A move to eliminate ACC divisions makes it LESS LIKELY that the ACC will expand. All the league has to do is reconfigure its conference rivals, solidify the 5-game ND agreement (already done) and partner with the SEC to fill a schedule.

"UConn to the ACC" doesn't bring anything to the ACC that it doesn't already have -- the league has the NE basketball spoken for with 'Cuse, BC, ND and Pitt. It has football spoken for.

If/when the ACC expands, it will involve one (or more) the following: Texas, Penn State, or Navy.

Texas won't go to what is essentially the SEC-lite. Their ego won't allow them to move to a less desirable conference than what A&M is in. Texas is going PAC or nowhere.

(02-23-2014 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 07:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. i have a hard time saying anyone "speculated" on rutgers most of the speculation was about colorado, UNL, mizz, syracuse, pitt, uconn, & even buffalo got more publicity about b10 expansion than rutgers

2. you have moves like texas to the pac/sec aggie to the sec, syracuse to the acc, & cu to the pac that were moves that had been legitimate expansion rumors in the past and were being actively targeted by other conferences. other than mizz to the b10 & texahoma moving to the pac and/or sec I don't see any moves that fit that description

The Big 10 has been talking about Rutgers for years, just as the Pac had been talking about Colorado.

This. Never a foregone conclusion Rutgers would end up joining until the weekend before we did, but it had been discussed publicly from time to time in news sources as early as the late 1980s. (Possibly earlier.)

(02-23-2014 08:51 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Texas won't go to what is essentially the SEC-lite. Their ego won't allow them to move to a less desirable conference than what A&M is in. Texas is going PAC or nowhere.

Yep, they want academic peers. Not a slight 10th A&M is up there too.

I think its safe to say that Texas could go any conference it wanted to. BIG Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC. You name it.

(02-23-2014 08:51 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 07:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  1. i have a hard time saying anyone "speculated" on rutgers most of the speculation was about colorado, UNL, mizz, syracuse, pitt, uconn, & even buffalo got more publicity about b10 expansion than rutgers

2. you have moves like texas to the pac/sec aggie to the sec, syracuse to the acc, & cu to the pac that were moves that had been legitimate expansion rumors in the past and were being actively targeted by other conferences. other than mizz to the b10 & texahoma moving to the pac and/or sec I don't see any moves that fit that description

The Big 10 has been talking about Rutgers for years, just as the Pac had been talking about Colorado.

This. Never a foregone conclusion Rutgers would end up joining until the weekend before we did, but it had been discussed publicly from time to time in news sources as early as the late 1980s. (Possibly earlier.)

disagree still.

colorado to the pac was more than just an expansion rumor but actual votes taking place over it in the 90s and a "standing invitation" for over a decade.

that wasn't the case for RU....because if there was an actual invite they would of taken it on the spot. so right off the bat comparing it to colorado-pac12 is unfair because the levels of interest is much different.

i consider myself a total b10 homer. i closely follow the conference and personally i never saw any serious RU discussion until UMD joined. ranking the candidates on order of how often people speculated over them id put rutgers anywhere from 4th to 10th. the b10 had about 15 different schools that have been named as a candidate at some point or another on a CFB forum. so while you can say "RU to the b10 was a speculated move".......so was kansas, isu, ksu, ou, osu, Ttech, texas, mizz, toronto, buffalo, pitt, umd, syracuse, notre dame, colorado, unc, uva, vtech, wvu, gtech, fsu, nebraska & duke <== because all of those schools were brought up as a b10 expansion candidate at some point in the past 5 years.

(02-23-2014 08:53 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 08:51 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Texas won't go to what is essentially the SEC-lite. Their ego won't allow them to move to a less desirable conference than what A&M is in. Texas is going PAC or nowhere.

Yep, they want academic peers. Not a slight 10th A&M is up there too.

austin is virtually a clone city of berkley, boulder eugene, seattle, & san francisco

a big reason why there was so much discussion of texas to the pac10 is because culturally they fit in better with that conference than one would expect.

that plus the fact that the p12 can accommodate all four of the texahoma gives the pac a huge advantage over the SEC in luring texas.

plus it doesn't help that texas would essentially have to follow little brother to their conference.

(02-23-2014 09:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  a big reason why there was so much discussion of texas to the pac10 is because culturally they fit in better with that conference than one would expect.

that plus the fact that the p12 can accommodate all four of the texahoma gives the pac a huge advantage over the SEC in luring texas.

plus it doesn't help that texas would essentially have to follow little brother to their conference.

You absolutely nailed it. That's why I think it's really the Pac 12, Big 12, or Independence for Texas. I don't think the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 would ever make the most sense for the Longhorns.

(02-23-2014 07:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 10 has been talking about Rutgers for years, just as the Pac had been talking about Colorado.

Chicago Tribune 12/10/1993

"However, the latest conjecture has the Big 10 taking Kansas and Missouri in the West, and Rutgers as an Eastern partner for Penn State. That would swell the Big 10 to 14 schools."

I remember the Big 10 being real hot on Mizzou and then all of a sudden it switched to Nebraska. I kinda wonder what happened there?

