(03-02-2015 07:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you're actually arguing that Penn State is a rival for Maryland or Rutgers, you're the only person on Earth who ISN'T a Maryland or Rutgers fan making that case. Maryland fans think Penn State is a rival. They aren't. Penn State fans think Ohio State is a rival. They aren't.

IIRC, James Franklin drew first blood by declaring both Maryland and New Jersey to be "in-state," and that the state schools (Maryland and Rutgers) should shut down because they don't have chance.

(03-03-2015 01:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The State politics of Iowa have nothing to do with whether or not Iowa State gets into The Big Ten. Iowa is only a single vote. That was the first mark against you.

State politics in Oklahoma and Kansas matter more than politics in Iowa but they don't require that the two State schools within each State stay together in the same conference, they just require that one doesn't get left behind in a much diminished conference. As long as both are in a top level major conference, all is well. They don't have to end up in the same conference. That is just a foolish internet talking point that people hold on to.

The third mark against you? Thinking that Notre Dame is in a position that can be leveraged so that they end up in the ACC. They aren't going to give up their scheduling freedom in exchange for being in the ACC football tournament. They don't need to.

Fourth mark? Thinking that the SEC would double up in Oklahoma. They might double up in a State like North Carolina but that's it.

Fifth mark? BYU? Really? Doubling up in the State of Colorado? Really?

Personally, I think most of you need to pay more attention to what some other folks say that have obviously done more research on this. This isn't a personal attack, just the honest truth.

- As long as Iowa St is safe and sound in in the XII, Hawk fans don't have to cry about them joining the B1G.

But if Iowa St looks to be demoted to a G5 conference, I refuse to believe Iowa's federal senators and congressmen will do nothing. Perhaps there aren't enough favors in the world among them to get Iowa St into the B1G, but they'll try.

- You're right, there is no guarantee that Iowa St, Kansas St and Oklahoma St must be in the same conference as the other state flagship schools in their respective states. There aren't many guarantees in life, as it happens.

- Notre Dame would choose the ACC over the other P5 leagues.

- Assuming only XII schools are up for grabs and the ACC and B1G struck first taking Texas off the plate, I can see the SEC wanting Oklahoma bad enough that they'd be willing to take OK St too. They have both flagships in Miss. and Ala.

- Are you saying the PAC has no history of "doubling up"?

(03-03-2015 01:38 PM)green Wrote:  When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.
-- sportsbusinessdaily

the word own is used ...
not lease or any variant of that ...
ownership means you can do whatever with your property within the confines of the law ...

What say you to this new info, Frank? It seems you were wrong.


So if we say that NBC has plans to buy out Raycom's ACC properties and also can bring Notre Dame football to the table ... how can ESPN refuse to make a deal?

That's life. That's business. You don't always win exactly how you want to. But you try to survive and make money.

- ACC cable network is ESPN
- ACC digital network is NBC
- NBC gets some Notre Dame football games, some other premier ACC football games and can broadcast some premier ACC men's bball games
- ESPN still gets a large chunk of ACC football and men's basketball games to distribute on its cable channels (ESPN/2/U)

- Notre Dame joins ACC as full member
- One more is added, with Notre Dame getting an equal vote as the other 15:

- UConn could enable ACC hockey down the road
- Cincy is what it is
- small possibility that West Virginia could take a chance at a once in a generation opportunity/smell a sinking ship (XII) and jump for it

(no teams from SEC, B1G or PAC are on the table)

(03-03-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:38 PM)green Wrote:  When it signed its ACC deal in 2010, ESPN and Charlotte-based Raycom Sports cut a deal that grants Raycom the ACC’s digital and corporate sponsorship rights, plus a heavy dose of live football and basketball games. Through a sublicensing agreement, Raycom owns the rights to 31 live football games and 60 live men’s basketball games.
-- sportsbusinessdaily

the word own is used ...
not lease or any variant of that ...
ownership means you can do whatever with your property within the confines of the law ...

What say you to this new info, Frank? It seems you were wrong.


