(10-23-2015 07:21 AM)XLance Wrote: (10-22-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote: (10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote: (10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote: (10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote: The PAC stays just as they are at 12.
Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.
An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.
You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.
Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.
JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.
ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.
And, pray tell, how is that going to tick off ESPN's "better investment"?
You are still sharing the same markets that you have been sharing. You have acquired an exciting brand of football, locked up a huge and growing market, divided your major competitor into thirds, gotten a solid basketball conference (with the ability to grow your own through inter-league play without getting embarrassed), absorbed a conference that is a better cultural fit than the ACC, North East Conference, or the Big Ten, and have given up absolutely nothing.
Texas and Oklahoma add to the bottom line. Kansas less so. After that we are losing money by the number of snouts at the conference trough. And in the meantime we gain only two AAU schools while the Big 10 slides down the Eastern Seaboard into Florida. Nice try though!
To make a move to 20 or 24 and to have B.C., Pitt, Cuse, N.D., UVa, UNC, Duke, and Ga Tech move to the Big 10 would by necessity have to involve at the minimum Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Louisville to the SEC. Why?
Kentucky, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina would have to have their in state rival games protected within a conference that large because the likelihood and ease of playing those rivals out of conference would be extremely tough. And because adding the states of Kansas & Oklahoma would need to be balanced by a representative from North Carolina and Virginia to even keep the money the same as it is now.
But to show you further how absurd the whole notion is, there is no way in hell that the Big 10 is going to dilute their product that much either. They would take Duke to get U.N.C. and Virginia. They might even take Virginia Tech, .....might? But AAU will be a sticking point for their presidents. N.D. would get in. Syracuse they could make an exception for as well. B.C.? Pitt is redundant and doesn't add that much athletic value at all (outside of hoops and the Big 10 is already blessed in that regard). Pitt would be a net revenue loss. There is no way they are adding N.C. State with Duke and UNC already on board and Wake is simply out. Georgia Tech is as far South as they would go. I can't see them picking up Miami but they might.
Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc., and possibly Louisville would just be out. Florida and South Carolina are fairly adamant about wanting to protect their rivalry games, Kentucky not so much and the SEC might prefer someone else in that slot.
It is your redundancy of schools within key states that hurts the ACC already. Why would the SEC or Big 10 want to absorb that? They wouldn't and they don't have to do so. And won't do so.
Ideally the SEC and Big 10 if they went large would settle on 20.
Syracuse, Notre Dame, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Georgia Tech make the most money and add the most cachet for them.
Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson do the same for the SEC. If Texas wants the PAC to protect the other Texas schools then perhaps Kansas gets that slot.
Personally I think Texas would come on board.
Pitt, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Colorado State, Brigham Young, Houston, West Virginia could then form a New Conference or take the old Big 12 name if they wished. The PAC would stay at 12.
12 + 16 + 20 + 20 = 68
Wake is out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, Colorado State and B.Y.U. are in.
So if you are going to take the tack that you are pursuing what I outlined is more profitable and much more likely than what you propose. The ACC isn't moving wholesale to any conference. There is simply too much dead weight. Ditto for the Big 12.