(03-10-2015 10:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't know who that is. He says something similar to me in his discussion of the Big Ten having to go to 20 teams IF they are to punch into The ACC. I am sure you remember me saying such. His line up is different than mine.

I have a hard time believing The Big Ten overall would be excited about getting six new programs from only three States total. Granted, very good institutions and good States to get into. I could be wrong on this one but I definitely know this would be a position The Big Ten got negotiated into, not a position they would start with in negotiations.

Yes. I should have shortened the quote to just the part about the politics in NC and VA. The B10 would not want to double up that much, if it could be avoided at all, and it can be IMO.

(03-15-2015 06:26 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 09:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look, I just don't see Texas going to the ACC without an entourage. One is not an entourage. This is why I still think an ESPN workaround might be in the offing at some point. I think one thing Xlance alluded to is true, they are still trying to wade through the math and implications of the various options. Personally I only see one set of solutions that would be received by the SEC, Big 10 and less so, but in the best interest of the ACC.

Kansas, Iowa State, Connecticut and Oklahoma to the Big 10
Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC
Notre Dame joins in full.

The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma for the West with the price being Iowa State and Connecticut.

The SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia but the price is Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

The ACC gets Texas and Notre Dame full time and West Virginia to reconnect the footprint. The price is T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech.

Now the SEC stands at 18, the Big 10 stands at 18, and the ACC stands at 18.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

Texas gets a guaranteed 6 games in the state of Texas per year (the home schedule). Seven if they get A&M as an OOC rivalry game. Eight if they keep OU as the other OOC rivalry game. Plus they get 1 guaranteed game in recruit rich Florida per year with this divisional breakdown. They travel East out of the division no more than twice per year. That's the kind of entourage they want. That would be a deal sealer.

The Big 10 won't object as they get three national brands two in basketball, one in football, and two more AAU schools. Iowa State finds a home at home so to speak.

The SEC gets 4 new states including the two they want most. They get 3 mid tier football programs that will be competitive and make runs from time to time. And they get two decent basketball programs in Oklahoma State and N.C. State along with a Kansas State team that rises to the hoops occasion from time to time.

I still believe that some version of this compromise is the best way to complete this process. Otherwise, if Texas can't carry enough friends to the ACC to play most of their games in Texas they aren't going. If they can't stay viable in the Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the SEC with old rivals. And, given their value they might both be able to carry 1 partner with them. But that would be closer to the end of the GOR if all of the other schools of the Big 12 aren't placed in some new P5 home.

I know this is all conjecture, but if this came to pass, it may be good for the ACC but from a Clemson football perspective it would be terrible. Of the teams listed in our pod, only one generates mild interest (Ga Tech) for Clemson fans - the rest just do not generate much enthusiasm.

I am pretty sure if those schools all went to the ACC that UL and WVU would get kicked out to the Texas division. They both are academic and cultural misfits in the original ACC mold and they are both just happy to still be in a power conference. WVU is already flying out to B12 country and UL desperately wanted to go there once (any port in a storm) and is one of the western most schools in the current ACC. My guess is that is how it would fall out. Miami would probably end up with the old Big East schools. FSU would be the king of another division, so not in any division with ND and Texas.

Luckily we don't see it proposed here on the SEC board, but there is no way Texas is going to the ACC as its 16th member with no other Texas schools in the ACC, I am about 95% sure they would not even do it as a partial member. JRSec is right Texas wants to remain the king of Texas. Therefore, they will want at least one Texas school to join any conference they move to, and preferably more if it is the PAC or ACC. If Texas goes alone they lose too many games in Texas and A&M, with the SEC brand behind it (especially if the SEC picked up TCu or Baylor) would have a chance to catch up and even surpass UT in the long run.

Pretty sure the price for the ACC to land Texas in any form would be at least 2 of TCU, TTU, and/or Baylor. If they want Texas they will have to go to 18-20 members (whether partial or full) IMO. If I was the ACC and OU and WVU were not academically or culturally unacceptable (which means schools like TTU, KSU, and OSU are definitely out), like XLance has indicated, I would try for Texas, Baylor and TCU if Texas was a partial and Kansas, if Texas was going to join in full. Those are all good or better academic schools and culturally the closest fit you could find in the B12.

