.D. and it will not be enough to assure your network. A western division would. So it's your issue and not that of the SEC.

It's not that anybody in the ACC really wants South Carolina back, but instead it's the logical move to free up space in the SEC to allow Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas in.
JR, you realize that Oklahoma and OSU need to stay together to protect Bedlam or Oklahoma and Texas need to stay together to protect the RRR otherwise it puts too much pressure on the OOC scheduling for both rivalries.
From an ESPN perspective the pair of Oklahoma and Texas is as close to ideal as is possible and the inclusion of Oklahoma State is the easiest way to grease the skids.
There was a time when you understood that the Mouse was doing things for the Mouse first and if it benefited the conferences, then so be it. If ESPN could land Oklahoma and Texas without having to engage the west coast (which is a losing proposition) and without having to take more than one of the other 8 of the Big 12, then that a BIG WIN for the Mouse. Unfortunately that puts the SEC over the 16 team limit, and the logical place to put an ESPN property is in the ACC (which is another ESPN property). It could just as well be Kentucky, Tennessee or Vanderbilt but those are all charter members of the SEC and it wouldn't be right. The overwhelming choice of the folks I know would be Florida, but again a charter member (plus the SEC wouldn't ever give up their 51% control of the state). That leaves the ONLY expendable SEC property that abuts another ESPN entity, which happens to be South Carolina.
None of our folks are delusional enough to believe that we will match the SEC or the B1G dollar for dollar in revenue (especially if the SECN included Texas and Oklahoma), but we do want to stay close enough (and I honestly believe that is the goal of ESPN too).
All you have to do is look at it on a map.
So don't lecture me about giving up on South Carolina because I really don't care about the chickens, you really need to be taking to Skipper. The move is logical and worth more in dollars than the collective bruised ego of the SEC or the pride swallowing of many schools in the ACC by allowing the Gamecocks to come back.
I understand you would be happy with Oklahoma and one other (you know that I always felt that school would be Baylor), but with the way things have progressed, I think ESPN feels that there is a real chance to land Texas in the SEC. And it would be a smart move on the part of the Longhorns too, because they would end up being an afterthought in the collegiate sports world if their two biggest rivals were playing in the SEC and they weren't.
Now if you are ready and willing to give up the Gators, let's talk.

XLance there is nothing magical about 16. I think if the SEC thought it could land Texas and Oklahoma that they would take a Texahoma kind of deal and ESPN would do that as well. Quite frankly from a marketing perspective 3 divisions of 6 has numerous advantages over the 4x4. You have better divisional races and can have a wild card which keeps interest in far more fan bases late in the season.

So ESPN doesn't have to have symmetry between the ACC and SEC. The SEC won't be giving up anyone. And why would any of them want to leave. They are making significantly more where they are. If you guys won't budge on what you need to do to survive we'll keep the back porch light on for you if your house gets sacked.

I disagree.
The media would like to see a four conference ....champions only playoff.
ESPN would like to see more conferences with less power that would be responsible to generate their own income and would provided targeted inventory.
No conference would want to put themselves at a disadvantage re: playoffs. An 18 team SEC that included Texas and Oklahoma with more mouths to feed than anyone else and less chances for any one team to make it to the championship game won't make anybody happy (especially "the media").
If the PAC stays at 12 and the SEC is at 18, who gets the most championship appearances, Southern Cal or Oklahoma? When the focus shifts to the playoff model instead of the "season" model, the 18 team conference regardless of their strength gets left behind.
I still don't think there is a good way to end up with 4 x 16. And because of it eventually the 4 team championship model will be replaced with an 8 team model, which in turn will allow for as many as 6 conferences with some at large entries into the championship and/or room for a G5 entry.
Money is not the be all, end all in CR. This was a hard lesson for the professional leagues to learn and it will be for the collegiate ranks too.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets assume it is just 16 and that nobody leaves the SEC or ACC. Your solution is fairly obvious. You either add West Virginia and N.D. all in, or UConn and N.D. all in.