So if we say that NBC has plans to buy out Raycom's ACC properties and also can bring Notre Dame football to the table ... how can ESPN refuse to make a deal?

That's life. That's business. You don't always win exactly how you want to. But you try to survive and make money.

- ACC cable network is ESPN
- ACC digital network is NBC
- NBC gets some Notre Dame football games, some other premier ACC football games and can broadcast some premier ACC men's bball games
- ESPN still gets a large chunk of ACC football and men's basketball games to distribute on its cable channels (ESPN/2/U)

- Notre Dame joins ACC as full member
- One more is added, with Notre Dame getting an equal vote as the other 15:

- UConn could enable ACC hockey down the road
- Cincy is what it is
- small possibility that West Virginia could take a chance at a once in a generation opportunity/smell a sinking ship (XII) and jump for it

(no teams from SEC, B1G or PAC are on the table)

1) Not worth it to ND. I have yet to see a listing of the great benefits to ND that outweigh the negative impact (to ND) in giving up independence to join the ACC full time.

(More TV money doesn't count, ND could have taken the more money route by joining the Big Ten, but didn't/won't. ND booster donation drop off would likely cancel most of that out, too).

2) I believe ND already gets an equal vote in the ACC. I may be wrong on that one.

(03-03-2015 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  1) Not worth it to ND. I have yet to see a listing of the great benefits to ND that outweigh the negative impact (to ND) in giving up independence to join the ACC full time.

(More TV money doesn't count, ND could have taken the more money route by joining the Big Ten, but didn't/won't. ND booster donation drop off would likely cancel most of that out, too).

2) I believe ND already gets an equal vote in the ACC. I may be wrong on that one.

1) maybe not to ND, but what if it is to NBC? Does ND ignore their TV partner?

2) fair enough, just wanted to make it explicit

(03-03-2015 03:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 03:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  1) Not worth it to ND. I have yet to see a listing of the great benefits to ND that outweigh the negative impact (to ND) in giving up independence to join the ACC full time.

(More TV money doesn't count, ND could have taken the more money route by joining the Big Ten, but didn't/won't. ND booster donation drop off would likely cancel most of that out, too).

2) I believe ND already gets an equal vote in the ACC. I may be wrong on that one.

1) maybe not to ND, but what if it is to NBC? Does ND ignore their TV partner?

2) fair enough, just wanted to make it explicit

Its TV partner just inked a ten year contract with ND from 2016 through 2025.

I am unaware of its terms, but I believe that any wholesale change would require bilateral agreement. NBC cannot just impose new terms on ND.

I also don't believe that NBC can just force ND to give up independence under the terms of the contract or unilaterally cancel the contract.

Let NBC do this with some other school and let ND alone with the current agreement between the parties.

(03-03-2015 03:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 01:21 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The State politics of Iowa have nothing to do with whether or not Iowa State gets into The Big Ten. Iowa is only a single vote. That was the first mark against you.

State politics in Oklahoma and Kansas matter more than politics in Iowa but they don't require that the two State schools within each State stay together in the same conference, they just require that one doesn't get left behind in a much diminished conference. As long as both are in a top level major conference, all is well. They don't have to end up in the same conference. That is just a foolish internet talking point that people hold on to.

The third mark against you? Thinking that Notre Dame is in a position that can be leveraged so that they end up in the ACC. They aren't going to give up their scheduling freedom in exchange for being in the ACC football tournament. They don't need to.

Fourth mark? Thinking that the SEC would double up in Oklahoma. They might double up in a State like North Carolina but that's it.

Fifth mark? BYU? Really? Doubling up in the State of Colorado? Really?

Personally, I think most of you need to pay more attention to what some other folks say that have obviously done more research on this. This isn't a personal attack, just the honest truth.

- As long as Iowa St is safe and sound in in the XII, Hawk fans don't have to cry about them joining the B1G.

But if Iowa St looks to be demoted to a G5 conference, I refuse to believe Iowa's federal senators and congressmen will do nothing. Perhaps there aren't enough favors in the world among them to get Iowa St into the B1G, but they'll try.

