(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

The need for leverage against the growing ability of the networks to wield power is our best bet for unity. But first more changes, some unwanted by some major players, must be endured to build that consensus. Therefore I think we make a run at super-conferences before we have unity. However the unity at least has to be fronted by what appear to be two independent entities even if they act conjointly.

I appreciate your view of growing the ACC from within a bit more now that you've fleshed it out. I'm just not sure you will have the ample time to be able to accomplish that. Especially in the wake of U.N.C.'s present issues. But it is a worthy goal to seek.

I could see a merger of ACC/SEC/Big 12 properties under ESPN's banner first however. We could keep our monikers but essentially operate as one. With one station in Charlotte and the other in Dallas it would be easy to market the three as one and utilize the entire footprint. Add either B.Y.U., Connecticut, or Cincinnati and make it an even 40 and break, as I said above, into 4, or even 8 divisions, geographically grouped. The merger would be the quickest way to end the conference pride issue, but the leverage would threaten the network. Still their overhead would be reduced and only their existing studios needed. I'd vote for it tomorrow if they would can Finebaum. The conferences could consolidate governance structures to cut costs and redundant commercial properties could be sold. If revenue sharing was introduced throughout competitiveness would improve or at least have the opportunity to improve universally. IMO that would only help all of the games in all of the sports. With Slive, Swofford, and Delany either retiring or nearing retirement it would be a good time to consider such a broad move. I just doubt the vision is there to instigate or accomplish it. Too many profit individually by business as usual to consider something much more effective that would be beyond individuals' abilities to control. I think the fiefdoms of old become the super fiefdoms of tomorrow before we get to a centralized governance structure small enough to be effective, yet strong enough to maintain relational balance with our corporate benefactors.

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

And this is why so many of the football fans on the ACC board continually call you a basketball fan.

In that scenario of Texas coming on board partially in an ND type deal, the conference would vote to add no one (to save room for both to join fully at some point in the future).

But taking this scenario to its extreme, if Texas says they need one Texas team (the conference takes whichever of TTU, Baylor, or TCU Texas wants) and then asks ND who they want as #16. Since ND didn't get a choice of a member, they would have to at least ask.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 09:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

And this is why so many of the football fans on the ACC board continually call you a basketball fan.

In that scenario of Texas coming on board partially in an ND type deal, the conference would vote to add no one (to save room for both to join fully at some point in the future).

But taking this scenario to its extreme, if Texas says they need one Texas team (the conference takes whichever of TTU, Baylor, or TCU Texas wants) and then asks ND who they want as #16. Since ND didn't get a choice of a member, they would have to at least ask.

Cheers,
Neil

I've been called a lot worse things than "basketball fan".

But you are looking at it all wrong.
When Notre Dame came into the ACC there were teams in the league that already had an relationship with the Irish or because ACC teams played in markets that Notre Dame wanted exposure in. This is not really true with Texas. They would be coming to the ACC as a stranger playing in strange places. The addition of two teams from the Big 12 would help to expand the ACC brand into Texas (and Kansas) . It would also give the entire Big 12 region multiple exposures to ACC teams in places other than Austin.

(12-22-2014 10:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

And this is why so many of the football fans on the ACC board continually call you a basketball fan.

In that scenario of Texas coming on board partially in an ND type deal, the conference would vote to add no one (to save room for both to join fully at some point in the future).

But taking this scenario to its extreme, if Texas says they need one Texas team (the conference takes whichever of TTU, Baylor, or TCU Texas wants) and then asks ND who they want as #16. Since ND didn't get a choice of a member, they would have to at least ask.

Cheers,
Neil

I've been called a lot worse things than "basketball fan".

So have I.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 10:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

And this is why so many of the football fans on the ACC board continually call you a basketball fan.

In that scenario of Texas coming on board partially in an ND type deal, the conference would vote to add no one (to save room for both to join fully at some point in the future).

But taking this scenario to its extreme, if Texas says they need one Texas team (the conference takes whichever of TTU, Baylor, or TCU Texas wants) and then asks ND who they want as #16. Since ND didn't get a choice of a member, they would have to at least ask.

Cheers,
Neil

But you are looking at it all wrong.
When Notre Dame came into the ACC there were teams in the league that already had an relationship with the Irish or because ACC teams played in markets that Notre Dame wanted exposure in. This is not really true with Texas. They would be coming to the ACC as a stranger playing in strange places. The addition of two teams from the Big 12 would help to expand the ACC brand into Texas (and Kansas) . It would also give the entire Big 12 region multiple exposures to ACC teams in places other than Austin.

I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 09:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know why you think it is odd that you don't see scenario's where the Big Ten would accept either Wake Forest or ECU. In fact you know why and it's not that odd. I used to talk about the likes of UNC to the Big Ten. That was when The Big 12 signed a GoR and the ACC hadn't done anything. That was also when there was plenty of smoke coming out of the ACC that schools like UNC were actually looking into all their options. They looked and they ended up liking what they were offered by ESPN to stick with the ACC.

I also dont understand how you are so off on this concept of "everyone needing a place at the table". What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about the Big 12 implosion scenario?

I will put it to ya simple. The ten teams are all bound to each other legally with the GoR. If eight of the ten teams use the voting system to dissolve the conference then indirectly they also nullify the GoR. That doesn't mean they nullify their legal responsibilities. They would be opening themselves up to massive legal consequences coming from those two left behind schools. Using an indirect method to get out of a contractual agreement that they were signatories upon? The only way out of that is to have all ten teams getting a place so that none of them can claim losses.

There's nothing that says they can't wait until the GOR expires to then not re-up. The only teams that matter in either the ACC or the B12 will still have value until then. And besides, fans seem way more impatient than the conferences themselves in terms of expansion at this point in time. The new BiG TV contract and a few years of the CFP may spur the next round earlier than expected, but it isn't a given that will happen either.

Quote:Why is the PAC in such a weak position? They went all in because they KNEW they have the weakest position due to geography, time zones AND the fact that the West Coast has the weakest college sports viewing percentages of all the regions. No one else was so blatantly in the open about their attempts to jump the gun. They tried and they failed thus it has become obvious that they have the weakest negotiating position.

