Had a chance to listen to a TCU beat writer out of Dallas give an interview here in WV and he was asked about the proposed alliance. Basically dais what was in the table was more then just football and would involve many sports. Said Spring and Fall festivals would be possible were the the two leagues would have multiple sports compete with each other had one location. Baseball and softball were specifically mentioned. Sounded pretty optimistic about it eventually happening.

Jackson

(06-01-2013 01:34 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Had a chance to listen to a TCU beat writer out of Dallas give an interview here in WV and he was asked about the proposed alliance. Basically dais what was in the table was more then just football and would involve many sports. Said Spring and Fall festivals would be possible were the the two leagues would have multiple sports compete with each other had one location. Baseball and softball were specifically mentioned. Sounded pretty optimistic about it eventually happening.

Jackson

Ok...sound pretty good and some very interesting matchups especially in Baseball....this would also help out WVU as well in the Non Revenue Sports....

I still don't trust it. Still smells like a setup to me.

Why should The ACC want to help WVU? Playing WVU offers no intrinsic value to The ACC. Pitt has moved on. If Pitt sees no reason to play WVU why should anyone in The ACC.

Besides wasn't WVU the source of the barrage of misinformation directed at The ACC the last few years ? I don't understand this let bygones be bygones crap. I am still waiting for the demise of The ACC as repeatedly predicted by those with "connections" to WVU.

The ACC should refuse to play WVU in anything.
CJ

(06-01-2013 01:34 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Had a chance to listen to a TCU beat writer out of Dallas give an interview here in WV and he was asked about the proposed alliance. Basically dais what was in the table was more then just football and would involve many sports. Said Spring and Fall festivals would be possible were the the two leagues would have multiple sports compete with each other had one location. Baseball and softball were specifically mentioned. Sounded pretty optimistic about it eventually happening.

Jackson

What a stupid idea.

Only makes sense. At a minimum it is a benign move to ease scheduling headaches. Still think if it developed into a closer relationship, could be a wild card in regards to the "SEC and Big 10 will eventually rule the world model" prophesy. If the ACC and Big 12 can figure out a model where you get "big" (i.e. increased market influence) without the headaches of getting big ( i.e. losing regional and traditional rivalries), it could be a game changer. Have to take baby steps first.

Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

I wonder if they work out a deal to host the B12 wrestling in the ACC since the B12 were talking about dropping wrestling.

(06-01-2013 03:02 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I wonder if they work out a deal to host the B12 wrestling in the ACC since the B12 were talking about dropping wrestling.

I'm OK if each conference offers a home for the other conference's teams that participate in sports not sponsored by the other conference. But even then, I think that the two conferences are too far apart for it to be worthwhile for noon-revenue sports.

Other than that, I would rather get something going with either the SEC or the B1G.

A scheduling agreement between the northern 7 schools in the ACC and the B1G and the southern 7 ACC schools and the SEC would be cool.

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

(06-01-2013 02:47 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Only makes sense. At a minimum it is a benign move to ease scheduling headaches. Still think if it developed into a closer relationship, could be a wild card in regards to the "SEC and Big 10 will eventually rule the world model" prophesy. If the ACC and Big 12 can figure out a model where you get "big" (i.e. increased market influence) without the headaches of getting big ( i.e. losing regional and traditional rivalries), it could be a game changer. Have to take baby steps first.

What scheduling headaches? From the Louisville end of things, our biggest scheduling headache is not having enough spots now to play the teams we would like to play. For example, our AD has said that playing Cincinnati in football - at least annually - is probably something we're going to have to give up. And though there are some teams Louisville would like to play in basketball that we haven't been able to play in the past (IU, for example*), none of those teams are in the B12.

I enjoyed Louisville's football series with Kansas State several years ago, but I don't see any real need to put B12 schools on the schedule beyond what already happens naturally.

*Louisville continues to try to schedule the Hoosiers, and there's always background noise that it's gonna happen, but as recently as last week, Crean was quoted as saying it wasn't going to happen.

(06-01-2013 03:20 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

I never said that's all that matters, but it's a big deal in today's college environment. Why would you want another conference to come into your neighborhood and flirt with your recruits? There's a reason why the SEC/ACC don't want the BIG in NC, GA, or even Florida. You think the BIG likes the SEC being in Missouri?

I see no benefit for the ACC with this alliance. If the Big 12 feels like 10 is all they need, then they can pay the ACC for the alliance.

(06-01-2013 03:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:20 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

I never said that's all that matters, but it's a big deal in today's college environment. Why would you want another conference to come into your neighborhood and flirt with your recruits? There's a reason why the SEC/ACC don't want the BIG in NC, GA, or even Florida. You think the BIG likes the SEC being in Missouri?

I see no benefit for the ACC with this alliance. If the Big 12 feels like 10 is all they need, then they can pay the ACC for the alliance.

