(04-08-2021 12:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

I have seen this idea of ND "saving" conferences for twenty years and regarding two separate conferences (Big East and ACC).

Then, there is hostility generated towards ND for not being that "savior".

In both cases, ND fully disclosed from the beginning that football would never be included.

Those conferences signed contracts with ND anyway. ND has lived up to those terms.

If a 16 and a 14 member conference cannot survive on its own merits/accord, why would it be ND's duty to "save" those conferences by doing something that ND believes is fundamentally against its best interests and to its detriment?

It is a curious notion to me.

To clarify I'm not saying they should be, it was and still is in ND's best interest to remain a FB indy. The only part of my statement that was directed at ND was that during the Big East collapse they were telling university presidents that they were committed to rebuilding the conference. Not a big deal all in all as they were never FB members and the BE didn't even have the scheduling deal they currently have with the ACC.

My point was more to analysts and some posters that are counting on ND joining for full membership when that is never going to happen. Even if they did that is not enough to hold up all the dead weight the ACC currently has. The landscape has changed and small private schools without a large established fan base are falling or staying idle while everyone else continues to grow. It's why I also think Syracuse has peaked in football.

(04-08-2021 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 06:27 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The Big Ten, It's where the Irish really belong if Notre Dame needs to join a conference.
Notre Dame is not a cultural fit for the core of the ACC. They have proven to be well behaved guests for the last several years and haven't done anything to embarrass the conference.
But alumni interaction is rare.
I will say, however, that I did have a Notre Dame alumni in my Saturday foursome for about 20 years.

While not geographically aligned, I think ND likes the institutional mix:

They’ve traditionally like having a Northeastern presence (Pitt, Cuse, BC)

UVA, UNC, and GT are all highly regarded public schools

You’ve got some more fellow privates in Duke, WF, and Miami

And while not necessarily a match culturally, it helps to play some traditionally strong football schools like Florida St, Clemson, and VT.

It’s the right mix of variety for the Irish and gives them travel dates up and down the Eastern seaboard.

I'm not really concerned about what is "right" for Notre Dame. I'm more concerned with what is right for Carolina and the ACC.

(04-08-2021 10:31 AM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 12:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 03:44 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  Don't count on Notre Dame to save the conference. They sat by and watched the Big East sink while telling university presidents they were committed to rebuilding the conference. The ACC didn't (at least publicly) use the leverage they had over ND by granting them shelter last season. FWIW I don't think ND would of capitulated and an ultimatum may have driven them from the conference all together.

I have seen this idea of ND "saving" conferences for twenty years and regarding two separate conferences (Big East and ACC).

Then, there is hostility generated towards ND for not being that "savior".

In both cases, ND fully disclosed from the beginning that football would never be included.

Those conferences signed contracts with ND anyway. ND has lived up to those terms.

If a 16 and a 14 member conference cannot survive on its own merits/accord, why would it be ND's duty to "save" those conferences by doing something that ND believes is fundamentally against its best interests and to its detriment?

It is a curious notion to me.

To clarify I'm not saying they should be, it was and still is in ND's best interest to remain a FB indy. The only part of my statement that was directed at ND was that during the Big East collapse they were telling university presidents that they were committed to rebuilding the conference. Not a big deal all in all as they were never FB members and the BE didn't even have the scheduling deal they currently have with the ACC.

My point was more to analysts and some posters that are counting on ND joining for full membership when that is never going to happen. Even if they did that is not enough to hold up all the dead weight the ACC currently has. The landscape has changed and small private schools without a large established fan base are falling or staying idle while everyone else continues to grow. It's why I also think Syracuse has peaked in football.

I understood your points. My post wasn't intended to be a rebuke of yours, but rather a commentary on the stances of others regarding ND's "duty" to "save" conferences...from themselves, I guess.

(04-08-2021 09:55 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  With all due respect to UNC and Duke, you can’t run the ACC the way UNC and Duke want to run the conference and stand a chance at being financially competitive.

There needs to be an investment in football conference wide.