The PAC taking such programs as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU allows them to move into the Central Time Zone. That is a whole new TV slot that they will be able to have PAC games showcased in. That means games for the PACN at that time slot. That means games for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 at that time slot. That means games for FOX/FOX1 at that time slot. How many weeks is a season? Fifteen weeks? That makes for a nice even number. Take 15 x 6 and what do you get? You get 90 new television slots that the PAC can potentially fill. That doesn't mean they will fill them all obviously but being ABLE to fill them means a lot when it comes to negotiating new contracts with Fox and ESPN. They also get to claim improved programming for the PACN during their future negotiations with all the carriers that carry it.

That is why PAC would inevitably go with it.

The PAC already could have moved into the Central Time Zone by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State prior to the GOR, if they had wanted. Obviously they are waiting on a bigger prize, Texas. If Texas doesn't re-up when the GOR expires and decides to join either the BiG/SEC or goes east to the ACC in some ND type deal, then wait to see what the PAC does.

I'll bet you right now, it will not be Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU.

Quote:As to the ACC? I think you need to let go of the victim mentality and I say that with the utmost respect. You are a smart dude but ACC and Big East folks have gone through a lot when it comes to Realignment stuff. The ACC getting Texas, Baylor and either WVU or UConn is not "getting the worst of it" at all. Baylor is one of the best all around athletic departments in The Big 12. They excel in Men's football, Men's basketball and Women's basketball. Those are the Big 3 right there. If they excel in those three then it isn't a stretch to say they are going to be just fine in going from the conference with the least amount of supported sports to the conference with the most. Their Athletics mean a lot to them now.

Not disparaging either Baylor or WVU, who both have excellent athletic departments. Just questioning this notion by some that the ACC should accept their fate and offer up onto the altar for sacrifice UNC and UVA to the altar of the BiG and/or VT and NC State to the altar of the SEC and in return get a Baylor and WVU and be quiet about it.

I realize your stance on this usual comes with the caveat of getting Texas in an ND type deal, but not all scenarios out there have this as the foundation of it.

By the way, as a former Big East fan, if this were to happen I would be fine with TCU and WVU. I just know that the ACC itself will not be.

Cheers,
Neil

Things weren't the same when the PAC was trying to do that. The other conferences weren't ready yet, the Networks weren't ready yet and....no other conferences were in the market for Oklahoma. That isn't the case now.

I used to list TCU to go with the ACC but now I have them going out west. Just my opinion.

I realize JR pushes the whole complicated trading of schools scenario but I dont believe that would happen personally. I dont see anything happening except the movement from The Big 12 to other conferences.

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

If you guys would accept Kansas then it isn't a far leap to then accept WVU or even UConn instead. If ESPN said UConn was the deal to insure them pushing the LHN into an ACC Network, the ACC would jump at that in a heartbeat.

ESPN would get a new sweetheart deal from the State of Connecticut for that.

I still think everyone is missing the elephant in the room. ESPN owns 100% of the ACC rights prior to subletting. ESPN owns 100% of the SECN and all of the SEC content minus the single CBS game every week. ESPN owns half of the T1 & T2 rights to all of the Big 12, plus the entire T3 packages of Texas and Kansas. They didn't acquire the Big East properties and place them in the ACC out of the goodness of their hearts. Neither did they prop up the Longhorns with the LHN out of the goodness of their hearts. The were snubbed and threatened by Delany who scoffed at one of their offers and then established an independent BTN. ESPN fought back by obfuscating carriage and removing what they knew Delany would need for his network, Eastern markets. They did this through the removal of the prime Big East properties beginning with the football first schools and culminating with basketball jewels. They've done the same with Kansas and Texas. There was no need to sew up Iowa State since they were not a profitable objective for the Big 10. There was no immediate need to sew up Oklahoma since the PAC had rejected the pair, they did not match the Big 10 profile, and the SEC had passed on the pair of Oklahoma schools as well. So FOX sought the only leverage they would acquire with Oklahoma's T3 contract which has a duration of 4 more years at 7 million a year minus expenses. The issue here is that ESPN has removed all of the content that the Big 10 hoped to attain and they made sure with the ACC that Maryland cost them as much as they could possibly charge.

Guys, the ACC, the SEC, and the Big 12 aren't the independent entities that you think they are and their commissioners all made their entrance into their jobs by negotiating contracts for networks. Hello!!!!

We moved to GOR's because they effectively made the networks and not the conferences the brokers for the final moves in realignment.

The ACC will do what it is paid to do just like the SEC will and Texas will, or the network will find a new way to monetize the product. It is that simple.

If ESPN wants a part of the Big 10, and that is an if, then Delany will have to come to them for markets. If money is all he desires now, and it is not, then FOX will do.

The power obviously resides in one house and that one belongs to Disney. Once the bowls are over we will see some pieces moved into place for the resolution of the ongoing saga the ending of which will be good for renewed interest. Stasis is the tonic the game needs now so it is in everyone's interest to resolve the last issues.

Rules and structure will be changed by autonomy, investment levels in payment of players established, and perhaps a few present P5 members bow out, but very few. Then final moves will be made. Slive essentially said as much as did the Florida President when they said we will expand again if a jewel falls in our lap. If I'm wrong we'll see shortly as the Big 10 contract will be in process for 2017 beginning after the new year.

(12-22-2014 10:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know why you think it is odd that you don't see scenario's where the Big Ten would accept either Wake Forest or ECU. In fact you know why and it's not that odd. I used to talk about the likes of UNC to the Big Ten. That was when The Big 12 signed a GoR and the ACC hadn't done anything. That was also when there was plenty of smoke coming out of the ACC that schools like UNC were actually looking into all their options. They looked and they ended up liking what they were offered by ESPN to stick with the ACC.

I also dont understand how you are so off on this concept of "everyone needing a place at the table". What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about the Big 12 implosion scenario?