- You're right, there is no guarantee that Iowa St, Kansas St and Oklahoma St must be in the same conference as the other state flagship schools in their respective states. There aren't many guarantees in life, as it happens.

- Notre Dame would choose the ACC over the other P5 leagues.

- Assuming only XII schools are up for grabs and the ACC and B1G struck first taking Texas off the plate, I can see the SEC wanting Oklahoma bad enough that they'd be willing to take OK St too. They have both flagships in Miss. and Ala.

- Are you saying the PAC has no history of "doubling up"?

I don't think most Hawk fans care if Iowa State makes it into the Big Ten or not. The competitive level is already equivalent in all sports that matter to Hawk fans. Whether they belong to the Big Ten doesn't really matter in that regard. It isn't Iowa that is keeping Iowa State out of the Big Ten. It is everyone else in The Big Ten.

You can believe whatever you want about State reps within the State of Iowa. I never said they wouldn't try to help out Iowa State. They would be remiss in their duties if they didn't try but they know the odds. Let me tell ya, there aren't enough favors.

Notre Dame WOULD choose the ACC over all other conferences if they had to go all in but that isn't a proper argument for why Notre Dame would go all in.

The big 12 wont be piecemealed to death, at least not until this GoR of theirs runs it's course. If any movement from the big 12 is to happen before then, it will be in a grand negotiated movement for everyone. That is why talk of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State being together is false. That is also why talk of Kansas and Kansas State ending up together is also false. If they could move independently then yeah it could happen but they cant so they wont.

I don't understand the relevance of your question about the PAC. Doubling up in the past has absolutely nothing to do with doubling up right now. They might double up but there would have to be strong value in doubling up and a Colorado/Colorado State combo is just not a strong one. BYU is also doubling up for the PAC and a Utah/BYU is not a strong combo either, especially considering the irreconcilable differences between the PAC and BYU.

(03-02-2015 07:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you're actually arguing that Penn State is a rival for Maryland or Rutgers, you're the only person on Earth who ISN'T a Maryland or Rutgers fan making that case. Maryland fans think Penn State is a rival. They aren't. Penn State fans think Ohio State is a rival. They aren't.

Maryland's a "rival" of Penn State ---- I am a Penn State fan and I have no problem with that. Ditto for Rutgers.


I find it completely silly how in some relationships, a large portion of one fan-base has their nose up in the air and think it's some sort of "crawling around in the mud" to accept the other as a rival. E.g., PSU with Maryland, U-M with MSU, OSU with Penn State, et cetera.


Anytime you have two schools that (a) are in geographic proximity, (b) play each other all the time, and © have ample opportunities for their alums to co-mingle, they're basically rivals, period, end of story. PSU will play Rutgers & Maryland every year from this point forward, so we have all of (a), (b) and © covered.

(03-03-2015 02:55 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 07:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If you're actually arguing that Penn State is a rival for Maryland or Rutgers, you're the only person on Earth who ISN'T a Maryland or Rutgers fan making that case. Maryland fans think Penn State is a rival. They aren't. Penn State fans think Ohio State is a rival. They aren't.

IIRC, James Franklin drew first blood by declaring both Maryland and New Jersey to be "in-state," and that the state schools (Maryland and Rutgers) should shut down because they don't have chance.

Yeah, Franklin started it all. He made public comments about how he was "annexing" both New Jersey and Maryland.

I thought it was kind of funny, but also can acknowledge Franklin was acting like a bit of a WWE character ----- Maryland got the last laugh with the win last November, so they hold the "belt" as it is right now.

Penn State has ONE true rival - Pittsburgh.

(03-03-2015 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 12:37 PM)Hawkeye Fan Wrote:  I have been calling for a 4 Power Conference Playoff. Each Conference would have 20 teams. Semi-Finals would not be B1G vs. SEC but B1G vs. Pacific 20 at Rose Bowl. The B1G likes that tradition and the folks in California like that the folks from the cold Midwest will travel out to sunny California.

