CSNbbs

Texas will never clamor for WVU. Due to shabby academia and they will want more schools from their footprint. Let's say Baylor and TTU. OU? Sure but would OU allow what they perceive as an arrogant setup? IMHO I can OU breaking towards Nebraska one day and take a Texas school with them. Why? Well they know they will play UT. Still need another game in Texas. So this could get interesting.

Eventually FSU and others will tire of the ND setup. So Shiite will hit the fan. #1 I say as iffy their sniffy. My thinking and sources(better then most) see the total destruction of BIG 12 as the game changer. 4 POWERS left with conference title games as the quarterfinal national playoffs. When this happens. You in IRISH? You in Horns? IF not what ya going to do? Oh I know bask on the past.

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

(05-03-2015 12:03 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

#3 is interesting to discuss.

So, if I am understanding this scenario correctly, Texas is willing to come all-in and they will bring in OU, but they also want a 5 team western pod/division? And on top of that they still want WVU in the ACC?

So we then have 20 teams in full for the ACC?

A western pod of let's say UT, OU, TTU, Okla St, and Baylor

A southern pod of let's say FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, and Wake

A mid-Atlantic pod of let's say VT, UNC, UVa, Duke, and NC State

A northeastern pod of WVU, Pitt, SU, BC, and UL

If this is what scenario #3 is implying, let's just say I think a few posters over on the realignment board might object.

Cheers,
Neil

I could live with this. However, I recommend swapping out Okie State for Tulane or Memphis. OU owns the State of Oklahoma, no need for duplication in a small market. Tulane is in NOLA and LA has plenty of solid recruits to offer plus a much better destination for fans, compared to Stillwater. Memphis on a lesser scale, is similar to Tulane. Just an opinion, but fun to discuss.

(05-03-2015 09:40 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 12:03 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

#3 is interesting to discuss.

So, if I am understanding this scenario correctly, Texas is willing to come all-in and they will bring in OU, but they also want a 5 team western pod/division? And on top of that they still want WVU in the ACC?

So we then have 20 teams in full for the ACC?

A western pod of let's say UT, OU, TTU, Okla St, and Baylor

A southern pod of let's say FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, and Wake

A mid-Atlantic pod of let's say VT, UNC, UVa, Duke, and NC State

A northeastern pod of WVU, Pitt, SU, BC, and UL

If this is what scenario #3 is implying, let's just say I think a few posters over on the realignment board might object.

Cheers,
Neil

I could live with this. However, I recommend swapping out Okie State for Tulane or Memphis. OU owns the State of Oklahoma, no need for duplication in a small market. Tulane is in NOLA and LA has plenty of solid recruits to offer plus a much better destination for fans, compared to Stillwater. Memphis on a lesser scale, is similar to Tulane. Just an opinion, but fun to discuss.

This is what I was thinking for #3. BTW, Neil, you (intentionally??) left Notre Dame out. My pods would be a bit different but that is splitting hairs.

I don't know if there is any truth to them, but rumors have it that Texas and Oklahoma have political baggage (i.e. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State). I also don't know if Tulane or Memphis give you any more viewers than having redundant schools like TT and OSU. Texas Tech and Okie State have decent football but would that continue if they were relegated to the G5?

Given an option I would go for Kansas as #5. I know they don't offer much in football but they do offer blue chip basketball school and it would a kick in the pants for the B1G.

(05-03-2015 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

You left out #4 which IMO would be the most likely and the most acceptable suggestion IF the ACC were to accept Texas.

4. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal- 5 football games, all Olympic sports, but wants to bring Baylor and West Virginia with them as full time ACC members. This gives the ACC 16 full time and 2 football partial members. This would give the league a lot of flexibility as to how to divide the conference for sports other than football. Three pods of 6 might ease the travel burdens of many Olympic sports. Pods of four for football with Texas and Notre Dame fitting their 5 games in on a rotating basis.
Scheduling with 18 would be a challenge and any number beyond that is just crazy. Even at 16 with pods would require a move to at least 9 conference games to be able to play everybody within a two year window.

