As.much craziness that is said on this board Texas as an independant & having a Notre Dame type deal make a lot of sense. Texas can keep its Longhorn Network & the ACC gets a 16th school to even things out - 14 football, 16 for everything else.

Wondr if swaffords got the balls to pull that deal off?

I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

(04-23-2013 04:42 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Tell me where this goes wrong... in the current GoR environment, if the BIG could add a "contiguous" area that includes one of the largest cities in North America, has a top 20 global university, and is producing elite talent in basketball and likely could in football since they have a professional team, don't you consider them? This school would own a huge territory of TV eyeballs and has proven to be a rabid sports town. Any guesses?

University of Toronto. Seriously. Think they can't produce athletes? In recent years, they would have had a very legitimate chance to have Kris Joseph, Robert Sacre, Tristan Thompson, Cory Joseph, Myck Kabongo, Kevin Pangos, and, yes, Andrew Wiggins stay home and play for them, not to mention all the recruits from the North that wouldn't mind spending their formative years at one of the best schools in one of the best cities in the world. With the CFL established, I'm sure they have plenty of kids who would play football if they thought they could stay home and compete at the NCAA level. Delany, you have a new school to "investigate".

The best "fit" for the Big 10 is Pittsburgh. Closely followed by Cincinnati and Missouri. Then Iowa State and Kansas. No one else is really close in terms of fit because their cultures on campus are just too dissimilar.

But "fit" doesn't seem to be a big concern any more. It's more about markets and power.

(04-26-2013 04:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 04:42 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Tell me where this goes wrong... in the current GoR environment, if the BIG could add a "contiguous" area that includes one of the largest cities in North America, has a top 20 global university, and is producing elite talent in basketball and likely could in football since they have a professional team, don't you consider them? This school would own a huge territory of TV eyeballs and has proven to be a rabid sports town. Any guesses?

University of Toronto. Seriously. Think they can't produce athletes? In recent years, they would have had a very legitimate chance to have Kris Joseph, Robert Sacre, Tristan Thompson, Cory Joseph, Myck Kabongo, Kevin Pangos, and, yes, Andrew Wiggins stay home and play for them, not to mention all the recruits from the North that wouldn't mind spending their formative years at one of the best schools in one of the best cities in the world. With the CFL established, I'm sure they have plenty of kids who would play football if they thought they could stay home and compete at the NCAA level. Delany, you have a new school to "investigate".

The best "fit" for the Big 10 is Pittsburgh. Closely followed by Cincinnati and Missouri. Then Iowa State and Kansas. No one else is really close in terms of fit because their cultures on campus are just too dissimilar.

But "fit" doesn't seem to be a big concern any more. It's more about markets and power.

Cincy ahead of Kansas? I think OSU might fuss about that, although Cincy should be in the Big XII or ACC.

(04-26-2013 11:16 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 04:29 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 04:42 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Tell me where this goes wrong... in the current GoR environment, if the BIG could add a "contiguous" area that includes one of the largest cities in North America, has a top 20 global university, and is producing elite talent in basketball and likely could in football since they have a professional team, don't you consider them? This school would own a huge territory of TV eyeballs and has proven to be a rabid sports town. Any guesses?

University of Toronto. Seriously. Think they can't produce athletes? In recent years, they would have had a very legitimate chance to have Kris Joseph, Robert Sacre, Tristan Thompson, Cory Joseph, Myck Kabongo, Kevin Pangos, and, yes, Andrew Wiggins stay home and play for them, not to mention all the recruits from the North that wouldn't mind spending their formative years at one of the best schools in one of the best cities in the world. With the CFL established, I'm sure they have plenty of kids who would play football if they thought they could stay home and compete at the NCAA level. Delany, you have a new school to "investigate".

The best "fit" for the Big 10 is Pittsburgh. Closely followed by Cincinnati and Missouri. Then Iowa State and Kansas. No one else is really close in terms of fit because their cultures on campus are just too dissimilar.

But "fit" doesn't seem to be a big concern any more. It's more about markets and power.

Cincy ahead of Kansas? I think OSU might fuss about that, although Cincy should be in the Big XII or ACC.

IMO, UC should be in the Big XII. That would make WVU's situation easier for everyon einvolved and UC fields excellent teams. They don't bring in a ton of money, but they would improve the quality of play for any conference (possibly except for the SEC).

B12 won't be adding for a couple of years. BIG is likely done after the ACC deal SEC will take its time moving past 14. I hate to say this but stability is likely on the horizon for the next 2 to 5 years.

From the Michigan football beat writer about comments from the UM and MSU AD yesterday:

https://twitter.com/chengelis/status/327829611184545792


I'm still baffled why MSU is going into the big 10 east division. As for expansion, if GOR are lock downs, that puts a big lid on movement. I could see the big 10 target Missouri but without KU, don't see that working. Maybe the next phase will be trading between leagues.