Have 4 Pods of 5 teams. Play each team in your Pod every year to keep regional rivalries like WI vs. MN or Iowa vs. MN.

B1G should add OU, OK. State, Kansas, K. State, U. Conn. and Temple or Virginia.

Why 20? Why not 16?

ACC goes to 16 with Notre Dame and UConn.

B1G gets Texas and Iowa St (state politics forces it)

SEC takes Oklahoma and OK St (state politics forces it)

PAC takes BYU, Colo St., K St and Kansas (they only want KU, but state politics forces it)


XII leftovers pick up the pieces as a G5 conference. Not sure what to say to Baylor, TCU, West Virginia and Texas Tech, in that scenario.

A 20 team conference is better than 16 for the following reasons:

1. Less chance of an anti-trust lawsuit against the 4 Power Conferences.
2. Now P5 at 64 plus ND for 65. I think there are 15 additional teams that could be added. Teams like Navy, Central Florida, South Florida, Cincy., BYU, Fresno State, Houston, Southern Miss, Colorado State, Air Force, U. Conn, etc.
3. Easier for scheduling. 4 Pods of 5. Play everyone in your Pod every year and play all 5 teams in another Pod for a total of 9 conference games. Every 3 years, you will have played entire conference.

If your gonna make 4 power conferences with everybody the easy move is a pac 20 with the sec, acc and big 10 at 16.

Big 10: Missouri, KU
SEC: Clemson, GTech, TCU
ACC: UCONN, CINCY, WVU
Pac 20: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, OU, Ok State, K state, Io STate, BYU

P 4 leagues of 68 teams. Let the big 10, sec, acc have 4 pods of 4 with a 2 game playoff. The pac 20 can have 4 pods of 5 with a 2 game playoff. I would also allow the hoops side to have 2 conference tournaments, so its 8 teams for the big 10, sec, and acc and 10 teams for the pac 20.

(03-03-2015 01:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='11829432' dateline='1425388143']
Problem is, the "circumstances" you describe seem both banal and extremely unlikely.

"Disagree. Half the population of the US is going to be within the ACC footprint, and that is going up. There aren't that many TV sets in Mississippi or Alabama or Arkansas or Louisiana. And the populations of the rust belt states continue to dwindle. "


The problem with your argument is that many of the eyeballs within the ACC footprint prefer to watch SEC games over ACC if their team is not involved. If you look at the viewership numbers this is a mathematical certainty. The point being, you might be able to get carriage rights for every TV subscriber in your footprint but you are not going to get $1.40 per household.

(03-03-2015 03:34 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Its TV partner just inked a ten year contract with ND from 2016 through 2025.

I am unaware of its terms, but I believe that any wholesale change would require bilateral agreement. NBC cannot just impose new terms on ND.

I also don't believe that NBC can just force ND to give up independence under the terms of the contract or unilaterally cancel the contract.

Let NBC do this with some other school and let ND alone with the current agreement between the parties.

If it's a partnership, then Notre Dame and NBC are equals. Notre Dame telling NBC "this is how it is" would not be a partnership.

So if NBC has a great idea that works out better for everyone, Notre Dame at least owes them to listen.


In this cycle of the CFP, Notre Dame doesn't need to join a conference in football. You're set for another 11 years.

This is long term.

(03-03-2015 04:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't think most Hawk fans care if Iowa State makes it into the Big Ten or not. The competitive level is already equivalent in all sports that matter to Hawk fans. Whether they belong to the Big Ten doesn't really matter in that regard. It isn't Iowa that is keeping Iowa State out of the Big Ten. It is everyone else in The Big Ten.

You can believe whatever you want about State reps within the State of Iowa. I never said they wouldn't try to help out Iowa State. They would be remiss in their duties if they didn't try but they know the odds. Let me tell ya, there aren't enough favors.

Notre Dame WOULD choose the ACC over all other conferences if they had to go all in but that isn't a proper argument for why Notre Dame would go all in.