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Your #4 is the LEAST likely scenario. Texas asks to join the ACC, and instead of bringing Oklahoma, they "want" West Virginia?

I bet Texas would say they want South Carolina, too. Yea. That's the mostest most likely scenario. Call it scenario #5.

(05-03-2015 10:14 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:40 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 12:03 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

#3 is interesting to discuss.

So, if I am understanding this scenario correctly, Texas is willing to come all-in and they will bring in OU, but they also want a 5 team western pod/division? And on top of that they still want WVU in the ACC?

So we then have 20 teams in full for the ACC?

A western pod of let's say UT, OU, TTU, Okla St, and Baylor

A southern pod of let's say FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, and Wake

A mid-Atlantic pod of let's say VT, UNC, UVa, Duke, and NC State

A northeastern pod of WVU, Pitt, SU, BC, and UL

If this is what scenario #3 is implying, let's just say I think a few posters over on the realignment board might object.

Cheers,
Neil

I could live with this. However, I recommend swapping out Okie State for Tulane or Memphis. OU owns the State of Oklahoma, no need for duplication in a small market. Tulane is in NOLA and LA has plenty of solid recruits to offer plus a much better destination for fans, compared to Stillwater. Memphis on a lesser scale, is similar to Tulane. Just an opinion, but fun to discuss.

This is what I was thinking for #3. BTW, Neil, you (intentionally??) left Notre Dame out. My pods would be a bit different but that is splitting hairs.

I don't know if there is any truth to them, but rumors have it that Texas and Oklahoma have political baggage (i.e. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State). I also don't know if Tulane or Memphis give you any more viewers than having redundant schools like TT and OSU. Texas Tech and Okie State have decent football but would that continue if they were relegated to the G5?

Given an option I would go for Kansas as #5. I know they don't offer much in football but they do offer blue chip basketball school and it would a kick in the pants for the B1G.

I left ND out as a full member because of the inclusion of WVU in your scenario and the fact that in this hypothetical scenario you indicated UT wanted a 5 team western pod/division.

I think the only way this scenario works with ND on board full is to not have WVU.

There is, of course, another avenue, but I won't go there.

Still, while recognizing that 20 team conferences may happen, I certainly hope they do not. It could take ages to cycle through the entire conference in terms of football.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-03-2015 09:31 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

Texas Tech is an easy invite if it guarantees Texas.

(05-03-2015 10:46 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:14 AM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:40 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 12:03 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

#3 is interesting to discuss.

So, if I am understanding this scenario correctly, Texas is willing to come all-in and they will bring in OU, but they also want a 5 team western pod/division? And on top of that they still want WVU in the ACC?

So we then have 20 teams in full for the ACC?

A western pod of let's say UT, OU, TTU, Okla St, and Baylor

A southern pod of let's say FSU, GT, Clemson, Miami, and Wake

A mid-Atlantic pod of let's say VT, UNC, UVa, Duke, and NC State

A northeastern pod of WVU, Pitt, SU, BC, and UL

If this is what scenario #3 is implying, let's just say I think a few posters over on the realignment board might object.

Cheers,
Neil

I could live with this. However, I recommend swapping out Okie State for Tulane or Memphis. OU owns the State of Oklahoma, no need for duplication in a small market. Tulane is in NOLA and LA has plenty of solid recruits to offer plus a much better destination for fans, compared to Stillwater. Memphis on a lesser scale, is similar to Tulane. Just an opinion, but fun to discuss.

This is what I was thinking for #3. BTW, Neil, you (intentionally??) left Notre Dame out. My pods would be a bit different but that is splitting hairs.

I don't know if there is any truth to them, but rumors have it that Texas and Oklahoma have political baggage (i.e. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State). I also don't know if Tulane or Memphis give you any more viewers than having redundant schools like TT and OSU. Texas Tech and Okie State have decent football but would that continue if they were relegated to the G5?

Given an option I would go for Kansas as #5. I know they don't offer much in football but they do offer blue chip basketball school and it would a kick in the pants for the B1G.

