http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...cc-network

Don't know what the financial details are regarding how ESPN would be paying the ACC but my guess is that there wont be any guarantees as ESPN is reportedly still losing subscribers. With the 2 million additional per school the the ACC got after signing the grant plus the additional 3 million per if they didnt get a network...ESPN was already in for 5 million per times 14 teams or 70 million per year for the league (considerably more than the Pac 12 on a per team basis). By giving the ACC a network ESPN's only risk is the start-up costs IMO which they can bill the ACC for at least half of. And instead of forking over 70 million a year with no corresponding asset to pay said expenenses, ESPN can now take back the 70 million ( cost savings) and split half or more (depending on what was negotiated) of the profit from the newly created ACC Network.

With a of that being said the ACC looks secure unless of course they sold their collective soul to the devil and sacrificed revenue for exposure and a Network.
Without the ACC in the fold as expansion candidates the only viable prospects IMO are UCONN & the Big 12 schools (Texas, Oklahoma, & Kansas).
Competition should be FIERCE for the Big 12 schools from the B1G, Pac 12, & SEC. And my guess is that the ACC & B1G will scrap over UCONN.

Too much politics with Oklahoma and Texas to leave the B12. As long as UT and OU get TV money comparable to B1G/SEC revenues, they will stay. To make that happen the other schools in the conference will most definitely make concessions and take less. The other schools have no leverage.

I am fine staying at 14. If there is money to be made at 16, I'd take Mizzou and UConn and go to four pods of four for football and basketball scheduling.

UConn to BIG would complete eastern expansion and give BIG the four flagship state schools in the northeast and all of the major TV markets along the I-95 corridor from Boston to DC. Invite Missouri and wait a few years for Kansas and Oklahoma and perhaps Texas and another Texas school..

KU, OU, UT and UConn

If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

(07-19-2016 06:55 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Now that the B12 is expanding, we no longer have to worry about a Tech trying to get an invite to land Texas.

Just take Texas and Oklahoma and move Purude to the east and let the conference mature with the new membership numbers for the rest of our lives.

The ACC is locked for 20 years. My kid will be in college and probably graduating already by then...WOW!!

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 06:55 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

(07-19-2016 08:34 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 06:55 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

Without even batting an eye. Rice is an academic powerhouse and has a good overall athletic program. They would be the southern counterpart of Northwestern.

(07-19-2016 08:34 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 06:55 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

Dude, Rice is a non starter. Academics don't mean squat, this is an athletic conference we are talking about. I know Rutgers hasn't been great but Rice has been waaaaaaaay worse. Rice will never ever get a B1G invite. There are much better options for academics and athletics out there.

(07-19-2016 10:11 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 08:34 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  [quote='GE and MTS' pid='13398007' dateline='1468972543']
If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

Without even batting an eye. Rice is an academic powerhouse and has a good overall athletic program. They would be the southern counterpart of Northwestern.
Compare Northwestern and Rice in actual athletics. They are not the same and if academics mattered we'd be adding John Hopkins and the university of chicago.

With respect to Rice, you don't want to be like the ACC, with too many small, private schools that no large school one wants to play.

(07-19-2016 11:39 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  With respect to Rice, you don't want to be like the ACC, with too many small, private schools that no large school one wants to play.

Also the fact that Texas has no interest in inviting Rice, who BTW is still in CUSA. They had no interest in bringing them along to the Big XII and are only interested in beating them down every couple of years in an OOC game in Austin.

(07-19-2016 10:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 10:11 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 08:34 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 06:55 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If ACC schools are off limits, I'd think expansion has to be with Texas in mind. That probably means Oklahoma would have to come as well. Texas probably will want some buddies from the state of Texas but Texas A&M is likely a big no to the Big Ten and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are unacceptable. I'll come back to this.

Kansas probably won't find a home in the SEC or ACC. The PAC may send an invite but I think Kansas would rather go to the Big Ten if given the choice. Would Texas, or Oklahoma, want Kansas to tag along? I could see Oklahoma saying yes to Kansas if it were just OU and KU joining the Big Ten but if it were UT and OU then I don't think Oklahoma is as partnered up with Kansas.

If I were influencing the Big Ten, I'd grab Texas and Oklahoma and stop there. Let Texas keep the LHN and just withhold BTN money from them until the LHN deal is over. If the want to bring friends, make Kansas next.

I have a tough time debating between Missouri and Rice for the theoretical last spot. Missouri would be great for Kansas and give them their biggest rival back. Missouri would also be great for Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and others I'm sure but would they leave the SEC? I have my doubts. Rice would give Texas another school in Texas, and it would promote a school unlikely to ever threaten them for Texas superiority. Plus it would likely diminish TCU, Baylor, and Texas Tech's Power status in addition to a great academic addition further balancing out Oklahoma.