I think the PAC won't get interest any more from Texas without the same. I think they made a mistake, if they wanted to land Texas and stay at 16 schools, when they took Utah. Texas will want closer members for travel reasons. CU, plus Texas and 4 other B12 schools would have worked. The last rumored proposal in 2010 before Texas nixed it all was UT, TTU, OU, OSU, CU, and KU (replacing A&M who said no and was talking to the SEC at the time we know now). I don't know if just UT, OU, TTU, and OSU would do it anymore. I think the SEC would grab Baylor and the PAC and SEC would wrestle for supremacy there. I think the PAC would have to go bigger and add another Texas school or 2 whether TCU, Houston, SMU or dark horse Rice assuming Baylor is out like they were in 2010 due to religious affiliation. TCU, and I believe SMU, are religious in name only now. I believe they are secular now. That would assure Texas that the conference they are in remains dominant in Texas.

The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

The B1G is the toughest to see working as nobody really fits their profile from among TCU, TTU, and Baylor. Rice is probably the best fit in Texas outside of UT being AAU and an academic heavyweight; however, they are a very small private and doesn't help with the B12 dissolution at all. If this plays out over a longer timeline (a decade or more), maybe TTU can get its academics to solid ground, not AAU, but good enough to not embarrass the B1G as a member. At one time Texas wanted to emulate the CA system and get more public schools into the AAU range of academics that A&M and Texas have. Maybe they will pump the funds into TTU to get them there, or maybe Houston. If the B1G takes OU, it helps a lot landing Texas because OU is big all over north TX down to DFW.

(03-16-2015 01:12 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 10:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't know who that is. He says something similar to me in his discussion of the Big Ten having to go to 20 teams IF they are to punch into The ACC. I am sure you remember me saying such. His line up is different than mine.

I have a hard time believing The Big Ten overall would be excited about getting six new programs from only three States total. Granted, very good institutions and good States to get into. I could be wrong on this one but I definitely know this would be a position The Big Ten got negotiated into, not a position they would start with in negotiations.

Yes. I should have shortened the quote to just the part about the politics in NC and VA. The B10 would not want to double up that much, if it could be avoided at all, and it can be IMO.

(03-15-2015 06:26 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 09:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look, I just don't see Texas going to the ACC without an entourage. One is not an entourage. This is why I still think an ESPN workaround might be in the offing at some point. I think one thing Xlance alluded to is true, they are still trying to wade through the math and implications of the various options. Personally I only see one set of solutions that would be received by the SEC, Big 10 and less so, but in the best interest of the ACC.

Kansas, Iowa State, Connecticut and Oklahoma to the Big 10
Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC
Notre Dame joins in full.

The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma for the West with the price being Iowa State and Connecticut.

The SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia but the price is Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

The ACC gets Texas and Notre Dame full time and West Virginia to reconnect the footprint. The price is T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech.

Now the SEC stands at 18, the Big 10 stands at 18, and the ACC stands at 18.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

Texas gets a guaranteed 6 games in the state of Texas per year (the home schedule). Seven if they get A&M as an OOC rivalry game. Eight if they keep OU as the other OOC rivalry game. Plus they get 1 guaranteed game in recruit rich Florida per year with this divisional breakdown. They travel East out of the division no more than twice per year. That's the kind of entourage they want. That would be a deal sealer.

The Big 10 won't object as they get three national brands two in basketball, one in football, and two more AAU schools. Iowa State finds a home at home so to speak.

The SEC gets 4 new states including the two they want most. They get 3 mid tier football programs that will be competitive and make runs from time to time. And they get two decent basketball programs in Oklahoma State and N.C. State along with a Kansas State team that rises to the hoops occasion from time to time.

I still believe that some version of this compromise is the best way to complete this process. Otherwise, if Texas can't carry enough friends to the ACC to play most of their games in Texas they aren't going. If they can't stay viable in the Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the SEC with old rivals. And, given their value they might both be able to carry 1 partner with them. But that would be closer to the end of the GOR if all of the other schools of the Big 12 aren't placed in some new P5 home.

I know this is all conjecture, but if this came to pass, it may be good for the ACC but from a Clemson football perspective it would be terrible. Of the teams listed in our pod, only one generates mild interest (Ga Tech) for Clemson fans - the rest just do not generate much enthusiasm.

I am pretty sure if those schools all went to the ACC that UL and WVU would get kicked out to the Texas division. They both are academic and cultural misfits in the original ACC mold and they are both just happy to still be in a power conference. WVU is already flying out to B12 country and UL desperately wanted to go there once (any port in a storm) and is one of the western most schools in the current ACC. My guess is that is how it would fall out. Miami would probably end up with the old Big East schools. FSU would be the king of another division, so not in any division with ND and Texas.

