(05-06-2015 10:49 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And why would the Big 12 stay together if Texas was no longer a football member? That's why you add the other schools.

Are you kidding? what are Texas Tech and TCU just going to up and join a conference? Iowa State? Kansas State?

ya, Kansas State is just going to join the SEC, its all good

Texas Tech to the Big 10!

Who said to add them all?

First of all, I can't imagine why the ACC would give Texas a Notre Dame deal. Notre Dame draws attention and eyeballs coast to coast. While Texas is a big deal, it doesn't move the needle in the ACC footprint at all. They've got no presence here. And Texas Olympic sports don't juice anyone. Notre Dame is on such a higher level than Texas that it's not even funny.

The ACC's chance to land Texas will hinge on it's willingness to take whatever friends it has to in order to make it work, and absorb the Longhorn Network. The B1G won't touch schools like Texas Tech or Oklahoma State, and the PAC won't touch a Baylor or TCU. The SEC would double up in Texas, but they aren't likely to triple up in Texas. And there is a lot of resistance to the SEC in Texas and to a lesser extent Oklahoma.

The ACC could conceivably take six teams, could easily take two, maybe three in Texas, and could be flexible on academics (hello Louisville). The ACC being an ESPN property could fold the Longhorn Network into an ACC Network without issues.

When Texas and Oklahoma decide it's time to go, the ACC may not be their first choice. But it may be the only choice that can check all the necessary boxes for both programs, and could conceivably be the compromise destination.

(05-06-2015 01:12 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:44 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IMO, the ACC has always had the ability to destroy the Big XII (well, ever since the mass exodus of 2012 at least!). Now that the mold has been case (the Notre Dame deal) it's even easier...

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2012/0...-bomb.html

Look, the Big XII can't even agree on adding a championship game that costs them nothing (no expansion) and only makes money!

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...off-050515

I don't agree with your blog on that specific scenario. If the Big 12 is literally in the process of tearing the ACC apart, I don't see Texas or OU doing an about face to then join the "weaker" conference.

Not join all-in, but more of a deal to allow them to drop the dead weight they are already carrying. Sorry, FSU, you are not on the same level as Texas.

Same level as Oklahoma and Texas? Yes, I think so.

Besides, that doesn't explain the ridiculous notion that those two schools would just leave the Big 12 despite the Big 12 being in the process of literally tearing the ACC apart. That makes no sense.

I'd say FSU is > than Oklahoma
< than Texas

Texas has enormous potential....I think they're greater than ND

Notre Dame's value has gone down some IMO....they're still one of the top programs, but not THE top in terms of value

(05-06-2015 01:27 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Notre Dame draws attention and eyeballs coast to coast. While Texas is a big deal, it doesn't move the needle in the ACC footprint at all. They've got no presence here. And Texas Olympic sports don't juice anyone. Notre Dame is on such a higher level than Texas that it's not even funny.

this misses the point on quite a # of levels

When you talk expansion, you have to talk POTENTIAL....not how things are now, because once you add the team, the dynamic will CHANGE

IN today's college football world, everything is about the TV network. Texas actually delivers markets....Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin...growing markets. They also deliver RECRUITING

There is a reason why Texas basically has an unofficial standing invite to the PAC 12 and Big 10....

And no one gives a flying crap about olympic sports....really???

(05-06-2015 01:25 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 10:49 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And why would the Big 12 stay together if Texas was no longer a football member? That's why you add the other schools.

Are you kidding? what are Texas Tech and TCU just going to up and join a conference? Iowa State? Kansas State?

ya, Kansas State is just going to join the SEC, its all good

Texas Tech to the Big 10!

Who said to add them all?

remaining Big XII teams aren't going to just throw in the towel...they would back-fill like crazy...Boise State, Cincinnati, UConn...they'd all get phone calls

(05-06-2015 03:13 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 01:27 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Notre Dame draws attention and eyeballs coast to coast. While Texas is a big deal, it doesn't move the needle in the ACC footprint at all. They've got no presence here. And Texas Olympic sports don't juice anyone. Notre Dame is on such a higher level than Texas that it's not even funny.

this misses the point on quite a # of levels

When you talk expansion, you have to talk POTENTIAL....not how things are now, because once you add the team, the dynamic will CHANGE

IN today's college football world, everything is about the TV network. Texas actually delivers markets....Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin...growing markets. They also deliver RECRUITING

There is a reason why Texas basically has an unofficial standing invite to the PAC 12 and Big 10....