The trouble with the ACC right now is that you have programs like BC, WF, and Duke who simply aren’t built to compete in P5 football. It would be nice if they could somehow relegate some of these weaker sisters from full members in football to just part of a scheduling alliance. They’d still get to play each other and some football games with the regular ACC (of say 10 members) but get a smaller share of the tv revenue. It would give schools who are better built for G5 football a chance to stay in the ACC for Olympic sports but operate a G5 level football program.

Agree with your point, but I like the hire of Jeff Hafley at Boston College.

He had a good initial season with ex-ND transfer Phil Jurkovec at QB.

I think that he is a good hire. Keep an eye on BC football the next couple of years.

It will be interesting to see how he pans out.

Private Schools.....UG Enrollment.....Stadium Capacity
Tulsa.....................3,276.............30,000
Rice......................3,989.............47,000
Wake Forest...........5,287.............31,500
Duke.....................6,649.............40,000
SMU......................6,710..............32,000
Vanderbilt..............6,886.............40,350
Tulane...................6,968.............30,000
Stanford................6,996.............50,424
Northwestern.........8,327.............47,130
Notre Dame...........8,731.............77,622
Boston College.......9,370.............44,500
TCU......................9,474.............45,000
Miami...................11,307...........65,326 (rented pro stadium)
Baylor...................14,108...........45,140
Syracuse...............15,275...........49,250
USC......................20,351..........77,500
BYU......................31,292...........63,470

Even the larger Texas private schools only have stadiums in the mid 40k range and that's where FB is practically religion. Notre Dame has the most amount of sidewalk alum in the country to support them, USC has a decent sized UG enrollment and BYU has a large UG enrollment along with their LDS support.

Edit: forgot about Miami (like the rest of CFB, zing!)

(04-07-2021 02:47 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 12:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 04:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-05-2021 02:26 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Attendance is already a thing of the past at Duke football and it's why Cameron Indoor is so small. UVa is about 10K overbuilt for the their cultural trend. Once a University turns the corner into becoming a "girls school" football attendance suffers. You start to run up against that when the student body gets to be about 55%. Once you get to 60 that's it. That's why UNC had to cut Kenan down from 63 to 50K.

NC State and Clemson are the only ACC schools that can still expand and fill the seats. Everyone else is past peak. However the cost of the expansions versus the revenue gained might be questionable.

At GT it's about what kind of seating as much as it is about availability. Yeah, you can go get nosebleeds in the endzone anytime no problem. Those are terrible seats. Why would you do that? Whereas the waiting list to get premium seating at Bobby Dodd Stadium is over a decade long. Part of why GT is playing a game a year in the Benz is to gauge market size and demand for much much more expansive premium seating. GT's stadium will eventually get more like Stanford's stadium: the crappiest seat in the house is still not bad and a chairback.

No chance. GT can't even come up with a plan to redo the East stands. If the Jackets were committed to fixing Booby Dodd they at least remove some seats from the North End zone.

The East Stands were redone when the North Endzone was put in circa 2003. It was a rush job to appease O'Leary who himself was heading out the door to Notre Dame. Bad decision making by the parade of bad ADs that followed Homer Rice. We have that squared away. Make no mistake though, the WEST Stands are a problem because they don't meet code. Annoyingly the AI2020 signals that dealing with Bobby Dodd Stadium will be a piecemeal process likely over decades. The new Edge Center will redo the SE corner of Bobby Dodd Stadium and add more premium seating and redo the entire home of the athletic department.

The East stands are very old and have restricted site seating.

(04-08-2021 06:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  The East stands are very old and have restricted site seating.

The East Stands were completely redone in 2003. There are no restricted site seating seats there. In fact the Upper East is some of the best seats in CFB in my opinion. You're up high enough to see the field clearly but as close as most lower level seats.

The West Stands are the ones that are very old. They're built atop the original student built stands and portions of the West Stands date back to Pre-WWI. That being said ... there's also no restricted sight seats on the west stands other than some of the very edge luxury boxes on both ends.

The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

Some time ago, I proposed that there should be a separation.

The old guard of the ACC could just reconstitute with a few like-minded schools and form a basketball first league.

Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest could form up with UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF. Immediately, you have a 10 school league that could carve its niche. They would be stable and compete in the sports they genuinely care about. Meanwhile, a small selection can provide some football legitimacy. No real reason not to include them in a Power structure.

For the ACC members that care about football and competing for titles, they could be shipped off.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson could join the SEC.

Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Pittsburgh could join the Big 12. In addition, Notre Dame can take their partial agreement and go with that grouping.

As much as I am a fan of symmetry, it doesn't have to be congruent.

(04-08-2021 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

Some time ago, I proposed that there should be a separation.

The old guard of the ACC could just reconstitute with a few like-minded schools and form a basketball first league.

Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest could form up with UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF. Immediately, you have a 10 school league that could carve its niche. They would be stable and compete in the sports they genuinely care about. Meanwhile, a small selection can provide some football legitimacy. No real reason not to include them in a Power structure.

For the ACC members that care about football and competing for titles, they could be shipped off.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson could join the SEC.

Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Pittsburgh could join the Big 12. In addition, Notre Dame can take their partial agreement and go with that grouping.

As much as I am a fan of symmetry, it doesn't have to be congruent.

It all boils down to a very simple matter. The ACC is being doubled up. Their AD's and coaches are concerned about closing the gap. There isn't a legitimate expansion scenario that closes that gap and the other measures with a look in will be trivial in closing the gap. The SEC and Big 10 are neighbors and sitting on a pile of cash with the new contracts signed and to be signed. If the AD's and coaches really want to close they gap there's only one way to do it. We all know it. And time is counting down. When 2035 gets here the sports rights business is likely not to be as profitable as it will be in the next 10 years. Time, pressure, and monetary disparity. Something is going to give.

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

(04-08-2021 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

Some time ago, I proposed that there should be a separation.

The old guard of the ACC could just reconstitute with a few like-minded schools and form a basketball first league.

Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest could form up with UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF. Immediately, you have a 10 school league that could carve its niche. They would be stable and compete in the sports they genuinely care about. Meanwhile, a small selection can provide some football legitimacy. No real reason not to include them in a Power structure.

For the ACC members that care about football and competing for titles, they could be shipped off.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson could join the SEC.

Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Pittsburgh could join the Big 12. In addition, Notre Dame can take their partial agreement and go with that grouping.

As much as I am a fan of symmetry, it doesn't have to be congruent.

(04-09-2021 05:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

These posts get it, the ACC seems to be a divided conference and that seems to be a problem that none of the other major conferences have. Will it be enough to tear the conference apart? We'll find out once the GOR expires.

(04-09-2021 05:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

Because it's still the presidents who vote on accession, for the institutions must live with the decisions on new membership long after a particular president is gone. Presidents like associating with like-minded institutions or, if that's not attainable, institutions that they aspire to become. Institutions like Vandy, Northwestern, Stanford and Notre Dame have a cache that goes beyond sports. If Harvard, Yale and Princeton were to go back to FBS and scholarship football they would be asked to join a major conference the day they announced.

Of course, there's a limit to how much to associate with an academic heavyweight but, in the case of Duke, it's not like the SEC needs Duke for football to begin with. They have more than enough football heavyweights to offset any drag Duke might bring to sports.

Their last round of expansion brought some sports acumen but also brought in considerable academic acumen in two AAU public schools. That puts them in position where they can add a Vandy-like institution like Duke. They also know that UNC/Duke are two peas in a pod - one can't come without the other.

(04-09-2021 06:32 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 05:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

Because it's still the presidents who vote on accession, for the institutions must live with the decisions on new membership long after a particular president is gone. Presidents like associating with like-minded institutions or, if that's not attainable, institutions that they aspire to become. Institutions like Vandy, Northwestern, Stanford and Notre Dame have a cache that goes beyond sports. If Harvard, Yale and Princeton were to go back to FBS and scholarship football they would be asked to join a major conference the day they announced.

Of course, there's a limit to how much to associate with an academic heavyweight but, in the case of Duke, it's not like the SEC needs Duke for football to begin with. They have more than enough football heavyweights to offset any drag Duke might bring to sports.

