(05-17-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  If there really was group action, the logical thing would be to split up the ACC, specifically, the Carolina and Virginia schools, with the Big 10 and SEC each getting a piece. That would maximize the value of those schools since football is a much bigger driver than basketball and they have more value in separate conferences, especially for conference networks. The B1G would also pick up the overlap with the SEC in Georgia and Florida.

The B1G 20 (again assuming some sort of group action that resolves GOR issues or this happens 15 years in the future) could add UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami and either FSU or Notre Dame, if they were willing. They would basically pick up one of the ACC divisions and the SEC would pick up the other. Or the B1G could go to 24 with those 7 + BC, Syracuse and either Pitt or UConn. That would involve having 2 separate leagues under one umbrella.

Adding both Big 12 and ACC schools doesn't work well for the SEC as it would split up the old core 10 schools. The SEC if it decided to go giant would want to add in one direction or the other. For example, adding VT, NCSU, Clemson, FSU and either UL or Wake. Or 6 from the Big 12.

I don't think Georgia Tech would go to the Big 10 if the SEC would take them again.
I've long considered that split. I think we would move to 60 schools in three conferences.

My grouping for the Big 10 would be Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse, B.C. (for market and hockey), and Notre Dame. They don't need Pitt or Connecticut with that lineup. Their area would be much more contiguous and compact and they get the big markets that they would covet.

The SEC would look at Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State for markets and branding. The next two would be debatable. Georgia Tech for academics and because having them in a 20 team conference might help Georgia scheduling. Miami would have an outside shot just to have a presence in South Florida which is really a very different demographic than Tampa/ St Pete and north. Louisville because of their solid financial footing and all around sports programs would be in the mix as well. And depending upon who the Big 12 left behind when they essentially merged with the PAC, the SEC might have a market interest there.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC with or without one of the privates (T.C.U. or Baylor) might leave the SEC a slot to spend on a second Texas school.

I don't see Wake getting an SEC invitation. If we had Virginia Tech then West Virginia may not get as much consideration either. But I do think Georgia Tech would be the first considered for the 5th SEC slot in a move to 20. Having Tech, Clemson and Florida State keeps the Southeast in the hands of the SEC exclusively in that scenario and I strongly believe that would be a priority.

I just don't see the profit in, or need, to move to 24 for the Big 10 or SEC.

B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

The Georgia Tech AD has been quoted as saying he wanted to be with UVA, UNC and Duke. So I think they go with those 3. Now if they split, they probably go with UNC.

24 definitely guarantees you 2 slots in the Big 6 bowls, although that (in this scenario where B1G and SEC own the east) probably is not much more necessary than having the 2 guaranteed slots in the NCAA bb tourney.

It has some advantages:
Fills in some gaps or expands coverage area(UConn for example for the Big 10 and Cincinnati for the SEC)

Uses the SEC and B1G brands to bring up some schools. If you went from 12 to 14 with two G5 schools that could be a negative on the conference. If you go from 22 to 24 with them in different divisions, it would be more likely to help the school rather than dragging down the conference.

It gives the schools more conference titles. You are having 2 for 24 instead of 1 for 20.

It helps maintain existing rivalries. Basically the Big 10 and SEC core keep together rather than getting more and more separated. 16 pretty much turns it into two separate leagues (or 4 if you use pods). The divisions of the ACC basically stay together and key rivalries can be maintained ooc, much like FSU-Florida, Georgia-Georgia Tech and South Carolina-Clemson are now.

It reduces pressure against the consolidation by including a few more schools and not excluding anyone. So UConn gets in. And 2 others, Cincinnati and USF in my example. It could be UCF, Tulane or Memphis.

Now clearly, you could drop some schools out of the P5 and make more money per school. If Wake Forest were to suddenly decide to join the Ivy League, the ACC take probably wouldn't drop a dime. There wouldn't be a direct financial benefit of 24 over 20.