I will put it to ya simple. The ten teams are all bound to each other legally with the GoR. If eight of the ten teams use the voting system to dissolve the conference then indirectly they also nullify the GoR. That doesn't mean they nullify their legal responsibilities. They would be opening themselves up to massive legal consequences coming from those two left behind schools. Using an indirect method to get out of a contractual agreement that they were signatories upon? The only way out of that is to have all ten teams getting a place so that none of them can claim losses.

There's nothing that says they can't wait until the GOR expires to then not re-up. The only teams that matter in either the ACC or the B12 will still have value until then. And besides, fans seem way more impatient than the conferences themselves in terms of expansion at this point in time. The new BiG TV contract and a few years of the CFP may spur the next round earlier than expected, but it isn't a given that will happen either.

Quote:Why is the PAC in such a weak position? They went all in because they KNEW they have the weakest position due to geography, time zones AND the fact that the West Coast has the weakest college sports viewing percentages of all the regions. No one else was so blatantly in the open about their attempts to jump the gun. They tried and they failed thus it has become obvious that they have the weakest negotiating position.

The PAC taking such programs as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU allows them to move into the Central Time Zone. That is a whole new TV slot that they will be able to have PAC games showcased in. That means games for the PACN at that time slot. That means games for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 at that time slot. That means games for FOX/FOX1 at that time slot. How many weeks is a season? Fifteen weeks? That makes for a nice even number. Take 15 x 6 and what do you get? You get 90 new television slots that the PAC can potentially fill. That doesn't mean they will fill them all obviously but being ABLE to fill them means a lot when it comes to negotiating new contracts with Fox and ESPN. They also get to claim improved programming for the PACN during their future negotiations with all the carriers that carry it.

That is why PAC would inevitably go with it.

The PAC already could have moved into the Central Time Zone by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State prior to the GOR, if they had wanted. Obviously they are waiting on a bigger prize, Texas. If Texas doesn't re-up when the GOR expires and decides to join either the BiG/SEC or goes east to the ACC in some ND type deal, then wait to see what the PAC does.

I'll bet you right now, it will not be Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU.

Quote:As to the ACC? I think you need to let go of the victim mentality and I say that with the utmost respect. You are a smart dude but ACC and Big East folks have gone through a lot when it comes to Realignment stuff. The ACC getting Texas, Baylor and either WVU or UConn is not "getting the worst of it" at all. Baylor is one of the best all around athletic departments in The Big 12. They excel in Men's football, Men's basketball and Women's basketball. Those are the Big 3 right there. If they excel in those three then it isn't a stretch to say they are going to be just fine in going from the conference with the least amount of supported sports to the conference with the most. Their Athletics mean a lot to them now.

Not disparaging either Baylor or WVU, who both have excellent athletic departments. Just questioning this notion by some that the ACC should accept their fate and offer up onto the altar for sacrifice UNC and UVA to the altar of the BiG and/or VT and NC State to the altar of the SEC and in return get a Baylor and WVU and be quiet about it.

I realize your stance on this usual comes with the caveat of getting Texas in an ND type deal, but not all scenarios out there have this as the foundation of it.

By the way, as a former Big East fan, if this were to happen I would be fine with TCU and WVU. I just know that the ACC itself will not be.

Cheers,
Neil

Things weren't the same when the PAC was trying to do that. The other conferences weren't ready yet, the Networks weren't ready yet and....no other conferences were in the market for Oklahoma. That isn't the case now.

I used to list TCU to go with the ACC but now I have them going out west. Just my opinion.

I realize JR pushes the whole complicated trading of schools scenario but I dont believe that would happen personally. I dont see anything happening except the movement from The Big 12 to other conferences.

I don't push the trading of schools thing H1, it was postulated as a plan to be vetted back when Clay Travis leaked (purposefully done as a trial balloon) the whole N.C. State & Virginia Tech to the SEC scenario. It was a workaround to building up the ACC's profile even before the Maryland defection. After N.D. affiliated it cooled. I was merely pointing out how the whole concept of allowing a Western division of the ACC could come about and how it had indeed been proposed in the recent past. Personally I think just giving Texas the N.D. deal would be enough. They would have 6 or 7 games to schedule whomever if they took it and wouldn't have to bring pals with them. The SEC takes two to go to 16 and that's it, unless more accommodations are demanded in return for the moves of the key properties.

I do think now it will come close enough to the end of the GOR and after the 2 year notification period of the Big 12 to make the exits affordable. They will be affordable anyway if its between ESPN properties because the network could either waive the GOR or convert the money in house.

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:17 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

And this is why so many of the football fans on the ACC board continually call you a basketball fan.

In that scenario of Texas coming on board partially in an ND type deal, the conference would vote to add no one (to save room for both to join fully at some point in the future).

But taking this scenario to its extreme, if Texas says they need one Texas team (the conference takes whichever of TTU, Baylor, or TCU Texas wants) and then asks ND who they want as #16. Since ND didn't get a choice of a member, they would have to at least ask.

Cheers,
Neil

But you are looking at it all wrong.
When Notre Dame came into the ACC there were teams in the league that already had an relationship with the Irish or because ACC teams played in markets that Notre Dame wanted exposure in. This is not really true with Texas. They would be coming to the ACC as a stranger playing in strange places. The addition of two teams from the Big 12 would help to expand the ACC brand into Texas (and Kansas) . It would also give the entire Big 12 region multiple exposures to ACC teams in places other than Austin.

I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

I think we are basically talking about the same thing, but as we all know, the devil is in the details. Every entity is now jockeying for their own interests, just like relatives after the funeral.

(12-23-2014 08:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  I think we are basically talking about the same thing, but as we all know, the devil is in the details. Every entity is now jockeying for their own interests, just like relatives after the funeral.

It's coming and it's going to get resolved. Flux has brought fan anxiety and diminishing returns. Resolution of the present uncertainty, an understandable structure, followed by a sustained period of stasis will bring the growth back to the sport.

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
Your memory is better than mine. I found the Dodds interview about Texas using the ACC to block the Oklahoma move to the PAC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbZ_7Y7qiNQ
21:30 minute mark

BTW....you can't trust any information that comes out of Raleigh.