Luckily we don't see it proposed here on the SEC board, but there is no way Texas is going to the ACC as its 16th member with no other Texas schools in the ACC, I am about 95% sure they would not even do it as a partial member. JRSec is right Texas wants to remain the king of Texas. Therefore, they will want at least one Texas school to join any conference they move to, and preferably more if it is the PAC or ACC. If Texas goes alone they lose too many games in Texas and A&M, with the SEC brand behind it (especially if the SEC picked up TCu or Baylor) would have a chance to catch up and even surpass UT in the long run.

Pretty sure the price for the ACC to land Texas in any form would be at least 2 of TCU, TTU, and/or Baylor. If they want Texas they will have to go to 18-20 members (whether partial or full) IMO. If I was the ACC and OU and WVU were not academically or culturally unacceptable (which means schools like TTU, KSU, and OSU are definitely out), like XLance has indicated, I would try for Texas, Baylor and TCU if Texas was a partial and Kansas, if Texas was going to join in full. Those are all good or better academic schools and culturally the closest fit you could find in the B12.

I think the PAC won't get interest any more from Texas without the same. I think they made a mistake, if they wanted to land Texas and stay at 16 schools, when they took Utah. Texas will want closer members for travel reasons. CU, plus Texas and 4 other B12 schools would have worked. The last rumored proposal in 2010 before Texas nixed it all was UT, TTU, OU, OSU, CU, and KU (replacing A&M who said no and was talking to the SEC at the time we know now). I don't know if just UT, OU, TTU, and OSU would do it anymore. I think the SEC would grab Baylor and the PAC and SEC would wrestle for supremacy there. I think the PAC would have to go bigger and add another Texas school or 2 whether TCU, Houston, SMU or dark horse Rice assuming Baylor is out like they were in 2010 due to religious affiliation. TCU, and I believe SMU, are religious in name only now. I believe they are secular now. That would assure Texas that the conference they are in remains dominant in Texas.

The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

The B1G is the toughest to see working as nobody really fits their profile from among TCU, TTU, and Baylor. Rice is probably the best fit in Texas outside of UT being AAU and an academic heavyweight; however, they are a very small private and doesn't help with the B12 dissolution at all. If this plays out over a longer timeline (a decade or more), maybe TTU can get its academics to solid ground, not AAU, but good enough to not embarrass the B1G as a member. At one time Texas wanted to emulate the CA system and get more public schools into the AAU range of academics that A&M and Texas have. Maybe they will pump the funds into TTU to get them there, or maybe Houston. If the B1G takes OU, it helps a lot landing Texas because OU is big all over north TX down to DFW.

How about a totally wild and aggressive move by the ACC. The ACC goes to 20 with either Northwestern/Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, and West Virginia. Such a move would truncate Big 10 moves Southward. The SEC steps in to move to 20 with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Texas, Baylor and Texas Tech. T.C.U. and Rice go to the PAC. Now I'm not advocating this, but it would sure put the clamps on the expansion of some of our rivals.

(03-15-2015 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:26 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  Look, I just don't see Texas going to the ACC without an entourage. One is not an entourage. This is why I still think an ESPN workaround might be in the offing at some point. I think one thing Xlance alluded to is true, they are still trying to wade through the math and implications of the various options. Personally I only see one set of solutions that would be received by the SEC, Big 10 and less so, but in the best interest of the ACC.

Kansas, Iowa State, Connecticut and Oklahoma to the Big 10
Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC
Notre Dame joins in full.

The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma for the West with the price being Iowa State and Connecticut.

The SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia but the price is Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

The ACC gets Texas and Notre Dame full time and West Virginia to reconnect the footprint. The price is T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech.

Now the SEC stands at 18, the Big 10 stands at 18, and the ACC stands at 18.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

Texas gets a guaranteed 6 games in the state of Texas per year (the home schedule). Seven if they get A&M as an OOC rivalry game. Eight if they keep OU as the other OOC rivalry game. Plus they get 1 guaranteed game in recruit rich Florida per year with this divisional breakdown. They travel East out of the division no more than twice per year. That's the kind of entourage they want. That would be a deal sealer.

The Big 10 won't object as they get three national brands two in basketball, one in football, and two more AAU schools. Iowa State finds a home at home so to speak.