Their last round of expansion brought some sports acumen but also brought in considerable academic acumen in two AAU public schools. That puts them in position where they can add a Vandy-like institution like Duke. They also know that UNC/Duke are two peas in a pod - one can't come without the other.

But why in the world would Duke and Carolina want to associate with anyone in the SEC other than Florida or Vanderbilt?
Duke is a top 10 school in the country and top ten in research dollars.
Carolina is a top 5 public school in the country with research bordering on top 10 (both Duke and Carolina exceed $1 Billion in research every year).

Why would either school worry about $30 million in media income when the schools can generate much, much more on the academic side?
If, as some posters believe that media income is what matters, why wouldn't the SEC target schools that would enhance that income instead of try to shoehorn cultural misfits into their athletic departments?
Dear SEC, Don't call us.....we'll call you.

(04-09-2021 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 06:32 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 05:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Adding ND football is the only move that could improve the ACC’s value—only realistic move, that is.

It’s in ND’s best interest to improve the value of the ACC because if the ACC’s value doesn’t improve, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Big Ten or SEC, ushering a Big 2 and Even Bigger 2 Era, ND will only have one good option—Big Ten membership.

The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

Because it's still the presidents who vote on accession, for the institutions must live with the decisions on new membership long after a particular president is gone. Presidents like associating with like-minded institutions or, if that's not attainable, institutions that they aspire to become. Institutions like Vandy, Northwestern, Stanford and Notre Dame have a cache that goes beyond sports. If Harvard, Yale and Princeton were to go back to FBS and scholarship football they would be asked to join a major conference the day they announced.

Of course, there's a limit to how much to associate with an academic heavyweight but, in the case of Duke, it's not like the SEC needs Duke for football to begin with. They have more than enough football heavyweights to offset any drag Duke might bring to sports.

Their last round of expansion brought some sports acumen but also brought in considerable academic acumen in two AAU public schools. That puts them in position where they can add a Vandy-like institution like Duke. They also know that UNC/Duke are two peas in a pod - one can't come without the other.

But why in the world would Duke and Carolina want to associate with anyone in the SEC other than Florida or Vanderbilt?
Duke is a top 10 school in the country and top ten in research dollars.
Carolina is a top 5 public school in the country with research bordering on top 10 (both Duke and Carolina exceed $1 Billion in research every year).

Why would either school worry about $30 million in media income when the schools can generate much, much more on the academic side?
If, as some posters believe that media income is what matters, why wouldn't the SEC target schools that would enhance that income instead of try to shoehorn cultural misfits into their athletic departments?
Dear SEC, Don't call us.....we'll call you.

But you did call us in 2011.

Why? North Carolina and Duke will make as much as they want in research relationships. Athletics is truly a different subset of revenue. Why not augment both and reduce or at least keep travel within the new conference at a minimum. Why not choose a place where the athletic cash infusion and exposure and the lack of other prominent hoops programs permits Duke and North Carolina to continue to excel at their chose and brand identified sports? Adding Kentucky to your mix you create a trio of must see home and home games annually. You suffer no decline is basketball status, get an upgrade for other revenue sports including football, and you play regionally where your fans have easy drives to familiar states and you keep your annual game with Virginia as an OOC match and do the same for State in hoops, and play State for football as an annual OOC game. You still have a couple of buy games for Wake Forest to be on the schedule. You get a trip to Florida with an academic peer and to Nashville for the other. And now you are in a conference with 6 AAU schools instead of 5. And per your other post, there are no Irish.

I can’t help but think that the SEC made a big tactical error in not taking Clemson and Florida St in the last expansion round, before the GOR went into place.

What has anyone done in the ACC since 2013?

The ACC probably misses the CFP most years, like the PAC 12 has.

The conversations on this message board shift dramatically. The ACC fans would be join the chorus of folks who want an 8 team playoff and an autobid for their champ. Most of us ponder where the ACC schools go in 2037 rather than if the Big 12 will implode in 2024.

(04-09-2021 08:11 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I can’t help but think that the SEC made a big tactical error in not taking Clemson and Florida St in the last expansion round, before the GOR went into place.

What has anyone done in the ACC since 2013?

The ACC probably misses the CFP most years, like the PAC 12 has.

