(04-21-2016 11:22 PM)Bigtexnole Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 02:50 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 10:34 PM)texasorange Wrote:  If Swofford is a problem isn't he also a solver? The ACC was suppose to die, but it didn't. The long term tv contract he negotiated is bad, but at the time it wasn't. I'm not saying he isn't without faults. But I agree with the previous poster who said that Swofford is an agent of the university presidents. That being said; this is a very conservative part of the country; much more so that Texas. I do think new blood is needed & no, I no longer want Jurich. His last hires says he is getting stale. We need a bold thinker & doer. But would that be accepted by the ACC membership? Perhaps now yes, since the ACC has undergone such a massive transformation. I hope so for the conference's sake.

The presidents surely make the final decisions, but they can approve or disapprove only what the Commissioner presents to them. JS brought them his proposals and recommendations based on his "diligent study" of the sports media landscape. Let's face it, JS probably got input from two sources, ESPN and Chad Swofford. He was starstruck by the World-wide Leader and placed the conference in their hands. They ate his lunch. The presidents were counting on him to find the best possible course to follow. I think they were all complacent, if not lazy. Meanwhile Delany was blazing new trails and continues to play the media companies like a fiddle.
By now, these same presidents must know that their confidence in Mr. Swofford was misplaced. If they haven't retained IMG by now, then they simply aren't trying.

(04-21-2016 07:29 AM)TopperCard Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 07:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No you can't have Tom....

I was thinking the same thing, but honestly, he's the best in the business. He might be exactly what the ACC needs.

(04-21-2016 07:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Swofford
The ACC is still here and appears like they will be one of the four survivors even though the ACC was not in a very strong position. The Big 12 on the other hand probably won't live out their GOR.

What else do you need to know?

When you have two like companies and consolidation is the only path to survival for both, the Ceo with the most moxie survives. In this case the ACC is screwed.

I see a consolidated ACC/XII in the end. Swofford managing the cast offs.

When ESPN urged the ACC to take Louisville as a replacement for Maryland it sealed the fate of the Big 12. Without Louisville, the Big 12 had nowhere to go to expand beyond 10 (and they still don't).

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:18 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  I think we all knew the B1G was going to get a huge contract. I think the bigger issue is that, other than the apparent $3M bump, the ACC has done zero to improve its revenue stream in terms of media dollars. it appears there will be no network, and we haven't heard anything regarding digital solutions or outside the box ideas that could help close the gap.

I have no doubt the ACC wants to stay together, but if the disparity climbs to 15-20 million per year, teams will leave.

And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

(04-22-2016 07:57 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  And where will they go? To another conference with a similar disparity? They only ones likely to leave would do so only with an invite from the SEC. And, if they had such an invite, I imagine they would go even if there weren't much of a disparity of conference-distributed revenues. They would go because their goals and culture are already better aligned with the SEC member schools than they are with ACC schools.

Whatever the B1G gets paid, it won't have any significant impact on the ACC. If it could, it would already be demonstrating superiority in athletics, because that revenue gap has existed for a while.

The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

The ACC does not need to catch the B1G or the SEC (can't be done). All we need to do is stay relatively close.
If we reach that tipping point then the onus is on ESPN to make the ACC viable. That is the upside of going all in with ESPN.

(04-22-2016 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:57 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

The ACC does not need to catch the B1G or the SEC (can't be done). All we need to do is stay relatively close.
If we reach that tipping point then the onus is on ESPN to make the ACC viable. That is the upside of going all in with ESPN.

I don't think the assumption that the ACC can't catch the B1G or SEC is entirely accurate. In fact, historically, the ACC has had its fair share as being top dog. The anomaly is the "worth" of football and the "method of distribution".

(04-22-2016 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:57 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is the 100K seat football stadium versus the 50K seat football stadium. No amount of TV contract money makes up for that.