Bullet, I really believe, and with good cause that the SEC would be brand proactive in protecting their region if it ever comes to this. I think most F.S.U. boosters would rather play an SEC slate vs a Big 10 slate (even if they have some divisional friends). ESPN would likely protect that branding as well since they are invested in it. Florida State vs any present SEC school with Miss State and Vandy excluded would be must see TV. Clemson falls into the same category. While I agree there might be some iffiness where Tech is concerned I do believe that the pressure inside the state of Georgia would be for them to move back to the SEC, but if it comes to that we would simply have to wait and see. The Tech alums would much rather keep F.S.U. & Clemson and add Auburn and Tennessee back to the schedule. With the Dawgs on there as well and Vanderbilt added it would be a really nice schedule for them and their minor sports remain far more local.

But other than that the concepts are similar even if we disagree on a few schools. I've played with the 24 school lineup and just didn't find enough value there for the Big 10 without creating what would be an impasse with the SEC. If anything like this ever did occur there would have to at least be a modicum of cooperation. Let the Big 10 expand down the Atlantic and they lose brand identity. Let the SEC claim Pitt or Cincy and the same thing happens to the SEC.

Add any of Connecticut, B.C., Syracuse, Pitt, N.D., or even a Virginia and North Carolina school and that branding issue for the Big 10 isn't much of an issue.

Add F.S.U., Clemson, Ga Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC and it still feels like the SEC. Add Pitt and Cincinnati even for markets and it doesn't. I think that is a big deal for both conferences. And that doesn't even take the expense end of the matter into consideration.

I agree that the fans in general in the southern ACC schools would prefer SEC over B1G. Not sure what the presidents and big money boosters would think (other than for now their choice is neither-they like the ACC).

Cincy and Pitt are near the Mason Dixon line and gets SECN at least a shot at Ohio and Pennsylvania. Pitt gets the SEC to 24 without adding too many AAC schools and brings in the WVU rivalry. Otherwise you probably get UCF and you have 3 AAC schools in your 24. But Pitt might be a cultural and geographic stretch. Don't think Cincinnati is that much of one. Part of its metro is in the south.

JR
I think the B1G thinks of itself as a like-minded group of universities. And so, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT fit. Miami is a very strong private. So the southern wing would fit in well with the university culture. FSU isn't as much of a fit, but $ speak, so they might prefer them over Miami.

(05-17-2015 01:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 01:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  If there really was group action, the logical thing would be to split up the ACC, specifically, the Carolina and Virginia schools, with the Big 10 and SEC each getting a piece. That would maximize the value of those schools since football is a much bigger driver than basketball and they have more value in separate conferences, especially for conference networks. The B1G would also pick up the overlap with the SEC in Georgia and Florida.

The B1G 20 (again assuming some sort of group action that resolves GOR issues or this happens 15 years in the future) could add UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami and either FSU or Notre Dame, if they were willing. They would basically pick up one of the ACC divisions and the SEC would pick up the other. Or the B1G could go to 24 with those 7 + BC, Syracuse and either Pitt or UConn. That would involve having 2 separate leagues under one umbrella.

Adding both Big 12 and ACC schools doesn't work well for the SEC as it would split up the old core 10 schools. The SEC if it decided to go giant would want to add in one direction or the other. For example, adding VT, NCSU, Clemson, FSU and either UL or Wake. Or 6 from the Big 12.

I don't think Georgia Tech would go to the Big 10 if the SEC would take them again.
I've long considered that split. I think we would move to 60 schools in three conferences.

My grouping for the Big 10 would be Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse, B.C. (for market and hockey), and Notre Dame. They don't need Pitt or Connecticut with that lineup. Their area would be much more contiguous and compact and they get the big markets that they would covet.

The SEC would look at Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State for markets and branding. The next two would be debatable. Georgia Tech for academics and because having them in a 20 team conference might help Georgia scheduling. Miami would have an outside shot just to have a presence in South Florida which is really a very different demographic than Tampa/ St Pete and north. Louisville because of their solid financial footing and all around sports programs would be in the mix as well. And depending upon who the Big 12 left behind when they essentially merged with the PAC, the SEC might have a market interest there.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC with or without one of the privates (T.C.U. or Baylor) might leave the SEC a slot to spend on a second Texas school.

