(04-24-2015 12:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  I think I've made it clear that my personal preference if the ACC wants Texas is to take them only as a full member and in conjunction with adding three other Texahoma schools. That being said, I understand that may not be doable, and there may be more sentiment for giving Texas a sweetheart deal along the lines of Notre Dame's arrangement. If that were to happen, here is how I would structure that deal.

I would divide the league into two divisions of 8 teams each for all sports. I would realign the divisions largely along geographical lines, with primarily old ACC teams in one division and old Big East teams in the other. Each team would have one permanent crossover opponent. Notre Dame would be in the Big East division and Texas would be in the ACC division (from now on I'll call them north and south).

In football, Notre Dame would play 3 teams in their division every year, and the remaining four teams every other year. Texas would do the same in its division. In addition, Notre Dame and Texas would play each other every year. Neither team would be eligible for the conference championship, but could play in the Orange Bowl when the ACC champ is in the CFP. Texas and Notre Dame get to keep their home league games in their own TV contract. However, the ACC would own the rights to the annual game between them.

In basketball, each division would play a full double round robin. Each team would have two permanent cross division partners and play two other OOD teams on a rotating basis, for a total of 18 league games a year.

These would be the divisions and permanent partners:

South..............FB partner

Florida State......Miami
Clemson............Louisville
Ga Tech.............Pitt
NC State...........Wake Forest
UNC..................Virginia Tech
Duke.................Syracuse
Virginia..............BC
Texas................FSU, Clemson, GT

North

Notre Dame.......BC, Pitt, Miami

Basketball partners

Florida State.......Miami, Pitt
Clemson.............Wake Forest, Pitt
Ga Tech..............Notre Dame, BC
NC State............Wake Forest, Va Tech
UNC...................Syracuse, Louisville
Duke..................Syracuse, Louisville
Virginia...............Virginia Tech, Notre Dame
Texas.................Miami, BC
Notre Dame........Virginia, Ga Tech
BC.....................Texas, Ga Tech
Pitt....................Clemson, Florida State
Louisville............UNC, Duke
Syracuse............UNC, Duke
Va Tech............. NC State, Virginia
Miami.................Florida State, Texas
Wake Forest........NC State, Clemson

....................................................................................................................

Wake Forest has gotten the dirty end of the stick in all this, so as a concession to them UNC, Virginia and Duke will agree to schedule them OOC in football in the years when they don't meet in conference.

Because every other school will be greatly inconvenienced when they have to travel to Texas for a midweek basketball game, the Horns will agree to start those games at 7PM eastern time unless they can be scheduled when the visiting team is on spring break.

Bottom line, Florida State's FB schedule would look like this every year:

Clemson
Ga Tech
Miami
Texas
NC State
UNC
Duke
Virginia
Florida
ACC North rotating
FBS buy game
FCS buy game

The main purpose behind all this is to give the strongest in each sport a respectable schedule every year, while giving the other teams a fair shot at qualifying for postseason play every year. Also, to maximize the number of league games that would be of national TV interest.

As I said, it's not my first choice, but I could live with it.

Wait just a minute Ken D!
You are starting to flop around just like a flag in a March wind.
When this thread started you gave away NC State and Virginia Tech to the SEC (which is a stupid idea). Now you have them back in the conference again. Make up your mind or put another crazy proposal in another thread.

If you read my first paragraph here, you'll see that I'm not flopping. Just negotiating.

(04-23-2015 04:11 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:47 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:32 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 03:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, the disussion is about Texas the school, not the state. Seriously, tell me who else on here has agreed with you that Rice and Houston would make a good tandem addition to the ACC?

Houston and Rice are the equivalent quality of Memphis and Tulane.

I don't think people have really agreed or disagreed....you're the only one with a strong opinion against it. You can keep saying the thing about Memphis and Tulane, but that's not going to make it true

the bottomline in all of this expansion stuff is markets, and one of the key ingredients in winning in college football is recruiting....

Texas schools dominate both categories. I don't think anyone would argue that

I gotta side with Marge on this one. If you took a poll of all the posters on this site about whether the tandem of Houston and Rice would be a good add for the ACC, you might not get 100% saying no, but I'd be very surprised if the number were below 95%.

As for whether Houston and Rice as a tandem are equivalent to Memphis and Tulane, that number might drop to 80% or so.

