(11-15-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Actually it's Texas that has no leverage.
The ACC does not need Texas, it has become a really good football conference without them (two out of the last 4 championships, two teams a possibility for this year). The only thing Texas does for the ACC is eyeballs. With the record of the Horns for the last 6-8 years, the ACC would be adding football credibility to Texas rather than the other way around.
Texas is screwed if the Big 12 fails. The only conference where their fans can travel to away games would be the SEC. The schools itself fits best into the B1G (but the Horns don't want to become another Nebraska, and who wants to play in the cold?) The ACC offers NO natural rivals and a lot of travel just like the PAC (but in a better direction).

I guess that depends on your definition of cold. It's not like Texas would be playing Minnesota in the middle of February. November is hoodie weather for most of us hearty folk who live here.

The average October temperature in Madison is in the mid 40's, not exactly Arctic conditions. If you look at the map, the only B1G schools further north than Ames (who they already play) are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Michigan State, two of which would most likely be in the other division. I'm sure something could be worked out in the way of scheduling to prevent far north games later in the year.

Besides, if Texas were in Madison and it was cold, their fans wouldn't have to look hard to find a UW person willing to share some blackberry brandy to help them warm up.

(11-15-2017 08:00 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

Despite all the chaos Louisville has had, which will blowover. Look at UNC and the NCAA. Swapping Louisville for MD was a net gain. From many traditional ACC fans, AKA Old Folks Many were glad to be rid of MD. If ninja Swofford could pull Texas into the ACC, I think ND really may consider joining full time. If that happens, look for Swofford to retire soon after because he completed his dreams for the ACC. Again, I have no love for Swofford as a NCSU fan. I never thought he could turn the ACC into a football conference but he has. Gotta respect what he had done for the ACC.

Being in the Charlotte area, I garner your point of view. I actually saw that famous South Carolina-Maryland bb game brawl decades back. Ironically, those are the two that are no longer in the ACC, under different circumstances and way different time periods. Both had issues with the UNC-Duke political dominance, from differing angles, specific issues, and conflicting goals.

I am fairly new on this site and don't know your view on the matter, but would love to see NCSU in the SEC.

On Maryland leaving the ACC, adding WVU (or perhaps Navy), would make the ACC geographically contiguous again. The northeast is where the ACC needs added fb strength. We know the pro and con arguments about WVU, but athletically, they have something solid to offer. That said, I expect the ACC shall remain, as is, for a long time. I certainly concur they are quite secure and holding their own. They were smart in expanding when they did.

(11-15-2017 09:18 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Actually it's Texas that has no leverage.
The ACC does not need Texas, it has become a really good football conference without them (two out of the last 4 championships, two teams a possibility for this year). The only thing Texas does for the ACC is eyeballs. With the record of the Horns for the last 6-8 years, the ACC would be adding football credibility to Texas rather than the other way around.
Texas is screwed if the Big 12 fails. The only conference where their fans can travel to away games would be the SEC. The schools itself fits best into the B1G (but the Horns don't want to become another Nebraska, and who wants to play in the cold?) The ACC offers NO natural rivals and a lot of travel just like the PAC (but in a better direction).

I guess that depends on your definition of cold. It's not like Texas would be playing Minnesota in the middle of February. November is hoodie weather for most of us hearty folk who live here.

The average October temperature in Madison is in the mid 40's, not exactly Arctic conditions. If you look at the map, the only B1G schools further north than Ames (who they already play) are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Michigan State, two of which would most likely be in the other division. I'm sure something could be worked out in the way of scheduling to prevent far north games later in the year.

Besides, if Texas were in Madison and it was cold, their fans wouldn't have to look hard to find a UW person willing to share some blackberry brandy to help them warm up.

Not to hijack this thread, but I spent 5 days in Minneapolis for some meetings back in 2013. It was the week following Thanksgiving. The air temperature was 17 degrees BELOW zero in the daytime. That was the actual air temperature, not the windchill factor. I have seen the temp drop to 15 below, over night, here in Rochester, but its usually February, not in November before winter starts. When I left Rochester it was in the mid 40's. Needless to say, that was the coldest air I had ever been in.

(11-15-2017 03:30 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

ACC negotiated the ND deal from a position of weakness. That won't be the case in 2023. 2 football games in one season and 3 games in another won't move the needle that much. Presidents vote on these things, not internet posters.