And no one gives a flying crap about olympic sports....really???

No, I'm all for adding Texas all in.

But a 5 game a year deal? Plus sending all the Olympic sports out to Texas?

Bleh. Look at the current OOC schedules...if people want to play Texas they can play Texas, just like they play Georgia, LSU, Ohio State, UCLA, Auburn and a bunch of other games that are high profile. Why replace most/all of those with Texas?

If Texas wants to join ACC football, most definitely. But why cut them a special deal and force everyone's hand in scheduling? I mean, ND is a no brainer...that's always a big game, and half the ACC schools have some sort of "rivalry" with them. And there's a ton of ND fans everywhere to buy tickets.

But having to play an 8-win Texas team that won't draw any fans in Raleigh or Pittsburgh, isn't going to draw any special eyeballs and be a big network game?

Texas - Oklahoma State drew a 1.1 rating in a primetime game on a broadcast network. Really. Texas - Texas Tech drew a .4 rating on FS1. Yes, they deliver markets in Texas...how big a deal is that for 2-3 games a year?

They are not a national draw, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. Texas is big, but the ACC has no stake in Texas. They aren't worth a partial deal at all, unless you are hell bent on trying to kill the Big 12.

No one commented so either its crazy or just got missed. But this does eliminate any issues with B12 backfill. It completely isolates the B1G to the point that the next tv contract could even take a hit.

(05-05-2015 10:57 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 10:03 PM)swardy76 Wrote:  I just can't see a scenario where the B12 dissolves without all 10 accounted for.

So I couldn't resist giving this a try:

B12 + SEC + ACC = 38 teams

Move NC ST and VT to SEC. Add Cincinnati and ND to the ACC and absorb all 10 from the B12. Split up into pods of 5 with a 4 + 5 schedule. (or better yet 4 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 conf crossover)

Quote:Conf Pod School
ACC 1 Virginia
ACC 1 UNC
ACC 1 Duke
ACC 1 GT
ACC 1 Clemson
ACC 2 ND
ACC 2 BC
ACC 2 Syracuse
ACC 2 PITT
ACC 2 WVU
ACC 3 Cincinnati
ACC 3 Wake
ACC 3 Louisville
ACC 3 FSU
ACC 3 Miami
ACC 4 TX
ACC 4 OU
ACC 4 Kansas
ACC 4 Baylor
ACC 4 TCU

Conf Pod School
SEC 1 OK ST
SEC 1 KS ST
SEC 1 IA ST
SEC 1 Missouri
SEC 1 Arkansas
SEC 2 Vanderbilt
SEC 2 Kentucky
SEC 2 Tennessee
SEC 2 NC ST
SEC 2 VT
SEC 3 Alabama
SEC 3 Auburn
SEC 3 Florida
SEC 3 Georgia
SEC 3 SC
SEC 4 LSU
SEC 4 Miss St
SEC 4 Ole Miss
SEC 4 TX A&M
SEC 4 TT

The permanent crossover games are:

TT vs Baylor
SC vs Clemson
Florida vs FSU
Georgia vs GT
KS ST vs Kansas
Kentucky vs Louisville
OK ST vs OU
Arkansas vs TCU
TX A&M vs TX
NC ST vs UNC
VT vs Virginia
Vanderbilt vs Wake

And you rotate these:
IA ST
Missouri
Tennessee
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Miss St
Ole Miss

with these:
ND
BC
Syracuse
PITT
Duke
WVU
Cincinnati
Miami

There are some choice matchups with ND, Miami, and possibly WVU. And though they might sound less interesting Syracuse vs Alabama or BC vs Tennessee would do well in TV ratings.

What about Texas baseball?
Texas basketball is better than Notre Dame also.

Texas is always top ~10 in the Director's Cup.

(05-06-2015 03:54 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 03:13 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 01:27 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Notre Dame draws attention and eyeballs coast to coast. While Texas is a big deal, it doesn't move the needle in the ACC footprint at all. They've got no presence here. And Texas Olympic sports don't juice anyone. Notre Dame is on such a higher level than Texas that it's not even funny.

this misses the point on quite a # of levels

When you talk expansion, you have to talk POTENTIAL....not how things are now, because once you add the team, the dynamic will CHANGE

IN today's college football world, everything is about the TV network. Texas actually delivers markets....Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin...growing markets. They also deliver RECRUITING

There is a reason why Texas basically has an unofficial standing invite to the PAC 12 and Big 10....