I left ND out as a full member because of the inclusion of WVU in your scenario and the fact that in this hypothetical scenario you indicated UT wanted a 5 team western pod/division.

I think the only way this scenario works with ND on board full is to not have WVU.

There is, of course, another avenue, but I won't go there.

Still, while recognizing that 20 team conferences may happen, I certainly hope they do not. It could take ages to cycle through the entire conference in terms of football.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil what I am about to state is not what I believe, or do not believe, but let's recount some coaches leaks and comments from the past several years.

1. Saban and Alvarez spoke of only playing P5 schools and both suggested that this might be preferable.

2. The 20 team scenario was first mentioned in the press to my knowledge by Jackie Sherrill in referencing the SEC's expansion in '91.

3. Slive said he saw no limit to the size of a conference as long as there was value in the growth.

4. If you take these comments as concepts that could be possible then growth to a 20 school conference would not take forever to cycle through the teams. You could cycle through a 24 school conference in 3 years. You would have 4 divisions and would play 12 conference games a year. 5 of them annually as your divisional games. 1 of them annually as your permanent rival. And the other 6 would be the rotation of the other three divisions with a second preferred rival taking the place of the permanent rival when their division cycled through.

So, theoretically if you can do it with 24 you can certainly do it with 20.

5. If everyone only played conference games for the regular season wouldn't that hurt television? No. The 4 team national playoff (which would be a champions only 4 team playoff now) would have the interest of the nation heightened by lack of regular season competition between conferences. The games would be a total mystery to the handicappers and the public. The bowls would gain interest for the same reason.

Another reason for only playing conference games is that the money from such would stay completely in the conference for the season. Since all playoff revenue is split equally (or would be if there were only 4 conferences as the present key bowl scenario is not exactly even) it would be a big plus for AD's and conference commissioners to know exactly (outside of common bowls) what their revenue would be for the year. Therefore it would provide a much more stable operating environment year to year. And finally the regional conference games are the games the fans still want to attend to see. So more butts in the seats.

So while the numbers of 20 or 24 seem insurmountable given the current scheduling philosophies, I submit that the current philosophies would be forever altered if growth happened. Regional scheduling within divisions would be like conferences of 60 years ago and the conference games out of division more like the old OOC games.

(05-03-2015 10:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

You left out #4 which IMO would be the most likely and the most acceptable suggestion IF the ACC were to accept Texas.

4. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal- 5 football games, all Olympic sports, but wants to bring Baylor and West Virginia with them as full time ACC members. This gives the ACC 16 full time and 2 football partial members. This would give the league a lot of flexibility as to how to divide the conference for sports other than football. Three pods of 6 might ease the travel burdens of many Olympic sports. Pods of four for football with Texas and Notre Dame fitting their 5 games in on a rotating basis.
Scheduling with 18 would be a challenge and any number beyond that is just crazy. Even at 16 with pods would require a move to at least 9 conference games to be able to play everybody within a two year window.

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Your #4 is the LEAST likely scenario. Texas asks to join the ACC, and instead of bringing Oklahoma, they "want" West Virginia?

I bet Texas would say they want South Carolina, too. Yea. That's the mostest most likely scenario. Call it scenario #5.

You know him pretty well.

The point I want to interject in this conversation is this one. ESPN would most certainly have the SEC involved in a move against the Big 12. So I don't see the ACC getting all of the top brands from the Big 12 even in a 5 school move. But I do see the ACC possibly landing Texas and another top brand should both the SEC and ACC move to 18.

Baylor, Texas, and T.C.U. with Notre Dame committing to go all in at the end of their N.B.C. contract and Texas remaining a partial until that happens would be one scenario that I could see as having some legitimate chance of happening. So the ACC would stand at 16 full and two partial members until around 2024 at which point it would become 18. With 18 schools you would need three schools to eventually be in a division with the Texas schools. Miami, Florida State, and Louisville would be the best options. I 10 is not that long of a trip for F.S.U. fans, Miami flies just about everywhere they go except Tallahassee, and Louisville would be closer than any of the rest.