The point is UT doesn’t need the ACC and would make more in the Big10. So, the ACC would not be negotiating from “strength”. They would be in a weaker position offering more distant travel and lower compensation.

(11-15-2017 09:14 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Texas is no ND. If Texas wanted full membership into the ACC then the ACC would likely be interested. But Im sure the ACC is not interested in granting football independence to a team who has never had it. Anyone who thinks the ACC would do so doesnt know much about the ACC.

Anyone who thinks that Texas would give away the store to join the ACC doesn’t know the Longhorns. You either take their deal or they move on to the highest bidder. The ACC just has no “leverage” with UT simply because they wont be UT's first choice. Additionally, with their own national TV network (LHN), the Longhorns would be just fine as being fully independent. Given UT’s inability to play well with others, it might actually be their best fit.

Frankly, I don’t think they leave the Big12. They have 9 teams that pretty much give them whatever they want while getting a good geographical fit (plus they get to keep thier own network). Other than being Indy—there likely isn’t a better conference fit for the Horns. I agree with you that the ACC would never be as compliant as the Big12 membership—which is why I don’t think they would ever get the Longhorns.

(11-15-2017 08:00 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

Despite all the chaos Louisville has had, which will blowover. Look at UNC and the NCAA. Swapping Louisville for MD was a net gain. From many traditional ACC fans, AKA Old Folks Many were glad to be rid of MD. If ninja Swofford could pull Texas into the ACC, I think ND really may consider joining full time. If that happens, look for Swofford to retire soon after because he completed his dreams for the ACC. Again, I have no love for Swofford as a NCSU fan. I never thought he could turn the ACC into a football conference but he has. Gotta respect what he had done for the ACC.

Why?

(11-15-2017 09:14 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 07:59 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

That Dust In The Wind may turn into dust on John Swofford as he sits and waits and waits for ND football to join the ACC.

I don't fault Notre Dame on this. They have proven time after time they are very savvy and clever negotiators. Of course they will take advantage of financial enablers, be it conferences, broadcast media, bowls, etc.

Its not financial. ND would make lots more TV money as a full conference member than as a football independent.

(11-15-2017 10:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 09:14 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Texas is no ND. If Texas wanted full membership into the ACC then the ACC would likely be interested. But Im sure the ACC is not interested in granting football independence to a team who has never had it. Anyone who thinks the ACC would do so doesnt know much about the ACC.

Anyone thinks theat Texas would give away the store to join the ACC doesn’t know the Longhorns. You either take thier deal or they move on to the highest bidder. The ACC just has no “leverage” with them. With thier own national TV network (LHN), the Longhorns would be just fine as being fully independent. Given UT’s inability to play well with others, it might actually be thier best fit.

Frankly, I don’t think they leave the Big12. They have 9 teams that pretty much give them whatever they want while getting a good geographical fit (plus they get to keep thier own network). Other than being Indy—there likely isn’t a better conference fit for the Horns.

The easiest and best way to run the table to the National Championship Game and #1 is through the B-12 for both Texas and Oklahoma. They stay and keep the conference together and even add 2 more teams next TV contract go around and get the TV contract they want to keep up with the rest by going to the open market for the contract.

OU wants to keep that rivalry with Texas, and retaining oSu for near everything. Also, the Kansas schools are close-by, convenient and long-term competition. Even TCU in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area has close-by value. OU can only keep all that by staying in the B12. The next closet thing would be going to the Pac12 in a package situation.

The SEC taking OU and oSu is still speculation; so is OU and Kansas to the BIG.

All the negatives about oSu is a bit odd. They are not lackeys in athletics. Inside the State of Oklahoma, their fans don't see them as inferior.

The B12 could easily sustain themselves if they resolve internal differences and add a couple or more going forward. I hope they do.
Nothing is perfect. Pick the best of what is available.

(11-15-2017 09:18 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 08:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:28 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Texas is not going to get a ND-type deal from the ACC. 3 football games 1 year and 2 the next is not going to move the needle enough to overcome the burden of housing their non-revs and the ACC having to send all of them on another long flight. No B12 moves will happen until long after the ACC network is in place, so there won't be that much pressure from espn to accept .

The ACC would likely hold out, knowing UT is in a bad spot (assuming OU and either KU or OkSt leave for B1G or SEC) for full membership, thinking this would put some sort of pressure on ND for full membership as well -- pipe dream or not. Or, the ACC would demand more games.