The big 12 wont be piecemealed to death, at least not until this GoR of theirs runs it's course. If any movement from the big 12 is to happen before then, it will be in a grand negotiated movement for everyone. That is why talk of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State being together is false. That is also why talk of Kansas and Kansas State ending up together is also false. If they could move independently then yeah it could happen but they cant so they wont.

I don't understand the relevance of your question about the PAC. Doubling up in the past has absolutely nothing to do with doubling up right now. They might double up but there would have to be strong value in doubling up and a Colorado/Colorado State combo is just not a strong one. BYU is also doubling up for the PAC and a Utah/BYU is not a strong combo either, especially considering the irreconcilable differences between the PAC and BYU.

- Maybe there aren't enough favors. Maybe. It would be interesting to test that assumption.

- Notre Dame is set in this CFP deal. But starting with the next deal, they might have more to gain by joining a conference.

- I doubt Texas is going to care about anyone except Texas, regardless of any grand negotiations. If and when they leave, that signals the death of the conference and that everyone still in must beg, borrow or steal their way into an open chair elsewhere

- The PAC has two teams in basically five states (No Cal and So Cal being different enough). That model has worked well for them. The Utah/BYU combo is as strong as AZ/ASU and the CU/CSU combo is similar to Oregon/Oregon St ... institutionally. Save for Oregon's success in football, it would be very similar.

(03-03-2015 05:21 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If your gonna make 4 power conferences with everybody the easy move is a pac 20 with the sec, acc and big 10 at 16.

Big 10: Missouri, KU
SEC: Clemson, GTech, TCU
ACC: UCONN, CINCY, WVU
Pac 20: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, OU, Ok State, K state, Io STate, BYU

P 4 leagues of 68 teams. Let the big 10, sec, acc have 4 pods of 4 with a 2 game playoff. The pac 20 can have 4 pods of 5 with a 2 game playoff. I would also allow the hoops side to have 2 conference tournaments, so its 8 teams for the big 10, sec, and acc and 10 teams for the pac 20.

Oh god...are we back to "pods"

(03-03-2015 05:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 04:14 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I don't think most Hawk fans care if Iowa State makes it into the Big Ten or not. The competitive level is already equivalent in all sports that matter to Hawk fans. Whether they belong to the Big Ten doesn't really matter in that regard. It isn't Iowa that is keeping Iowa State out of the Big Ten. It is everyone else in The Big Ten.

You can believe whatever you want about State reps within the State of Iowa. I never said they wouldn't try to help out Iowa State. They would be remiss in their duties if they didn't try but they know the odds. Let me tell ya, there aren't enough favors.

Notre Dame WOULD choose the ACC over all other conferences if they had to go all in but that isn't a proper argument for why Notre Dame would go all in.

The big 12 wont be piecemealed to death, at least not until this GoR of theirs runs it's course. If any movement from the big 12 is to happen before then, it will be in a grand negotiated movement for everyone. That is why talk of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State being together is false. That is also why talk of Kansas and Kansas State ending up together is also false. If they could move independently then yeah it could happen but they cant so they wont.

I don't understand the relevance of your question about the PAC. Doubling up in the past has absolutely nothing to do with doubling up right now. They might double up but there would have to be strong value in doubling up and a Colorado/Colorado State combo is just not a strong one. BYU is also doubling up for the PAC and a Utah/BYU is not a strong combo either, especially considering the irreconcilable differences between the PAC and BYU.

- Maybe there aren't enough favors. Maybe. It would be interesting to test that assumption.

- Notre Dame is set in this CFP deal. But starting with the next deal, they might have more to gain by joining a conference.

- I doubt Texas is going to care about anyone except Texas, regardless of any grand negotiations. If and when they leave, that signals the death of the conference and that everyone still in must beg, borrow or steal their way into an open chair elsewhere

- The PAC has two teams in basically five states (No Cal and So Cal being different enough). That model has worked well for them. The Utah/BYU combo is as strong as AZ/ASU and the CU/CSU combo is similar to Oregon/Oregon St ... institutionally. Save for Oregon's success in football, it would be very similar.