(04-26-2013 04:08 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

Notre Dame does not play Army on a regular basis, but they do play Navy every year.

(04-26-2013 04:08 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

You guys just do not seem to understand. ND wants to keep football out of a conference forever.

It just does not have everything to do with the best TV rights or most money.

TV money is not the main goal for ND. ND is not looking to maximize TV dollars or have competitive bids for the best conference affiliation with the most dollars.

The NBC contract ALLOWS ND to remain independent. It doesn't matter if its the most money possible (ND would join the Big Ten for that).

It just matters that it is enough money for the main goal----independence for independence sake. That is the major goal, the end game for ND.

TV money is not the end game for ND. It is a tool, a means to an end.

It has everything to do with flexibility, tradition, identity, and using the football team to promote ND as the national, Catholic American university.

ND views the football team as a marketing arm of the university and thinks the best marketing position is outside of full conference membership.

That may change in the future, but it is looking less and less likely, not more.

ND would love to have Texas in the ACC with the same deal. What are the odds that Dodds and Swarbrick have had a conversation or two about that topic?

(04-27-2013 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'm still baffled why MSU is going into the big 10 east division. As for expansion, if GOR are lock downs, that puts a big lid on movement. I could see the big 10 target Missouri but without KU, don't see that working. Maybe the next phase will be trading between leagues.

"trading" permanently, or just for scheduling?

Yeah, I can't see MSU, PSU, OSU, UM being a 10-year alignment. It's like saying "you've done well MSU, here's your punishment". I could be convinced otherwise if I could sit in on some of those meetings, but to me this is much about making sure that Rutgers and Maryland have attractive matchups.

Unfortunately for the Big 12 (and Mizzou), I think all eyes are on them now.

Yep! Notre Dame wants to stay indy for football. And that's just the way the ACC likes it too. A similar deal with Texas would work out as well. No conference wants either Texas or Notre Dame to come in and try to dominate. The arrangement worked out with Swarbrick and Swofford is going to work just fine, Dodds is welcome to join in anytime (I'm with TerryD in that I think that time table has already been worked out).

(04-27-2013 10:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  Yep! Notre Dame wants to stay indy for football. And that's just the way the ACC likes it too. A similar deal with Texas would work out as well. No conference wants either Texas or Notre Dame to come in and try to dominate. The arrangement worked out with Swarbrick and Swofford is going to work just fine, Dodds is welcome to join in anytime (I'm with TerryD in that I think that time table has already been worked out).

I won't go quite that far, with the Big 12 GOR and Texas state politics, etc...

But, I am willing to bet that Dodds and Swarbrick have discussed it a few times.

Who knows what might happen as the expiration of the Big 12 GOR gets closer?

(04-27-2013 10:10 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 09:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I'm still baffled why MSU is going into the big 10 east division. As for expansion, if GOR are lock downs, that puts a big lid on movement. I could see the big 10 target Missouri but without KU, don't see that working. Maybe the next phase will be trading between leagues.

"trading" permanently, or just for scheduling?

Yeah, I can't see MSU, PSU, OSU, UM being a 10-year alignment. It's like saying "you've done well MSU, here's your punishment". I could be convinced otherwise if I could sit in on some of those meetings, but to me this is much about making sure that Rutgers and Maryland have attractive matchups.

Unfortunately for the Big 12 (and Mizzou), I think all eyes are on them now.

Uh oh..it's that baseball card trading thing again... And as far as Mizzou goes, they can just keep looking

Oh! come on TerryD, I know that you have double secret insider information.

(04-27-2013 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 04:08 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

You guys just do not seem to understand. ND wants to keep football out of a conference forever.

It just does not have everything to do with the best TV rights or most money.

TV money is not the main goal for ND. ND is not looking to maximize TV dollars or have competitive bids for the best conference affiliation with the most dollars.

The NBC contract ALLOWS ND to remain independent. It doesn't matter if its the most money possible (ND would join the Big Ten for that).

It just matters that it is enough money for the main goal----independence for independence sake. That is the major goal, the end game for ND.

TV money is not the end game for ND. It is a tool, a means to an end.

It has everything to do with flexibility, tradition, identity, and using the football team to promote ND as the national, Catholic American university.

ND views the football team as a marketing arm of the university and thinks the best marketing position is outside of full conference membership.

That may change in the future, but it is looking less and less likely, not more.

ND would love to have Texas in the ACC with the same deal. What are the odds that Dodds and Swarbrick have had a conversation or two about that topic?

Terry.. we have been saying it over and over for how long?

You: No FB conference for ND. ACC deal totally awesome.
Me: No B1G for Missouri. We are so well off in the SEC.

When will the folks listen? lol

(04-27-2013 10:27 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 04:08 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

You guys just do not seem to understand. ND wants to keep football out of a conference forever.

It just does not have everything to do with the best TV rights or most money.