The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door and remember, TAMU, Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzo, and MD all left their conference becuase of pushes as well as pulls. TAMU and Nebraska hated Texas. Colorado and Mizzou feared Texas. MD's system president did not like UNC, nor Duke.

SC left the ACC because of the 800 SAT rule, and hatred of Duke and UNC. GT left the SEC because of hatred of Alabama.

It's not all about making more money, especially when the price of more money is having to spend even more money.

Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

The ACC does not need to catch the B1G or the SEC (can't be done). All we need to do is stay relatively close.
If we reach that tipping point then the onus is on ESPN to make the ACC viable. That is the upside of going all in with ESPN.

Agree 100%. But what is your definition of ''relatively close?'' And in the current landscape, how do we get there?

The only way I see FSU in the B1G is with Clemson & GT at a minimum. GT could be another Maryland & take a huge pay raise to help solve some financial woes. With those 3, & a threat to take VT as #17, could persuade NC, Duke & Virginia to go B1G as well.

The SEC would respond by taking Oklahoma, Texas, VT & 3 of Kansas, NC State, Louisville, Miami, WV, Oklahoma St, TT, TCU & Baylor. (Miami, Kansas & Louisville?) This would give us a P3 with ND back in the BE.

(04-22-2016 08:28 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 08:07 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 07:57 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:43 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  Those things cannot be changed, like I said. We won't ever be even, but you can't be negative $20 mill per year just from TV. Then you add those other factors and it becomes even worse.

Of course you can. You have been doing it for decades already.

In a sense you are demanding a level of revenue YOU DO NOT DESERVE and HAVE NOT EARNED.

The B10 revenue stream is based on Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin. How big are those schools? They average a student body in excess of 45K. How large is their alumni base? They average 400K. How large are their football stadiums? These six average 95K. There are nearly 4.3 million living B10 alumni. They have 600K students in school now.

ACC schools on average are half the size of B10 schools, the alumni base is half or less. The average stadium size is half. Based on size alone, what makes you think the ACC is getting some sort of raw or unfair deal?

Only suckers make deals based on the revenue stream without examining the costs/expenses.

Pay to grow your total enrollment to near 50K a year, and add to your football stadium enough seats to get to 95K and then you will have room to complain about a TV money disparity.

Pack, the TV revenue disparity has never been $20M per year, as this is a whole new age. I am not saying the we deserve a contract like the B1G, my whole point throughout was that we won't ever catch them or the SEC. I understand the reasons why. I do think if the ACC keeps performing the way they have, that our current contract is undervalued by ESPN. We signed a bad deal at the worst possible time.

What you don't seem to be getting is that eventually, there is a tipping point when the revenues are so lopsided, that teams are going to look elsewhere. They may not even want to, but they will have no choice. JMO.

The ACC does not need to catch the B1G or the SEC (can't be done). All we need to do is stay relatively close.
If we reach that tipping point then the onus is on ESPN to make the ACC viable. That is the upside of going all in with ESPN.

I don't think the assumption that the ACC can't catch the B1G or SEC is entirely accurate. In fact, historically, the ACC has had its fair share as being top dog. The anomaly is the "worth" of football and the "method of distribution".

It's a totally accurate assumption. A bunch of small schools are not going to catch and surpass the revenue generating ability of a bunch of huge schools or a bunch of schools that poured vast millions more into football for the last 55 years.

(04-22-2016 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only way I see FSU in the B1G is with Clemson & GT at a minimum. GT could be another Maryland & take a huge pay raise to help solve some financial woes. With those 3, & a threat to take VT as #17, could persuade NC, Duke & Virginia to go B1G as well.

The SEC would respond by taking Oklahoma, Texas, VT & 3 of Kansas, NC State, Louisville, Miami, WV, Oklahoma St, TT, TCU & Baylor. (Miami, Kansas & Louisville?) This would give us a P3 with ND back in the BE.

If you see Clemson and FSU in the B1G under any circumstance, you are looking at some sort of alternate reality.