I don't see Wake getting an SEC invitation. If we had Virginia Tech then West Virginia may not get as much consideration either. But I do think Georgia Tech would be the first considered for the 5th SEC slot in a move to 20. Having Tech, Clemson and Florida State keeps the Southeast in the hands of the SEC exclusively in that scenario and I strongly believe that would be a priority.

I just don't see the profit in, or need, to move to 24 for the Big 10 or SEC.

B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

The Georgia Tech AD has been quoted as saying he wanted to be with UVA, UNC and Duke. So I think they go with those 3. Now if they split, they probably go with UNC.

24 definitely guarantees you 2 slots in the Big 6 bowls, although that (in this scenario where B1G and SEC own the east) probably is not much more necessary than having the 2 guaranteed slots in the NCAA bb tourney.

It has some advantages:
Fills in some gaps or expands coverage area(UConn for example for the Big 10 and Cincinnati for the SEC)

Uses the SEC and B1G brands to bring up some schools. If you went from 12 to 14 with two G5 schools that could be a negative on the conference. If you go from 22 to 24 with them in different divisions, it would be more likely to help the school rather than dragging down the conference.

It gives the schools more conference titles. You are having 2 for 24 instead of 1 for 20.

It helps maintain existing rivalries. Basically the Big 10 and SEC core keep together rather than getting more and more separated. 16 pretty much turns it into two separate leagues (or 4 if you use pods). The divisions of the ACC basically stay together and key rivalries can be maintained ooc, much like FSU-Florida, Georgia-Georgia Tech and South Carolina-Clemson are now.

It reduces pressure against the consolidation by including a few more schools and not excluding anyone. So UConn gets in. And 2 others, Cincinnati and USF in my example. It could be UCF, Tulane or Memphis.

Now clearly, you could drop some schools out of the P5 and make more money per school. If Wake Forest were to suddenly decide to join the Ivy League, the ACC take probably wouldn't drop a dime. There wouldn't be a direct financial benefit of 24 over 20.

Bullet, I really believe, and with good cause that the SEC would be brand proactive in protecting their region if it ever comes to this. I think most F.S.U. boosters would rather play an SEC slate vs a Big 10 slate (even if they have some divisional friends). ESPN would likely protect that branding as well since they are invested in it. Florida State vs any present SEC school with Miss State and Vandy excluded would be must see TV. Clemson falls into the same category. While I agree there might be some iffiness where Tech is concerned I do believe that the pressure inside the state of Georgia would be for them to move back to the SEC, but if it comes to that we would simply have to wait and see. The Tech alums would much rather keep F.S.U. & Clemson and add Auburn and Tennessee back to the schedule. With the Dawgs on there as well and Vanderbilt added it would be a really nice schedule for them and their minor sports remain far more local.

But other than that the concepts are similar even if we disagree on a few schools. I've played with the 24 school lineup and just didn't find enough value there for the Big 10 without creating what would be an impasse with the SEC. If anything like this ever did occur there would have to at least be a modicum of cooperation. Let the Big 10 expand down the Atlantic and they lose brand identity. Let the SEC claim Pitt or Cincy and the same thing happens to the SEC.

Add any of Connecticut, B.C., Syracuse, Pitt, N.D., or even a Virginia and North Carolina school and that branding issue for the Big 10 isn't much of an issue.

Add F.S.U., Clemson, Ga Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech to the SEC and it still feels like the SEC. Add Pitt and Cincinnati even for markets and it doesn't. I think that is a big deal for both conferences. And that doesn't even take the expense end of the matter into consideration.

I agree that the fans in general in the southern ACC schools would prefer SEC over B1G. Not sure what the presidents and big money boosters would think (other than for now their choice is neither-they like the ACC).

Cincy and Pitt are near the Mason Dixon line and gets SECN at least a shot at Ohio and Pennsylvania. Pitt gets the SEC to 24 without adding too many AAC schools and brings in the WVU rivalry. Otherwise you probably get UCF and you have 3 AAC schools in your 24. But Pitt might be a cultural and geographic stretch. Don't think Cincinnati is that much of one. Part of its metro is in the south.