In the end, I'd go with Missouri but I wouldn't lose sleep if they said no. I'd grab Rice then and be done. Adding premier programs like Texas and Oklahoma along with a basketball king with Kansas and an academic heavyweight in Rice or a generally safe Missouri.

I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

Without even batting an eye. Rice is an academic powerhouse and has a good overall athletic program. They would be the southern counterpart of Northwestern.

Compare Northwestern and Rice in actual athletics. They are not the same and if academics mattered we'd be adding John Hopkins and the university of chicago.

Chicago and Hopkins are not FBS. Chicago left the conference decades ago, and Hopkins joined last year for Lacrosse because their Lacrosse program is the highest level.

Rice, like Northwestern, has played in the highest level of football (Division 1/FBS) since the divisions began. They were in a power conference for decades, the SWC, and still have a very good all-around athletic program and huge endowment.

So if the hypothetical scenario which was spoken of earlier in this post where Texas requested another Texas school and the B1G requested only AAU, so Texas requests for Rice, then Rice would join our conference.

No offense to Rice, but cable companies would laugh at the BTN if they tried to get carriage in Houston with Rice as the anchor.

Seriously though, why do we have to expand? I am fine at 14. I would keep an eye on UConn. If the ACC or Big 12 try to grab them in order to encroach upon the NYC market for TV network purposes, I think the B10 should make a move in order to keep its hold on the NYC market.

^ the only expansion I'd like to see is adding OU and UT and close up at 16. If we go beyond 16, then other factors can be considered, but adding a UConn or Kansas without OU or UT doesn't make too much sense to the conference, because they don't bring football nor a top DMA.

A Texas alternative to Rice could be Houston, the dominant school in the Houston area market. I understand the school is undergoing a construction boom, with $1 billion in construction projects. It is a Tier 1 research school but lacks AAU status. So the school is investing in both academics and athletics.

(07-20-2016 01:52 PM)AntiG Wrote:  ^ the only expansion I'd like to see is adding OU and UT and close up at 16. If we go beyond 16, then other factors can be considered, but adding a UConn or Kansas without OU or UT doesn't make too much sense to the conference, because they don't bring football nor a top DMA.

UConn represents a top DMA if you look at from the prospective of the ACC Network cutting into potential right fees of the BTN. Cable companies will only pay so much for content in a single market. Having to pay for the ACC Network in NYC (for UConn, Notre Dame basketball & Syracuse for example) will cut into future funds available for the BTN.

However, if the B1G grabs UConn the ACC will not be able to penetrate the market with simply Syracuse and ND basketball. Plus, maybe UConn helps get carriage in Boston, where there are other large B1G alum bases.

(07-20-2016 12:17 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 10:46 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 10:11 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 08:34 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(07-19-2016 07:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  I think as long as Texas has OU they would be happy.

Not a chance in hell would Rice ever be considered. EVER.

Rice is private which hurts and their athletic history isn't good but they have great academics, are AAU, and are in Houston. If Texas demanded another Texas school, Rice is the least bad option to the Big Ten compared to the non-Texas A&M options. If Texas demanded Rice, I think the Big Ten would cave.

Without even batting an eye. Rice is an academic powerhouse and has a good overall athletic program. They would be the southern counterpart of Northwestern.

Compare Northwestern and Rice in actual athletics. They are not the same and if academics mattered we'd be adding John Hopkins and the university of chicago.

Chicago and Hopkins are not FBS. Chicago left the conference decades ago, and Hopkins joined last year for Lacrosse because their Lacrosse program is the highest level.

Rice, like Northwestern, has played in the highest level of football (Division 1/FBS) since the divisions began. They were in a power conference for decades, the SWC, and still have a very good all-around athletic program and huge endowment.

So if the hypothetical scenario which was spoken of earlier in this post where Texas requested another Texas school and the B1G requested only AAU, so Texas requests for Rice, then Rice would join our conference.

They haven't been in a power conference for decades and when they were they were the worst team in that conference. Outside of baseball their athletic department isn't very good. When was the last time their BBall team made the NCAAs? 1970. Prior to that? 1954. So in 65 years they made the NCAA's twice. Yup, a very good all around athletic program...except Football...and basketball...

Here are my thoughts on the ACC Network:

Another channel I won't get/ pay for. Previously I had all the sports channels as part of my cable package, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNews, ESPNU, CBS Sports, FS1, BTN, MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, NBC Sports, SEC and the local regional networks (MSG, MSG+, SNY and YES). I cut back my cable package to save money and now only get ESPN, 2, FS1, BTN, NBC Sports and the locals. I would occasionally watch the ACC Game of the Week on WLNY if nothing else was on, or the game that they had on the regional sports network packages, but if they move all those games to an ACC Network, well good for them on losing viewership.