And I think you'd get a lot of people who would argue that Texas schools dominate both markets and recruiting. Hold their own? Perhaps. Dominate, no.

Absolutely. I'm all for adding Texas schools as long as they're of the caliber of TCU/Baylor. In no way shape or form would I support adding Houston/Rice/SMU. I'm not saying they're bad schools (cause they're not), but why would we go for them when we have a legitimate shot at pulling better ones.

this is ludicrous really....put Houston, Rice, or SMU in a P5 conference, give them the right coach, and you'll see similar results. Houston actually has a little more upside. Everyone is inhaling the fumes from last year a little too much...Baylor certainly isn't some power now....they lucked into a coach that won't leave and feed off of Texas recruiting

when expanding, you want to look at POTENTIAL....not just how they did last year

(04-23-2015 04:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:54 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 01:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Because they would prefer to be the western wing of an eastern conference rather than the eastern wing of a western conference. It makes a world of difference in TV exposure and travel convenience.

They don't want their televised away games airing two hours later when they could instead be aired one hour sooner (and to a bigger audience). And when their teams are playing away from home, they want to be gaining back that hour on the return trip travelling west instead of losing two hours traveling east.

while that's true, I don't think that's a convincing argument....if Texas is going to go in full throttle, why the ACC over the PAC 12 or even the Big 10?? I honestly don't think Texas would care about your argument at that point

FWIW, I saw Texas' former AD Deloss Dodds speak at a luncheon in which he specifically referred to eastern travel for Olympics sports and the eastern start times and media coverage as far superior over the PAC 12.

lol, isn't he resigning?

Texas is barely tapped what they're capable of

(04-24-2015 12:30 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 12:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 08:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  I think I've made it clear that my personal preference if the ACC wants Texas is to take them only as a full member and in conjunction with adding three other Texahoma schools. That being said, I understand that may not be doable, and there may be more sentiment for giving Texas a sweetheart deal along the lines of Notre Dame's arrangement. If that were to happen, here is how I would structure that deal.

I would divide the league into two divisions of 8 teams each for all sports. I would realign the divisions largely along geographical lines, with primarily old ACC teams in one division and old Big East teams in the other. Each team would have one permanent crossover opponent. Notre Dame would be in the Big East division and Texas would be in the ACC division (from now on I'll call them north and south).

In football, Notre Dame would play 3 teams in their division every year, and the remaining four teams every other year. Texas would do the same in its division. In addition, Notre Dame and Texas would play each other every year. Neither team would be eligible for the conference championship, but could play in the Orange Bowl when the ACC champ is in the CFP. Texas and Notre Dame get to keep their home league games in their own TV contract. However, the ACC would own the rights to the annual game between them.

In basketball, each division would play a full double round robin. Each team would have two permanent cross division partners and play two other OOD teams on a rotating basis, for a total of 18 league games a year.

These would be the divisions and permanent partners:

South..............FB partner

Florida State......Miami
Clemson............Louisville
Ga Tech.............Pitt
NC State...........Wake Forest
UNC..................Virginia Tech
Duke.................Syracuse
Virginia..............BC
Texas................FSU, Clemson, GT

North

Notre Dame.......BC, Pitt, Miami

Basketball partners

Florida State.......Miami, Pitt
Clemson.............Wake Forest, Pitt
Ga Tech..............Notre Dame, BC
NC State............Wake Forest, Va Tech
UNC...................Syracuse, Louisville
Duke..................Syracuse, Louisville
Virginia...............Virginia Tech, Notre Dame
Texas.................Miami, BC
Notre Dame........Virginia, Ga Tech
BC.....................Texas, Ga Tech
Pitt....................Clemson, Florida State
Louisville............UNC, Duke
Syracuse............UNC, Duke
Va Tech............. NC State, Virginia
Miami.................Florida State, Texas
Wake Forest........NC State, Clemson

....................................................................................................................

Wake Forest has gotten the dirty end of the stick in all this, so as a concession to them UNC, Virginia and Duke will agree to schedule them OOC in football in the years when they don't meet in conference.

Because every other school will be greatly inconvenienced when they have to travel to Texas for a midweek basketball game, the Horns will agree to start those games at 7PM eastern time unless they can be scheduled when the visiting team is on spring break.