Yeah if we were going to make a stretch Cincy would be easier to sell. It would be like rescuing trapped ice tea drinkers.

If UVA, UNC and Duke decided to leave the ACC, it would be interesting to see whether they chose the SEC or the B1G.
During the last B1G expansion rumor set, it was said that UVA preferred the B1G and UNC the SEC, but I don't know how much of that was just guessing.

(05-17-2015 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  JR
I think the B1G thinks of itself as a like-minded group of universities. And so, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT fit. Miami is a very strong private. So the southern wing would fit in well with the university culture. FSU isn't as much of a fit, but $ speak, so they might prefer them over Miami.

If either conference approaches final realignment without remembering that their social identity is formed by their fan base (both of which are extremely loyal) and without defending their cultural parameters with their moves, and approach this matter simply with institutional goals in mind they will be making a huge marketing blunder.

Big 10 fans (not just alums) see themselves and their region as being a certain way.

SEC fans (not just alums) see themselves and their region as being a certain way.
Neither group cares what the presidents think. Academic personnel care, but they don't fill stadia and quite frankly damned few of them actually contribute to the athletic programs of their schools. So the possibility of obtaining a win in academic and institutional goals and losing the war with the fans is a real possibility.

I know the SEC is much more aware of this and much more responsive to it than perhaps others are. That is why there would be a major impediment to any kind of scenario that places the Big 10 in the Deep South. Culture, boosters (who are rich fans and not academicians), local economic issues, and state politics would all get involved. I just don't see it ever happening. I really don't see the ACC getting parsed either. I could see a cooperation between the SEC and ACC that would lead to a kind of tacit alliance at this point, but that's about it. ESPN won't be interested in losing its grip on the ACC or brokering its properties for value as long as the Irish are a possibility.

(05-17-2015 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UVA, UNC and Duke decided to leave the ACC, it would be interesting to see whether they chose the SEC or the B1G.
During the last B1G expansion rumor set, it was said that UVA preferred the B1G and UNC the SEC, but I don't know how much of that was just guessing.

I think the issue there was that ESPN wanted to protect it's property with regards to UNC and their alums see themselves as being more Southern than many in beltway do these days. If you lose Virginia's sports property rights what have you lost if you still retain the Hokies? If you lose the Tar Heels you've lost a large portion of North Carolina. UNC did have talks with the SEC but it was encouraged by a certain party that they do so just in case there were further defections from the ACC's ranks. So the interest in the SEC was purely defensive in nature and not really instigated by North Carolina.

(05-17-2015 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UVA, UNC and Duke decided to leave the ACC, it would be interesting to see whether they chose the SEC or the B1G.
During the last B1G expansion rumor set, it was said that UVA preferred the B1G and UNC the SEC, but I don't know how much of that was just guessing.

The positive is that UVa, Carolina and Dook would have a place to go that would insure that they would continue to play in a league at the highest level.
I don't think that that anyone at those three schools believe that they actually "fit" with either the B1G or the SEC. So I guess you would have to look for intangibles and or incentives from each before making a decision.

(05-17-2015 02:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  If UVA, UNC and Duke decided to leave the ACC, it would be interesting to see whether they chose the SEC or the B1G.
During the last B1G expansion rumor set, it was said that UVA preferred the B1G and UNC the SEC, but I don't know how much of that was just guessing.

The positive is that UVa, Carolina and Dook would have a place to go that would insure that they would continue to play in a league at the highest level.
I don't think that that anyone at those three schools believe that they actually "fit" with either the B1G or the SEC. So I guess you would have to look for intangibles and or incentives from each before making a decision.

I think they already made it perfectly clear that they believe as you say. Whether or not they would fit, well that matters much less than their belief now as well as their desires. UNC, UVA and Duke could have moved to the SEC already but they chose the ACC and that sealed the deal.