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

I find your post here to be a bit duplicitous. You questioned the discussion about swapping Virginia Tech and N.C. State to create room for the creation of a Western Division for the ACC headed by Texas (an idea vetted via leak from the SEC to prepare and test the reception of SEC fans to the idea of schools like N.C. State and Virginia Tech when the SEC fans had been looking to F.S.U. and Clemson as prospects) and yet site some of the same talk here.

As A&M and Mizzou were being prepared for the SEC the idea was to polish off the Big 12. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and another would move the ACC after the SEC took N.C. State and Virginia Tech and both would be finished out at 16. In 2011 Maryland had not gone, and Notre Dame had not yet affiliated. You question the networks level of involvement but the ideas expressed here and the talks centered around these suggestions were all byproducts of their involvement. Nobody in the SEC was sitting around thinking about Missouri! And they weren't thinking about us.

In 1991 Kramer's grand plan for the SEC was to add Texas, A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. The first three were openly discussed. Oklahoma remained silently involved and were strictly contingent upon Texas. Clemson was contacted and showed only tepid interest if the others all came to fruition. Bowden was interested if Texas and OU came on board, and chose the ACC after Texas revealed its political problems with the move. Arkansas essentially said get us out of here and we did. When rumors of the Clemson involvement reached South Carolina (then independent) they called us and we took them. Kramer's plan was announced as going to 12 to get a CCG and celebrated as a victory for the SEC. Really it was a 2/3rds whiff on what we had hoped to pull off. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to our targets in the West and South Carolina as a bridge to the East should expansion open there. Even back then the long term viability of the ACC was in question. Jackie Sherrill openly spoke of a 20 team plan for the SEC. As far as the expansion committee was concerned that was an alternative plan put in place in case our move to 16 succeeded and the ACC became vulnerable to the Big 10's advances (way back in '91) or even those possibly of the Big East.

When A&M finally worked out their move to the SEC our first target to pair with them was Oklahoma. They insisted that we take the Cowboys as part of the deal. We declined. ESPN supposedly suggested Missouri and we were off and running (late 2010 and early 2011). Mizzou2SEC was started to prep their fans. ESPN wanted to land Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas so since Texas showed great resistance to an SEC move the scenario I spoke of was vetted to see if it would be possible. The SEC office leaked just enough detail to Travis that he floated the idea and they judged the response of the fans. While not excited about the prospect most fans understood the income aspect for a network. Meantime Texas pulled a Texas and flirted with the PAC because (a) they really wanted their own conference and (b) the ACC didn't like the idea of Tech any more than other conferences would have. Fearing that the PAC would land a valuable bit of property without having to offer compensation to ESPN for it the LHN was put into place to secure Texas's loyalty to ESPN until 2031. Kansas was then given a generous T3 contract and the movable pieces (as far as the independent PAC and the FOX controlled BTN were concerned) were off the board. Oklahoma wasn't going anywhere without Texas's blessing and without the Cowboys being provided a safe landing spot.

So what you two are hashing out is your blindfolded feel of the same elephant.

The SEC did meet with Virginia Tech officials at the Greenbriar in W.V. in 2012 but only after the Maryland defection and only to work out emergency contingencies should the ACC suffer further losses and become unstable. That is also when North Carolina held talks with the SEC pertaining to taking Duke (not N.C. State) as a traveling companion should the ACC dissolve. These meetings were at the behest of the network who was looking to shelter its inventory if necessary. The SEC did not approach the schools involved and they did not approach us for membership, but rather to preset the protocol should a move be required.

If you guys were in the know you would know that.

Where we are now is still waiting to see if Texas to the ACC with Oklahoma and Kansas can be worked out. If it can't then it may be more profitable for the network to build a new conference around Texas and Oklahoma, boost the SECN inventory, and ink a new deal with Delany. Guess where the leverage to accomplish all of that would come from?

The early incorrect assumptions that I made was that the structure would be established to operate in parallel form. Since this is an ESPN struggle with FOX and to a much lesser extent an independently owned PAC and PACN it won't necessarily work out that way.

I do believe there is a bigger upside for the network to rebranding and upgrading football in the ACC than there is in rebuilding a conference around Texas. You asked why the swap idea? The SEC would be giving up long desired targets to be paid by the same organization that claims to support their goals. ESPN needed a quid pro quo to salve what otherwise could rupture future relations with their most valuable product.

Quite frankly if things don't get worked out prior to the Big 10 contract I believe the network will act strictly in its own behalf. That could be having the SEC grow to 18 or even 20 out of the Big 12. It would protect their investment in those properties, but would not be the most economical use of the SEC's expansion.

This is not about conferences. It is about product placement and market maximization. This isn't about what North Carolina wants. It is about what those who pay them want. Just as with most prep work before implementing a plan, obstructions will be identified and eliminated if necessary. What form that elimination takes can be any number of things. It could be the loss of credibility (academic fraud qualifies there), it could be with outvoting them (the old core has less voting strength than ever in the ACC), it could be by busting up their power base and profiting individually from the sale or redistribution of the assets (realignment). I get that you are two academics that don't really grasp the business end of this. I suggest you try harder to do so. Many ACC folks seem to think that since the CEO of ESPN is a Tar Heel that he will look after you. He won't. His responsibility is to the shareholders and employees of ESPN to see that it makes the most it possibly can. Inasmuch as he can do that and help his alma mater he likely will. But don't count on any special favors beyond serendipity.

An ACC with football brands can capitalize on its enormous markets. The ACC as presently comported can not, and has not. You are a conference of Southern football schools, Mid Atlantic basketball schools, and Old Big East schools. You don't share a sports culture, you don't share a regional culture, and your academic culture is being pushed. What you need is a galvanizing catalyst. As odd as it may seem a more football oriented conference deliberately pitted against the SEC as a rival would provide that catalyst. I believe that is what ESPN is after and that is what would be the backbone of a new dynamic relationship between the two conferences, profiting all involved. This isn't about basketball, control of a fiefdom by U.N.C. or Texas, it is about providing a stage large enough to showcase the number national brands in all sports while also celebrating their academics in much the same fashion as the Big 10 touts the CIC. And from ESPN's perspective it is about creating an environment that makes N.D. going all in a logical and profitable decision for the Irish. It really isn't about Tar Heel basketball or the old ACC. It's about a vision for your future. One that if you don't embrace it you will lose not only that vision but likely your present reality as well. Why?

