(07-19-2018 10:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  My ideal scenario for realignment of the ACC, both internally (divisions) and within the P5, goes something like this. Fundamental to my premise is that "Big Dogs Gonna Eat".

Two other premises are: Clemson and Florida State would rather be in the SEC, and Jim Delaney's wet dream is to bring UNC and Virginia into the Big Ten before he retires. So how might the ACC profit from these two things?

First, get ESPN to agree to the Clemson / FSU move from one ESPN property to the other. Because these two would be paid more in the SEC than they currently get from the ACC deal, the difference would come off the top of the ACC contract. At the same time, though, ESPN would agree to not reduce the aggregate payout for the loss of UNC and Virginia to the B1G. With the ESPN pie now divided by only ten schools, the per school payout for the ACC increases.

As an inducement to get UNC to move, the Big Ten must guarantee an 8 game league schedule, with only one annual crossover game. Teams are encouraged to play additional crossover games (that don't count in league standings) with a goal of having every team with 10 P5 opponents a year. In addition to this (and this is important), the B1G designates Indiana as UNC's annual crossover (the only fixed crossover), but allows UNC to substitute NC State and Indiana to substitute Louisville as their official 8th league game every year.

This allows UNC to schedule both Duke and Wake Forest OOC (in addition to their annual "conference" matchup with NC State) and allows Virginia to schedule Virginia Tech and rotate Wake Forest, Duke and NC State for their 10th P5 game.

The ACC's remaining 10 teams divide:

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Duke
Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse

8 game league schedule, skipping one team from the other division each year. This allows for a CCG under current rules.

Annual OOC games in this scenario:

Virginia Tech: Virginia
Georgia Tech: Georgia, Clemson
NC State: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and ECU the other two.
Wake Forest: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year
Duke: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and Northwestern the other two.

Miami: Florida State
Louisville: Kentucky and Indiana
Pitt: West Virginia or Penn State
Boston College: UConn and UMass
Syracuse: UConn and UMass

In addition, with only 10 ACC teams, each gets to play Notre Dame every other year, so every class gets the Irish at home and away once each.

SEC East:
Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Florida State and Auburn

Big Ten East:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia and UNC

(07-20-2018 11:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.

Wouldn't it take 5 votes to keep them out now, or just 4? So if it is just 4 are you saying that UNC would be voting with Duke, Wake Forest and Virginia? Hmm?

(07-20-2018 11:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.

Wouldn't it take 5 votes to keep them out now, or just 4? So if it is just 4 are you saying that UNC would be voting with Duke, Wake Forest and Virginia? Hmm?

4 votes to blackball today at 15 members. 5 at 16.


UVa, WF, Duke, and GT at the tip of that spear. To turn them something has to be done about WVa's general admissions policy for undergrads from the State of West Va. It's non-competitive akin to a 2 year school for in state students, and there may be other waivers for kids who live just on the other side of the State in Ohio, PA, MD, etc.


I've never known NC State and UNC not to support something that WF and Duke, together, wanted. I don't know if VT could vote yes to WVa, if UVa was an absolute "Hell No". 4 can become 7 very quickly given the particular politics.

Ol boy has this topic been discussed way too many times to count.


And we ALWAYS end up back in the same position. We will never all agree on this and thus nothing will change, just like I'm sure the AD's and Presidents go through too. Unless something is forced on us we will all NEVER agree on everything, thus nothing will get done.

(07-20-2018 11:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.

Wouldn't it take 5 votes to keep them out now, or just 4? So if it is just 4 are you saying that UNC would be voting with Duke, Wake Forest and Virginia? Hmm?

No mystery there JR. I cannot fathom Carolina not being lockstep with Duke, UVa and Wake Forest, can you? I would expect Georgia Tech to be right there with them, too!

(07-20-2018 04:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 11:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.

Wouldn't it take 5 votes to keep them out now, or just 4? So if it is just 4 are you saying that UNC would be voting with Duke, Wake Forest and Virginia? Hmm?

No mystery there JR. I cannot fathom Carolina not being lockstep with Duke, UVa and Wake Forest, can you? I would expect Georgia Tech to be right there with them, too!

It was no mystery in 2010-2 either.

For West Virginia to be palatable, two major shifts at WVU have to occur:

1) Their academics has to be overhauled to be something more than the Grand Canyon University of WV.