Bottom line, Florida State's FB schedule would look like this every year:

Clemson
Ga Tech
Miami
Texas
NC State
UNC
Duke
Virginia
Florida
ACC North rotating
FBS buy game
FCS buy game

The main purpose behind all this is to give the strongest in each sport a respectable schedule every year, while giving the other teams a fair shot at qualifying for postseason play every year. Also, to maximize the number of league games that would be of national TV interest.

As I said, it's not my first choice, but I could live with it.

Wait just a minute Ken D!
You are starting to flop around just like a flag in a March wind.
When this thread started you gave away NC State and Virginia Tech to the SEC (which is a stupid idea). Now you have them back in the conference again. Make up your mind or put another crazy proposal in another thread.

If you read my first paragraph here, you'll see that I'm not flopping. Just negotiating.

you know you want Rice in the conference

(04-23-2015 04:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 04:29 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-23-2015 02:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I would view Texas vs UNC as a top game. It's definitely better than GT/Wake/NC State vs UNC, and maybe better than UVA vs UNC, too. Only games that are definitely better is the Duke vs UNC series. Texas has made 24 NCAAT in the last 27 years.

I dont believe that there are many ACC schools that would view Texas as a big game. And there are definitely more games than Duke/UNC that would be bigger games than Texas/UNC. Duke/UNC/Louisville/Syracuse. Any game between those four schools would be a bigger game than any of those teams against Texas, as well as Texas/UNC. Texas hasnt been as good as any of those schools, nor does Texas get tv ratings like those four.

I was actually talking about nationally televised games. Which would be "big" games for ESPN to promote? Texas against those top 4 ACC programs are most definitely "big" games.

That's why I listed Texas as being better than ACC basketball fan favorites GT, Wake, NC State and possibly UVA.

quick, have a board poll! I'm sure that would be reliable....

the real reason Marge is afraid of adding Houston:

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/...tions=none

(04-20-2015 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Works for me...however, I think FOX might have something to say about it.

It would be very tough to break up the Big 12 just taking four teams. Kansas would probably get a B1G invite, but that would be about it. Those five teams could still make things very difficult.

Now, if both conferences went to 18, added a conference semifinal pitting division champs + wild card, you could probably get it done. You could theoretically pick up WVU, Kansas, KSU, another Texas school.

ACC gets: Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, TT, WVU
SEC gets: Kansas, KSU (VT, NCSU)

ACC gets: Texas, OU, T.C.U., Kansas State, W.V.U. That gives you Dallas Fort Worth, Oklahoma, Kansas, and reconnects your footprint with the sofa smokers.

SEC gets: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma State and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big 10 probably would take the Jayhawks and who knows if nobody else looks too good for a partner maybe Iowa State.

Now you have accounted for at least 8 and possibly 9 of the Big 12 schools. You partner with the SEC for OOC series in all top 3 money sports and enjoy your content money and bundle the ACCN and SECN for a market size that is untouchable.

Or, you let Tobacco Road's clinging to the past drag everyone down.

(04-24-2015 09:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Works for me...however, I think FOX might have something to say about it.

It would be very tough to break up the Big 12 just taking four teams. Kansas would probably get a B1G invite, but that would be about it. Those five teams could still make things very difficult.

Now, if both conferences went to 18, added a conference semifinal pitting division champs + wild card, you could probably get it done. You could theoretically pick up WVU, Kansas, KSU, another Texas school.

ACC gets: Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, TT, WVU
SEC gets: Kansas, KSU (VT, NCSU)

ACC gets: Texas, OU, T.C.U., Kansas State, W.V.U. That gives you Dallas Fort Worth, Oklahoma, Kansas, and reconnects your footprint with the sofa smokers.

SEC gets: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma State and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big 10 probably would take the Jayhawks and who knows if nobody else looks too good for a partner maybe Iowa State.

Now you have accounted for at least 8 and possibly 9 of the Big 12 schools. You partner with the SEC for OOC series in all top 3 money sports and enjoy your content money and bundle the ACCN and SECN for a market size that is untouchable.

Or, you let Tobacco Road's clinging to the past drag everyone down.

"Ring Of Fire"
(originally by Anita Carter)

Love is a burning thing
And it makes a fiery ring.
Bound by wild desire
I fell into a ring of fire.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

The taste of love is sweet
When hearts like ours meet.
I fell for you like a child,
Oh, but the fire went wild.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

(04-24-2015 09:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-24-2015 09:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 12:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Works for me...however, I think FOX might have something to say about it.