The SEC gets 4 new states including the two they want most. They get 3 mid tier football programs that will be competitive and make runs from time to time. And they get two decent basketball programs in Oklahoma State and N.C. State along with a Kansas State team that rises to the hoops occasion from time to time.

I still believe that some version of this compromise is the best way to complete this process. Otherwise, if Texas can't carry enough friends to the ACC to play most of their games in Texas they aren't going. If they can't stay viable in the Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the SEC with old rivals. And, given their value they might both be able to carry 1 partner with them. But that would be closer to the end of the GOR if all of the other schools of the Big 12 aren't placed in some new P5 home.

I know this is all conjecture, but if this came to pass, it may be good for the ACC but from a Clemson football perspective it would be terrible. Of the teams listed in our pod, only one generates mild interest (Ga Tech) for Clemson fans - the rest just do not generate much enthusiasm.

I agree that none of it would be good for Clemson. As the #2 football power in the ACC nothing good happens for you if Texas comes into the league with friends and that includes the division of the pods.

The best thing that could happen to Clemson would be for the Big 10 to pull off a successful raid against the ACC North and to take schools with it like North Carolina and Virginia. Should that happen there are 2 scenarios that help Clemson. The first would be for the SEC to take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State to lock up the best content, football, and attendance schools in the conference. They might even move to 20 with Louisville and Georgia Tech which IMO would be a wonderful way to consolidate the South and to keep the Big 10 out of it (the Deep South that is). The other would be for the Big 10 to take North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame. Then similarly the SEC would take the same four and both would stop at 18. If the Big 10 takes just two then depending upon who the SEC takes the Big 12 becomes an option. Florida State, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Louisville and Pitt would be a great way for the Big 12 to move to 16. Throw in Miami and one more for 18 (possibly Notre Dame). In any of those scenarios Clemson gets the respect, the kind of schedule they want, and the money they need to compete.
[/quote]

JR ..... Who knows for sure what (if anything) will happen and when. I could be happy with Clemson staying in the ACC under some of the many proposed realignment scenarios - there are others that would be very bad (from a Clemson perspective). My personal dream would be for Clemson to join a 20 team SEC and be in a 5 team pod with UGA, FSU, Auburn, and Texas A&M with a permanent cross over rival of South Carolina. That of course will never happen. But, assuming that the scenario that you mentioned above came to pass (Clemson, FSU, GA Tech, NC State, Va Tech, UL to the SEC) - what teams do you think would comprise the pods or divisions in this new SEC? I could see a land grant/tech division (Clemson, Auburn, A&M, FSU, Miss St, Vandy, UL, Ga Tech, NC State, Va Tech) and a flagship division (Bama, UGA, USC, UF, Ark, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Kentucky, UT, LSU). This line up would be interesting.

(03-16-2015 01:12 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

*cough* *cough* Auburn *cough*

(03-16-2015 08:19 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:26 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  Look, I just don't see Texas going to the ACC without an entourage. One is not an entourage. This is why I still think an ESPN workaround might be in the offing at some point. I think one thing Xlance alluded to is true, they are still trying to wade through the math and implications of the various options. Personally I only see one set of solutions that would be received by the SEC, Big 10 and less so, but in the best interest of the ACC.

Kansas, Iowa State, Connecticut and Oklahoma to the Big 10
Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC
Notre Dame joins in full.

The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma for the West with the price being Iowa State and Connecticut.

The SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia but the price is Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

The ACC gets Texas and Notre Dame full time and West Virginia to reconnect the footprint. The price is T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech.

Now the SEC stands at 18, the Big 10 stands at 18, and the ACC stands at 18.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

Texas gets a guaranteed 6 games in the state of Texas per year (the home schedule). Seven if they get A&M as an OOC rivalry game. Eight if they keep OU as the other OOC rivalry game. Plus they get 1 guaranteed game in recruit rich Florida per year with this divisional breakdown. They travel East out of the division no more than twice per year. That's the kind of entourage they want. That would be a deal sealer.

The Big 10 won't object as they get three national brands two in basketball, one in football, and two more AAU schools. Iowa State finds a home at home so to speak.

The SEC gets 4 new states including the two they want most. They get 3 mid tier football programs that will be competitive and make runs from time to time. And they get two decent basketball programs in Oklahoma State and N.C. State along with a Kansas State team that rises to the hoops occasion from time to time.