If that is the case and Texas must remain in a majority owned ESPN conference then Texas comes to the SEC and Baylor comes with them. Why? The LHN becomes the SECN, Baylor doesn't have a home outside of the ACC or SEC and Texas politics gives Bevo the excuse of saying we went to the SEC to keep Baylor alive. The PAC could then pick up a brand and some markets with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. The Big 10 picks up Kansas and Iowa State. Depending upon who the ACC gets the last two into the Big 12 are the first two out of the final 64, or T.C.U. is the only one out.

Well I could see pods like this JR:
Texas, Arkansas, Baylor, Texas A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss. State, Alabama
Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Tennessee

If I were the PAC, I think I would go with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and TCU (as opposed to Kansas State, giving up territory for a firmer foothold in the state of Texas and more presence in Dallas/Ft. Worth).

I would also add Cincinnati into the mix with West Virginia and UConn for the ACC spot.

(04-12-2016 03:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 08:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 07:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 04:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 03:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  It's not that anybody in the ACC really wants South Carolina back, but instead it's the logical move to free up space in the SEC to allow Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas in.
JR, you realize that Oklahoma and OSU need to stay together to protect Bedlam or Oklahoma and Texas need to stay together to protect the RRR otherwise it puts too much pressure on the OOC scheduling for both rivalries.
From an ESPN perspective the pair of Oklahoma and Texas is as close to ideal as is possible and the inclusion of Oklahoma State is the easiest way to grease the skids.
There was a time when you understood that the Mouse was doing things for the Mouse first and if it benefited the conferences, then so be it. If ESPN could land Oklahoma and Texas without having to engage the west coast (which is a losing proposition) and without having to take more than one of the other 8 of the Big 12, then that a BIG WIN for the Mouse. Unfortunately that puts the SEC over the 16 team limit, and the logical place to put an ESPN property is in the ACC (which is another ESPN property). It could just as well be Kentucky, Tennessee or Vanderbilt but those are all charter members of the SEC and it wouldn't be right. The overwhelming choice of the folks I know would be Florida, but again a charter member (plus the SEC wouldn't ever give up their 51% control of the state). That leaves the ONLY expendable SEC property that abuts another ESPN entity, which happens to be South Carolina.
None of our folks are delusional enough to believe that we will match the SEC or the B1G dollar for dollar in revenue (especially if the SECN included Texas and Oklahoma), but we do want to stay close enough (and I honestly believe that is the goal of ESPN too).
All you have to do is look at it on a map.
So don't lecture me about giving up on South Carolina because I really don't care about the chickens, you really need to be taking to Skipper. The move is logical and worth more in dollars than the collective bruised ego of the SEC or the pride swallowing of many schools in the ACC by allowing the Gamecocks to come back.
I understand you would be happy with Oklahoma and one other (you know that I always felt that school would be Baylor), but with the way things have progressed, I think ESPN feels that there is a real chance to land Texas in the SEC. And it would be a smart move on the part of the Longhorns too, because they would end up being an afterthought in the collegiate sports world if their two biggest rivals were playing in the SEC and they weren't.
Now if you are ready and willing to give up the Gators, let's talk.

XLance there is nothing magical about 16. I think if the SEC thought it could land Texas and Oklahoma that they would take a Texahoma kind of deal and ESPN would do that as well. Quite frankly from a marketing perspective 3 divisions of 6 has numerous advantages over the 4x4. You have better divisional races and can have a wild card which keeps interest in far more fan bases late in the season.

So ESPN doesn't have to have symmetry between the ACC and SEC. The SEC won't be giving up anyone. And why would any of them want to leave. They are making significantly more where they are. If you guys won't budge on what you need to do to survive we'll keep the back porch light on for you if your house gets sacked.