Without adding those football schools Florida State, Clemson and Miami are worth more in the SEC or Big 12 because that is where they multiply the content value that they can't maximize against the Northern half of the present ACC. Without the football first schools Syracuse, Pitt, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia are worth more in the Big 10, or possibly to help build up the SEC's standing in that sport. But they aren't worth paying the current rate of 20 million just for their basketball. But either way the point is if you don't put total commitment into both sports then your parts are worth more to ESPN elsewhere than your whole conference is worth to them now.

Those are the issues that will be resolved before the completion of the Big 10 contract renewal. And when they are resolved they won't be handled with pleasing Chapel Hill in mind. They will be resolved for the pleasing of Disney shareholders.

(12-23-2014 09:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  I think we are basically talking about the same thing, but as we all know, the devil is in the details. Every entity is now jockeying for their own interests, just like relatives after the funeral.

It's coming and it's going to get resolved. Flux has brought fan anxiety and diminishing returns. Resolution of the present uncertainty, an understandable structure, followed by a sustained period of stasis will bring the growth back to the sport.

Now this is a statement of yours that I can get behind fully.

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

The big difference now though is that everyone is open and available. Back then the choices were much more limited. Now, the situation is able to be leveraged. Oklahoma could likely leverage themselves a position in either the Big Ten or SEC depending upon their tastes. Obviously you guys know whom I think they favor and I know some of you would disagree but we can all agree that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC were at all connected with any of that fiasco.

I don't think Oklahoma would care to follow Texas to the ACC, not at all. They don't need to be in the same conference with Texas. That rivalry game will persist no matter what.

(12-23-2014 05:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

I find your post here to be a bit duplicitous. You questioned the discussion about swapping Virginia Tech and N.C. State to create room for the creation of a Western Division for the ACC headed by Texas (an idea vetted via leak from the SEC to prepare and test the reception of SEC fans to the idea of schools like N.C. State and Virginia Tech when the SEC fans had been looking to F.S.U. and Clemson as prospects) and yet site some of the same talk here.

As A&M and Mizzou were being prepared for the SEC the idea was to polish off the Big 12. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and another would move the ACC after the SEC took N.C. State and Virginia Tech and both would be finished out at 16. In 2011 Maryland had not gone, and Notre Dame had not yet affiliated. You question the networks level of involvement but the ideas expressed here and the talks centered around these suggestions were all byproducts of their involvement. Nobody in the SEC was sitting around thinking about Missouri! And they weren't thinking about us.

In 1991 Kramer's grand plan for the SEC was to add Texas, A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. The first three were openly discussed. Oklahoma remained silently involved and were strictly contingent upon Texas. Clemson was contacted and showed only tepid interest if the others all came to fruition. Bowden was interested if Texas and OU came on board, and chose the ACC after Texas revealed its political problems with the move. Arkansas essentially said get us out of here and we did. When rumors of the Clemson involvement reached South Carolina (then independent) they called us and we took them. Kramer's plan was announced as going to 12 to get a CCG and celebrated as a victory for the SEC. Really it was a 2/3rds whiff on what we had hoped to pull off. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to our targets in the West and South Carolina as a bridge to the East should expansion open there. Even back then the long term viability of the ACC was in question. Jackie Sherrill openly spoke of a 20 team plan for the SEC. As far as the expansion committee was concerned that was an alternative plan put in place in case our move to 16 succeeded and the ACC became vulnerable to the Big 10's advances (way back in '91) or even those possibly of the Big East.

When A&M finally worked out their move to the SEC our first target to pair with them was Oklahoma. They insisted that we take the Cowboys as part of the deal. We declined. ESPN supposedly suggested Missouri and we were off and running (late 2010 and early 2011). Mizzou2SEC was started to prep their fans. ESPN wanted to land Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas so since Texas showed great resistance to an SEC move the scenario I spoke of was vetted to see if it would be possible. The SEC office leaked just enough detail to Travis that he floated the idea and they judged the response of the fans. While not excited about the prospect most fans understood the income aspect for a network. Meantime Texas pulled a Texas and flirted with the PAC because (a) they really wanted their own conference and (b) the ACC didn't like the idea of Tech any more than other conferences would have. Fearing that the PAC would land a valuable bit of property without having to offer compensation to ESPN for it the LHN was put into place to secure Texas's loyalty to ESPN until 2031. Kansas was then given a generous T3 contract and the movable pieces (as far as the independent PAC and the FOX controlled BTN were concerned) were off the board. Oklahoma wasn't going anywhere without Texas's blessing and without the Cowboys being provided a safe landing spot.

So what you two are hashing out is your blindfolded feel of the same elephant.

The SEC did meet with Virginia Tech officials at the Greenbriar in W.V. in 2012 but only after the Maryland defection and only to work out emergency contingencies should the ACC suffer further losses and become unstable. That is also when North Carolina held talks with the SEC pertaining to taking Duke (not N.C. State) as a traveling companion should the ACC dissolve. These meetings were at the behest of the network who was looking to shelter its inventory if necessary. The SEC did not approach the schools involved and they did not approach us for membership, but rather to preset the protocol should a move be required.

If you guys were in the know you would know that.

Where we are now is still waiting to see if Texas to the ACC with Oklahoma and Kansas can be worked out. If it can't then it may be more profitable for the network to build a new conference around Texas and Oklahoma, boost the SECN inventory, and ink a new deal with Delany. Guess where the leverage to accomplish all of that would come from?

The early incorrect assumptions that I made was that the structure would be established to operate in parallel form. Since this is an ESPN struggle with FOX and to a much lesser extent an independently owned PAC and PACN it won't necessarily work out that way.