The big 10/sec can huff and puff all they want but i don't see UVA, UNC or Duke wanting to leave the ACC and no amount athletic $ will change that fact. Throw in ND not wanting to go to the big 10. The only thing that would change the rational is if the big 10/sec picked off other ACC school's. I can't really see the SEC have the options to make such a move. Sure they could get Clemson, FSU or maybe G tech but they don't add anything and might send the VA/Ncar school's to the big 10. On the other hand, the big 10 might be able to pull G tech, FSU or V tech ( i doubt UVA would allow it). Thus, until the big 10 pulls FSU, than nothing happens in the ACC…they might try to bluff FSU to force the others to move but they probably already did that and failed. Much more likely the big 12 gets ripped apart. All that would need to happen for that would be big 10 invites to OU and KU or SEC/pac 12 invites to OU and OK state.

(05-17-2015 03:16 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The big 10/sec can huff and puff all they want but i don't see UVA, UNC or Duke wanting to leave the ACC and no amount athletic $ will change that fact. Throw in ND not wanting to go to the big 10. The only thing that would change the rational is if the big 10/sec picked off other ACC school's. I can't really see the SEC have the options to make such a move. Sure they could get Clemson, FSU or maybe G tech but they don't add anything and might send the VA/Ncar school's to the big 10. On the other hand, the big 10 might be able to pull G tech, FSU or V tech ( i doubt UVA would allow it). Thus, until the big 10 pulls FSU, than nothing happens in the ACC…they might try to bluff FSU to force the others to move but they probably already did that and failed. Much more likely the big 12 gets ripped apart. All that would need to happen for that would be big 10 invites to OU and KU or SEC/pac 12 invites to OU and OK state.

That would be smart of those schools to call that bluff. No way that The Big Ten would ever invite FSU unless they had absolute assurance of certain other schools following soon after.

(05-17-2015 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  If there really was group action, the logical thing would be to split up the ACC, specifically, the Carolina and Virginia schools, with the Big 10 and SEC each getting a piece. That would maximize the value of those schools since football is a much bigger driver than basketball and they have more value in separate conferences, especially for conference networks. The B1G would also pick up the overlap with the SEC in Georgia and Florida.

The B1G 20 (again assuming some sort of group action that resolves GOR issues or this happens 15 years in the future) could add UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami and either FSU or Notre Dame, if they were willing. They would basically pick up one of the ACC divisions and the SEC would pick up the other. Or the B1G could go to 24 with those 7 + BC, Syracuse and either Pitt or UConn. That would involve having 2 separate leagues under one umbrella.

Adding both Big 12 and ACC schools doesn't work well for the SEC as it would split up the old core 10 schools. The SEC if it decided to go giant would want to add in one direction or the other. For example, adding VT, NCSU, Clemson, FSU and either UL or Wake. Or 6 from the Big 12.

I don't think Georgia Tech would go to the Big 10 if the SEC would take them again.
I've long considered that split. I think we would move to 60 schools in three conferences.

My grouping for the Big 10 would be Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse, B.C. (for market and hockey), and Notre Dame. They don't need Pitt or Connecticut with that lineup. Their area would be much more contiguous and compact and they get the big markets that they would covet.

The SEC would look at Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State for markets and branding. The next two would be debatable. Georgia Tech for academics and because having them in a 20 team conference might help Georgia scheduling. Miami would have an outside shot just to have a presence in South Florida which is really a very different demographic than Tampa/ St Pete and north. Louisville because of their solid financial footing and all around sports programs would be in the mix as well. And depending upon who the Big 12 left behind when they essentially merged with the PAC, the SEC might have a market interest there.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC with or without one of the privates (T.C.U. or Baylor) might leave the SEC a slot to spend on a second Texas school.

I don't see Wake getting an SEC invitation. If we had Virginia Tech then West Virginia may not get as much consideration either. But I do think Georgia Tech would be the first considered for the 5th SEC slot in a move to 20. Having Tech, Clemson and Florida State keeps the Southeast in the hands of the SEC exclusively in that scenario and I strongly believe that would be a priority.