The ACC would jumo at that chance. Frankly, with the LHN, UT is one of the few teams uniquely suited to go Indy and be successful. The ACC would have zero leverage.

Actually it's Texas that has no leverage.
The ACC does not need Texas, it has become a really good football conference without them (two out of the last 4 championships, two teams a possibility for this year). The only thing Texas does for the ACC is eyeballs. With the record of the Horns for the last 6-8 years, the ACC would be adding football credibility to Texas rather than the other way around.
Texas is screwed if the Big 12 fails. The only conference where their fans can travel to away games would be the SEC. The schools itself fits best into the B1G (but the Horns don't want to become another Nebraska, and who wants to play in the cold?) The ACC offers NO natural rivals and a lot of travel just like the PAC (but in a better direction).

I guess that depends on your definition of cold. It's not like Texas would be playing Minnesota in the middle of February. November is hoodie weather for most of us hearty folk who live here.

The average October temperature in Madison is in the mid 40's, not exactly Arctic conditions. If you look at the map, the only B1G schools further north than Ames (who they already play) are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Michigan State, two of which would most likely be in the other division. I'm sure something could be worked out in the way of scheduling to prevent far north games later in the year.

Besides, if Texas were in Madison and it was cold, their fans wouldn't have to look hard to find a UW person willing to share some blackberry brandy to help them warm up.

October weather in Austin ranges between 59-63 for lows and 79-84 for highs.

"In most years, Austin averages a daily maximum temperature for October that's between 79 and 84 degrees Fahrenheit (26 to 29 degrees Celsius). The minimum temperature usually falls between 59 and 63 °F (15 to 17 °C). The days at Austin cool quickly during October."

Average Temperatures in Dallas, Texas (by Month)
Month Avg. High Mean
Sep 88°F 78°F
Oct 78°F 67°F
Nov 65°F 55°F
Dec 56°F 47°F


The B1G does not stand a chance!

(11-15-2017 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  OU wants to keep that rivalry with Texas, and retaining oSu for near everything. Also, the Kansas schools are close-by, convenient and long-term competition. Even TCU in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area has close-by value. OU can only keep all that by staying in the B12. The next closet thing would be going to the Pac12 in a package situation.

The SEC taking OU and oSu is still speculation; so is OU and Kansas to the BIG.

All the negatives about oSu is a bit odd. They are not lackeys in athletics. Inside the State of Oklahoma, their fans don't see them as inferior.

The B12 could easily sustain themselves if they resolve internal differences and add a couple or more going forward. I hope they do.
Nothing is perfect. Pick the best of what is available.

If I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do with academics and OSU's fairly low ranking. The PAC and B1G still place a fair amount of emphasis on academics. They'd probably be willing to overlook some things if it meant landing a true blue-blood program like OU but I don't think people see OSU at that same level athletically.

https://www.topuniversities.com/universi...-us-201617

(11-15-2017 12:44 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  OU wants to keep that rivalry with Texas, and retaining oSu for near everything. Also, the Kansas schools are close-by, convenient and long-term competition. Even TCU in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area has close-by value. OU can only keep all that by staying in the B12. The next closet thing would be going to the Pac12 in a package situation.

The SEC taking OU and oSu is still speculation; so is OU and Kansas to the BIG.

All the negatives about oSu is a bit odd. They are not lackeys in athletics. Inside the State of Oklahoma, their fans don't see them as inferior.

The B12 could easily sustain themselves if they resolve internal differences and add a couple or more going forward. I hope they do.
Nothing is perfect. Pick the best of what is available.

The extra media money hasn't really helped out Oklahoma's old conference foes. Oklahoma is on target for its third NY6 bowl in a row and 2 for 3 in the CFP final four. And, as pointed out, Oklahoma gets to keep its rivalry games with Texas and OSU and keeps other nearby competition with the Kansas schools and TCU.

Meanwhile, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska aren't exactly performing well in either the rankings or the standings.

(11-15-2017 09:46 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 08:00 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 06:28 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Swofford had the expectation Notre Dame will eventually join the ACC as an all-sports member. They still do.

The ACC did not insist on a time-line in the contract for becoming a full member. That is weakness. It is essentially old Big East redux with Notre Dame banking it once again. Even the B12 expected more in the brief dialogue concerning partial membership.

Keeping Maryland needed to have been the priority at the time.