And no one gives a flying crap about olympic sports....really???

No, I'm all for adding Texas all in.

But a 5 game a year deal? Plus sending all the Olympic sports out to Texas?

Bleh. Look at the current OOC schedules...if people want to play Texas they can play Texas, just like they play Georgia, LSU, Ohio State, UCLA, Auburn and a bunch of other games that are high profile. Why replace most/all of those with Texas?

If Texas wants to join ACC football, most definitely. But why cut them a special deal and force everyone's hand in scheduling? I mean, ND is a no brainer...that's always a big game, and half the ACC schools have some sort of "rivalry" with them. And there's a ton of ND fans everywhere to buy tickets.

But having to play an 8-win Texas team that won't draw any fans in Raleigh or Pittsburgh, isn't going to draw any special eyeballs and be a big network game?

Texas - Oklahoma State drew a 1.1 rating in a primetime game on a broadcast network. Really. Texas - Texas Tech drew a .4 rating on FS1. Yes, they deliver markets in Texas...how big a deal is that for 2-3 games a year?

They are not a national draw, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. Texas is big, but the ACC has no stake in Texas. They aren't worth a partial deal at all, unless you are hell bent on trying to kill the Big 12.

You're out of your element.

Texas wouldn't draw any fans paying at ACC schools? Ridiculous.

You do what you must to add Texas and ensure the future of the ACC.

I think we can all agree on one thing: if the ACC ever has the opportunity to add Texas and Oklahoma*, even if it means adding 2 more teams, they should JUMP at it! Figure out the schedules, etc. later...

* as full members.

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  What issue? It's the same as ND. They keep their tv deal but only receive a few hundred thousand from the ACC.

And why would the Big 12 stay together if Texas was no longer a football member? That's why you add the other schools.

Yes to the first part. And no to the second part. A timeline was not discussed. We would be looking at 5 to 6 years out on movement. Besides the division of product wouldn't end with Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas has value to anyone. A piece of Texas without the Horns would still be on the table for the PAC. Where the other pieces fall would simply be determined by what conferences were looking for. If academics Iowa State lands a place, if markets the Texas schools have value. If politics plays a part then Oklahoma State and Kansas State will find a home. All of these things would happen no matter what if Texas and Oklahoma want to be elsewhere. So the irony is that if they really want a easier time finding a home they should encourage Texas and OU to move now and use their leverage. The longer they wait the more precarious and desperate some of their futures will become.

If realignment were left up to me the SEC would simply take Oklahoma and Florida State and end with two brands that would only build upon what we have. Two brands that would fit.

I have no idea what you're saying.

If Texas were willing to join the ACC in all sports but football, but with a 5-game football agreement, there would be zero reason to keep the Big 12 alive. For one, there's no way their tv partners would continue their current payments without Texas. Even if it did manage to survive in the short-term, it'd be greatly destabilized. So if the ACC is going to take Texas in that type of deal, then there's no reason not to also lure OU and a few other schools that would secure that western front. Once you pilfer the linchpin of the conference, you may as well go and pluck up the rest of the schools you're interested in, too.

I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

(05-06-2015 04:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think we can all agree on one thing: if the ACC ever has the opportunity to add Texas and Oklahoma*, even if it means adding 2 more teams, they should JUMP at it! Figure out the schedules, etc. later...

* as full members.

Texas, yes.
Oklahoma, NO!

(05-06-2015 05:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 04:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think we can all agree on one thing: if the ACC ever has the opportunity to add Texas and Oklahoma*, even if it means adding 2 more teams, they should JUMP at it! Figure out the schedules, etc. later...

* as full members.

Texas, yes.
Oklahoma, NO!

Texas and Oklahoma in the ACC? Are you guys smoking rocks? What the hell happened to the good old fashioned, sensible realignment talk of our forefathers? You know, like "should we destroy the Big East or should we watch UNC beat the living daylights out of Clempson twice a year for eternity?"

(05-07-2015 06:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma in the ACC? Are you guys smoking rocks? What the hell happened to the good old fashioned, sensible realignment talk of our forefathers? You know, like "should we destroy the Big East or should we watch UNC beat the living daylights out of Clempson twice a year for eternity?"