I do believe there is a bigger upside for the network to rebranding and upgrading football in the ACC than there is in rebuilding a conference around Texas. You asked why the swap idea? The SEC would be giving up long desired targets to be paid by the same organization that claims to support their goals. ESPN needed a quid pro quo to salve what otherwise could rupture future relations with their most valuable product.

Quite frankly if things don't get worked out prior to the Big 10 contract I believe the network will act strictly in its own behalf. That could be having the SEC grow to 18 or even 20 out of the Big 12. It would protect their investment in those properties, but would not be the most economical use of the SEC's expansion.

This is not about conferences. It is about product placement and market maximization. This isn't about what North Carolina wants. It is about what those who pay them want. Just as with most prep work before implementing a plan, obstructions will be identified and eliminated if necessary. What form that elimination takes can be any number of things. It could be the loss of credibility (academic fraud qualifies there), it could be with outvoting them (the old core has less voting strength than ever in the ACC), it could be by busting up their power base and profiting individually from the sale or redistribution of the assets (realignment). I get that you are two academics that don't really grasp the business end of this. I suggest you try harder to do so. Many ACC folks seem to think that since the CEO of ESPN is a Tar Heel that he will look after you. He won't. His responsibility is to the shareholders and employees of ESPN to see that it makes the most it possibly can. Inasmuch as he can do that and help his alma mater he likely will. But don't count on any special favors beyond serendipity.

An ACC with football brands can capitalize on its enormous markets. The ACC as presently comported can not, and has not. You are a conference of Southern football schools, Mid Atlantic basketball schools, and Old Big East schools. You don't share a sports culture, you don't share a regional culture, and your academic culture is being pushed. What you need is a galvanizing catalyst. As odd as it may seem a more football oriented conference deliberately pitted against the SEC as a rival would provide that catalyst. I believe that is what ESPN is after and that is what would be the backbone of a new dynamic relationship between the two conferences, profiting all involved. This isn't about basketball, control of a fiefdom by U.N.C. or Texas, it is about providing a stage large enough to showcase the number national brands in all sports while also celebrating their academics in much the same fashion as the Big 10 touts the CIC. And from ESPN's perspective it is about creating an environment that makes N.D. going all in a logical and profitable decision for the Irish. It really isn't about Tar Heel basketball or the old ACC. It's about a vision for your future. One that if you don't embrace it you will lose not only that vision but likely your present reality as well. Why?

Without adding those football schools Florida State, Clemson and Miami are worth more in the SEC or Big 12 because that is where they multiply the content value that they can't maximize against the Northern half of the present ACC. Without the football first schools Syracuse, Pitt, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia are worth more in the Big 10, or possibly to help build up the SEC's standing in that sport. But they aren't worth paying the current rate of 20 million just for their basketball. But either way the point is if you don't put total commitment into both sports then your parts are worth more to ESPN elsewhere than your whole conference is worth to them now.

Those are the issues that will be resolved before the completion of the Big 10 contract renewal. And when they are resolved they won't be handled with pleasing Chapel Hill in mind. They will be resolved for the pleasing of Disney shareholders.

JRsec, I respect you as a poster, but perhaps you can think about condensing your writing in some of these posts? Tomes here and there are fine, but massive tomes for nearly half of your posts in a thread is a little bit much. I used to be the worse at this myself, so I had to tone myself down as well.

Can't speak to what the SEC wanted back in 1991, but in 2011 if the SEC truly wanted Oklahoma then they could have taken both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Obviously, they didn't want them more than wanting not to expand beyond 14 or whatever.

I tend to go with what Paul Finebaum said and that the top candidate after A&M was VT. But VT said 'No' in 2011 - Paul Finebaum got the year wrong in his interview on the radio in 2012, saying 2012 but VT was approached in 2011. If they had said 'Yes', then it would have been A&M and VT and TV would have been silent on that move since it would be a no-brainer for the conference.

But again, VT said 'No'. So who to add with A&M? The SEC apparently didn't want to tick off Florida by going after FSU and so basically the SEC had to decide between Mizzou and WVU, those willing to say 'Yes'. At this point is when TV might have advised the SEC that Mizzou brings more value than WVU. I don't see ESPN manipulating the strings in the background prior to that myself. If you do, fine. But I'm not ready for the tin cap just yet whereby EVERY move is run by TV first.

Now, could the SEC have shaken things up in the ACC enough to destabilize it in order to get VT? Sure, but then Slive was a bit of a wuss in this regard as how he handled the whole A&M thing shows. He wanted assurances that there were would be no lawsuits brought against the SEC by the Big 12 or by individual teams within the Big 12 (Baylor held out on this for a while) and had the Aggies basically publicly beg to be in the SEC.

In the interest of not becoming another tome, I will end here.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-23-2014 06:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

The big difference now though is that everyone is open and available. Back then the choices were much more limited. Now, the situation is able to be leveraged. Oklahoma could likely leverage themselves a position in either the Big Ten or SEC depending upon their tastes. Obviously you guys know whom I think they favor and I know some of you would disagree but we can all agree that neither the Big Ten nor the SEC were at all connected with any of that fiasco.

I don't think Oklahoma would care to follow Texas to the ACC, not at all. They don't need to be in the same conference with Texas. That rivalry game will persist no matter what.

Not following your reasoning here. Precisely how could Oklahoma "leverage" an invite to the BiG? They couldn't do it to the PAC in 2011, why would the BiG be more susceptible to this leveraging when the BiG has way more power than the PAC?

Not saying that Oklahoma isn't an excellent 'get' for the BiG, just not sure how much 'leverage' they have in bringing an invite about.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-23-2014 06:58 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 05:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 02:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 08:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I don't think I'm looking at it all wrong at all. When ND agreed to the deal they WANTED to come to the ACC as it was constituted, unlike the SEC-lite version of 2003.

If Texas comes and says they must have a particular Texas team, then they are basically saying they don't want the ACC without so-and-so team or simply another Texas team. It's not ND's fault that Texas isn't as enamored of the ACC as presently constituted as it was.

