(04-09-2022 12:20 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 12:10 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  coach K is gone, Duke slides back to the pack.
Duke becomes another Wake Forrest

Have you seen Duke's signnes and verbal commitments for the next couple seasons?

Bob Wade could win with that talent

Duke already made it's 1st mistake,
not hiring Tommy Amaker.

it will take time to fall back to the pack.
coach K puppet is in over his head.

(04-09-2022 02:47 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:44 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 07:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  A move East with ACC schools (UNC, Virginia, Duke) should be the priority. Schools like Kansas, Colorado and the PAC, respectfully, aren't going anywhere. The SEC will, if it hasn't already, set its sights on the ACC valued brands in the coming years. If the SEC acquires those programs, it's game over for the B1G and the rest of college football.

Inevitably, I do think the B1G acquires a majority of the PAC down the road (AAU institutions). If they accomplish that, along with a few ACC schools, they will be in best position to grab ND for partial membership like the ACC currently has. The SEC acquires the Southern ACC brands (Clemson, FSU, NC State, GA Tech) along with possibly a limited few of the Big 12 (OSU).

Then you have two mega conferences at the top level of college football, with the champion of each league facing each other for a national championship. The value is increased, schools are cut, and you have very much a professional model implemented.

"A professional model." For college sports.

Are we absolutely certain that's a good thing?

Ultimately, yes.

If it a professional program, it stops being “College Athletics” and becomes a ****** NFL.

(04-09-2022 11:25 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:47 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:44 PM)NJMark Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 07:24 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  A move East with ACC schools (UNC, Virginia, Duke) should be the priority. Schools like Kansas, Colorado and the PAC, respectfully, aren't going anywhere. The SEC will, if it hasn't already, set its sights on the ACC valued brands in the coming years. If the SEC acquires those programs, it's game over for the B1G and the rest of college football.

Inevitably, I do think the B1G acquires a majority of the PAC down the road (AAU institutions). If they accomplish that, along with a few ACC schools, they will be in best position to grab ND for partial membership like the ACC currently has. The SEC acquires the Southern ACC brands (Clemson, FSU, NC State, GA Tech) along with possibly a limited few of the Big 12 (OSU).

Then you have two mega conferences at the top level of college football, with the champion of each league facing each other for a national championship. The value is increased, schools are cut, and you have very much a professional model implemented.

"A professional model." For college sports.

Are we absolutely certain that's a good thing?

Ultimately, yes.

If it a professional program, it stops being “College Athletics” and becomes a ****** NFL.

I don’t find players getting paid above the table any less distasteful than decades of illicit benefits, not to mention the ridiculous arms race aimed at attracting them. I rather have a super league under a commissioner in which revenue is pretty equal and things like NIL more equitable, than the boring, history/tradition, blueblood dominated sport we’ve had for decades

College football is currently a disorganized disaster of regional fiefdoms, lack of product identification.

I look forward to the top 40 or so programs being in a super league of two conferences, generally split north-south. It’s better drama and more compelling overall. It makes the sport more national and makes every game more important. For example, I’ll care more about North Carolina because they could take a playoff spot from my local team. And hating the BIG.

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

Oh I dunno, I think I might hesitate calling it a "free" market enterprise, a "free market" enterprise, or even a "free market enterprise". lol

But yes, I will agree that, for fbs at the very least, it looks like the idea of "amateur" play is going to pretty much be over.

(04-10-2022 11:49 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

Oh I dunno, I think I might hesitate calling it a "free" market enterprise, a "free market" enterprise, or even a "free market enterprise". lol

But yes, I will agree that, for fbs at the very least, it looks like the idea of "amateur" play is going to pretty much be over.

I didn't use an article. It's as Free Market as anything corporately controlled. And it is a business. And, amateurism never really existed in the game, and the pretense of it coupled with the selective penalties assigned for its alleged violation has been hypocrisy at its finest. Never mind that it has always been coercive for poor athletes to be forced into an underground economy which made them complicit in violation of tax law. The NCAA is just a front designed for the cover of mass denial among academics. And I might note this is one reason many academics do not wish to abandon the NCAA and its illusion of amateurism.

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

1. Of course it’s a business and I should have clarified it will never be strictly a business with taxpayer and government funding involvement. I noticed you didn’t address my BCS example.

2. Markets fluctuate. We’ve seen that over the course of college sports history. Penn had 80k in the stands and their own tv deal. There will always be an avenue for upward mobility in college athletics. Yes, I used “always”.