Baylor, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, Texas, T.C.U.
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech

The questions would be how important is it to have UVA and UNC in the same division, and, would the Gulf of Mexico be too much distance for F.S.U.?

At least this way you have football kings in all three divisions with some healthy competition in them. The conference playoff would be the three divisional champs and the school with the best remaining record.

And if the SEC and ACC took 7 Big 12 schools between them not named Kansas then the Big 10 would likely have to take the Jayhawks and there is the 8 you would need to dissolve the conference and negate the GOR.

(05-03-2015 10:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

You left out #4 which IMO would be the most likely and the most acceptable suggestion IF the ACC were to accept Texas.

4. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal- 5 football games, all Olympic sports, but wants to bring Baylor and West Virginia with them as full time ACC members. This gives the ACC 16 full time and 2 football partial members. This would give the league a lot of flexibility as to how to divide the conference for sports other than football. Three pods of 6 might ease the travel burdens of many Olympic sports. Pods of four for football with Texas and Notre Dame fitting their 5 games in on a rotating basis.
Scheduling with 18 would be a challenge and any number beyond that is just crazy. Even at 16 with pods would require a move to at least 9 conference games to be able to play everybody within a two year window.

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Your #4 is the LEAST likely scenario. Texas asks to join the ACC, and instead of bringing Oklahoma, they "want" West Virginia?

I bet Texas would say they want South Carolina, too. Yea. That's the mostest most likely scenario. Call it scenario #5.

No I would say that scenario #5 would be that working at the strong suggestion of ESPN; that the entirety of the ACC be in the eastern time zone, and that the most likely and logical additions to the conference would be West Virginia and South Carolina (if one assumes that Notre Dame will not ever be required to join the ACC as a full member).
The time zone suggestion is for broadcast and scheduling purposes. If the eastern time zone is no longer a strong suggestion from ESPN, I think that JR's suggestion is a good one. TCU is a downgrade from West Virginia IMO, but it does put the ACC directly into the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. I would assume that JR then would intend for West Virginia to join the SEC at that point, which would set up another ACC/SEC season ending rivalry game with West Virginia/Pitt.
All and all it could be a win-win for both, however I do believe that West Virginia would help ESPN's marketing position in the northeast vis a vis the B1G more in the ACC than in the SEC.

(05-03-2015 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

You left out #4 which IMO would be the most likely and the most acceptable suggestion IF the ACC were to accept Texas.

4. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal- 5 football games, all Olympic sports, but wants to bring Baylor and West Virginia with them as full time ACC members. This gives the ACC 16 full time and 2 football partial members. This would give the league a lot of flexibility as to how to divide the conference for sports other than football. Three pods of 6 might ease the travel burdens of many Olympic sports. Pods of four for football with Texas and Notre Dame fitting their 5 games in on a rotating basis.
Scheduling with 18 would be a challenge and any number beyond that is just crazy. Even at 16 with pods would require a move to at least 9 conference games to be able to play everybody within a two year window.

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Your #4 is the LEAST likely scenario. Texas asks to join the ACC, and instead of bringing Oklahoma, they "want" West Virginia?

I bet Texas would say they want South Carolina, too. Yea. That's the mostest most likely scenario. Call it scenario #5.

You know him pretty well.

The point I want to interject in this conversation is this one. ESPN would most certainly have the SEC involved in a move against the Big 12. So I don't see the ACC getting all of the top brands from the Big 12 even in a 5 school move. But I do see the ACC possibly landing Texas and another top brand should both the SEC and ACC move to 18.

Baylor, Texas, and T.C.U. with Notre Dame committing to go all in at the end of their N.B.C. contract and Texas remaining a partial until that happens would be one scenario that I could see as having some legitimate chance of happening. So the ACC would stand at 16 full and two partial members until around 2024 at which point it would become 18. With 18 schools you would need three schools to eventually be in a division with the Texas schools. Miami, Florida State, and Louisville would be the best options. I 10 is not that long of a trip for F.S.U. fans, Miami flies just about everywhere they go except Tallahassee, and Louisville would be closer than any of the rest.