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

(04-21-2016 06:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think Notre Dame's value is its football program.. The ACC does not have it! We should really consider adding two more teams that play both football and basketball in the ACC. Notre Dame must decide sooner or later, if wants to remain in the ACC!

[TerryD]

They most certainly do not.

[/TerryD]

(04-22-2016 10:29 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think Notre Dame's value is its football program.. The ACC does not have it! We should really consider adding two more teams that play both football and basketball in the ACC. Notre Dame must decide sooner or later, if wants to remain in the ACC!

[TerryD]

They most certainly do not.

[/TerryD]

The thing is we have decided, most don't like our decision. Hence the reason they keep saying we need to make a decision, they want us to make a different one, lol.

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

You are not representing the Florida Bar very well if you are going to claim that alumni and school size have no bearing of the market power of a university.

(04-22-2016 10:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:29 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think Notre Dame's value is its football program.. The ACC does not have it! We should really consider adding two more teams that play both football and basketball in the ACC. Notre Dame must decide sooner or later, if wants to remain in the ACC!

[TerryD]

They most certainly do not.

[/TerryD]

The thing is we have decided, most don't like our decision. Hence the reason they keep saying we need to make a decision, they want us to make a different one, lol.

Notre Dame doesn't need to do anything than what it's doing. The ACC has the best of all worlds at 15 with the current arrangement. Some don't like that. Some want to butcher the cow instead of milking it for damn a long time. 3 extra football a year will not bring in a revenue gravy train, but it will kill what is special about ND in the first place.

(04-20-2016 06:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  It would be nice to to get a new commissioner in there soon to give them time to settle in before the next round of contract negotiations.

John Skipper became ESPN president and co-chairman of Disney Media Networks in January 2012. He is a 1978 UNC graduate and frequent visitor with students and faculty at Carolina’s journalism school.
-- unc.edu

why change horses in midstream ...

YEAH BUDDY

(04-22-2016 10:42 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

You are not representing the Florida Bar very well if you are going to claim that alumni and school size have no bearing of the market power of a university.

you concede the argument when resorting to name-calling ...

AD HOMINEM

(04-22-2016 10:22 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only way I see FSU in the B1G is with Clemson & GT at a minimum. GT could be another Maryland & take a huge pay raise to help solve some financial woes. With those 3, & a threat to take VT as #17, could persuade NC, Duke & Virginia to go B1G as well.

The SEC would respond by taking Oklahoma, Texas, VT & 3 of Kansas, NC State, Louisville, Miami, WV, Oklahoma St, TT, TCU & Baylor. (Miami, Kansas & Louisville?) This would give us a P3 with ND back in the BE.

If you see Clemson and FSU in the B1G under any circumstance, you are looking at some sort of alternate reality.

Closely followed by the rapture or the apocalypse or both.

1) The Big XII has nowhere to expand now that Louisville is off the table. Anyone who thinks they'll expand with some combination of Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis -- just to get to 12 -- is as crazy as those ECU fans who thought the Big East would ever invite ECU as a member several years ago*.

*(...and to those ECU fans who just read that and want to chirp about it -- kiss my ass. I was right all along. Deal with it.)

2) FSU is going NOWHERE, $20M money difference or no $20M money difference. Had the SEC wanted them, they'd been an SEC member by now. The SEC consciously chose Missouri when there was an opening to be filled. That tells you all you need to know.

What's FSU going to do, go "indy" again? I mean, they probably "could" pull that off like BYU is, however, what makes anyone think the ACC would agree to let FSU park its non-FB sports here if they decided to go football "indy"...?

Story I heard is that the SEC actually wanted FSU and maybe Clemson. The objections were from ESPN, who refused to pay them for the move. Enter aTm and Mizzou, both of whom bring new territory and the additional TV money that goes with it.

JR, did I get that correct?