I disagree.
The media would like to see a four conference ....champions only playoff.
ESPN would like to see more conferences with less power that would be responsible to generate their own income and would provided targeted inventory.
No conference would want to put themselves at a disadvantage re: playoffs. An 18 team SEC that included Texas and Oklahoma with more mouths to feed than anyone else and less chances for any one team to make it to the championship game won't make anybody happy (especially "the media").
If the PAC stays at 12 and the SEC is at 18, who gets the most championship appearances, Southern Cal or Oklahoma? When the focus shifts to the playoff model instead of the "season" model, the 18 team conference regardless of their strength gets left behind.
I still don't think there is a good way to end up with 4 x 16. And because of it eventually the 4 team championship model will be replaced with an 8 team model, which in turn will allow for as many as 6 conferences with some at large entries into the championship and/or room for a G5 entry.
Money is not the be all, end all in CR. This was a hard lesson for the professional leagues to learn and it will be for the collegiate ranks too.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets assume it is just 16 and that nobody leaves the SEC or ACC. Your solution is fairly obvious. You either add West Virginia and N.D. all in, or UConn and N.D. all in.

If that is the case and Texas must remain in a majority owned ESPN conference then Texas comes to the SEC and Baylor comes with them. Why? The LHN becomes the SECN, Baylor doesn't have a home outside of the ACC or SEC and Texas politics gives Bevo the excuse of saying we went to the SEC to keep Baylor alive. The PAC could then pick up a brand and some markets with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Kansas State. The Big 10 picks up Kansas and Iowa State. Depending upon who the ACC gets the last two into the Big 12 are the first two out of the final 64, or T.C.U. is the only one out.

Well I could see pods like this JR:
Texas, Arkansas, Baylor, Texas A&M
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss. State, Alabama
Auburn, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Missouri, Tennessee

If I were the PAC, I think I would go with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and TCU (as opposed to Kansas State, giving up territory for a firmer foothold in the state of Texas and more presence in Dallas/Ft. Worth).

I would also add Cincinnati into the mix with West Virginia and UConn for the ACC spot.

Considering that Missouri is down I think you need to split up Kentucky and Vanderbilt. Now if Kentucky picks up their game and Missouri does as well that division would work. Right now it would be dramatically weaker than the other three. But, I admit the geography works

I would think something more like this:
Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Texas
Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Now A&M doesn't have to be in the same division as Texas and they get to play an old time rival in LSU. Ole Miss keeps Vandy & LSU (been playing both forever).

Alabama keeps Miss State and Tennessee. Tennessee keeps Kentucky & Alabama.

I also think those 4 would be a bit more balanced.

Auburn gets Georgia and gets Florida back.

You play everyone in your division and rotate the other 3 divisions and play one permanent rival (9 conference games).

(04-12-2016 12:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

(04-12-2016 04:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 12:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC West:

Arkansas, Baylor, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

SEC Central:

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC East:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee


ACC North:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

ACC Central:

Cincinnati, Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

ACC South:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

There's your answer XLance

Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

Lenville,
The smartest thing we could do would be to merge the ACC with the B1G and then divide into three conferences.
Louisville would be in the Northeast conference with Cincinnati,Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn and West Virginia.

Carolina would be with VT, UVa, NC State, Dook, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami, GT and Florida State.

The rest of the B1G could stay together, add Kansas or Iowa State for a 12 team league .

Notre Dame could continue to stay attached to a combination of the Northeast conference and the ACC.

(04-12-2016 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 12:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 08:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  Not bad JR.
I would move Georgia Tech and Miami to the Central and Cincinnati and Louisville to the South. Eight game conference schedule with no permanent cross overs? You will only see teams in other divisions once every 4 years....whew!
You might just have to explore 11 conference games, which I like. Why do you have those teams in your league anyway?

That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

Lenville,
The smartest thing we could do would be to merge the ACC with the B1G and then divide into three conferences.
Louisville would be in the Northeast conference with Cincinnati,Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn and West Virginia.

Carolina would be with VT, UVa, NC State, Dook, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami, GT and Florida State.

The rest of the B1G could stay together, add Kansas or Iowa State for a 12 team league .