No, he absolutely did not say that markets were all that matters. But the B1G just added two football programs that have hardly set foot on the field of a BCS bowl game. Why? Because, at the time they added them, markets were all that mattered.

So markets aren't all that matter... unless they are. And I agree with J&J: There's no real advantage to the ACC in this kind of alliance.

(06-01-2013 03:22 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:47 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Only makes sense. At a minimum it is a benign move to ease scheduling headaches. Still think if it developed into a closer relationship, could be a wild card in regards to the "SEC and Big 10 will eventually rule the world model" prophesy. If the ACC and Big 12 can figure out a model where you get "big" (i.e. increased market influence) without the headaches of getting big ( i.e. losing regional and traditional rivalries), it could be a game changer. Have to take baby steps first.

What scheduling headaches? From the Louisville end of things, our biggest scheduling headache is not having enough spots now to play the teams we would like to play. For example, our AD has said that playing Cincinnati in football - at least annually - is probably something we're going to have to give up. And though there are some teams Louisville would like to play in basketball that we haven't been able to play in the past (IU, for example*), none of those teams are in the B12.

I enjoyed Louisville's football series with Kansas State several years ago, but I don't see any real need to put B12 schools on the schedule beyond what already happens naturally.

*Louisville continues to try to schedule the Hoosiers, and there's always background noise that it's gonna happen, but as recently as last week, Crean was quoted as saying it wasn't going to happen.

I'm Surprised, I hadn't heard that about with Cincinnati. thought They and Kentucky were locks .

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

First off as discussed, this is benign schedule easing stuff. Really no downside.

In the bigger picture, I do think the possibility of a closer relationship shouldn't be dismissed out of spite. There are varying levels of "alliance" with progressive levels of "closeness". A scheduling alliance is the lowest. At each step the relationship can be reevaluated by both sides and see if it is working. But one thing is for sure. The Big 12 and ACC have a 10 year or so window to figure out a better model than the SEC/ Big 10 cannibalistic model. At which time one or the other (or more likely, both) is likely to get eaten up.

I really think the leagues have to look at each other as allies. Reminds me if Risk or related "conquer" type game. If the two weakest players attack each other while the stronger ones sit back, the weaker players always lose quickly. But if they form an alliance, the the trajectory of the game changes.

(06-01-2013 03:42 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

First off as discussed, this is benign schedule easing stuff. Really no downside.

In the bigger picture, I do think the possibility of a closer relationship shouldn't be dismissed out of spite. There are varying levels of "alliance" with progressive levels of "closeness". A scheduling alliance is the lowest. At each step the relationship can be reevaluated by both sides and see if it is working. But one thing is for sure. The Big 12 and ACC have a 10 year or so window to figure out a better model than the SEC/ Big 10 cannibalistic model. At which time one or the other (or more likely, both) is likely to get eaten up.

I really think the leagues have to look at each other as allies. Reminds me if Risk or related "conquer" type game. If the two weakest players attack each other while the stronger ones sit back, the weaker players always lose quickly. But if they form an alliance, the the trajectory of the game changes.

Forgive me for being skeptical but I don't trust it. The ACC has had no issues scheduling power conferences. Isn't there a Big 12-SEC challenge in basketball? Why isn't the Big 12 continuing to foster that relationship?

(06-01-2013 03:30 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:20 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

I never said that's all that matters, but it's a big deal in today's college environment. Why would you want another conference to come into your neighborhood and flirt with your recruits? There's a reason why the SEC/ACC don't want the BIG in NC, GA, or even Florida. You think the BIG likes the SEC being in Missouri?

I see no benefit for the ACC with this alliance. If the Big 12 feels like 10 is all they need, then they can pay the ACC for the alliance.

No, he absolutely did not say that markets were all that matters. But the B1G just added two football programs that have hardly set foot on the field of a BCS bowl game. Why? Because, at the time they added them, markets were all that mattered.

So markets aren't all that matter... unless they are. And I agree with J&J: There's no real advantage to the ACC in this kind of alliance.

1- The B1G has a network that is already churning out big payouts and they have tons of alumni in the DC corridor to help the newbies get carriage fees for them. In their context it matters. In the context of leagues that currently don't have one and may not have one it's a lesser consideration.

2- The benefit to each league is SOS aid when the playoff commitee is likely going to factor it in heavily and additional money from lucrative neutral site events.
Like it or not we tend to perform better on the field in football and an alliance here probably helps the ACC's chances of making the playoff if they win vs the PAC or B1G than not having it would.

(06-01-2013 03:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:42 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

First off as discussed, this is benign schedule easing stuff. Really no downside.

In the bigger picture, I do think the possibility of a closer relationship shouldn't be dismissed out of spite. There are varying levels of "alliance" with progressive levels of "closeness". A scheduling alliance is the lowest. At each step the relationship can be reevaluated by both sides and see if it is working. But one thing is for sure. The Big 12 and ACC have a 10 year or so window to figure out a better model than the SEC/ Big 10 cannibalistic model. At which time one or the other (or more likely, both) is likely to get eaten up.

