(06-01-2013 08:28 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 07:32 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 07:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  Besides wasn't it the Big 12 who helped you write your GOR?

Unless you mean "The Dude's" constant ACC doomsday predictions inspired the conference to stick together to prove him wrong, I'm not sure that I follow.

I forget which article it was but one of the recent ones disclosed that the Big 12 worked with the ACC to craft the ACC GOR based on a lot of the groundwork we did with ours.

So we essentially were cooperating in that effort behind the scenes.

That's news to me. Good find. Let me know if you come across the article again.

I'll see if I can find it. I'm 99% positive that it wasnt some rumor mill thing but I'll put it here if/when I find it.

I saw it somewhere too. It was Bowlsby talking about it.

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

(06-01-2013 08:39 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

I doubt anyone would opt out of the ND games. Has anyone ever dropped them like that? I can not recall a single time that has happened.

The ACC has an alliance. It is with a "Conference of One" called Notre Dame. The only people that think The ACC needs this are the nimrods on WVU Scout Board. Funny how those clowns over ran this board until the Dude and McHver were proven to be frauds. Now their ilk are nowhere to be found.

Now The Big 12 lackeys want ACC teams to give up games in the east for games in flyover country. Seems like a bad idea to me.
CJ

(06-01-2013 05:57 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:35 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  This is a stupid idea. Interesting that the Big 12 folks love it and the ACC people are generally hesitant.

There are plenty in the B12 camp that dislike it. They just don't post here.

I don't hate the idea but I wouldn't be in favor of it.

I really don't see the purpose of it.

It would be great to get a Florida State or a Clemson to come to Morgantown but certainly not a Duke or a a UNC. This isn't basketball we're talking about.

I think most WVU fans would rather see us schedule some more SEC teams like in the future or maybe a Big 10 school.

I wouldn't hate the idea of even scheduling some AAC teams. We're scheduled to play ECU in 2015.

(06-01-2013 08:55 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC has an alliance. It is with a "Conference of One" called Notre Dame. The only people that think The ACC needs this are the nimrods on WVU Scout Board. Funny how those clowns over ran this board until the Dude and McHver were proven to be frauds. Now their ilk are nowhere to be found.

Now The Big 12 lackeys want ACC teams to give up games in the east for games in flyover country. Seems like a bad idea to me.
CJ

I posted a thread on the WVU Scout board about a scheduling alliance with the ACC and the majority of responses were against it.

don't see the purpose of any formal alliance with the B12 at this point...

(06-01-2013 08:57 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:55 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The ACC has an alliance. It is with a "Conference of One" called Notre Dame. The only people that think The ACC needs this are the nimrods on WVU Scout Board. Funny how those clowns over ran this board until the Dude and McHver were proven to be frauds. Now their ilk are nowhere to be found.

Now The Big 12 lackeys want ACC teams to give up games in the east for games in flyover country. Seems like a bad idea to me.
CJ

I posted a thread on the WVU Scout board about a scheduling alliance with the ACC and the majority of responses were against it.

Of course. They are still under the Dude created delusion that the ACC needs them and The Big 12.
CJ

It doesn't matter whether any of us like it. It just "is" and we have to read between the lines as to "why".

I will say if it is just to ease scheduling and that's it I will be disappointed. For me, I like the idea that there is a better mousetrap out there that will be superior to the imperial SEC/ Big 10 model of slowly and litigiously acquiring product. I think if the Big 12 and ACC can put aside the pettiness that is kinda prevalent amongst some fan bases, there is potential for a better model. The alternative is another round of angst and backstabbing in ten years or so...

(06-01-2013 10:34 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  It doesn't matter whether any of us like it. It just "is" and we have to read between the lines as to "why".

I will say if it is just to ease scheduling and that's it I will be disappointed. For me, I like the idea that there is a better mousetrap out there that will be superior to the imperial SEC/ Big 10 model of slowly and litigiously acquiring product. I think if the Big 12 and ACC can put aside the pettiness that is kinda prevalent amongst some fan bases, there is potential for a better model. The alternative is another round of angst and backstabbing in ten years or so...

Frog, we all hear ya. The problem is it's difficult to see the benefit. SEC/BIG acquired product to expand their footprint. The ACC doesn't need to do that...BIG 12 does. Second, the ACC just got Pitt, Louisville, ND, Syracuse on board. Doesn't it make more sense to allow the league to manage through that change first before entertaining anything like this? Third, an alliance with the ACC won't keep teams from leaving the Big 12 if they want out. So what's the purpose?

(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...

I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.

(06-01-2013 08:39 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

Why? Playing Duke, Virginia and a possibly not-that-good Pitt team more frequently is going to help out the Atlantic division teams how? Even UNC could be a drag on the strength of schedule. Outside of a few years under Brown, UNC's been pretty mediocre/poor for the better part of 30 years.