I still believe that some version of this compromise is the best way to complete this process. Otherwise, if Texas can't carry enough friends to the ACC to play most of their games in Texas they aren't going. If they can't stay viable in the Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the SEC with old rivals. And, given their value they might both be able to carry 1 partner with them. But that would be closer to the end of the GOR if all of the other schools of the Big 12 aren't placed in some new P5 home.

I know this is all conjecture, but if this came to pass, it may be good for the ACC but from a Clemson football perspective it would be terrible. Of the teams listed in our pod, only one generates mild interest (Ga Tech) for Clemson fans - the rest just do not generate much enthusiasm.

I agree that none of it would be good for Clemson. As the #2 football power in the ACC nothing good happens for you if Texas comes into the league with friends and that includes the division of the pods.

The best thing that could happen to Clemson would be for the Big 10 to pull off a successful raid against the ACC North and to take schools with it like North Carolina and Virginia. Should that happen there are 2 scenarios that help Clemson. The first would be for the SEC to take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State to lock up the best content, football, and attendance schools in the conference. They might even move to 20 with Louisville and Georgia Tech which IMO would be a wonderful way to consolidate the South and to keep the Big 10 out of it (the Deep South that is). The other would be for the Big 10 to take North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame. Then similarly the SEC would take the same four and both would stop at 18. If the Big 10 takes just two then depending upon who the SEC takes the Big 12 becomes an option. Florida State, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Louisville and Pitt would be a great way for the Big 12 to move to 16. Throw in Miami and one more for 18 (possibly Notre Dame). In any of those scenarios Clemson gets the respect, the kind of schedule they want, and the money they need to compete.

JR ..... Who knows for sure what (if anything) will happen and when. I could be happy with Clemson staying in the ACC under some of the many proposed realignment scenarios - there are others that would be very bad (from a Clemson perspective). My personal dream would be for Clemson to join a 20 team SEC and be in a 5 team pod with UGA, FSU, Auburn, and Texas A&M with a permanent cross over rival of South Carolina. That of course will never happen. But, assuming that the scenario that you mentioned above came to pass (Clemson, FSU, GA Tech, NC State, Va Tech, UL to the SEC) - what teams do you think would comprise the pods or divisions in this new SEC? I could see a land grant/tech division (Clemson, Auburn, A&M, FSU, Miss St, Vandy, UL, Ga Tech, NC State, Va Tech) and a flagship division (Bama, UGA, USC, UF, Ark, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Kentucky, UT, LSU). This line up would be interesting.
[/quote]

At 20 I think we have 4 five team divisions.
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

It would stay regional for the cost of minor sports.

(03-16-2015 08:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:12 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

*cough* *cough* Auburn *cough*

Hey we can't offer state jobs to recruit's relatives like that other school in the state. Why? We don't have a law school. Therefore we don't have numerous alumni populating the State Legislature to set up favors for our recruits.

(03-16-2015 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 08:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:12 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

*cough* *cough* Auburn *cough*

Hey we can't offer state jobs to recruit's relatives like that other school in the state. Why? We don't have a law school. Therefore we don't have numerous alumni populating the State Legislature to set up favors for our recruits.

Just offer them $100k jobs restocking library books.

(03-16-2015 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 08:19 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:26 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  Look, I just don't see Texas going to the ACC without an entourage. One is not an entourage. This is why I still think an ESPN workaround might be in the offing at some point. I think one thing Xlance alluded to is true, they are still trying to wade through the math and implications of the various options. Personally I only see one set of solutions that would be received by the SEC, Big 10 and less so, but in the best interest of the ACC.

Kansas, Iowa State, Connecticut and Oklahoma to the Big 10
Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC
Texas, T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech and West Virginia to the ACC
Notre Dame joins in full.

The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma for the West with the price being Iowa State and Connecticut.

The SEC gets into North Carolina and Virginia but the price is Kansas State and Oklahoma State.

The ACC gets Texas and Notre Dame full time and West Virginia to reconnect the footprint. The price is T.C.U., Baylor, and Texas Tech.

Now the SEC stands at 18, the Big 10 stands at 18, and the ACC stands at 18.

SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

ACC:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Baylor, Florida State, Miami, T.C.U., Texas, Texas Tech

Texas gets a guaranteed 6 games in the state of Texas per year (the home schedule). Seven if they get A&M as an OOC rivalry game. Eight if they keep OU as the other OOC rivalry game. Plus they get 1 guaranteed game in recruit rich Florida per year with this divisional breakdown. They travel East out of the division no more than twice per year. That's the kind of entourage they want. That would be a deal sealer.

The Big 10 won't object as they get three national brands two in basketball, one in football, and two more AAU schools. Iowa State finds a home at home so to speak.

The SEC gets 4 new states including the two they want most. They get 3 mid tier football programs that will be competitive and make runs from time to time. And they get two decent basketball programs in Oklahoma State and N.C. State along with a Kansas State team that rises to the hoops occasion from time to time.

I still believe that some version of this compromise is the best way to complete this process. Otherwise, if Texas can't carry enough friends to the ACC to play most of their games in Texas they aren't going. If they can't stay viable in the Big 12 then Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the SEC with old rivals. And, given their value they might both be able to carry 1 partner with them. But that would be closer to the end of the GOR if all of the other schools of the Big 12 aren't placed in some new P5 home.

I know this is all conjecture, but if this came to pass, it may be good for the ACC but from a Clemson football perspective it would be terrible. Of the teams listed in our pod, only one generates mild interest (Ga Tech) for Clemson fans - the rest just do not generate much enthusiasm.

I agree that none of it would be good for Clemson. As the #2 football power in the ACC nothing good happens for you if Texas comes into the league with friends and that includes the division of the pods.

The best thing that could happen to Clemson would be for the Big 10 to pull off a successful raid against the ACC North and to take schools with it like North Carolina and Virginia. Should that happen there are 2 scenarios that help Clemson. The first would be for the SEC to take Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State to lock up the best content, football, and attendance schools in the conference. They might even move to 20 with Louisville and Georgia Tech which IMO would be a wonderful way to consolidate the South and to keep the Big 10 out of it (the Deep South that is). The other would be for the Big 10 to take North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame. Then similarly the SEC would take the same four and both would stop at 18. If the Big 10 takes just two then depending upon who the SEC takes the Big 12 becomes an option. Florida State, Clemson, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Louisville and Pitt would be a great way for the Big 12 to move to 16. Throw in Miami and one more for 18 (possibly Notre Dame). In any of those scenarios Clemson gets the respect, the kind of schedule they want, and the money they need to compete.

JR ..... Who knows for sure what (if anything) will happen and when. I could be happy with Clemson staying in the ACC under some of the many proposed realignment scenarios - there are others that would be very bad (from a Clemson perspective). My personal dream would be for Clemson to join a 20 team SEC and be in a 5 team pod with UGA, FSU, Auburn, and Texas A&M with a permanent cross over rival of South Carolina. That of course will never happen. But, assuming that the scenario that you mentioned above came to pass (Clemson, FSU, GA Tech, NC State, Va Tech, UL to the SEC) - what teams do you think would comprise the pods or divisions in this new SEC? I could see a land grant/tech division (Clemson, Auburn, A&M, FSU, Miss St, Vandy, UL, Ga Tech, NC State, Va Tech) and a flagship division (Bama, UGA, USC, UF, Ark, Mizzou, Ole Miss, Kentucky, UT, LSU). This line up would be interesting.

At 20 I think we have 4 five team divisions.
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

It would stay regional for the cost of minor sports.
[/quote]

I've always preferred schools selecting a number of annual rivals as apposed to set pods if a conference went above 14 members.

One of the first questions we have to ask is:
Does ESPN/FOX want to save the Big 12?

(03-16-2015 09:01 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 08:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 08:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 01:12 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC could take Texas without any other Texas schools due to having A&M and old foe Arkansas plus it is a regional fit. Worst academic fit though, but Texas has survived the current B12 academic lineup and a Texas included SEC is better than the B12 is now. My guess is they would want stricter recruiting rules and standards enforced though, just like they did when they joined the B12. I think schools like UF, Vandy, and UGA would support this. Not sure about the rest. The biggest drawback to the SEC is the recruiting cesspool and no holds barred nature. Texas was already a member of one conference like that in the SWC and they want to avoid that situation again at all costs. OU as well. They placed their compliance under their law dept. rather than the AD due to all the past NCAA issues they had. I think that is their biggest worry about the SEC as well.

*cough* *cough* Auburn *cough*

Hey we can't offer state jobs to recruit's relatives like that other school in the state. Why? We don't have a law school. Therefore we don't have numerous alumni populating the State Legislature to set up favors for our recruits.