(04-22-2016 10:54 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:22 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only way I see FSU in the B1G is with Clemson & GT at a minimum. GT could be another Maryland & take a huge pay raise to help solve some financial woes. With those 3, & a threat to take VT as #17, could persuade NC, Duke & Virginia to go B1G as well.

The SEC would respond by taking Oklahoma, Texas, VT & 3 of Kansas, NC State, Louisville, Miami, WV, Oklahoma St, TT, TCU & Baylor. (Miami, Kansas & Louisville?) This would give us a P3 with ND back in the BE.

If you see Clemson and FSU in the B1G under any circumstance, you are looking at some sort of alternate reality.

Closely followed by the rapture or the apocalypse or both.

1) The Big XII has nowhere to expand now that Louisville is off the table. Anyone who thinks they'll expand with some combination of Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis -- just to get to 12 -- is as crazy as those ECU fans who thought the Big East would ever invite ECU as a member several years ago*.

*(...and to those ECU fans who just read that and want to chirp about it -- kiss my ass. I was right all along. Deal with it.)

2) FSU is going NOWHERE, $20M money difference or no $20M money difference. Had the SEC wanted them, they'd been an SEC member by now. The SEC consciously chose Missouri when there was an opening to be filled. That tells you all you need to know.

What's FSU going to do, go "indy" again? I mean, they probably "could" pull that off like BYU is, however, what makes anyone think the ACC would agree to let FSU park its non-FB sports here if they decided to go football "indy"...?

(04-22-2016 10:54 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:22 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:11 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The only way I see FSU in the B1G is with Clemson & GT at a minimum. GT could be another Maryland & take a huge pay raise to help solve some financial woes. With those 3, & a threat to take VT as #17, could persuade NC, Duke & Virginia to go B1G as well.

The SEC would respond by taking Oklahoma, Texas, VT & 3 of Kansas, NC State, Louisville, Miami, WV, Oklahoma St, TT, TCU & Baylor. (Miami, Kansas & Louisville?) This would give us a P3 with ND back in the BE.

If you see Clemson and FSU in the B1G under any circumstance, you are looking at some sort of alternate reality.

Closely followed by the rapture or the apocalypse or both.

1) The Big XII has nowhere to expand now that Louisville is off the table. Anyone who thinks they'll expand with some combination of Cincinnati, Houston and Memphis -- just to get to 12 -- is as crazy as those ECU fans who thought the Big East would ever invite ECU as a member several years ago*.

*(...and to those ECU fans who just read that and want to chirp about it -- kiss my ass. I was right all along. Deal with it.)

2) FSU is going NOWHERE, $20M money difference or no $20M money difference. Had the SEC wanted them, they'd been an SEC member by now. The SEC consciously chose Missouri when there was an opening to be filled. That tells you all you need to know.

What's FSU going to do, go "indy" again? I mean, they probably "could" pull that off like BYU is, however, what makes anyone think the ACC would agree to let FSU park its non-FB sports here if they decided to go football "indy"...?

Lol, I did say "the only way". The odds of it actually happening is about the same as a snowballs chance in Hades.

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

There are hard core t-shirt fans and then there are fair weather fans. ND has a lot of the former. In contrast, the "U" has a lot of the latter. That's what makes ND special. Many schools fall into the latter category, especially those in the northeast.

(04-22-2016 10:53 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:42 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:27 AM)green Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 06:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The disparity is an alumni base of 450-500K versus 220-250K.

Don't leave basic logic at the door

you employ specious logic ...
neither alumnus nor student necessarily equals fan ...
FAN = FAN
case in point: me
I attended uf undergrad & law ...
don't give a flying f_ck 'bout that school ...
a C-A-N-E to the core ...

SOULMATE

You are not representing the Florida Bar very well if you are going to claim that alumni and school size have no bearing of the market power of a university.

you concede the argument when resorting to name-calling ...

AD HOMINEM

IMHO, green is right that fans are what really matter. Lumber is right that alumni size and school size are great proxies for fan base size at the P5 level.