It would be very tough to break up the Big 12 just taking four teams. Kansas would probably get a B1G invite, but that would be about it. Those five teams could still make things very difficult.

Now, if both conferences went to 18, added a conference semifinal pitting division champs + wild card, you could probably get it done. You could theoretically pick up WVU, Kansas, KSU, another Texas school.

ACC gets: Texas, OU, OSU, Baylor, TT, WVU
SEC gets: Kansas, KSU (VT, NCSU)

ACC gets: Texas, OU, T.C.U., Kansas State, W.V.U. That gives you Dallas Fort Worth, Oklahoma, Kansas, and reconnects your footprint with the sofa smokers.

SEC gets: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Oklahoma State and either Baylor or Texas Tech.

The Big 10 probably would take the Jayhawks and who knows if nobody else looks too good for a partner maybe Iowa State.

Now you have accounted for at least 8 and possibly 9 of the Big 12 schools. You partner with the SEC for OOC series in all top 3 money sports and enjoy your content money and bundle the ACCN and SECN for a market size that is untouchable.

Or, you let Tobacco Road's clinging to the past drag everyone down.

"Ring Of Fire"
(originally by Anita Carter)

Love is a burning thing
And it makes a fiery ring.
Bound by wild desire
I fell into a ring of fire.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

The taste of love is sweet
When hearts like ours meet.
I fell for you like a child,
Oh, but the fire went wild.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

I fell into a burning ring of fire,
I went down, down, down as the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

And it burns, burns, burns,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire,
The ring of fire, the ring of fire.

Well hello June and Johnny!

(04-24-2015 12:30 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Marge...I consider UT in hoops about the same as NCSt. Really to a Cuse fan, UT is not that big of a deal. We look forward to in no particular order: UNC, Duke, Louisville, UConn, GTown UK, AZ, UCLA, Mich St and Kansas...just missing the list IU, UF, tOSU and Michigan. GTown is there as an archrival to Cuse and I thin kit would be missing from most folks' Top 10.

You are right for TV it would draw Top 10 brand like ratings though.

My point.

(04-24-2015 02:14 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  the real reason Marge is afraid of adding Houston:

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/active/...tions=none

I didn't click the link, but because they own us in pre-1980's football?

Houston isn't a good addition. It's not terrible, but it's not good. Houston AND Rice is terrible though.

Adding the state of Texas would be good in terms of viewers and recruiting. Outside of UT and A&M, you would need 4 or 5 schools (maybe more) to make inroads with viewers and recruiting.

FWIW, if you consider the possibility of movement between the ACC and Big 12 in one direction or the other, the analysis I did about trends in football power ratings are interesting.

Using the average team ratings over the past five seasons (to take out the effects of one boom or bust year on the analysis), only two ACC teams would improve the Big 12's average if they switched leagues - Florida State and Clemson. By contrast, all but two Big 12 teams - Iowa State and Kansas - would improve the ACC's average.

Obviously, there are a lot more factors that go into realignment decisions, but I found that stark contrast to be interesting.

From the Big 12's perspective, there are only two other schools besides FSU and Clemson in the FBS outside the SEC, Big Ten and PAC 12 who would improve their average power rating - Notre Dame and Boise State.

From the ACC's perspective, the four most powerful Big 12 programs during that period were Oklahoma, TCU, Oklahoma St and Baylor in that order. Their combined ratings were, on average, 12 points per game higher than the ACC's average for the period.

Texas as a partial, Baylor and UConn as full members. Hate it all you want but it's how it's happening and there is no way in hell that the ACC is in a position to cherry pick.

(04-25-2015 11:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas as a partial, Baylor and UConn as full members. Hate it all you want but it's how it's happening and there is no way in hell that the ACC is in a position to cherry pick.

H1 I think that you are correct in that Texas would like to take Baylor with them in that scenario, they might even prefer TCU as opposed to UConn.

(04-25-2015 12:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 11:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas as a partial, Baylor and UConn as full members. Hate it all you want but it's how it's happening and there is no way in hell that the ACC is in a position to cherry pick.

H1 I think that you are correct in that Texas would like to take Baylor with them in that scenario, they might even prefer TCU as opposed to UConn.