2) A zero tolerance crackdown on fan behavior. You set couches on fire you get banned from WVU games for life. You throw batteries at visiting fans you get banned from WVU games for life. You urinate off the upper deck on visiting fans coming in you get banned from WVU games for life. Alright so the last one is more a problem in Athens, GA. But you get the idea

I don't know enough about WVU to speak on the evolution or devolution of the university, but apparently their best shot was when the conference was forming. Nobody wanted them in 02/03, and they moved on to the Big XII before being a realistic replacement for UMd.

On a side note, why are Notre Dame's basketball scheduling partners BC and Georgia Tech? I think they should definitely be Pitt and Louisville. It's funny the ACC partners Louisville with Pitt in hoops, but not football. Hmm. Will there be changes to scheduling partners once the 20-game schedule is in effect?

(07-20-2018 06:27 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  For West Virginia to be palatable, two major shifts at WVU have to occur:

1) Their academics has to be overhauled to be something more than the Grand Canyon University of WV.

2) A zero tolerance crackdown on fan behavior. You set couches on fire you get banned from WVU games for life. You throw batteries at visiting fans you get banned from WVU games for life. You urinate off the upper deck on visiting fans coming in you get banned from WVU games for life. Alright so the last one is more a problem in Athens, GA. But you get the idea

So..........they have no chance.

(07-19-2018 05:37 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 04:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In this scenario:
- ESPN will not pay the ACC the same after having lost 4 signature schools
- The ACC would no longer exist sooner or later
- You've conjured up one of the few scenarios where Georgia Tech would be relatively enthusiastic about entrance into the B1G

- He also conjured up one of the few scenarios in which a few schools would be enthusiastic about joining the Big 12. Perhaps Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech & NC State. Pitt & Syracuse would finish out a strong 16 team conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except that in my scenario, either all those schools supported it or it didn't happen.

(07-20-2018 09:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  I don't know enough about WVU to speak on the evolution or devolution of the university, but apparently their best shot was when the conference was forming. Nobody wanted them in 02/03, and they moved on to the Big XII before being a realistic replacement for UMd.

On a side note, why are Notre Dame's basketball scheduling partners BC and Georgia Tech? I think they should definitely be Pitt and Louisville. It's funny the ACC partners Louisville with Pitt in hoops, but not football. Hmm. Will there be changes to scheduling partners once the 20-game schedule is in effect?

Louisville gets Virginia in football and basketball.

The last couple of years, also getting Pitt in hoops has balanced out getting Virginia twice. Pitt's fall in basketball is one of the most dramatic I can think of. But they will be back. And when they get back, they will be a tough one.

(07-20-2018 09:52 PM)esayem Wrote:  I don't know enough about WVU to speak on the evolution or devolution of the university, but apparently their best shot was when the conference was forming. Nobody wanted them in 02/03, and they moved on to the Big XII before being a realistic replacement for UMd.

On a side note, why are Notre Dame's basketball scheduling partners BC and Georgia Tech? I think they should definitely be Pitt and Louisville. It's funny the ACC partners Louisville with Pitt in hoops, but not football. Hmm. Will there be changes to scheduling partners once the 20-game schedule is in effect?

Pitt gets Syracuse in football which makes historical sense. It originally had gotten SU and Maryland as hoops partners which made historical sense for SU and geographic sense for UMD, which is only 4 hours away from Pittsburgh and replaced Georgetown geographically. Louisville simply slotted into Maryland's place when they left. Pitt has more history and rivalry with Notre Dame and would probably be okay with that scheduling partner switch in hoops, but Pitt would also be fine keeping UL as a hoops partner although Pitt doesn't have as much history or rivalry with the Cards. Pitt would not want to lose Syracuse in football or hoops, nor annual football play against former Big East members Virginia Tech or Miami. I think it would also want to keep playing UVA regularly in football because it is one of the geographically closer places for fans to travel. I believe Pitt likes its current divisional and hoops set up pretty well right now.

In a some ways, Maryland leaving hurt Pitt quite a bit even though there was little history between the programs. Pitt has a large alumni base in the DMV and has always traveled extremely well to football games at Navy or basketball games at Georgetown, and would have done as well with UMD.

Louisville simply got all of Maryland's former partners. No effort was made to see if these still made sense.

(07-20-2018 11:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.