I don't see how any new CFP deal would force Notre Dame fully into the ACC. In fact it appears just the opposite is true. It appears expansion of the CFP is inevitable. As there are more positions in it, there is more chance for an Indie Notre Dame to get in as they are.

Once again, Texas gets demonized. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the willingness of Texas to do exactly what they want to do whether they get support or not. They devised the GoR to get them more negotiating strength and it is working exactly as intended. What it does though is it doesn't allow them to just run off now all on their own.

In regards to the PAC, you spoke the important words. That model HAS worked well for them. Those additions happened in the times of when college sports, most particularly football, was a regional ordeal. That made those in state rivalries great for the conference. Now additions are made in regards to expanding conference footprints for the networks. That means any additions made NOW are made with a mindset that is opposite to what you are trying to espouse.

(03-03-2015 01:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-03-2015 08:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Problem is, the "circumstances" you describe seem both banal and extremely unlikely.

Disagree. Half the population of the US is going to be within the ACC footprint, and that is going up. There aren't that many TV sets in Mississippi or Alabama or Arkansas or Louisiana. And the populations of the rust belt states continue to dwindle.

Your argument reminds me of arguments made by folks on Big East board when the Big East was transitioning to the AAC. The argument was that because realignment had allowed the AAC to add huge markets (such as Houston, Philly, Orlando, New Orleans, Dallas) that its value would go way up.

My retort was that it isn't the mere presence in a place with a lot of eyeballs and TV sets that matters, what matters is how many of them tune in to your broadcast, IOW's, market penetration. And the AAC teams simply lacked penetration despite their presence in huge markets.

Now, the ACC obviously is superior to the AAC in terms of market penetration, but the point is the same: Despite having the largest theoretical footprint, the ACC doesn't actually penetrate and control much of it. E.g., Atlanta is theoretically in the ACC footprint, but Georgia football is far more popular, even in Atlanta, than is Georgia Tech. So Georgia is in reality an SEC, not ACC, market.

As the same is true in most parts of the ACC footprint, I am not nearly as optimistic as you are about the ability of an ACCN to attract big viewership and massive subscription fees.

To me, the big hint that tells us that ESPN is truly gauging and building value in ACC basketball so that if they truly do end up starting an ACCN then it would have enough value to make it worthwhile. The ACC footprint truly is as amorphous as Quo states. The value in the ACC really isn't in football when it comes to an ACCN, it is in basketball. I know the general rule around here is that it is always football first but that is rather simplistic.

In this instance, basketball will be what provides the value for an ACCN. After all, there are more basketball games in a season than there are football games. There are more by quite a bit. That means lots of advertising slots. They might charge less per slot by quite a bit but the idea is that it still grossing an incredible amount of value. ESPN is showing more ACC basketball by a considerable amount than they are any other conference.

(03-04-2015 12:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your argument reminds me of arguments made by folks on Big East board when the Big East was transitioning to the AAC. The argument was that because realignment had allowed the AAC to add huge markets (such as Houston, Philly, Orlando, New Orleans, Dallas) that its value would go way up.

My retort was that it isn't the mere presence in a place with a lot of eyeballs and TV sets that matters, what matters is how many of them tune in to your broadcast, IOW's, market penetration. And the AAC teams simply lacked penetration despite their presence in huge markets.

Now, the ACC obviously is superior to the AAC in terms of market penetration, but the point is the same: Despite having the largest theoretical footprint, the ACC doesn't actually penetrate and control much of it. E.g., Atlanta is theoretically in the ACC footprint, but Georgia football is far more popular, even in Atlanta, than is Georgia Tech. So Georgia is in reality an SEC, not ACC, market.

As the same is true in most parts of the ACC footprint, I am not nearly as optimistic as you are about the ability of an ACCN to attract big viewership and massive subscription fees.

With it being cable, the key thing is carriage. Basic is best, but getting into the main sports tiers is still fine. If it is basic, penetration doesn't matter at that point. Everybody with cable is putting money in the till.

The jury is still (obviously) very out on if the ACCN can press home the high penetration combined with big markets and turn it into a money printer.