(02-22-2019 12:37 PM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 12:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 12:18 PM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  Wait... you guys didn't tell me you were having another expansion thread ! Good thing I found this on my own!!!

Expansion really isn't about "moving needles" and stadium size...

It's about leverage for your conference against the other conferences. It's about showing up in their back yard, planting your flag and claiming the territory as yours.

So... Who's got most of the leverage right now?

No, it aint the good ol' boys in the SEC.

It's... the B1G.

The B1G can do whatever they want. They've already done it to the ACC. They walked right in, grabbed Maryland and said "we're taking this, thank you very much" and there wasn't a darned thing the ACC could do about it.

Nobody wants to leave the B1G. The SEC? I bet if they're truthful Mizzou would admit they'd leave the SEC for the B1G tomorrow if they could.

So what should you do in expansion? If you're smart, you'd want to push back against the B1G.

Hmmm... who could you get that's right there in the middle B1G country and have already proven that when given the chance, they can play with the big boys. Who could immediately start weakening the B1G's cash cow, O$U? Who is sitting right smack dab in the middle of O$U, Michigan, PSU, MSU, and ND's prime football recruit shopping area? Heck, even BC shows up every now and then.

But... what do I know. Just keep looking for those needle moving unicorns.

That certainly is a puzzle. Could you give us a hint?

It's not Xavier.

Well played!

Re: Texas
TCU and Baylor get the ACC to 16.

(02-22-2019 03:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Texas
TCU and Baylor get the ACC to 16.

If Texas gets to bring two with it, Baylor won't be in that two.

(02-22-2019 03:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  Re: Texas
TCU and Baylor get the ACC to 16.

If Texas was willing (which I don't think they are) AND the ACC absolutely had to go the ND route in order to get Texas AND due to Texas demands the ACC had to include two other Texas schools as full members to seal the deal, I'd prefer TCU and Houston myself. Based on their history no way, no how would I want Baylor - sexual assaults, drug use, improper payments, etc. are one thing, but I draw the line at murder cover ups.

But that's just me. I still believe WVU as #15 and stop OR do nothing at all.

Cheers,
Neil

These are all very far flung suggestions. None of these things are going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I think the American has a chance to develop into a nice conference. I think they certainly over-expanded when they were forming, but they have a pretty nice nucleus there.

There are a lot of schools with lots of potential and who all seemingly have a legitimate commitment from their respective universities.

If you are a fan of UConn or Cincinnati or Houston or UCF or USF or whomever, that should probably be your focus because that’s probably your most realistic scenario for being in a major conference – to develop the one you’re currently in.

No. ESPN proposed Uconn in 2011 and the ACC said no. If Uconn were forced on the ACC now, look for Clemson and FSU to leave ASAP. Forget about any other football school (Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc.) considering the ACC without them.

Baylor has no chance in Hell of getting into the ACC unless and until they divorce themselves from doctrinal Baptist theological control over free inquiry. It's written into the founding documents. It's still there and most of the ACC schools have presidents and chancellors that don't need the headache and bitchng that will come from their faculty

To let you newcomers to the ACC in on a secret - quite a number of schools would just as soon not have Texas in the ACC. X noted TCU and Baylor. TCU and Houston are a lot easier for everyone to digest and Houston beats the hell out of Waco.

From the XII, I think TCU and West Virginia would be a good combo. Perhaps you get Texas on a Notre Dame type deal. TCU is in a huge market and provides Texas with an in-state partner. West Virginia is a natural fit and a better option than Louisville has turned out to be. Nothing against Louisville but their name and athletic quality has struggled in the last couple years.

TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

(02-23-2019 08:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

Agreed. If the ACC goes this route, it may be forced to take as many as 4 teams (especially if WVU is one of them).

(02-23-2019 08:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

TCU was willing to be an island when they joined the Big East. Maybe the Big East accepted TCU out of desperation/market access.

(02-23-2019 08:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

Texas is not an island, it's an entire country.

How did Houston and TCU become TCU on an island?


The point is that Baylor is toxic to at least half of the ACC's faculty groups. WF does not support Baylor in the ACC. That should tell you everything you need to know. Baylor has to make fundamental academic changes and they ARE NOT willing to make them. The "bridge" to the supposed island is high risk Tulane or Vandy.