Your "twice a year" comment gives you away.

The "good old fashioned" realignment talk went away when football became approx. 4X more valuable than basketball.

Any more questions?

(05-06-2015 04:08 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 03:54 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 03:13 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 01:27 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  Notre Dame draws attention and eyeballs coast to coast. While Texas is a big deal, it doesn't move the needle in the ACC footprint at all. They've got no presence here. And Texas Olympic sports don't juice anyone. Notre Dame is on such a higher level than Texas that it's not even funny.

this misses the point on quite a # of levels

When you talk expansion, you have to talk POTENTIAL....not how things are now, because once you add the team, the dynamic will CHANGE

IN today's college football world, everything is about the TV network. Texas actually delivers markets....Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin...growing markets. They also deliver RECRUITING

There is a reason why Texas basically has an unofficial standing invite to the PAC 12 and Big 10....

And no one gives a flying crap about olympic sports....really???

No, I'm all for adding Texas all in.

But a 5 game a year deal? Plus sending all the Olympic sports out to Texas?

Bleh. Look at the current OOC schedules...if people want to play Texas they can play Texas, just like they play Georgia, LSU, Ohio State, UCLA, Auburn and a bunch of other games that are high profile. Why replace most/all of those with Texas?

If Texas wants to join ACC football, most definitely. But why cut them a special deal and force everyone's hand in scheduling? I mean, ND is a no brainer...that's always a big game, and half the ACC schools have some sort of "rivalry" with them. And there's a ton of ND fans everywhere to buy tickets.

But having to play an 8-win Texas team that won't draw any fans in Raleigh or Pittsburgh, isn't going to draw any special eyeballs and be a big network game?

Texas - Oklahoma State drew a 1.1 rating in a primetime game on a broadcast network. Really. Texas - Texas Tech drew a .4 rating on FS1. Yes, they deliver markets in Texas...how big a deal is that for 2-3 games a year?

They are not a national draw, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. Texas is big, but the ACC has no stake in Texas. They aren't worth a partial deal at all, unless you are hell bent on trying to kill the Big 12.

You're out of your element.

Texas wouldn't draw any fans paying at ACC schools? Ridiculous.

You do what you must to add Texas and ensure the future of the ACC.

Yes, hell bent on destroying the Big 12. Either it or the ACC may die in the near future.

Which one will it be?

The conference with Texas and ND in it (even as partial members) will have the television draw and institutional power to stay alive.

(05-06-2015 06:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 05:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 04:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think we can all agree on one thing: if the ACC ever has the opportunity to add Texas and Oklahoma*, even if it means adding 2 more teams, they should JUMP at it! Figure out the schedules, etc. later...

* as full members.

Texas, yes.
Oklahoma, NO!

Exactly...would take Oklahoma State/T. Boone U as well.

It's off the subject, but I think Texas would be insane to try to go independent in football. They're struggling against Texas A&M for mindshare right now, and I don't see it helping them one bit.

First, without the ability to play for a conference championship (13th) game, and no conference title to win, you're basically playing for pride after one loss. That's going to go over really well when they drop their opener.

Then you lose the conference eyeballs of Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU fans watching Texas for the conference standings.

You have to attract coaches that can't win division or conference titles, so they've got nothing to go on their resume but national championships.

You've got to play a national schedule to may independence pay, so you might raise your national profile, but you'll further concede Texas to the Aggies, who will presumably be in a conference chase well into the season while Texas is doing it's Rainbow Tour every year.

I think it would be disastrous for Texas to go that way. Independence is a cultural thing with Notre Dame that means enough to them to deal with it's downside. And the fact that ND is in Indiana, and has to recruit nationally, there is actually at least some benefit there, a benefit that doesn't really do anything for Texas.

I really think Texas' smarter play would be leveraging 1-2 additional Texas schools (and hopefully OU) into the ACC or PAC with them. So you have the advantages of playing in a conference, but that conference becomes a Texas conference. Even though the SEC > ACC, having 3 ACC schools in Texas, generating a fairly broad ACC presence in the state is the better counter to A&M's SEC mojo than going it alone. Basically, Texas going independent makes the SEC into THE only conference that matters in Texas. That would really be Texas shooting itself in the face.