I really think the leagues have to look at each other as allies. Reminds me if Risk or related "conquer" type game. If the two weakest players attack each other while the stronger ones sit back, the weaker players always lose quickly. But if they form an alliance, the the trajectory of the game changes.

Forgive me for being skeptical but I don't trust it. The ACC has had no issues scheduling power conferences. Isn't there a Big 12-SEC challenge in basketball? Why isn't the Big 12 continuing to foster that relationship?

Honestly I'm just guessing, but I take the talks as evidence that they realize they are the two "at risk" conferences, and are looking to see if they can come up with a better model for the marketplace. The scheduling alliance is just a first step with other virtues (SOS, playoff implications). Actually come to think of it, the first step was helping the ACC with GOR. It may just stop there.

Regardless, unlike fans who I think are still holding grudges/ biases held over from the latest realignment brouhaha, its clear the leaders have moved on and are taking a long game look at the marketplace.

(06-01-2013 04:03 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:30 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:20 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 02:53 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Outside of WV, the conferences are too far apart for something like this, especially if they are considering non-revenue sports. The ACC doesn't need the Big 12's markets, but the Big 12 needs the ACC markets.

Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

I never said that's all that matters, but it's a big deal in today's college environment. Why would you want another conference to come into your neighborhood and flirt with your recruits? There's a reason why the SEC/ACC don't want the BIG in NC, GA, or even Florida. You think the BIG likes the SEC being in Missouri?

I see no benefit for the ACC with this alliance. If the Big 12 feels like 10 is all they need, then they can pay the ACC for the alliance.

No, he absolutely did not say that markets were all that matters. But the B1G just added two football programs that have hardly set foot on the field of a BCS bowl game. Why? Because, at the time they added them, markets were all that mattered.

So markets aren't all that matter... unless they are. And I agree with J&J: There's no real advantage to the ACC in this kind of alliance.

1- The B1G has a network that is already churning out big payouts and they have tons of alumni in the DC corridor to help the newbies get carriage fees for them. In their context it matters. In the context of leagues that currently don't have one and may not have one it's a lesser consideration.

2- The benefit to each league is SOS aid when the playoff commitee is likely going to factor it in heavily and additional money from lucrative neutral site events.
Like it or not we tend to perform better on the field in football and an alliance here probably helps the ACC's chances of making the playoff if they win vs the PAC or B1G than not having it would.

Let's talk about #2. ACC helped it's SOS by scheduling ND 5 games a year. That deal is actually better in alot of cases than going to a 9th conference game. Second, the ACC is already upgrading their non-conference schedules and already has games against the SEC baked in every year. Third, replacing Maryland with Louisville is great for the league. Maryland has been crappy and everyone knows Louisville is one of the up and coming programs. Yes you're right, the Big 12 historically has been better but last year both FSU and Clemson finished ranked ahead of KSt and Oklahoma. Is that a trend that will continue...............It might.

(06-01-2013 04:15 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:03 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:30 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:27 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 03:20 PM)S11 Wrote:  Keep telling yourself markets are all that matters.

I never said that's all that matters, but it's a big deal in today's college environment. Why would you want another conference to come into your neighborhood and flirt with your recruits? There's a reason why the SEC/ACC don't want the BIG in NC, GA, or even Florida. You think the BIG likes the SEC being in Missouri?

I see no benefit for the ACC with this alliance. If the Big 12 feels like 10 is all they need, then they can pay the ACC for the alliance.

No, he absolutely did not say that markets were all that matters. But the B1G just added two football programs that have hardly set foot on the field of a BCS bowl game. Why? Because, at the time they added them, markets were all that mattered.

So markets aren't all that matter... unless they are. And I agree with J&J: There's no real advantage to the ACC in this kind of alliance.

1- The B1G has a network that is already churning out big payouts and they have tons of alumni in the DC corridor to help the newbies get carriage fees for them. In their context it matters. In the context of leagues that currently don't have one and may not have one it's a lesser consideration.

2- The benefit to each league is SOS aid when the playoff commitee is likely going to factor it in heavily and additional money from lucrative neutral site events.
Like it or not we tend to perform better on the field in football and an alliance here probably helps the ACC's chances of making the playoff if they win vs the PAC or B1G than not having it would.

Let's talk about #2. ACC helped it's SOS by scheduling ND 5 games a year. That deal is actually better in alot of cases than going to a 9th conference game. Second, the ACC is already upgrading their non-conference schedules and already has games against the SEC baked in every year. Third, replacing Maryland with Louisville is great for the league. Maryland has been crappy and everyone knows Louisville is one of the up and coming programs. Yes you're right, the Big 12 historically has been better but last year both FSU and Clemson finished ranked ahead of KSt and Oklahoma. Is that a trend that will continue...............It might.

FSU and Clemson were both behind our teams in the pre-bowl polls- the ones that actually matter. We didn't get to play NIU.