3. Amateur has nothing to do with it. 40 years ago UCF football was just getting off the ground and now they’re P5. You mean to tell me in the next 40 years something like that isn’t possible and the door will be closed on this “breakaway league” forever? Predicting a stagnant pro sports league is foolish when this isn’t pro sports where owners have to be invited to join the club. Take lil’ old Liberty, a private school, which elbowed their way into FBS when everyone said they needed a conference invite.

Also, it’s easy to say this whole new paradigm etc. because that’s a blanket statement that doesn’t have any more substance than what I’m saying.

(04-11-2022 02:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

1. Of course it’s a business and I should have clarified it will never be strictly a business with taxpayer and government funding involvement. I noticed you didn’t address my BCS example.

2. Markets fluctuate. We’ve seen that over the course of college sports history. Penn had 80k in the stands and their own tv deal. There will always be an avenue for upward mobility in college athletics. Yes, I used “always”.

3. Amateur has nothing to do with it. 40 years ago UCF football was just getting off the ground and now they’re P5. You mean to tell me in the next 40 years something like that isn’t possible and the door will be closed on this “breakaway league” forever? Predicting a stagnant pro sports league is foolish when this isn’t pro sports where owners have to be invited to join the club. Take lil’ old Liberty, a private school, which elbowed their way into FBS when everyone said they needed a conference invite.

Also, it’s easy to say this whole new paradigm etc. because that’s a blanket statement that doesn’t have any more substance than what I’m saying.

Wait and see. The change that is coming will be massive and transformative, and is already underway. It is a case of adapt or die. Texas and Oklahoma are seismic shifts and what they are worth is insignificant to the fact they felt they had to move.

(04-11-2022 03:15 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!

1. Of course it’s a business and I should have clarified it will never be strictly a business with taxpayer and government funding involvement. I noticed you didn’t address my BCS example.

2. Markets fluctuate. We’ve seen that over the course of college sports history. Penn had 80k in the stands and their own tv deal. There will always be an avenue for upward mobility in college athletics. Yes, I used “always”.

3. Amateur has nothing to do with it. 40 years ago UCF football was just getting off the ground and now they’re P5. You mean to tell me in the next 40 years something like that isn’t possible and the door will be closed on this “breakaway league” forever? Predicting a stagnant pro sports league is foolish when this isn’t pro sports where owners have to be invited to join the club. Take lil’ old Liberty, a private school, which elbowed their way into FBS when everyone said they needed a conference invite.

Also, it’s easy to say this whole new paradigm etc. because that’s a blanket statement that doesn’t have any more substance than what I’m saying.

Wait and see. The change that is coming will be massive and transformative, and is already underway. It is a case of adapt or die. Texas and Oklahoma are seismic shifts and what they are worth is insignificant to the fact they felt they had to move.

Yes, there is obvious major change going on. Texas moving from the King’s suite to the bunkhouse is evidence of that. It’s a nice bunkhouse, but they lost their kingdom.

My argument is that if there is a “breakaway” it will be shrouded under much of the same model we already see that gives the illusion of equal access. Everyone knows UAB isn’t winning the national title, but they are included in the same poll as Alabama. You take that away and the problems start. We ultimately end up right back where we are now. The P5 effectively is the breakaway.

Until you SEC boys stop playing FCS teams before Rivalry Week, I ain’t seeing nothing different.

The only list that matters is Right Here

Everything else is opinion and pontification.

Revenues = A Strong fanbase willing to donate, invest, and simply pay to compete.

If your program isn’t able to earn at least $100 million maybe you don’t need to be playing at the top levels of collegiate athletics.

The Big Ten and SEC are simply showing everyone what we already knew. College athletics is big business. A successful business turns a profit.

NIL will be another competitive advantage for those already making the money. 22 states have yet to pass legislation making NIL legal. If your university is located in one of those 22 states, you’re already falling behind.

Big time college athletics is changing. If your university has been part of a P5 conference, just cashing a check, those days are over.

(04-10-2022 11:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-10-2022 11:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 05:34 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Antitrust doesn't apply. The 40-odd schools withdraw football from the NCAA and form their own association, with its own rules on pay, worker's comp, unions, etc. The owners are the school presidents, and they select a commissioner. It doesn't preclude the bowls, FBS, FCS, etc. system to continue as before.

As to the argument that the big schools "need" teams to beat up, that's not so. The NFL has 32 teams and while some win and some lose, no one is clamoring for games against lesser teams as a result.

It’s never going to be a business with taxpayer money involved. That’s why the BCS system was attacked and expanded. That’s why the power conferences pulled the best teams from the Mountain West and took it out.