So, it is a demand that ND didn't have. The ACC would have to at least ask. ND may not care and probably would not care. But if they didn't care I doubt the football schools, (including Texas and ND behind the scenes) will want Kansas as #16. If anything Texas would want another Texas school or Oklahoma.

Now Oklahoma would be welcomed by the ACC football schools, but I'd bet they'd vote down Kansas and would insist upon WVU over any other B12 school outside of Oklahoma. All one has to do is look at Louisville vs UConn to see there is a precedent for this.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe things have changed a lot, and Oklahoma would be welcomed now. But when Dodds "talked" to the ACC before re: Texahoma finding a landing spot, the boys at Grandover were only interested in Texas alone.

If you are referring to the talks the ACC had with Texas back in the late summer of 2011, the ACC was only going to take two of Texas, Syracuse, and Pitt because they still hadn't gotten ND on board yet at that time. The problem with Texas was TTU, not Oklahoma.

http://www.statefansnation.com/2011/09/o...as-to-acc/

Besides, Texas was using the ACC at that time to block Oklahoma and Oklahoma State's move to the Pac-12 more than anything.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/huskies/2011/0...port-says/

The only source that I can find that reported Kansas as the target of the ACC was at this same time with Texas. And that was reported through a Kansas sports blog four days later via a headline that referred to a source and no real article after the headline, and a day or two prior to the ACC choosing SU and Pitt.

Cheers,
Neil

I find your post here to be a bit duplicitous. You questioned the discussion about swapping Virginia Tech and N.C. State to create room for the creation of a Western Division for the ACC headed by Texas (an idea vetted via leak from the SEC to prepare and test the reception of SEC fans to the idea of schools like N.C. State and Virginia Tech when the SEC fans had been looking to F.S.U. and Clemson as prospects) and yet site some of the same talk here.

As A&M and Mizzou were being prepared for the SEC the idea was to polish off the Big 12. Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and another would move the ACC after the SEC took N.C. State and Virginia Tech and both would be finished out at 16. In 2011 Maryland had not gone, and Notre Dame had not yet affiliated. You question the networks level of involvement but the ideas expressed here and the talks centered around these suggestions were all byproducts of their involvement. Nobody in the SEC was sitting around thinking about Missouri! And they weren't thinking about us.

In 1991 Kramer's grand plan for the SEC was to add Texas, A&M, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. The first three were openly discussed. Oklahoma remained silently involved and were strictly contingent upon Texas. Clemson was contacted and showed only tepid interest if the others all came to fruition. Bowden was interested if Texas and OU came on board, and chose the ACC after Texas revealed its political problems with the move. Arkansas essentially said get us out of here and we did. When rumors of the Clemson involvement reached South Carolina (then independent) they called us and we took them. Kramer's plan was announced as going to 12 to get a CCG and celebrated as a victory for the SEC. Really it was a 2/3rds whiff on what we had hoped to pull off. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to our targets in the West and South Carolina as a bridge to the East should expansion open there. Even back then the long term viability of the ACC was in question. Jackie Sherrill openly spoke of a 20 team plan for the SEC. As far as the expansion committee was concerned that was an alternative plan put in place in case our move to 16 succeeded and the ACC became vulnerable to the Big 10's advances (way back in '91) or even those possibly of the Big East.

When A&M finally worked out their move to the SEC our first target to pair with them was Oklahoma. They insisted that we take the Cowboys as part of the deal. We declined. ESPN supposedly suggested Missouri and we were off and running (late 2010 and early 2011). Mizzou2SEC was started to prep their fans. ESPN wanted to land Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas so since Texas showed great resistance to an SEC move the scenario I spoke of was vetted to see if it would be possible. The SEC office leaked just enough detail to Travis that he floated the idea and they judged the response of the fans. While not excited about the prospect most fans understood the income aspect for a network. Meantime Texas pulled a Texas and flirted with the PAC because (a) they really wanted their own conference and (b) the ACC didn't like the idea of Tech any more than other conferences would have. Fearing that the PAC would land a valuable bit of property without having to offer compensation to ESPN for it the LHN was put into place to secure Texas's loyalty to ESPN until 2031. Kansas was then given a generous T3 contract and the movable pieces (as far as the independent PAC and the FOX controlled BTN were concerned) were off the board. Oklahoma wasn't going anywhere without Texas's blessing and without the Cowboys being provided a safe landing spot.

So what you two are hashing out is your blindfolded feel of the same elephant.

The SEC did meet with Virginia Tech officials at the Greenbriar in W.V. in 2012 but only after the Maryland defection and only to work out emergency contingencies should the ACC suffer further losses and become unstable. That is also when North Carolina held talks with the SEC pertaining to taking Duke (not N.C. State) as a traveling companion should the ACC dissolve. These meetings were at the behest of the network who was looking to shelter its inventory if necessary. The SEC did not approach the schools involved and they did not approach us for membership, but rather to preset the protocol should a move be required.

If you guys were in the know you would know that.

Where we are now is still waiting to see if Texas to the ACC with Oklahoma and Kansas can be worked out. If it can't then it may be more profitable for the network to build a new conference around Texas and Oklahoma, boost the SECN inventory, and ink a new deal with Delany. Guess where the leverage to accomplish all of that would come from?

The early incorrect assumptions that I made was that the structure would be established to operate in parallel form. Since this is an ESPN struggle with FOX and to a much lesser extent an independently owned PAC and PACN it won't necessarily work out that way.

I do believe there is a bigger upside for the network to rebranding and upgrading football in the ACC than there is in rebuilding a conference around Texas. You asked why the swap idea? The SEC would be giving up long desired targets to be paid by the same organization that claims to support their goals. ESPN needed a quid pro quo to salve what otherwise could rupture future relations with their most valuable product.

Quite frankly if things don't get worked out prior to the Big 10 contract I believe the network will act strictly in its own behalf. That could be having the SEC grow to 18 or even 20 out of the Big 12. It would protect their investment in those properties, but would not be the most economical use of the SEC's expansion.