The conversations on this message board shift dramatically. The ACC fans would be join the chorus of folks who want an 8 team playoff and an autobid for their champ. Most of us ponder where the ACC schools go in 2037 rather than if the Big 12 will implode in 2024.

Quit thinking. ESPN essentially told the SEC they couldn't have Florida State and Clemson because it would devalue the ACC too much. It is why ESPN had the renegotiation clause for the SEC to have to satisfy that required 2 new markets.

They relented to Florida State and Clemson joining the SEC for about 3 days when a deal they "allegedly" had worked to land Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas fell through. Their crawler announced the FSU / Clemson move to the SEC and was rescinded a couple of days afterward. Then they later claimed it was a mistake. In the unspoken reality of realignment a new deal arose that was dependent upon those schools remaining and any old deal that fails never existed at all, a nice legal cover. So the SEC didn't make any mistakes with regard to Clemson and FSU. Our business partners said no.

(04-09-2021 08:06 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 07:25 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 06:32 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 05:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-07-2021 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The lesson of the three legged stool may be in order. If you want centered balance three equal legs supporting the whole, which may be best for the game, but not necessarily what's best for the SEC or Big 10 you can do this:

Virginia and N.C. State to the Big 10, Duke and North Carolina to the SEC. The SEC picks up key basketball properties, but not really any added value. The Big 10 picks up 20 million in markets a top school and a next 5 in the AAU program which is a land grant school.

Then you create an 18 member Big 12:
Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, in the West

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia in the East.

Notre Dame keeps their partial if they desire to and attaches to the Big 12.
They essentially keep the same schools they wanted to play in the ACC and they add their 5 game value to the Big 12. Now you have 3 conferences close enough in media revenue to be worthwhile. What happens with the PAC is irrelevant. They are so far away as to make minor sports travel too expensive for membership there.

The Big 12 plays 8 divisional games and rotates 2 from the other division. They have a CCG where the two champions have more than likely not met during the regular season. They keep most of their football travel schedule close to home and neither the SEC or Big 10 gains an advantage over them or each other. You see by removing the Tobacco Road influence the others could stress what means most to them and UNC / Duke / Virginia / & N.C. State get the pay day and are in strong enough conferences to continue to focus on what they like most.

For someone that continually touts the SEC and it's advantages, one has to wonder why in the world you would suggest Duke and Carolina join your bunch?
The SEC would be adding two schools that are almost on top of each other. Duke and Carolina would be two of the smallest football venues in the SEC and fan bases that will not act like the majority of SEC fans.
If you wanted to get into North Carolina, NC State would be a much better match (or East Carolina for that matter). Clemson wouldn't really help you, but Florida State would. Virginia Tech finally makes Tennessee more relevant.
Why is it that you would suggest Duke (even the ACC people say that Duke will not compromise their principles and has no real interest in putting a competitive football team on the field) and Carolina?
If money (time and pressure) are creating the problems for the ACC that only breaking up the conference will solve. Why are you willing and suggesting that the SEC invite Duke and Carolina?

Because it's still the presidents who vote on accession, for the institutions must live with the decisions on new membership long after a particular president is gone. Presidents like associating with like-minded institutions or, if that's not attainable, institutions that they aspire to become. Institutions like Vandy, Northwestern, Stanford and Notre Dame have a cache that goes beyond sports. If Harvard, Yale and Princeton were to go back to FBS and scholarship football they would be asked to join a major conference the day they announced.

Of course, there's a limit to how much to associate with an academic heavyweight but, in the case of Duke, it's not like the SEC needs Duke for football to begin with. They have more than enough football heavyweights to offset any drag Duke might bring to sports.

Their last round of expansion brought some sports acumen but also brought in considerable academic acumen in two AAU public schools. That puts them in position where they can add a Vandy-like institution like Duke. They also know that UNC/Duke are two peas in a pod - one can't come without the other.

But why in the world would Duke and Carolina want to associate with anyone in the SEC other than Florida or Vanderbilt?
Duke is a top 10 school in the country and top ten in research dollars.
Carolina is a top 5 public school in the country with research bordering on top 10 (both Duke and Carolina exceed $1 Billion in research every year).