Just offer them $100k jobs restocking library books.

And screw up the stacks, heck no! They have to be able to read and recognize numbers to restock the library.

(03-16-2015 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  One of the first questions we have to ask is:
Does ESPN/FOX want to save the Big 12?

Well do they? And if they did, what have they saved? T.C.U. and W.V.U. were a means to an end. Let's just hold them together until everyone can figure some things out. That's why I don't think either of those schools gets left out. They helped to stabilize a rapidly disintegrating situation and in the end I think they get rewarded some way.

But, what's your answer to the question you posed?

(03-16-2015 10:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  One of the first questions we have to ask is:
Does ESPN/FOX want to save the Big 12?

Well do they? And if they did, what have they saved? T.C.U. and W.V.U. were a means to an end. Let's just hold them together until everyone can figure some things out. That's why I don't think either of those schools gets left out. They helped to stabilize a rapidly disintegrating situation and in the end I think they get rewarded some way.

But, what's your answer to the question you posed?

Depends on what happens with the B1G T1 IMO. ESPN and FOX bought the T3 to Texas, OU, and KU to keep the B12 pieces in place until the B1G T1 situation is resolved then they will attempt to dissolve or strengthen the B12 based on what they need after they win or lose the B1G T1.

If ESPN keeps the T1 for the B1G, I think that FOX will want to keep the B12 intact because they will need the content and a broken up B12 means less content under their control and more under ESPN's, while ESPN would, probably, want to part it out among the SEC, ACC, and B1G (PAC as well if they sell ESPN a slice of the PACN) so they control more of the CFB content.

If FOX wins the B1G's T1, then I could see FOX being willing to try moving B12 properties into the B1G or PAC (especially if the PAC sold them some of the PACN). They might also be happy with the status quo. ESPN would probably want to tear it up apart and move it's best properties into the SEC and ACC.

(03-18-2015 12:17 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 11:23 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  One of the first questions we have to ask is:
Does ESPN/FOX want to save the Big 12?

Well do they? And if they did, what have they saved? T.C.U. and W.V.U. were a means to an end. Let's just hold them together until everyone can figure some things out. That's why I don't think either of those schools gets left out. They helped to stabilize a rapidly disintegrating situation and in the end I think they get rewarded some way.

But, what's your answer to the question you posed?

Depends on what happens with the B1G T1 IMO. ESPN and FOX bought the T3 to Texas, OU, and KU to keep the B12 pieces in place until the B1G T1 situation is resolved then they will attempt to dissolve or strengthen the B12 based on what they need after the win or lose the B1G T1.

If ESPN keeps the T1 for the B1G, I think that FOX will want to keep the B12 intact because they will need the content and a broken up B12 means less content under their control and more under ESPN's, while ESPN would, probably, want to part it out among the SEC, ACC, and B1G (PAC as well if they sell ESPN a slice of the PACN) so they control more of the CFB content.

If FOX wins the B1G's T1, then I could see FOX being willing to try moving B12 properties into the B1G or PAC (especially if the PAC sold them some of the PACN). ESPN would probably want to tear it up apart and move it's best properties into the SEC and ACC.

Actually, I think it gets dissolved either way. FOX will have more control over Big 12 product in the Big 10 than ESPN will have because ESPN won't ever have more than 2 or rarely 3 games a week of the content, and really most weeks just 1 of the prime games for that T1 contract. FOX can afford to have properties they otherwise don't own as much of in the Big 12 move to the Big 10. ESPN can enhance values with pieces in the ACC and SEC. So in your scenario 1 there are reasons for cooperation between FOX and ESPN. 1. It lessens their overhead to divide the Big 12 further and to permit their present payouts to the Big 12 lessened by the increase of value added to the Big 10 and SEC in particular. 2. The internal playoffs of those conference would provide 2 more huge content games for the networks should the Big 10 and SEC expand again.

And in your second scenario it has always been a given that should the two networks even get frostier with one another then each will try to cull their properties from the Big 12 herd and use them to their advantage.

The PAC is the wild card should they warm up to either of FOX or ESPN, but even then such a move creates a portioning out of the Big 12 properties, just perhaps a different one than fans of the SEC or Big 10 presently imagine. A PAC growth from the Big 12 signifies to me a real threat to the so called ACC security as the SEC and Big 10 would then have reason to work together to grow with properties to the East.