Seems to me a school like FSU is better off with UF as #9 and ND or a higher-end OOC as #10 than adding a 9th ACC game.

The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

(06-02-2013 03:12 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:39 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:59 PM)S11 Wrote:  I can see scenarios where it makes sense and scenarios where it doesn't. I trust the shot callers in each office to make sure it stays making sense. I understand your optimism for your league. I am just as optimistic about ours. However the purpose is to grow revenue and add the benefits of expansion without having to expand to where we both have those benefits if either of our optimistic expectations aren't realized.

I also distrust other leagues. It's just the reality of the situation that everyone is out for what their best deal is.

ACC hasn't even enjoyed the benefits of it's latest expansion and now we're talking about an alliance. I'd prefer to get Pitt, Syracuse, and Louisville in the league and start the ND deal before entertaining any kind of alliance. In addition, the ACC has to worry about getting a network started and future scheduling if the SEC decides to go to 9 games. The ACC has a lot of moving pieces right now and an alliance just further complicates that.

If SEC goes to 9 games then the ACC has to. I don't see it as an option to stay at 8. If some schools want to opt out of ND games then so be it.

Why? Playing Duke, Virginia and a possibly not-that-good Pitt team more frequently is going to help out the Atlantic division teams how? Even UNC could be a drag on the strength of schedule. Outside of a few years under Brown, UNC's been pretty mediocre/poor for the better part of 30 years.

Seems to me a school like FSU is better off with UF as #9 and ND or a higher-end OOC as #10 than adding a 9th ACC game.

Adding a 9th game actually helps SOS. You're adding another 14 games against each other when most of those would have been against FCS or lower-end non power conference schools. FSU isn't giving up Florida nor would the ACC give up ND even after going to 9 conference games.

As for UNC, it's widely speculated that UNC is a sleeping giant in college football. Mack Brown and Dick Crum both showed you can be very successful at UNC. After Brown left, UNC went into a decade of mediocrity. Butch Davis came along and some of the mojo started coming back. Larry Fedora is a good coach and I believe UNC will be a force in the coming years.

(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.

If The Big 12 holds a ball game and no one sees it did it really happen? Just curious because The Big 12 has some of the smallest markets in some of the less densely populated areas in the country.

If you believe The Big 12 is the 2nd best league in the country after losing Nebraska and A&M, do you really think the SEC, that plays some of the weakest competition OOC competition in the country, would enter into a scheduling pact with the 2nd best conference?

The ONLY reason The SEC signed that post season bowl with The Big 12 was because The SEC knows once you get past the top team in The Big 12, the quality drops off substantially. The SEC won't play teams that it can't beat simple as that.
CJ

(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...

I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.

LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

Here is the simple answer we should all agree on as ACC and BigXII fans. If both conferences can monetize the benefits of a relationship to the point that it creates stability for both conferences, then you do it. If you can't improve stability and make much money thru a tie up, then you don't.

(06-02-2013 05:32 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  The PAC seems like a better scheduling partner for the Big 12 (with the obvious exception of WVU). 12 vs 10 looks manageable plus it makes sense after the PAC and B1G dropped their scheduling alliance. FOX could facilitate this.

This. It only makes sense since these conferences border each other. The Big 12 however make be reluctant as a whole to get too close to The PAC out of fear that Texas and Oklahoma might get to comfortable on the left coast.
CJ

(06-02-2013 07:31 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 11:58 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 05:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd rather see a scheduling alliance with the SEC in all sports. That would make more sense IMO...

I agree with you. The SEC is the best conference in the country and the Big 12 is second. Why should we help the ACC? Most of their natural rivals are in the AAC. Let them play those guys while the bigger, powerful conferences play each other.

LOL, really, outside of Oklahoma and Texas, there is no one in the BB12 that is an attractive game. WV could be, but their luster seems to be wearing thin. I dont know if Holgs is the answer for them. Time will tell. OSU could be as well if they keep on winning.

As far as most of the ACC's natural rivals being in the AAC, get real. Take a look at the teams in that league and you will see as many Big12 natural rivals as Acc.

Somebody must have missed the annual Clemson - South Carolina, Florida State - Florida, Georgia Tech - Georgia, and Louisville - Kentucky games. If The SEC goes to 9 games, they still play these games OOC. These are all in-state games

Now who does The Big 12 play from The SEC? Oklahoma State - Mississippi State, Texas Christian - Louisiana State, Texas - Ole Miss. Aside from TCU it looks like the rest of The Big 12 would rather play lower level SEC teams or CUSA and AAC teams.

Unfortunately The Big 12 looks to have responded to Missouri and A&M leaving by refusing to play them. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. The only teams that hurts are Big 12 teams. The SEC can schedule who they want and right now it looks like The SEC is scheduling ACC teams.
CJ