Well, if you remember, I used to list both TCU and Baylor coming to the ACC. I think, personally, that such a scenario would be great for the ACC. What isn't to like about that? TCU and Baylor alone add massive credibility to the ACC for football. Having 5 or 6 games against Texas certainly doesn't hurt in that regard.

The problem though is the PAC. I had to amend myself after certain realizations were brought to my attention. You have seen my prognostications. I undervalued the PAC's position by thinking they would take three leftovers and a G5. That wasn't fair, so I had to amend.

My amendment was moving TCU out west, where they used to play, thus the PAC gets that strong football program in DFW. Programs like Oregon, Stanford, ASU, Arizona, Washington, etc. are all going to love that trip.

So, which is better. Is it Texas(partial), Baylor, TCU or Texas (partial), Baylor, UConn, ACC Network?

Just some thoughts to ponder:

- The idea of taking more than one school in Texas is a waste of time, unless Texas specifically requests it.
- OU can come alone to any conference, they are not tied to OSU, regardless of fan reports.
- Texas has no loyalty to Texas Blech; and, NO! they cannot come even if Texas requests (which will not happen anyway).
- Tulane would be a better add than Rice, equal football, new market and, let's be honest, all fans will travel to NOLA if possible.
- Houston only comes if Texas requests them. Texas and TAMU dominate the Houston TV market with LSU in third. The Cougars are not a big draw, though the school is putting forth good efforts to build loyalty.
- Texas does not want the Pac 12, the Board, the big donors, et al, do not want to play two hours behind the time. Texas has always looked east or at least north.
- Texas does not want the SEC. TAMU wanted the SEC. It took nearly 20 years for TAMU to break the political strings, but Texas did not want the SEC when they could have had it (actually, they still can, the SEC would love them to join).
- The SEC would take Texas and/or OU.
- The PAC 12 is too snobbish for OU without Texas.
- OU and UNL have identical academic ratings, the B1G could take OU if Texas or OU decides to break the Big 12, but the B1G appears to be hoping for the ACC to fall apart.
- Those thinking that travel for Texas (or OU) would be difficult should look at a map of the Big 12. Both schools are near large airports and can fly to ACC cities with ease. The same applies to the B1G, even the PAC 12, somewhat.
- The only two schools worth adding to the ACC are UT and OU. Baylor and TCU are not long term powerhouses and each is more riding the UT and OU downtrends than dominating powers.
- Texas does not need to bring along friends, but OU would be acceptable. Tulane, Memphis, or Cincy would be OK adds IF Texas comes along as they bring new markets and impinge on the SEC/B1G.
- Texas has a sweetheart deal with their LHN and will be hard pressed to leave the Big 12 anytime soon.
- Texas likes being in control, which will not happen in if they join any other conference.

If we are going to fantasize, and keeping the focus solely on the B12 then why not think big -

Add UT and OU as semi-independents with the same deal as ND.

Add WVU to the league as a full member.

This gets the league to 15 for football members, 18 for basketball, and ensures that all 15 schools get either ND, UT, or OU on the schedule.

Then, when the OB deal is renegotiated, kick the B1G to the curb, and go with the higher ranked team from the SEC (for a max of three times and a reduced cut), ND, UT, and OU for the same cut ND is getting now.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-25-2015 07:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  If we are going to fantasize, and keeping the focus solely on the B12 then why not think big -

Add UT and OU as semi-independents with the same deal as ND.

Add WVU to the league as a full member.

This gets the league to 15 for football members, 18 for basketball, and ensures that all 15 schools get either ND, UT, or OU on the schedule.

Then, when the OB deal is renegotiated, kick the B1G to the curb, and go with the higher ranked team from the SEC (for a max of three times and a reduced cut), ND, UT, and OU for the same cut ND is getting now.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-25-2015 07:09 PM)omniorange Wrote:  If we are going to fantasize, and keeping the focus solely on the B12 then why not think big -

Add UT and OU as semi-independents with the same deal as ND.

Add WVU to the league as a full member.

This gets the league to 15 for football members, 18 for basketball, and ensures that all 15 schools get either ND, UT, or OU on the schedule.

Then, when the OB deal is renegotiated, kick the B1G to the curb, and go with the higher ranked team from the SEC (for a max of three times and a reduced cut), ND, UT, and OU for the same cut ND is getting now.

Cheers,
Neil

Dare you to post this on the main forum Neil.