It will get very messy when one state institution is favored over another or some states are left out all together with no access for upward mobility. Upward mobility is the cornerstone of universities and you’re telling me that institutions that poured millions into their football programs are going to have the door slammed in their face? Not happening. There will always be a way for universities to “upgrade” into the hypothetical division or it’s not happening.

1. When you get to be my age you will look back on "It's never" as being the opening declaration of 99% of your most foolish statements.

2. When every school has the opportunity to step up to full pay for play with NIL those who choose not to will have no claim to make. Those who do but are paid much less because the don't draw the same market share of the top 48 will have no case. A for profit endeavor in which normal risks for failure exist has no suit to file when the market favors other choices.

3. [b]This isn't an amateur, equal access, endeavor. Old standard assumptions are wholly irrelevant in this new and quite different paradigm. It's something completely unknown to academics. It's called free market enterprise!
[/b]

I have to laugh as an ND fan when I take a 30,000 foot view of this.

When ND signed the NBC deal for $9 million a year in 1991, people like Joe Paterno went out of their way to criticize ND as a "banking institution" instead of an academic one.

ND was reviled as "greedy" and "selfish" when it was getting that money and $17.5 million a year for making the BCS back then, especially when other schools were not feeding at that large of a trough.

Now, apparently, "greed is good" since the conferences are signing huge TV deals.

There is now even talk about some schools leaving other, lesser financially performing schools behind in a "breakaway" of the most popular and profitable schools.

"All for one, one for all" and the days of Ohio State propping up Illinois and USC propping up Washington State seems to be falling by the wayside.

Now, "eat what you kill" seems to be a lot more popular than it used to be when ND was doing the eating and killing.

I guess it all depends on who is doing it and whose ox is being gored? I guess that ND had it right all those years ago?

(Don't get me wrong, I am agreeing with your post, the overall irony as an ND fan strikes me as, well, ironic)

The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

(04-11-2022 12:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

Add Louisville and break into 4 divisions of 7. At least you would have an even number of conference games each week.

North:
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Southeast:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

South:
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Southwest:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

So what’s everyone’s take on final expansion… We’ll we end up with only 2, 3 or 4 high revenue conferences?

Ultimately I believe we end up with either 2 or 4 when all chips fall in place. But still can’t pinpoint which of the three ACC, Big12 or the PAC folds.

(04-11-2022 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

Add Louisville and break into 4 divisions of 7. At least you would have an even number of conference games each week.

North:
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Southeast:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

South:
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Southwest:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I like the concept for a mega-conference, and the appropriate ACC schools, IMO, are identified if that is the direction the movement goes. I lean toward placing Vandy differently, at least. I am not sure Kansas would end-up in the SEC. I could see Oklahoma State as an alternative in this "mega" situation.

Question: Would ESPN be interested in retaining the northern ACC tier of Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, and some connection to Notre Dame? I can't see the SEC giving Notre Dame an ACC-type accommodation of most of their Olympic-style sports plus several football games scheduled yearly. I don't particularly see Pitt, Syracuse, and BC being a useful fit for the SEC.

Notre Dame fans may argue this, but if the BIG looks west for schools such as Colorado, maybe Kansas, I wouldn't totally dismiss ND, Pitt, and even Iowa State, being a part of a future BIG mega-conference. Pitt, 'Cuse, and BC, maybe even UConn, could connect with WVU, Cincy, and the rest of the B12.

(04-11-2022 01:02 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  So what’s everyone’s take on final expansion… We’ll we end up with only 2, 3 or 4 high revenue conferences?

Ultimately I believe we end up with either 2 or 4 when all chips fall in place. But still can’t pinpoint which of the three ACC, Big12 or the PAC folds.

The SEC/BIG Invitational Playoffs

(04-11-2022 02:07 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

Add Louisville and break into 4 divisions of 7. At least you would have an even number of conference games each week.

North:
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Southeast:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

South:
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Southwest:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I like the concept for a mega-conference, and the appropriate ACC schools, IMO, are identified if that is the direction the movement goes. I lean toward placing Vandy differently, at least. I am not sure Kansas would end-up in the SEC. I could see Oklahoma State as an alternative in this "mega" situation.

Question: Would ESPN be interested in retaining the northern ACC tier of Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, and some connection to Notre Dame? I can't see the SEC giving Notre Dame an ACC-type accommodation of most of their Olympic-style sports plus several football games scheduled yearly. I don't particularly see Pitt, Syracuse, and BC being a useful fit for the SEC.