(05-07-2015 08:45 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's off the subject, but I think Texas would be insane to try to go independent in football. They're struggling against Texas A&M for mindshare right now, and I don't see it helping them one bit.

First, without the ability to play for a conference championship (13th) game, and no conference title to win, you're basically playing for pride after one loss. That's going to go over really well when they drop their opener.

Then you lose the conference eyeballs of Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU fans watching Texas for the conference standings.

You have to attract coaches that can't win division or conference titles, so they've got nothing to go on their resume but national championships.

You've got to play a national schedule to may independence pay, so you might raise your national profile, but you'll further concede Texas to the Aggies, who will presumably be in a conference chase well into the season while Texas is doing it's Rainbow Tour every year.

I think it would be disastrous for Texas to go that way. Independence is a cultural thing with Notre Dame that means enough to them to deal with it's downside. And the fact that ND is in Indiana, and has to recruit nationally, there is actually at least some benefit there, a benefit that doesn't really do anything for Texas.

I really think Texas' smarter play would be leveraging 1-2 additional Texas schools (and hopefully OU) into the ACC or PAC with them. So you have the advantages of playing in a conference, but that conference becomes a Texas conference. Even though the SEC > ACC, having 3 ACC schools in Texas, generating a fairly broad ACC presence in the state is the better counter to A&M's SEC mojo than going it alone. Basically, Texas going independent makes the SEC into THE only conference that matters in Texas. That would really be Texas shooting itself in the face.

This is a very compelling argument for Texas to join a conference.

(05-06-2015 05:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 08:17 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 11:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 08:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes to the first part. And no to the second part. A timeline was not discussed. We would be looking at 5 to 6 years out on movement. Besides the division of product wouldn't end with Texas and Oklahoma. Kansas has value to anyone. A piece of Texas without the Horns would still be on the table for the PAC. Where the other pieces fall would simply be determined by what conferences were looking for. If academics Iowa State lands a place, if markets the Texas schools have value. If politics plays a part then Oklahoma State and Kansas State will find a home. All of these things would happen no matter what if Texas and Oklahoma want to be elsewhere. So the irony is that if they really want a easier time finding a home they should encourage Texas and OU to move now and use their leverage. The longer they wait the more precarious and desperate some of their futures will become.

If realignment were left up to me the SEC would simply take Oklahoma and Florida State and end with two brands that would only build upon what we have. Two brands that would fit.

I have no idea what you're saying.

If Texas were willing to join the ACC in all sports but football, but with a 5-game football agreement, there would be zero reason to keep the Big 12 alive. For one, there's no way their tv partners would continue their current payments without Texas. Even if it did manage to survive in the short-term, it'd be greatly destabilized. So if the ACC is going to take Texas in that type of deal, then there's no reason not to also lure OU and a few other schools that would secure that western front. Once you pilfer the linchpin of the conference, you may as well go and pluck up the rest of the schools you're interested in, too.

I agreed with your view of N.D.'s relationship. And I was merely stating that should Texas or Oklahoma choose to leave it would be better for the remainder of the schools if they did it sooner and used their weight to leverage some of them a new home as well. The irony is that the closer they get to the end of the GOR the more precarious it becomes for the non brands. So essentially we assess their situation similarly. If one of the top two brands leaves, particularly Texas, it's over. I merely added that sooner would actually be better for the rest than later would be.

here's how it could work...

The ACC takes 6 from the Big12: Texas, TCU, Baylor, OSU, KState and WVU. ND keeps its 5 game deal with the ACC. The 5 team pods work out very neatly and logically. The ACC's footprint is monstrous and the ACCN will be a rou$ing success.

The SEC takes OU and KU, two highly desirable schools in two new states to the SEC. Basketball improves a good bit with this move.

New ACC-SEC matchups - Texas - aTm, KU-KSU, OU-OSU.

That is 8 schools, enough to dissolve the conference. Sorry TTech and ISU.

I could live with that.

Another way to get 8 schools for dissolution:

Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor and TCU to the ACC for a total of 18 teams.

Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas and West Virginia to the SEC (18 also).

Now there are no schools left that the Big Ten would be interested in. The ACC has shored up its football cred, while the SEC significantly improves in hoops. Combined they have all the major programs in Texas, while the SEC adds Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia to its footprint. ESPN is happy. The Big Ten is sad.