I just don't see the profit in, or need, to move to 24 for the Big 10 or SEC.

B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

The Georgia Tech AD has been quoted as saying he wanted to be with UVA, UNC and Duke. So I think they go with those 3. Now if they split, they probably go with UNC.

24 definitely guarantees you 2 slots in the Big 6 bowls, although that (in this scenario where B1G and SEC own the east) probably is not much more necessary than having the 2 guaranteed slots in the NCAA bb tourney.

It has some advantages:
Fills in some gaps or expands coverage area(UConn for example for the Big 10 and Cincinnati for the SEC)

Uses the SEC and B1G brands to bring up some schools. If you went from 12 to 14 with two G5 schools that could be a negative on the conference. If you go from 22 to 24 with them in different divisions, it would be more likely to help the school rather than dragging down the conference.

It gives the schools more conference titles. You are having 2 for 24 instead of 1 for 20.

It helps maintain existing rivalries. Basically the Big 10 and SEC core keep together rather than getting more and more separated. 16 pretty much turns it into two separate leagues (or 4 if you use pods). The divisions of the ACC basically stay together and key rivalries can be maintained ooc, much like FSU-Florida, Georgia-Georgia Tech and South Carolina-Clemson are now.

It reduces pressure against the consolidation by including a few more schools and not excluding anyone. So UConn gets in. And 2 others, Cincinnati and USF in my example. It could be UCF, Tulane or Memphis.

Now clearly, you could drop some schools out of the P5 and make more money per school. If Wake Forest were to suddenly decide to join the Ivy League, the ACC take probably wouldn't drop a dime. There wouldn't be a direct financial benefit of 24 over 20.

Please stop! :)

(05-17-2015 06:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 12:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 10:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 09:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  If there really was group action, the logical thing would be to split up the ACC, specifically, the Carolina and Virginia schools, with the Big 10 and SEC each getting a piece. That would maximize the value of those schools since football is a much bigger driver than basketball and they have more value in separate conferences, especially for conference networks. The B1G would also pick up the overlap with the SEC in Georgia and Florida.

The B1G 20 (again assuming some sort of group action that resolves GOR issues or this happens 15 years in the future) could add UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami and either FSU or Notre Dame, if they were willing. They would basically pick up one of the ACC divisions and the SEC would pick up the other. Or the B1G could go to 24 with those 7 + BC, Syracuse and either Pitt or UConn. That would involve having 2 separate leagues under one umbrella.

Adding both Big 12 and ACC schools doesn't work well for the SEC as it would split up the old core 10 schools. The SEC if it decided to go giant would want to add in one direction or the other. For example, adding VT, NCSU, Clemson, FSU and either UL or Wake. Or 6 from the Big 12.

I don't think Georgia Tech would go to the Big 10 if the SEC would take them again.
I've long considered that split. I think we would move to 60 schools in three conferences.

My grouping for the Big 10 would be Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Syracuse, B.C. (for market and hockey), and Notre Dame. They don't need Pitt or Connecticut with that lineup. Their area would be much more contiguous and compact and they get the big markets that they would covet.

The SEC would look at Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State for markets and branding. The next two would be debatable. Georgia Tech for academics and because having them in a 20 team conference might help Georgia scheduling. Miami would have an outside shot just to have a presence in South Florida which is really a very different demographic than Tampa/ St Pete and north. Louisville because of their solid financial footing and all around sports programs would be in the mix as well. And depending upon who the Big 12 left behind when they essentially merged with the PAC, the SEC might have a market interest there.

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC with or without one of the privates (T.C.U. or Baylor) might leave the SEC a slot to spend on a second Texas school.

I don't see Wake getting an SEC invitation. If we had Virginia Tech then West Virginia may not get as much consideration either. But I do think Georgia Tech would be the first considered for the 5th SEC slot in a move to 20. Having Tech, Clemson and Florida State keeps the Southeast in the hands of the SEC exclusively in that scenario and I strongly believe that would be a priority.

I just don't see the profit in, or need, to move to 24 for the Big 10 or SEC.