Notre Dame fans may argue this, but if the BIG looks west for schools such as Colorado, maybe Kansas, I wouldn't totally dismiss ND, Pitt, and even Iowa State, being a part of a future BIG mega-conference. Pitt, 'Cuse, and BC, maybe even UConn, could connect with WVU, Cincy, and the rest of the B12.

Many people vastly overestimate the "lure" or attraction or appeal of Pitt, Syracuse and BC to Notre Dame.

ND used to play Pitt annually and played BC quite often in the 2000-2012 time frame, but that is about it.

They were opponents on the schedule. That is about the extent of the relationship.

ND likes to play in big East Coast cities, so Pitt and BC sometimes fill that bill.

There is no close connection or "rivalry" like Auburn/Alabama or WVU/Pitt.

The only schools ND really "cares" about are Southern Cal and Navy, for different reasons.

Most other schools are pretty much fungible as far as a schedule goes. Replace Michigan with Clemson or Florida State, replace Georgia with Alabama or Texas A&M, etc....

For instance, ND played Michigan (but only from 1978) Purdue and Michigan State annually until the 2012 ACC deal.

Then, those schools vanished from ND annual schedules.

The reaction of ND fans? Not much of one, really.

ND and Syracuse have not really played that often in the past 50 years or so.

ND may well end up in the Big Ten ($$$$), but it will not be because Pitt, BC and Syracuse are included.

(04-11-2022 06:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 02:07 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-11-2022 12:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

Add Louisville and break into 4 divisions of 7. At least you would have an even number of conference games each week.

North:
Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Southeast:
Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Carolina

South:
Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Southwest:
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisville, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

I like the concept for a mega-conference, and the appropriate ACC schools, IMO, are identified if that is the direction the movement goes. I lean toward placing Vandy differently, at least. I am not sure Kansas would end-up in the SEC. I could see Oklahoma State as an alternative in this "mega" situation.

Question: Would ESPN be interested in retaining the northern ACC tier of Pitt, Syracuse, and BC, and some connection to Notre Dame? I can't see the SEC giving Notre Dame an ACC-type accommodation of most of their Olympic-style sports plus several football games scheduled yearly. I don't particularly see Pitt, Syracuse, and BC being a useful fit for the SEC.

Notre Dame fans may argue this, but if the BIG looks west for schools such as Colorado, maybe Kansas, I wouldn't totally dismiss ND, Pitt, and even Iowa State, being a part of a future BIG mega-conference. Pitt, 'Cuse, and BC, maybe even UConn, could connect with WVU, Cincy, and the rest of the B12.

Many people vastly overestimate the "lure" or attraction or appeal of Pitt, Syracuse and BC to Notre Dame.

ND used to play Pitt annually and played BC quite often in the 2000-2012 time frame, but that is about it.

They were opponents on the schedule. That is about the extent of the relationship.

The only schools ND really "cares" about are Southern Cal and Navy, for different reasons.

Most other schools are pretty much fungible. Replace Michigan with Florida State, replace Georgia with Alabama or Texas A&M, etc....

For instance, ND played Michigan (but only from 1978) Purdue and Michigan State annually until the 2012 ACC deal.

Then, those schools vanished from ND annual schedules.

The reaction of ND fans? Not much of one, really.

ND and Syracuse have not really played that often in the past 50 years or so.

ND may well end up in the Big Ten ($$$$), but it will not be because Pitt, BC and Syracuse are included.

Terry D, how would ND respond to an offer from ESPN to simply be fully independent with USC should ESPN essentially offer each a payday equivalent with SEC payouts? Don't you think that with ESPN's assistance in scheduling that such an option would be preferable to being a member of the Big 10?

Such a move by ESPN would really leverage top B1G and PAC schools to consider the same.

So, ESPN could build a 20-24 super conference out of the SEC/ACC and begin assembling another via such contracts. Thoughts?

(04-11-2022 12:00 PM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten may covet some ESPN property in the ACC, but ESPN will have the first option and I can see either 1) the ACC remaining as is with a competitive pay increase or 2) some ACC property bundled with the SEC and split into the ACC division:

The Big Southeastern

Atlantic Coast Division
UVA
VT
Wake
UNC
Duke
NC St.
Clemson
SC
GT

Southeastern Division
UK
UT
Vandy
UGA
UF
FSU
Miami
Bama
Auburn

Southwest Division
Ole Miss
Miss St.
LSU
Arkansas
Texas
TAMU
Oklahoma
Mizzou
Kansas

10 game conference schedules, division champs plus a wildcard for a conference playoff.

That's the Old Southern Conference from the 1920's plus Texas, OU, TAMU, and Arkansas.