Of all the possible G5 schools to get a golden ticket, Tulane would probably rank no higher than #20. Ain't happening. And I really can't think of any reason TCU would want to move to the ACC.

(07-21-2018 04:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  Of all the possible G5 schools to get a golden ticket, Tulane would probably rank no higher than #20. Ain't happening.

Without ranking them... yeah, that sounds about right.
If the ACC adds any G5 teams, the top candidates would have to be
Cincinnati
Temple
UConn
USF
Memphis
Houston
Maybe UCF

That's it. No one else need apply. And honestly, half the teams on that list have no realistic shot.

It’s no more ridiculous than any of the other half million never-ever-going-to-happen realignment scenarios that are regularly posted on here.

(07-21-2018 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 04:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  Of all the possible G5 schools to get a golden ticket, Tulane would probably rank no higher than #20. Ain't happening.

Without ranking them... yeah, that sounds about right.
If the ACC adds any G5 teams, the top candidates would have to be
Cincinnati
Temple
UConn
USF
Memphis
Houston
Maybe UCF

That's it. No one else need apply. And honestly, half the teams on that list have no realistic shot.

UConn, Memphis, and Temple have no shot due to geography, academics, and positive contacts with other league members.

Cincy, Houston, USF, and Navy are the only G-5's that I think would ever be considered. All four have at least one thing in their favor.

Cincy is located in Ohio and their academics and research are beyond rapproach.

Houston is located in the fourth largest city in the nation, located in Texas, has very good academics and research and in fact their academic rankings stay down because they also function as the local university.

USF is relatively new but they have been pushing researched for three decades have a much better academic profile than many realized and are located in the third most populous part of Florida.

Navy is the Naval Academy and Annapolis is a defacto burb of DC.


All four share a key problem - they share their home metro with multiple professional franchises.

Navy competes with 7 pro franchises in Baltimore and DC
Houston competes with 4 franchises
Tampa and Cincy compete with 2

That competition hurt Maryland, and it hurts Pitt, BC, and GT now. USF and Cincy are competing against almost 1,200,000 tickets for sale in their home metro. Navy is pushing competition against 3.5 million. That's a real issue.


By a quirk of geography, Tulane remains in the game so to speak. Everyone would love New Orleans, but Tulane has downgraded sports three times in the past 60 years.


Navy mends a wound and pokes MD in the eye.

Houston and Tulane add totally new markets.

Cincy adds a partially new market.

USF does not add a market, but it adds a beach.


If you are adding one versus two, that might change the 16th. If you adding to please ND, or FSU/Clemson that also might change things.


As an NC State fan, I have a fondness for Houston. We had some games against them in the 60's and 70's and beat then at Houston when they were ranked 3rd. We also won an important basketball game against them in the 80's.


If the ACC had to expand with one these five, it would likely be Cincy. After that the 16th would be a free for all.

(07-21-2018 04:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 04:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  Of all the possible G5 schools to get a golden ticket, Tulane would probably rank no higher than #20. Ain't happening.

Without ranking them... yeah, that sounds about right.
If the ACC adds any G5 teams, the top candidates would have to be
Cincinnati
Temple
UConn
USF
Memphis
Houston
Maybe UCF

That's it. No one else need apply. And honestly, half the teams on that list have no realistic shot.

The only school on that list that really fits an "ACC profile" (size, academics, etc.) is UConn.
As much as others talk about moving from "the market model", I believe for the foreseeable future (as long as there is an ACCN) it is how you have to plan for any further realignment.
TCU offers market access to up to 28 million people and Tulane an unquestioned academic star located in a great destination which is about 1/2 way between FSU and TCU. Vanderbilt would also be a great fit for the ACC if they ever chose to leave the SEC.
BTW there are not enough college football fans in New England to support two P5 programs, and we already have the better of the two.

The only reason to add new members is to improve the situation of the existing members. No G5 school does this, and no P5 school is likely to change conferences unless it's to go to the SEC or the B1G. You don't add a school because they are the "least bad" choice, and that's what's left in the marketplace.

(07-21-2018 07:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  ...fits an "ACC profile" (size, academics, etc.) is UConn.
...there are not enough college football fans in New England to support two P5 programs, and we already have the better of the two.

There it is. Scratch the Huskies now and forever.

Plenty of college football fans in Ohio and Texas though.