Never assume that because a school isn't currently generating X dollars in their current league that they aren't worth Y dollars in a different league.

Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville will all enjoy league revenue that when combined would exceed the last offer the Big East had on the table for the whole shooting match.

Unless CUSA loses a lot of TV revenue in the next deal, UNT, UTSA, La.Tech, MTSU, WKU, FAU, FIU, ODU, Charlotte will generate well in excess of what they previously received.

It is not implausible that two AAC schools moving to the Big XII could be deemed to have greater value than the entire AAC contract.

(02-23-2014 09:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Never assume that because a school isn't currently generating X dollars in their current league that they aren't worth Y dollars in a different league.

Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville will all enjoy league revenue that when combined would exceed the last offer the Big East had on the table for the whole shooting match.

Unless CUSA loses a lot of TV revenue in the next deal, UNT, UTSA, La.Tech, MTSU, WKU, FAU, FIU, ODU, Charlotte will generate well in excess of what they previously received.

It is not implausible that two AAC schools moving to the Big XII could be deemed to have greater value than the entire AAC contract.

Excellent point.

(02-23-2014 09:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Never assume that because a school isn't currently generating X dollars in their current league that they aren't worth Y dollars in a different league.

Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville will all enjoy league revenue that when combined would exceed the last offer the Big East had on the table for the whole shooting match.

Unless CUSA loses a lot of TV revenue in the next deal, UNT, UTSA, La.Tech, MTSU, WKU, FAU, FIU, ODU, Charlotte will generate well in excess of what they previously received.

It is not implausible that two AAC schools moving to the Big XII could be deemed to have greater value than the entire AAC contract.

That would still be only $20 million for 2 schools.

With better opponents they have more value, but they wouldn't be better opponents for the conference they were moving to.

(02-23-2014 08:03 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  The Big 12 will not expand unless our TV partners force us to expand. If they force us to expand, they will have to pay us an additional $40+ million to keep current members happy.

That being said, no one is available that adds another 40 plus in revenue.

Face it. You are at best a regional conference with only 2 money Football schools and 1 money Basketball school. You will not get a P5 school ever to leave Their conference to add 40 million dollar payout. You can stay greedy and invite 2 more G5 schools and get more money and maybe pay the other 2 less for a short term to get Them up to speed. Your league desperately needs more national exposure as currently You're not getting a lot outside of Your basic 3 state coverage. BYU should not even be an option as it spreads You in the opposite direction from WVU. You need Florida schools and an Ohio school to promote Your league to Football Viewing audiences in those Football first states. No expansion and You will whither over the next 10 years.

(02-23-2014 08:53 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think its safe to say that Texas could go any conference it wanted to. BIG Ten, ACC, SEC, PAC. You name it.

We'll gladly take Texas. After all, UNT was a full member in the Big West for a few years. Austin and Santa Barbara, a perfect cultural fit

Seattle and Grand Canyon join the Big West by 2020. UCSD moves up to D1 and does the same. A 12 team conference with members in most of the major western markets will generate a decent tv contract.

regarding the b12 getting more money if they expand:

the b12 contract as it stands now is massively inflated.

-the contract was agreed to when mizz/aggie were in the league
-TCU/wvu turned out to be not as good as advertised
-fox was incredibly desperate at the time due to the launch of FS1

these are not actual numbers but they do serve as an example to show how conference realignment works

the b12 is worth 75 cents for every $1 they get paid. if the b12 adds 35 cents worth of new value they will only get an extra 10 cent payout

meanwhile the acc was worth $1.10 for every $1 espn paid them and the result was when they added 10 cents worth of content in notre dame they got a 20 cent raise.

it is this concept that drives conf. realignment. uconn/cincy bringing an extra $4 mill per b10 member if added doesn't mean that they are worth $56 mill a year combined. it means that their value + the amount the b10 was underpaid by is valued $56 mill a year.

(02-23-2014 09:34 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  I remember the Big 10 being real hot on Mizzou and then all of a sudden it switched to Nebraska. I kinda wonder what happened there?

there are 2 theories

1. i think it was because they went public with their desires to join

big for the b10.

2. since the b10 move UNL has seen big jumps in most academic rankings/stats. the jump has been so big that you can argue that they have actually passed mizz

you can argue that maybe the b10 thought that in academics UNL had more potential than mizz and was the better academic school long term.

The B1G took Nebraska over Missouri in spite of market considerations, reasoning (publicly at least) that people wanted to watch competitive football games. Then, a year later they turned around and took Rutgers and Maryland precisely and exclusively because of market considerations.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that at least one of those divergent choices was likely a mistake. However, none of their fans will ever admit that.

(02-23-2014 10:51 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The B1G took Nebraska over Missouri in spite of market considerations, reasoning (publicly at least) that people wanted to watch competitive football games. Then, a year later they turned around and took Rutgers and Maryland precisely and exclusively because of market considerations.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that at least one of those divergent choices was likely a mistake. However, none of their fans will ever admit that.

I think taking Nebraska allowed them the luxury of taking Maryland and Rutgers.

The SEC took two middle of the road Big 12 teams. They already had football power. They added teams that had potential to help their SEC network.