Vandy's football business model revolves around games they host with UT, UK, UGA and then of course Western Division Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn, and to a lesser degree Mizzou so Vandy can't afford to move by themselves.

If you want to measure the distance to an island, check the mileage to Miami from Greensboro, let alone the distance from Louisville, Boston, or Syracuse

(02-23-2019 10:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 08:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

TCU was willing to be an island when they joined the Big East. Maybe the Big East accepted TCU out of desperation/market access.

True, maybe they'll do it again. It is frankly harder on TCU than us for travel.

(02-23-2019 04:55 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 08:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  TCU out on an island in the ACC? It just seems too far geographically.

Texas is not an island, it's an entire country.

How did Houston and TCU become TCU on an island?


The point is that Baylor is toxic to at least half of the ACC's faculty groups. WF does not support Baylor in the ACC. That should tell you everything you need to know. Baylor has to make fundamental academic changes and they ARE NOT willing to make them. The "bridge" to the supposed island is high risk Tulane or Vandy.

Vandy's football business model revolves around games they host with UT, UK, UGA and then of course Western Division Ole Miss, MSU, Alabama, Auburn, and to a lesser degree Mizzou so Vandy can't afford to move by themselves.

If you want to measure the distance to an island, check the mileage to Miami from Greensboro, let alone the distance from Louisville, Boston, or Syracuse

Texas the school is a non-starter for the ACC (full or Notre Dame type partial) unless ESPN demands it.

I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

The only way Texas joins the ACC is in a "Notre Dame Deal".

If that happens, why do they need to bring two Texas schools with them? With only 5 ACC games a year, they have 7 total schedule openings to play whoever they hell they'd like.

Texas wouldn't need to bring anybody with them.

The ACC would just add the Longhorns, and have 14 schools as full time football members, with 2 playing 5 ACC schools a year, and a full 16 schools in all other sports.

(02-23-2019 06:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

I don't think I can stomach Tulane.

I could live with Houston.

(02-21-2019 05:57 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:50 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:34 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 05:28 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  I realize there is no expansion talk right now for the ACC. However there is a convergence of things that could spur the ACC to grow by a school.

1. The launch of the ACC network. Expansion would expand the geographic footprint and generate additional revenues. Is there a candidate that would bring enough revenue to pay for itself?

2. The AAC broadcast rights negotiations. The last time we saw this, ESPN decided it was better to add Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC which was a partner, rather than pay for the Big East's broadcast rights. If they hit an impass, does ESPN decide to move Cincinnati or UConn to get the most bang for their buck?

3. Championship game participation. With the B1G wanting to revisit the way the participants of the championship game are selected, there may be an opportunity to add a team and potentially split into more that 2 divisions.

I don't know that this will result in expansion, but these factors could make the option more appealing.

I just called down to Hell. It has not frozen over so no - No Uconn

I don't disagree. I was just using them as an example. I think Cincinnati or Temple would provide the best fits for the ACC. They would also add Ohio or New Jersey to the ACC TV footprint. With the Altice agreement we already have NYC and Connecticut.

Temple does not have the football program to merit a bid, nor does UConn. Think of it this way, who is Clemson, FSU, VT, NC State, GT, and Miami willing to add with an eye toward their football stadiums. I can assure you that no one in the Atlantic wants a third game with a team in the Northeast. It's not personal. Just look were the top 300 football players come from.

If they could be trusted to actually maintain an athletic program Tulane is the ideal addition not in a P-5. The problem is that you can't trust them because they have deemphasized sports three times in the last 60 years.

When it comes to adding revenue on a per school basis, only Penn State, Auburn, Texas, TAMU, Tennessee, Alabama, Ohio State, Florida, LSU and maybe Oklahoma do that. I don't see many of them shopping around.

Even Notre Dame, Kentucky, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Vandy, and Ole Miss would likely just pay their increased share.

We're not good enough, but two of those programs took our HC

(02-23-2019 09:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 06:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

I don't think I can stomach Tulane.

I could live with Houston.

Houston?
44,000 students (bigger that any other school in the ACC), and a graduation rate under 50%.....that Houston?
Really fits the conference profile.........