Notre Dame could continue to stay attached to a combination of the Northeast conference and the ACC.

I would rather have the status quo than that X. I also think that it would be more likely to have FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami & Louisville join the Big 12 than to have the ACC & B1G split into 3 conferences.

(04-12-2016 10:58 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 12:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 09:31 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  That's the direction that Tobacco Road wants to take the ACC JR. IMO a western division would make the ACC financially stronger but if it were to make FSU happy, & therefore stabilize the conference long term, then I'd be for it as well.

X how about this lineup?

ACC
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central: Miami, Duke, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Cincinnati, Wake Forest

You play your 5 division games, 1 permanent rival & rotate 1 from each division for 8 games.

Rivals:
FSU & Miami
Duke & WF
NC & GT
ND & Clemson
UCONN & Cincinnati
VT & WV
BC & Virginia
Pitt & NC State
Syracuse & Louisville

Pardon me for interrupting JR & X.

Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

Lenville,
The smartest thing we could do would be to merge the ACC with the B1G and then divide into three conferences.
Louisville would be in the Northeast conference with Cincinnati,Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn and West Virginia.

Carolina would be with VT, UVa, NC State, Dook, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami, GT and Florida State.

The rest of the B1G could stay together, add Kansas or Iowa State for a 12 team league .

Notre Dame could continue to stay attached to a combination of the Northeast conference and the ACC.

I would rather have the status quo than that X. I also think that it would be more likely to have FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami & Louisville join the Big 12 than to have the ACC & B1G split into 3 conferences.

You might have Louisville run off to the Big 12 if they are still there (they don't even control the largest TV market in their own footprint), but the others you mention.....ZERO chance they would pass up that ACC opportunity (especially with B1G network dollars).

(04-13-2016 04:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 10:58 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 12:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  Lenville,
Carolina wants to play in Atlanta because it has the largest concentration of Carolina graduates outside of the state of NC. I appreciate your making GT Carolina's rival in your lineup. But you need to understand that Dook and GT have played football every year since 1933. I don't think that either one is ready to give up on that series just yet.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an interruption.....feel free to jump in any time .

X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

Lenville,
The smartest thing we could do would be to merge the ACC with the B1G and then divide into three conferences.
Louisville would be in the Northeast conference with Cincinnati,Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn and West Virginia.

Carolina would be with VT, UVa, NC State, Dook, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami, GT and Florida State.

The rest of the B1G could stay together, add Kansas or Iowa State for a 12 team league .

Notre Dame could continue to stay attached to a combination of the Northeast conference and the ACC.

I would rather have the status quo than that X. I also think that it would be more likely to have FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami & Louisville join the Big 12 than to have the ACC & B1G split into 3 conferences.

You might have Louisville run off to the Big 12 if they are still there (they don't even control the largest TV market in their own footprint), but the others you mention.....ZERO chance they would pass up that ACC opportunity (especially with B1G network dollars).

You are just trolling again. ESPN isn't giving product to FOX. UNC deserves the death penalty anyway. If Bristol ever does anything they will consolidate the product already under their own roof and cut some of that which is not profitable in the ACC. It truly is B.C., Wake, and possibly Pitt that would have something to worry about. But I doubt we are anywhere close to that yet, either.

If the NCAA doesn't hammer "baby blue" they any credibility they have left. Louisville's sins are minor by comparison. Yours is the worst case of loss of institutional control the NCAA has faced. The way I view it we are about to be rid of a problem either way. North Carolina either gets leveled and its sense of entitlement with it, or the NCAA gets blown away and with it the last institution that would push basketball for profit along with it. With the tournament under different auspices the revenue model for that changes as well, and with it institutional welfare.

The only reason the ACC doesn't have a network (besides low ratings) is because of a small core of selfish schools within your conference. It's not getting one until that changes. Should the Big 12 get parsed prior to your coming to your senses then we will move to a P3 because there won't be anything left for you to play catch up with. As long as the Big 12 is still around you have time to change your minds. That's about the long and the short of it.