Baylor, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, Texas, T.C.U.
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech

The questions would be how important is it to have UVA and UNC in the same division, and, would the Gulf of Mexico be too much distance for F.S.U.?

At least this way you have football kings in all three divisions with some healthy competition in them. The conference playoff would be the three divisional champs and the school with the best remaining record.

And if the SEC and ACC took 7 Big 12 schools between them not named Kansas then the Big 10 would likely have to take the Jayhawks and there is the 8 you would need to dissolve the conference and negate the GOR.

Texas and OU leaving effectively ends the Big 12, everyone else scrambles and gets a small buy out, no more Big 12. Also, there are no significant replacements for either Texas or OU so a rebuild is useless, though it may be conceivable that the conference remains in existence with a few others but the conference joins the G5.

(05-03-2015 10:52 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:31 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

Texas Tech is an easy invite if it guarantees Texas.

UT will not bring along TTech. TTech has little political pull, less than Baylor or Houston so they cannot force a little brother tag along.

(05-03-2015 02:56 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:52 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:31 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

Texas Tech is an easy invite if it guarantees Texas.

UT will not bring along TTech. TTech has little political pull, less than Baylor or Houston so they cannot force a little brother tag along.

What about BYU in the western pod?

(05-03-2015 02:25 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:02 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Just for argument sake, say the B12 disintegrates.

1. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal - 5 football games, all Olympic sports. Do you let them in?
2. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in but need to bring a couple of schools with them. Do you let them in? Does it matter if it is Texas Tech and Baylor or Houston and Rice?
3. Texas approaches the ACC and says they want all in and will bring Oklahoma. They want a 5 team western pod/division and WVU in the ACC. Do you let them in?

You left out #4 which IMO would be the most likely and the most acceptable suggestion IF the ACC were to accept Texas.

4. Texas approaches the ACC and wants a ND type deal- 5 football games, all Olympic sports, but wants to bring Baylor and West Virginia with them as full time ACC members. This gives the ACC 16 full time and 2 football partial members. This would give the league a lot of flexibility as to how to divide the conference for sports other than football. Three pods of 6 might ease the travel burdens of many Olympic sports. Pods of four for football with Texas and Notre Dame fitting their 5 games in on a rotating basis.
Scheduling with 18 would be a challenge and any number beyond that is just crazy. Even at 16 with pods would require a move to at least 9 conference games to be able to play everybody within a two year window.

1. yes
2. no
3. no
4. yes

Your #4 is the LEAST likely scenario. Texas asks to join the ACC, and instead of bringing Oklahoma, they "want" West Virginia?

I bet Texas would say they want South Carolina, too. Yea. That's the mostest most likely scenario. Call it scenario #5.

No I would say that scenario #5 would be that working at the strong suggestion of ESPN; that the entirety of the ACC be in the eastern time zone, and that the most likely and logical additions to the conference would be West Virginia and South Carolina (if one assumes that Notre Dame will not ever be required to join the ACC as a full member).
The time zone suggestion is for broadcast and scheduling purposes. If the eastern time zone is no longer a strong suggestion from ESPN, I think that JR's suggestion is a good one. TCU is a downgrade from West Virginia IMO, but it does put the ACC directly into the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. I would assume that JR then would intend for West Virginia to join the SEC at that point, which would set up another ACC/SEC season ending rivalry game with West Virginia/Pitt.
All and all it could be a win-win for both, however I do believe that West Virginia would help ESPN's marketing position in the northeast vis a vis the B1G more in the ACC than in the SEC.

I don't argue with that reasoning about WVU's potential value, but I would point out that WVU's presence or non presence would be overwhelmingly overshadowed by the addition of Texas, the eventuality of N.D.'s full membership, and 26 million viewers added to what would be an assuredly profitable network. Remember nobody holds the eyeballs in the Northeast like N.D. So with such a deal in order the ACC owns the majority share of the Northeast viewership anyway. And they have two of the top 4 brands in college football to boost the content of the network. So with or without WVU you accomplish everything you want.

I'm fine for all of the sofa smoke to stay on the western side of the Appalachians as long as the boys in Bristol are. Besides, I really think Kentucky needs some help to shore up your northern flank.

