Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

Why not split Big 12 into 2 even divisions? and you'd almost have to have a Texas school in each division.

(03-13-2024 01:08 PM)bhutchcraft89 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

Why not split Big 12 into 2 even divisions? and you'd almost have to have a Texas school in each division.

Preserving more historical rivalries made more sense. All the Plains schools were in the Big 8. All the Southwest schools were in the SWC. Utah, BYU, Arizona, and Arizona St were all in the WAC together prior to 1978 and 5 of those 6 spent time in the PAC 12.

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

I would add 2 of UConn, Tulane, and Memphis to the ACC to get them to 18.

How does that make any sense for the Big 12? We give up 3 schools we wanted in exchange for 3 schools we passed on just last year.

(03-13-2024 01:59 PM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  How does that make any sense for the Big 12? We give up 3 schools we wanted in exchange for 3 schools we passed on just last year.

Cuz, the ACC rulz don't you know? ACC made their bed, let them lie in it.

(03-13-2024 01:59 PM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  How does that make any sense for the Big 12? We give up 3 schools we wanted in exchange for 3 schools we passed on just last year.

Cal and Stanford are the equivalent of 2 of Cincinnati/WVU/UCF, who were all added before Cal and Stanford were available. SMU doesn't add much, but they were in the next 4 during the first expansion (along with USF, Memphis and Boise).

(03-13-2024 02:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 01:59 PM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  How does that make any sense for the Big 12? We give up 3 schools we wanted in exchange for 3 schools we passed on just last year.

Cal and Stanford are the equivalent of 2 of Cincinnati/WVU/UCF, who were all added before Cal and Stanford were available. SMU doesn't add much, but they were in the next 4 during the first expansion (along with USF, Memphis and Boise).

Yeah I don't think that matters. If Big 12 wanted any of those 3, they would have gotten them instead of the ACC. That's a prop up the ACC move, and I don't see the Big 12 interested in that one iota.

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

Those "geographic outliers" are big money generators for the ACCN.
I guess that the ACCN could lease the Big 12 some time slots to make up the difference in revenue.

BTW you need to add Clemson back to the ACC. Florida State has already burned too many bridges, but until they aren't, Clemson and Carolina are still in the fold.

Any co-op swap between the B12 and ACC needs to account for the ACC’s academic snobbery. So trading Stan and Cal wouid be a non starter. If the ACC lost FSU and Clem then the ACC wouid 12 teams east and 3 teams west. The play would be to get 3 more west so we have a 6 team west division.

The more likely scenario is that the ACC raids the B12 and the B12 back fills. I imagine a good looking west division of Stan, Cal, SMU, TCU, Az, ASU. The B12 back fills with Oregon St., WSU and BSU or hold at 15 with 3 divisions of 5.

(03-13-2024 02:37 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Any co-op swap between the B12 and ACC needs to account for the ACC’s academic snobbery. So trading Stan and Cal wouid be a non starter. If the ACC lost FSU and Clem then the ACC wouid 12 teams east and 3 teams west. The play would be to get 3 more west so we have a 6 team west division.

The more likely scenario is that the ACC raids the B12 and the B12 back fills. I imagine a good looking west division of Stan, Cal, SMU, TCU, Az, ASU. The B12 back fills with Oregon St., WSU and BSU or hold at 15 with 3 divisions of 5.

Those Pac schools would have joined the ACC last year if it made sense. It didn't.
They aren't taking anyone from the Big 12 unless it is a mutually agreed trade.

(03-13-2024 02:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 01:59 PM)TeamRamRod1 Wrote:  How does that make any sense for the Big 12? We give up 3 schools we wanted in exchange for 3 schools we passed on just last year.

Cal and Stanford are the equivalent of 2 of Cincinnati/WVU/UCF, who were all added before Cal and Stanford were available. SMU doesn't add much, but they were in the next 4 during the first expansion (along with USF, Memphis and Boise).

I suspect that the Big 12 Presidents would prefer WV, Cinci and UCF to any of the 3 ACC pre-backfills. Perhaps ASU and Utah wouldn't, but the other Presidents might vote 14-0 in favor of the current Big 12 schools.

(03-13-2024 02:37 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Any co-op swap between the B12 and ACC needs to account for the ACC’s academic snobbery. So trading Stan and Cal wouid be a non starter. If the ACC lost FSU and Clem then the ACC wouid 12 teams east and 3 teams west. The play would be to get 3 more west so we have a 6 team west division.

The more likely scenario is that the ACC raids the B12 and the B12 back fills. I imagine a good looking west division of Stan, Cal, SMU, TCU, Az, ASU. The B12 back fills with Oregon St., WSU and BSU or hold at 15 with 3 divisions of 5.

If I was a Big 12 school, I wouldn't want to join the ACC even with zero losses. If the ACC loses FSU, or especially FSU + Clemson? The only movement in that case would be ACC programs calling Yormark while Phillips begs him for a full merger.

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

But does your sense make $$$?