Despite all the chaos Louisville has had, which will blowover. Look at UNC and the NCAA. Swapping Louisville for MD was a net gain. From many traditional ACC fans, AKA Old Folks Many were glad to be rid of MD. If ninja Swofford could pull Texas into the ACC, I think ND really may consider joining full time. If that happens, look for Swofford to retire soon after because he completed his dreams for the ACC. Again, I have no love for Swofford as a NCSU fan. I never thought he could turn the ACC into a football conference but he has. Gotta respect what he had done for the ACC.

Being in the Charlotte area, I garner your point of view. I actually saw that famous South Carolina-Maryland bb game brawl decades back. Ironically, those are the two that are no longer in the ACC, under different circumstances and way different time periods. Both had issues with the UNC-Duke political dominance, from differing angles, specific issues, and conflicting goals.

I am fairly new on this site....

I would like to welcome OdinFrigg to this site—an SEC fan. I hope that you find it enjoyable and please refer others to this site. If you’re not already aware, there's a separate SEC forum here. You’ll find some very interesting realignment threads there:

http://csnbbs.com/forum-246.html

Enjoy....

The football playoffs will expand before there is another wholesale change in conference memberships.

In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if football can survive...

(11-15-2017 06:49 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if football can survive...

Well by then, Miami will be under water and you can take their ACC place.

Oklahoma will ultimately guide the next round of realignment. If they still want out when the GOR is near its end and either the SEC and/or Big Ten are interested they are gone. Either of those moves would be more profitable than a Pac 16 deal.

How peeved would Texas be if the Sooners started playing the Aggies at the Texas State Fair in the Cotton Bowl?

Another point I'd like to make is that Kansas is not going to the Big Ten unless a true college football blueblood comes with them. Basketball maybe makes up 20% of a conference's tv value--Delaney is not interested in a school that does nothing for the other 80%.

Regarding Texas, I see obstacles to them joining any of the Other major conferences if Oklahoma leaves. If Oklahoma goes to the SEC with Kansas/Okla St the SEC house is going to be pretty full at 16. Squeezing in Texas would require a total paradigm shift to what a conference is. The Big Ten is an academic fit put not a cultural one. The Pac 12 is a similar situation but one where the money wouldn't be as good. For the Pac 12 to land Texas I think Texas would have to bring no fewer than 3 schools of their choosing and Washington and the California 4 are not going to like any of them. The ACC is an even harder sell--bad cultural fit and bad geography. Truthfully Texas would be happiest in a post-Oklahoma Big 12 where Houston and a tenth school are brought in as replacements. I'm not sure who the leading candidate would be for #10 but there about a dozen possibilities.

I agree the SEC works better for OU's athletic department than the B1G. So a B1G move would be predicated on academic and faculty needs more than athletic. But given the parameters of Oklahoma politics and culture I have to think athletics wins the day. Having one fewer conference game, so they can schedule Texas, and keeping Bedlam going by bring oSu with them -- two concessions more than the B1G would entertain -- makes the SEC a huge favorite. On the other hand getting through the B1G west, which would include less than scary KU, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern and Illinois, and only have Iowa and Wisconsin (2nd tier powers) to get through would present a significantly easier path to the CCG and Playoffs than through the SEC West.

As for the money in the B12 without OU and oSu (or OU and KU if the B1G) that is the multi-million dollar question. The value of the B12 is tied up in the Red River and Bedlam rivalries. Both would no longer be part of the B12 package. Worse OU would be replaced by some G5 school of far less stature. The conference also has a "stay together and don't add any G5 schools" premium right now, maybe 10-15% above their baseline. Their 2025 offer could well come in 30% lower per school than the other power conferences for tier 1 & 2 rights with OU in the mix. That has to weigh on The calculus in Austin as to whether to stay and take three G5 schools they rejected last year, or move. This is the part of the calculus which people forget to factor. It's not what the B12 is worth today with OU and KU or oSu, but the value without OU and another school. We must remember how the Big East value fell like a stone with each departure. The B12 will be in that same position.

(11-15-2017 06:49 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  In the year 2525, if man is still alive, if football can survive...

We'll all be alive forever and football will be a far different beast

If, assuming here, that OU and the SEC would bond around 2023/24, the SEC would seek a plausible another to the east. Recognizing no ACC option would be available at the time, there is only one high profile, contiguous choice: West Virginia. Even that may not be met with enthusiasm.