TV money is not the main goal for ND. ND is not looking to maximize TV dollars or have competitive bids for the best conference affiliation with the most dollars.

The NBC contract ALLOWS ND to remain independent. It doesn't matter if its the most money possible (ND would join the Big Ten for that).

It just matters that it is enough money for the main goal----independence for independence sake. That is the major goal, the end game for ND.

TV money is not the end game for ND. It is a tool, a means to an end.

It has everything to do with flexibility, tradition, identity, and using the football team to promote ND as the national, Catholic American university.

ND views the football team as a marketing arm of the university and thinks the best marketing position is outside of full conference membership.

That may change in the future, but it is looking less and less likely, not more.

ND would love to have Texas in the ACC with the same deal. What are the odds that Dodds and Swarbrick have had a conversation or two about that topic?

Terry.. we have been saying it over and over for how long?

You: No FB conference for ND. ACC deal totally awesome.
Me: No B1G for Missouri. We are so well off in the SEC.

When will the folks listen? lol

People like to tinker with stuff, I guess.

Sort of like playing a gigantic game of Risk.

I have always agreed with you. Missouri loves being in the SEC and will not go anywhere, ever.

(04-27-2013 10:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 10:14 AM)XLance Wrote:  Yep! Notre Dame wants to stay indy for football. And that's just the way the ACC likes it too. A similar deal with Texas would work out as well. No conference wants either Texas or Notre Dame to come in and try to dominate. The arrangement worked out with Swarbrick and Swofford is going to work just fine, Dodds is welcome to join in anytime (I'm with TerryD in that I think that time table has already been worked out).

I won't go quite that far, with the Big 12 GOR and Texas state politics, etc...

But, I am willing to bet that Dodds and Swarbrick have discussed it a few times.

Who knows what might happen as the expiration of the Big 12 GOR gets closer?

Merging the 2 leagues?
Prefering to play the ACC than the SEC winner in the national championship?

Having some games in bb?

Playing some football games?

Will any of these have real significance?
I doubt it

The trade i like is NC state and Wake to the sec with the acc picking up uconn and cincy. Those aren't really trades but it would require maybe a vote to release nc state and wake from the GOR with the acc getting a pledge the sec is done at 16. As for texas to the acc with an ND type deal, it could work but its seems unlikely. Maybe if a deal with the pac 10 taking texas tech happened, texas could be free to join the acc. Yet, it seems odd and odd things usually mean bad business.

(04-27-2013 10:30 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 10:27 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-27-2013 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 04:08 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I'd guess the acc would take texas with the same ND type of deal no problem to get to 16. The issue would be if texas would jump to the acc and than go indy football or even join full time if nd were willing.

I can foresee both Notre Dame and Texas going with a full-time schedule in the ACC as long as they got to keep their 3rd tier rights. Notre Dame has to play Stanford and USC every year in football; that is non-negotiable because California access is too important for their recruiting. Full time would require them to give up 3 out of the 4 from Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, and Army, plus they would never have flexibility again. Maybe they would be willing to rotate those four. A Notre Dame fan would be good to chime in here.

Texas would be the more likely to go full-time because they just need 3 slots to play Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and (we know it will happen) Texas A&M. Of course, Texas has their own GoR to deal with in the Big 12. I can guarantee the BIG and SEC are not making any part-time lover deals, and I understand that Texas wanting to do this sort of deal with the PAC (not give up 3rd tier rights) is when that deal fell apart. The ACC seems to be their huckleberry.

You guys just do not seem to understand. ND wants to keep football out of a conference forever.

It just does not have everything to do with the best TV rights or most money.

TV money is not the main goal for ND. ND is not looking to maximize TV dollars or have competitive bids for the best conference affiliation with the most dollars.

The NBC contract ALLOWS ND to remain independent. It doesn't matter if its the most money possible (ND would join the Big Ten for that).

It just matters that it is enough money for the main goal----independence for independence sake. That is the major goal, the end game for ND.

TV money is not the end game for ND. It is a tool, a means to an end.

It has everything to do with flexibility, tradition, identity, and using the football team to promote ND as the national, Catholic American university.

ND views the football team as a marketing arm of the university and thinks the best marketing position is outside of full conference membership.

That may change in the future, but it is looking less and less likely, not more.

ND would love to have Texas in the ACC with the same deal. What are the odds that Dodds and Swarbrick have had a conversation or two about that topic?

Terry.. we have been saying it over and over for how long?

You: No FB conference for ND. ACC deal totally awesome.
Me: No B1G for Missouri. We are so well off in the SEC.

When will the folks listen? lol

People like to tinker with stuff, I guess.

Sort of like playing a gigantic game of Risk.

I have always agreed with you. Missouri loves being in the SEC and will not go anywhere, ever.

Haha...how true. I doubt that even the Mizzou fans knew how much fun it would be playing down here. One year and the deal was sealed.