B1G:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah

The Georgia Tech AD has been quoted as saying he wanted to be with UVA, UNC and Duke. So I think they go with those 3. Now if they split, they probably go with UNC.

24 definitely guarantees you 2 slots in the Big 6 bowls, although that (in this scenario where B1G and SEC own the east) probably is not much more necessary than having the 2 guaranteed slots in the NCAA bb tourney.

It has some advantages:
Fills in some gaps or expands coverage area(UConn for example for the Big 10 and Cincinnati for the SEC)

Uses the SEC and B1G brands to bring up some schools. If you went from 12 to 14 with two G5 schools that could be a negative on the conference. If you go from 22 to 24 with them in different divisions, it would be more likely to help the school rather than dragging down the conference.

It gives the schools more conference titles. You are having 2 for 24 instead of 1 for 20.

It helps maintain existing rivalries. Basically the Big 10 and SEC core keep together rather than getting more and more separated. 16 pretty much turns it into two separate leagues (or 4 if you use pods). The divisions of the ACC basically stay together and key rivalries can be maintained ooc, much like FSU-Florida, Georgia-Georgia Tech and South Carolina-Clemson are now.

It reduces pressure against the consolidation by including a few more schools and not excluding anyone. So UConn gets in. And 2 others, Cincinnati and USF in my example. It could be UCF, Tulane or Memphis.

Now clearly, you could drop some schools out of the P5 and make more money per school. If Wake Forest were to suddenly decide to join the Ivy League, the ACC take probably wouldn't drop a dime. There wouldn't be a direct financial benefit of 24 over 20.

Please stop! :)

That's the "Painfully Slow" part.

Even TerryD knows in his heart of hearts.
But you have to admit he has put up the good fight.

(05-17-2015 03:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 03:16 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The big 10/sec can huff and puff all they want but i don't see UVA, UNC or Duke wanting to leave the ACC and no amount athletic $ will change that fact. Throw in ND not wanting to go to the big 10. The only thing that would change the rational is if the big 10/sec picked off other ACC school's. I can't really see the SEC have the options to make such a move. Sure they could get Clemson, FSU or maybe G tech but they don't add anything and might send the VA/Ncar school's to the big 10. On the other hand, the big 10 might be able to pull G tech, FSU or V tech ( i doubt UVA would allow it). Thus, until the big 10 pulls FSU, than nothing happens in the ACC…they might try to bluff FSU to force the others to move but they probably already did that and failed. Much more likely the big 12 gets ripped apart. All that would need to happen for that would be big 10 invites to OU and KU or SEC/pac 12 invites to OU and OK state.

That would be smart of those schools to call that bluff. No way that The Big Ten would ever invite FSU unless they had absolute assurance of certain other schools following soon after.

I'd rather have the ACC around if it means that the megaconference dreams of certain individuals are delayed for a few decades.

(05-17-2015 08:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 03:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 03:16 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The big 10/sec can huff and puff all they want but i don't see UVA, UNC or Duke wanting to leave the ACC and no amount athletic $ will change that fact. Throw in ND not wanting to go to the big 10. The only thing that would change the rational is if the big 10/sec picked off other ACC school's. I can't really see the SEC have the options to make such a move. Sure they could get Clemson, FSU or maybe G tech but they don't add anything and might send the VA/Ncar school's to the big 10. On the other hand, the big 10 might be able to pull G tech, FSU or V tech ( i doubt UVA would allow it). Thus, until the big 10 pulls FSU, than nothing happens in the ACC…they might try to bluff FSU to force the others to move but they probably already did that and failed. Much more likely the big 12 gets ripped apart. All that would need to happen for that would be big 10 invites to OU and KU or SEC/pac 12 invites to OU and OK state.

That would be smart of those schools to call that bluff. No way that The Big Ten would ever invite FSU unless they had absolute assurance of certain other schools following soon after.

I'd rather have the ACC around if it means that the megaconference dreams of certain individuals are delayed for a few decades.