(05-03-2015 05:28 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine for all of the sofa smoke staying on the western side of the Appalachians as long as the boys in Bristol are.

It's not that we want them, it is just that if we had to take four then Texas Tech for a second Texas school and Oklahoma would give us East Texas with A&M, Dallas with the Sooners and West Texas and more of Dallas with the Red Raiders. I am assuming we would have to take the redundant Cowboys under such circumstances. So at the very least West Virginia would be a new market.

But I really don't think it is going to come to this anyway. But it would be (by leaving Kansas for the Big 10) a feasible way to dissolve the Big 12 so that Texas could bolster the ACC. And while it would certainly not be the SEC's desired outcome, they nevertheless could be paid enough to make it happen. We'll see.

(05-03-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 05:28 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine for all of the sofa smoke staying on the western side of the Appalachians as long as the boys in Bristol are.

It's not that we want them, it is just that if we had to take four then Texas Tech for a second Texas school and Oklahoma would give us East Texas with A&M, Dallas with the Sooners and West Texas and more of Dallas with the Red Raiders. I am assuming we would have to take the redundant Cowboys under such circumstances. So at the very least West Virginia would be a new market.

But I really don't think it is going to come to this anyway. But it would be (by leaving Kansas for the Big 10) a feasible way to dissolve the Big 12 so that Texas could bolster the ACC. And while it would certainly not be the SEC's desired outcome, they nevertheless could be paid enough to make it happen. We'll see.

Leaves the PAC at 12 and the B1G with the choice of either Iowa State or UConn? Kansas State is out?

(05-03-2015 05:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 05:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 05:28 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I'm fine for all of the sofa smoke staying on the western side of the Appalachians as long as the boys in Bristol are.

It's not that we want them, it is just that if we had to take four then Texas Tech for a second Texas school and Oklahoma would give us East Texas with A&M, Dallas with the Sooners and West Texas and more of Dallas with the Red Raiders. I am assuming we would have to take the redundant Cowboys under such circumstances. So at the very least West Virginia would be a new market.

But I really don't think it is going to come to this anyway. But it would be (by leaving Kansas for the Big 10) a feasible way to dissolve the Big 12 so that Texas could bolster the ACC. And while it would certainly not be the SEC's desired outcome, they nevertheless could be paid enough to make it happen. We'll see.

Leaves the PAC at 12 and the B1G with the choice of either Iowa State or UConn? Kansas State is out?

Yes it leaves the PAC at 12. Yes it means the Big 10 will have to choose between Connecticut and Iowa State. And yes it means that Kansas State might get left out. But if the SEC saw more value in them than West Virginia it could go the other way. But again, I don't think this is how things will play out. But any plan that involves ACC expansion means that Wake stays in, and somebody else gets left out. That somebody, depending upon the plan being worked could be any of Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U., or West Virginia. If Connecticut is picked up by somebody then two of them will likely get left out.

(05-03-2015 02:56 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:52 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:31 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

Texas Tech is an easy invite if it guarantees Texas.

UT will not bring along TTech. TTech has little political pull, less than Baylor or Houston so they cannot force a little brother tag along.

That whole "we have a tech problem" email would seem to indicates TTU does have pull.

(05-03-2015 03:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 02:56 PM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 10:52 AM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-03-2015 09:31 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-02-2015 11:23 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]1. Yes.
2. Yes. Yes. Tech and Baylor are acceptable. Rice is not.
3. Yes.

I have this inkling that only a particular wanker UNC fan will say no.

Honestly, if Texas wants to come, you BEG them to bring Oklahoma, though OU may follow suit regardless.

Agree with the your overall points but respectfully disagree with TTech. Baylor, Houston and TCU are acceptable. TTech is in the middle of nowhere and has no real market, history or anything related to the ACC.

Absolutely agree with your OU statement.

Texas Tech is an easy invite if it guarantees Texas.

UT will not bring along TTech. TTech has little political pull, less than Baylor or Houston so they cannot force a little brother tag along.

What about BYU in the western pod?

Why?