Why would either school worry about $30 million in media income when the schools can generate much, much more on the academic side?
If, as some posters believe that media income is what matters, why wouldn't the SEC target schools that would enhance that income instead of try to shoehorn cultural misfits into their athletic departments?
Dear SEC, Don't call us.....we'll call you.

But you did call us in 2011.

Why? North Carolina and Duke will make as much as they want in research relationships. Athletics is truly a different subset of revenue. Why not augment both and reduce or at least keep travel within the new conference at a minimum. Why not choose a place where the athletic cash infusion and exposure and the lack of other prominent hoops programs permits Duke and North Carolina to continue to excel at their chose and brand identified sports? Adding Kentucky to your mix you create a trio of must see home and home games annually. You suffer no decline is basketball status, get an upgrade for other revenue sports including football, and you play regionally where your fans have easy drives to familiar states and you keep your annual game with Virginia as an OOC match and do the same for State in hoops, and play State for football as an annual OOC game. You still have a couple of buy games for Wake Forest to be on the schedule. You get a trip to Florida with an academic peer and to Nashville for the other. And now you are in a conference with 6 AAU schools instead of 5. And per your other post, there are no Irish.

I don’t understand ESPN’s love affair with the ACC and why they feel the need to continue to prop them up.

So ESPN didn’t want the SEC encroaching on their side hustle. If I’m the SEC, I say too bad. We fulfilled our duty to get the contract reopened by bringing new markets with TAMU and Missouri—we made that move for you ESPN; now we’re making a move for us. If you don’t like it, we have other options.

(04-08-2021 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

Some time ago, I proposed that there should be a separation.

The old guard of the ACC could just reconstitute with a few like-minded schools and form a basketball first league.

Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest could form up with UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF. Immediately, you have a 10 school league that could carve its niche. They would be stable and compete in the sports they genuinely care about. Meanwhile, a small selection can provide some football legitimacy. No real reason not to include them in a Power structure.

For the ACC members that care about football and competing for titles, they could be shipped off.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson could join the SEC.

Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Pittsburgh could join the Big 12. In addition, Notre Dame can take their partial agreement and go with that grouping.

As much as I am a fan of symmetry, it doesn't have to be congruent.

Step 1) +4 in the East
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

West: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M


Step 2) Rebalance

East: Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Kentucky, Tennessee

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn



That came out cleaner than I thought. But I'd be remiss if I didn't then go just a bit further:

East: Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Auburn, (UofL/NC State/UNC)

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, (OKST/TTU/Kansas)

(04-08-2021 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

There has always been a simple solution. The ACC is already split - into 2 divisions. Why in the world aren't those divisions "Old ACC" and "Old Big East"? (Yes, I realize that one "Old ACC" team might have to join the "Old Big East", but I'm sure it would still be better than "Coastal" and "Atlantic").

(04-09-2021 08:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 11:39 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The ACC is 2 conferences trying to exist as one. It doesn't really work.

Some time ago, I proposed that there should be a separation.

The old guard of the ACC could just reconstitute with a few like-minded schools and form a basketball first league.

Boston College, Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest could form up with UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF. Immediately, you have a 10 school league that could carve its niche. They would be stable and compete in the sports they genuinely care about. Meanwhile, a small selection can provide some football legitimacy. No real reason not to include them in a Power structure.

For the ACC members that care about football and competing for titles, they could be shipped off.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson could join the SEC.

Louisville, Virginia Tech, NC State, and Pittsburgh could join the Big 12. In addition, Notre Dame can take their partial agreement and go with that grouping.

As much as I am a fan of symmetry, it doesn't have to be congruent.

Step 1) +4 in the East
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami

West: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Texas A&M


Step 2) Rebalance

East: Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Kentucky, Tennessee

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Auburn



That came out cleaner than I thought. But I'd be remiss if I didn't then go just a bit further:

East: Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Auburn, (UofL/NC State/UNC)

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, (OKST/TTU/Kansas)

Flip Auburn and FSU, Swagger, and I think you got it. Cross-over games would still be a necessary evil, but it is what it is.