The ACC is not going anywhere anytime soon. There are multiple reasons for that. Some of it has to do with ESPN deciding that the ACC basketball brand is the one they wish to continue to ride during basketball season. Much of it though is due to the culture at many of those schools, the ones in power within the ACC. They made their long term decision.

(05-17-2015 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 01:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  JR
I think the B1G thinks of itself as a like-minded group of universities. And so, UVA, UNC, Duke and GT fit. Miami is a very strong private. So the southern wing would fit in well with the university culture. FSU isn't as much of a fit, but $ speak, so they might prefer them over Miami.

If either conference approaches final realignment without remembering that their social identity is formed by their fan base (both of which are extremely loyal) and without defending their cultural parameters with their moves, and approach this matter simply with institutional goals in mind they will be making a huge marketing blunder.

Big 10 fans (not just alums) see themselves and their region as being a certain way.

SEC fans (not just alums) see themselves and their region as being a certain way.
Neither group cares what the presidents think. Academic personnel care, but they don't fill stadia and quite frankly damned few of them actually contribute to the athletic programs of their schools. So the possibility of obtaining a win in academic and institutional goals and losing the war with the fans is a real possibility.

I know the SEC is much more aware of this and much more responsive to it than perhaps others are. That is why there would be a major impediment to any kind of scenario that places the Big 10 in the Deep South. Culture, boosters (who are rich fans and not academicians), local economic issues, and state politics would all get involved. I just don't see it ever happening. I really don't see the ACC getting parsed either. I could see a cooperation between the SEC and ACC that would lead to a kind of tacit alliance at this point, but that's about it. ESPN won't be interested in losing its grip on the ACC or brokering its properties for value as long as the Irish are a possibility.

Couldn't agree more about the importance of finding a good fit, including cultural/mission, academic, and economic. I, too, have trouble envisioning the B1G courting Dixie. I wonder if Delany isn't somewhat relieved that the GoRs interrupted the scramble. This will allow time to fully integrate and "socialize" the two new B1G schools. Delany often mentioned the huge numbers of B1G alums in Virginia and North Carolina. I suspect that his preferred next expansion would be UVA and UNC. If he could accomplish that, I believe he would stop at 16. If he can't, I beleive he will try to persuade Texas and Oklahoma. Failing those two moves, I think the B1G will rest at 14 indefinitely. (Somebody made a good case for the B1G to pass on UNC and take both Virginia schools, just to seal the SEC out of the DC market.) Plausable? The B!G and The SEC , as well, are content to wait until GoRs expire. But if there are fractures in either the ACC or the Big 12, both conferences likely have plans of action prepared.
Neither the B1G nor the SEC wishes to grow to 20 or greater. That is much less likely than for both or either to stay at 14. Sixteen is probably ideal just for the flexibility to organize. I have to believe that the ACC and Big 12 harbor serious regrets about their hasty additions during the last relaignment free-for-all.

(05-16-2015 07:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is a *college sports* and realignment board. If realignment is dead for now, there's still a lot of college sports to talk about.

This board essentially remains what it's been for a while - the vicarious ***** measuring board.

(05-18-2015 08:41 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 07:19 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  This is a *college sports* and realignment board. If realignment is dead for now, there's still a lot of college sports to talk about.

This board essentially remains what it's been for a while - the vicarious ***** measuring board.

Now that the Big 12 can get their conference championship game (there certainly can be a debate of the value of that for another thread) and all the P5s have pretty nice contracts but are locked in financially, there's really no need to expand. It's that simple. I can read how Cincy/BYU/UConn/USF-UCF/Memphis are going to join league X forever... but there's no reason for the leagues to change. My "inside" information is that nothing is going to change for awhile... cord-cutting... a rise in the value of sport X vs. sport Y... NCAA forcing something... those are the only reasons things would change.

Realignment is dead for about 5-6-7 years. We've reached a stabilization point, for now. Once GOR's get closer to expiring, rumors of realignment will start to pop up. And Like the last round, those rumors will be centered around Texas and Notre Dame.

You call this stable?

I like you CP but perhaps your sense of smell is slipping away from you. As for me? I definitely smell blood in the water.