ACC profits from access to the Bay Area & California TV households. SMU is willing to subsidize the ACC’s success initiative, as well as provide access to the Dallas & Texas market.

As the B1G and SEC are proving in the CFP discussion (and FSU via the lawsuit), the only rationale for changes is $$$.

(03-13-2024 02:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

But does your sense make $$$?

ACC profits from access to the Bay Area & California TV households. SMU is willing to subsidize the ACC’s success initiative, as well as provide access to the Dallas & Texas market.

As the B1G and SEC are proving in the CFP discussion (and FSU via the lawsuit), the only rationale for changes is $$$.

The ACCN is a continually declining asset.

(03-13-2024 02:37 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Any co-op swap between the B12 and ACC needs to account for the ACC’s academic snobbery. So trading Stan and Cal wouid be a non starter. If the ACC lost FSU and Clem then the ACC wouid 12 teams east and 3 teams west. The play would be to get 3 more west so we have a 6 team west division.

The more likely scenario is that the ACC raids the B12 and the B12 back fills. I imagine a good looking west division of Stan, Cal, SMU, TCU, Az, ASU. The B12 back fills with Oregon St., WSU and BSU or hold at 15 with 3 divisions of 5.

The ACC concern would be revenue (not snobbery)…which is the same issue that led FSU to sue the ACC.

(03-13-2024 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 02:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

But does your sense make $$$?

ACC profits from access to the Bay Area & California TV households. SMU is willing to subsidize the ACC’s success initiative, as well as provide access to the Dallas & Texas market.

As the B1G and SEC are proving in the CFP discussion (and FSU via the lawsuit), the only rationale for changes is $$$.

The ACCN is a continually declining asset.

Well, in theory you're correct, but its value went up last year, and I bet it goes up next year, too.

(03-13-2024 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 02:52 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Let’s say that Florida St and Clemson do leave the ACC shortly but UNC decides to stay put and without them, additional expansion by the P2 then grinds to a halt.

The ACC backfills with USF and then enters a cooperative partnership with the Big 12–both parties agree to swap their geographic outliers and settle out to the following divisions/pods:

Big 12 Pacific: Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Ariz St, Utah, BYU
Big 12 Plains: Colorado, Kansas, K St, Iowa St, Okla St
Big 12 Southwest: TCU, SMU, Baylor, Texas Tech, Houston

ACC North: BC, Pitt, Cuse, WVU, Cincinnati, L’ville, USF, UCF
ACC South: VT, UVA, NC St, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

It makes too much sense to actually happen.

But does your sense make $$$?

ACC profits from access to the Bay Area & California TV households. SMU is willing to subsidize the ACC’s success initiative, as well as provide access to the Dallas & Texas market.

As the B1G and SEC are proving in the CFP discussion (and FSU via the lawsuit), the only rationale for changes is $$$.

The ACCN is a continually declining asset.

Depends on how you value the asset.

In terms of revenue distribution, the ACCN is still a growing asset. In terms of building a media partnership, it’s also a growing asset.

The ACCN could be a declining asset to Disney (due to future valuations and cannibalization from other properties), but the ACC’s stake is different.

The ACC did not take Utah, Az or ASU is because they made a play to get UW and UO and lost out on them at the 11th hour. The ACC also suffers from a clear vision; in their minds they still think they are just a regional conference and they don't really want to expand further west. I think we passed the point of no return in a lot of areas including unequal revenue sharing and going way out of our region.

Stan, Cal, SMU are wonderful money grab opportunities and the ACC seized it. It will boost the ACC14's revenue by another $7-8m a year. The hypocritical part of all of this is that the drum was always beat that the ACC was supposed to be an equal revenue sharing conference, if we passed that threshold of being an unequal revenue sharing conference, then why not use half of that new found wealth to pacify FSU or any other potential dissenters?

If FSU, Clem, UNC are rocking the boat (they were not pro-expansion), then $3m of that extra $7-8m from the 12 other conference mates given to FSU, Clem and UNC would stabilize everything.

(03-13-2024 04:00 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The ACC did not take Utah, Az or ASU is because they made a play to get UW and UO and lost out on them at the 11th hour. The ACC also suffers from a clear vision; in their minds they still think they are just a regional conference and they don't really want to expand further west. I think we passed the point of no return in a lot of areas including unequal revenue sharing and going way out of our region.

Stan, Cal, SMU are wonderful money grab opportunities and the ACC seized it. It will boost the ACC14's revenue by another $7-8m a year. The hypocritical part of all of this is that the drum was always beat that the ACC was supposed to be an equal revenue sharing conference, if we passed that threshold of being an unequal revenue sharing conference, then why not use half of that new found wealth to pacify FSU or any other potential dissenters?

If FSU, Clem, UNC are rocking the boat (they were not pro-expansion), then $3m of that extra $7-8m from the 12 other conference mates given to FSU, Clem and UNC would stabilize everything.

Isn't that happening based on bonus payouts for making the playoffs and results in the conference? Most years that will be FSU and Clemson.