This is not about conferences. It is about product placement and market maximization. This isn't about what North Carolina wants. It is about what those who pay them want. Just as with most prep work before implementing a plan, obstructions will be identified and eliminated if necessary. What form that elimination takes can be any number of things. It could be the loss of credibility (academic fraud qualifies there), it could be with outvoting them (the old core has less voting strength than ever in the ACC), it could be by busting up their power base and profiting individually from the sale or redistribution of the assets (realignment). I get that you are two academics that don't really grasp the business end of this. I suggest you try harder to do so. Many ACC folks seem to think that since the CEO of ESPN is a Tar Heel that he will look after you. He won't. His responsibility is to the shareholders and employees of ESPN to see that it makes the most it possibly can. Inasmuch as he can do that and help his alma mater he likely will. But don't count on any special favors beyond serendipity.

An ACC with football brands can capitalize on its enormous markets. The ACC as presently comported can not, and has not. You are a conference of Southern football schools, Mid Atlantic basketball schools, and Old Big East schools. You don't share a sports culture, you don't share a regional culture, and your academic culture is being pushed. What you need is a galvanizing catalyst. As odd as it may seem a more football oriented conference deliberately pitted against the SEC as a rival would provide that catalyst. I believe that is what ESPN is after and that is what would be the backbone of a new dynamic relationship between the two conferences, profiting all involved. This isn't about basketball, control of a fiefdom by U.N.C. or Texas, it is about providing a stage large enough to showcase the number national brands in all sports while also celebrating their academics in much the same fashion as the Big 10 touts the CIC. And from ESPN's perspective it is about creating an environment that makes N.D. going all in a logical and profitable decision for the Irish. It really isn't about Tar Heel basketball or the old ACC. It's about a vision for your future. One that if you don't embrace it you will lose not only that vision but likely your present reality as well. Why?

Without adding those football schools Florida State, Clemson and Miami are worth more in the SEC or Big 12 because that is where they multiply the content value that they can't maximize against the Northern half of the present ACC. Without the football first schools Syracuse, Pitt, North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia are worth more in the Big 10, or possibly to help build up the SEC's standing in that sport. But they aren't worth paying the current rate of 20 million just for their basketball. But either way the point is if you don't put total commitment into both sports then your parts are worth more to ESPN elsewhere than your whole conference is worth to them now.

Those are the issues that will be resolved before the completion of the Big 10 contract renewal. And when they are resolved they won't be handled with pleasing Chapel Hill in mind. They will be resolved for the pleasing of Disney shareholders.

JRsec, I respect you as a poster, but perhaps you can think about condensing your writing in some of these posts? Tomes here and there are fine, but massive tomes for nearly half of your posts in a thread is a little bit much. I used to be the worse at this myself, so I had to tone myself down as well.

Can't speak to what the SEC wanted back in 1991, but in 2011 if the SEC truly wanted Oklahoma then they could have taken both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. Obviously, they didn't want them more than wanting not to expand beyond 14 or whatever.

I tend to go with what Paul Finebaum said and that the top candidate after A&M was VT. But VT said 'No' in 2011 - Paul Finebaum got the year wrong in his interview on the radio in 2012, saying 2012 but VT was approached in 2011. If they had said 'Yes', then it would have been A&M and VT and TV would have been silent on that move since it would be a no-brainer for the conference.

But again, VT said 'No'. So who to add with A&M? The SEC apparently didn't want to tick off Florida by going after FSU and so basically the SEC had to decide between Mizzou and WVU, those willing to say 'Yes'. At this point is when TV might have advised the SEC that Mizzou brings more value than WVU. I don't see ESPN manipulating the strings in the background prior to that myself. If you do, fine. But I'm not ready for the tin cap just yet whereby EVERY move is run by TV first.

Now, could the SEC have shaken things up in the ACC enough to destabilize it in order to get VT? Sure, but then Slive was a bit of a wuss in this regard as how he handled the whole A&M thing shows. He wanted assurances that there were would be no lawsuits brought against the SEC by the Big 12 or by individual teams within the Big 12 (Baylor held out on this for a while) and had the Aggies basically publicly beg to be in the SEC.

In the interest of not becoming another tome, I will end here.

Cheers,
Neil

Some things need full explanation to get some people to listen. We didn't even sniff at F.S.U. because ESPN didn't want them to leave the ACC. Slive was not a wuss. He simply took the advice of those paying us. And the lawsuit (tampering/tortuous interference) avoidance is simply the way everything in the SEC has been set up and is pro forma. Finebaum was simply wrong, It was A&M and Oklahoma (but no to the Cowboys because two Oklahoma schools didn't fulfill the renegotiation clause of the television contract) and shortly after that it was Missouri and that was decided pretty much by the end of 2011. The Missouri talks (starting in '10) went on for a while. Virginia Tech was talked with face to face in 2012, but they were not considered to be #14 to A&M. The only context in which Finebaum would be correct would be in the event of the move to 16 and then Va Tech was very much in consideration. You have to understand '91 to understand why it unfolded the way it did, as A&M has been off and on in communication since '91 and that's the first time the Hokies were considered. I had someone very close to me in the room then and the networks weren't nearly the force that they are today as they truly were consultants. Things have radically changed. You are making assumptions about things I know.

And one more thing Omniorange, Florida sponsored Florida State's membership in '91. In the last round they were concerned that if the conference moved to 16 and 9 conference games were to be required that the Noles would become difficult to schedule, especially if they were in a different conference that also had expanded. South Carolina, and Spurrier said the same of Clemson publicly in 2011. The only "gentlemen's agreement" pertained to fulfilling the new market clause in the contract. It stipulated that if 2 new markets were added the contract could be renegotiated. That is why F.S.U. and Clemson could not be considered for #13 & #14. No such language existed for further additions. But, ESPN made it clear they would not pay for the moves of Clemson and F.S.U. even at #15 & #16. And that was that. And once again just like your message board speculation about Navy accompanying N.D. to the ACC your assumptions varied quite widely from reality. Take care. JR