(04-13-2016 08:35 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2016 04:38 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 10:58 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 06:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-12-2016 04:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  X I'm not sure that it would be possible to keep everyone happy. 1 possible solution would be to have 2 permanent rivals & play a 9 game schedule. Or instead of 3 divisions you could have 2.

Atlantic: FSU, Clemson, GT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State, WF, BC

Coastal: ND, VT, Miami, Louisville, WV, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Cincinnati, UCONN

But that is already 8 games before any crossovers & everyone still isn't happy. I would go with the 3 divisions with a double rival & 9 conference games.

ND- Clemson & VT
FSU- Miami & NC State
Clemson- ND & Syracuse
GT- NC & Duke
VT- WV & ND
Miami- FSU & Pittsburgh
UL- Syracuse & BC
NC- GT & WF
Duke- WF & GT
NC St- Pitt & FSU
WF- Duke & NC
Virginia- BC & UCONN
Pitt- NC State & Miami
Syr- UL & Clemson
BC- Virginia & Louisville
WV- VT & Cincinnati
Cincy- UCONN & WV
UCONN- Cincinnati & Virginia

Lenville,
The smartest thing we could do would be to merge the ACC with the B1G and then divide into three conferences.
Louisville would be in the Northeast conference with Cincinnati,Boston College, Syracuse, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, UConn and West Virginia.

Carolina would be with VT, UVa, NC State, Dook, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami, GT and Florida State.

The rest of the B1G could stay together, add Kansas or Iowa State for a 12 team league .

Notre Dame could continue to stay attached to a combination of the Northeast conference and the ACC.

I would rather have the status quo than that X. I also think that it would be more likely to have FSU, Clemson, GT, VT, Miami & Louisville join the Big 12 than to have the ACC & B1G split into 3 conferences.

You might have Louisville run off to the Big 12 if they are still there (they don't even control the largest TV market in their own footprint), but the others you mention.....ZERO chance they would pass up that ACC opportunity (especially with B1G network dollars).

You are just trolling again. ESPN isn't giving product to FOX. UNC deserves the death penalty anyway. If Bristol ever does anything they will consolidate the product already under their own roof and cut some of that which is not profitable in the ACC. It truly is B.C., Wake, and possibly Pitt that would have something to worry about. But I doubt we are anywhere close to that yet, either.

If the NCAA doesn't hammer "baby blue" they any credibility they have left. Louisville's sins are minor by comparison. Yours is the worst case of loss of institutional control the NCAA has faced. The way I view it we are about to be rid of a problem either way. North Carolina either gets leveled and its sense of entitlement with it, or the NCAA gets blown away and with it the last institution that would push basketball for profit along with it. With the tournament under different auspices the revenue model for that changes as well, and with it institutional welfare.

The only reason the ACC doesn't have a network (besides low ratings) is because of a small core of selfish schools within your conference. It's not getting one until that changes. Should the Big 12 get parsed prior to your coming to your senses then we will move to a P3 because there won't be anything left for you to play catch up with. As long as the Big 12 is still around you have time to change your minds. That's about the long and the short of it.

1) I'm just answering questions and offering opinions to scenarios that I did not instigate.
2)If the lazy professor (who also happened to be the Dean of the department), had graded the required term papers himself instead of letting his secretary do it for him, there is no issue. Hammer away, but it will have to be against the University (does the NCAA have that jurisdiction to tell institutions what, when and how to teach?) and not UNC athletics. In fact it was Dickie Baddour that blew the whistle on the AFAM Dean. The only thing that Carolina's athletic department deserves from the NCAA is an apology.
3)ESPN is in the business to make money. If they can sell inventory to FOX and make a profit they will. If they can buy product (like Oklahoma) from FOX and make a profit, they will.

"Should the Big 12 get parsed prior to your coming to your senses then we will move to a P3 because there won't be anything left for you to play catch up with. " You realize that this is exactly the situation I described to Lenville, that you have accused me of trolling about.