MHver3 ‏@MHver3  · May 18

TIFWIW but the rumor is an updated GOR is making the rounds at ACC schools and has 6 signatures. Notre Dames was the first.

Ok so getting more info on the new ACC GOR

ACCN is going to be launched officially within a year.

Notre Dame signed first. Followed by all the old BIgEast schools with the exception of Miami

Schools have until 7-1-16 to sign

But some ACC schools not happy with having to pay so much up front for ACCN with no promise of large returns.

New GOR will be as rock solid as B12,B10,Pac12. No backdoor like in current. Will run length of ESPN contract.

Again TIFWIW it's all rumor coming from my old BigEast source-who's in AAC now but stays in touch with old BE schools in ACC.

MHver3 ‏@MHver3  · 7h7 hours ago
Make it 8 signatures on new ACC gor. Wake and NCST signed yesterday.


In summary, if true, the following have signed the "new" ACC GOR:
Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Boston College, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse and NC State

Haven't signed/reviewing still: Georgia Tech, Virginia, FSU, UNC, Clemson, Duke, Miami

If true, it would appear that those with options are probably reevaluating them right now and those that don't or are very happy have already signed--including Notre Dame and Virginia Tech.

I wouldn't mind adding a couple of those programs still on the fence.

I just don't buy MHver3 as a source of real information.

I don't see why any ACC school would be signing a new GOR when:

1) They already have one.

2) The purpose for the original GOR was to set the stage for an ACCN and secure the league's future.

So if an ACCN isn't coming without guarantees and the current GOR has holes in it then I would be looking for a ticket out of town if I was some of those schools. The last thing I would be doing is chaining myself down.

(05-19-2016 09:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I just don't buy MHver3 as a source of real information.

I don't see why any ACC school would be signing a new GOR when:

1) They already have one.

2) The purpose for the original GOR was to set the stage for an ACCN and secure the league's future.

So if an ACCN isn't coming without guarantees and the current GOR has holes in it then I would be looking for a ticket out of town if I was some of those schools. The last thing I would be doing is chaining myself down.

You may be missing an obvious detail here. Who asked for a new GOR? While I share your suspicions there is one legitimate reason for a new GOR request. If ESPN has truly agreed to give them a bump in revenue and deliver a network they may be the ones asking for a new GOR (and probably contract extension) well into the future. We'll have to wait and see if that is indeed the case or this is truly another baseless hillbilly post.

(05-19-2016 10:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 09:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I just don't buy MHver3 as a source of real information.

I don't see why any ACC school would be signing a new GOR when:

1) They already have one.

2) The purpose for the original GOR was to set the stage for an ACCN and secure the league's future.

So if an ACCN isn't coming without guarantees and the current GOR has holes in it then I would be looking for a ticket out of town if I was some of those schools. The last thing I would be doing is chaining myself down.

You may be missing an obvious detail here. Who asked for a new GOR? While I share your suspicions there is one legitimate reason for a new GOR request. If ESPN has truly agreed to give them a bump in revenue and deliver a network they may be the ones asking for a new GOR (and probably contract extension) well into the future. We'll have to wait and see if that is indeed the case or this is truly another baseless hillbilly post.

He's under the assumption that a ACCN is on the way, but the start up costs will be expensive. I would think if it is an ACCN, then the tobacco road boys would have jumped all over that. Now, if it's just a slight bump in pay, it would be wise to evaluate all the options and wait.

I can buy the start up costs being expensive. I can even buy that the ACC schools might have to sign a new agreement to get the thing written in stone.

I just don't see a reason to believe that this guy is a person in the know. Has he ever been right about anything substantive? It wasn't too long ago that he was saying that the B1G was getting ready to steal the core of the PAC to form a super conference. He's throw out all sorts of outlandish stuff in the past and to my knowledge he's never called anything before it happened.

There is an old Biblical concept that if a prophet's words don't come true then he's not a prophet at all.

Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

(05-22-2016 08:42 AM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

Well, to be fair, VTech and NC State have been rumored as schools for the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt have been rumored for the Big 10, though that was before they expanded with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

(05-22-2016 08:50 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:42 AM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

Well, to be fair, VTech and NC State have been rumored as schools for the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt have been rumored for the Big 10, though that was before they expanded with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

The only possible ACC school that I could see involved in the next round of realignment would be Virginia Tech and I'll explain in a minute.

Texas came out this week and through a source close to the Athletic Department essentially said that if the Big 12 broke apart that Texas and OU would continue to play each other even if they were in different conference homes.

Texas has never made conciliatory statements unless something merited it, ever! In fact when they issue them it is usually done in a way that makes it seem as though they are being proactive rather than reactive. So this was a really big deal.

Everyone pretty much knew that there would be no G5 additions made to the Big 12 because their value to the conference was negligible and because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want more strings attached should they decide to leave.

Boren made that desire public with his declaration of expand and kill the LHN and give us a Big 12N or else!

So after much wrangling if Texas issues a statement like this it means they are ready to leave as well. But how? The GOR is binding. Dissolution is how. It takes 8 Big 12 schools voting to disband to do the deed. With 3, possibly 4 schools, worth having how do you get to 8?

The networks have to be involved so that arranged movement and payout deals tip the balance to get the required members moved. And that means that Texas, OU, and Kansas moving together is probably kaput.

Think in network terms for a moment here. FOX and ESPN are not exactly chummy I'm sure after the Big 10 contract bids. But they do both have about a 50% stake in the Big 12 and they both have an equal 50% split of the leased product from the PAC.

The big prize for both is Texas. If Texas goes to the Big 10 it is a non starter for ESPN. If Texas goes to the ACC or SEC it is a non starter for FOX. So Texas is the key piece. The only place outside of the soon to be Ex-Big 12 where FOX and ESPN can split Bevo is the PAC. Whether the PAC sells a % of their network to both FOX or ESPN or they don't sell, Texas is a 50/50 product in the PAC.

Now for the second issue. If Texas and Oklahoma don't move together, and if the deal is a brokered one they won't (too much value for 1 conference to place the leftovers efficiently) then Oklahoma has to have Oklahoma State with them. They can't schedule both Texas and OSU as OOC games and play a 9 game conference schedule and guarantee 7 home games without 2 G5 schools being on the schedule.
This rules out the Big 10 for Oklahoma. The Big 10 can't take O.S.U. The SEC can.

The Big 10 will like get Kansas (AAU, national basketball brand, westward expansion candidate for balance, birthplace of basketball). Without a football brand the Big 10 will be a problem because they won't accept this arrangement.

The ACC needs and wants a network. Virginia Tech to the Big 10 gives Delany one of the coveted markets and a regional football brand. This move doesn't hurt the ACC footprint. But if N.D. is to remain independent then the ACC will need three new schools. West Virginia reconnects their conference footprint and brings good basketball and another football brand. T.C.U. is easy to access and brings a whopper of a market for the new ACCN. Add Houston (less likely Baylor) to that mixture and now you have an I-10 series between Houston & Tallahassee.

Texas moves to the PAC with Texas Tech as the price. Iowa State gives the PAC another AAU school and a built in rival game with the Big 10. Kansas State now gives them a second built in rival game with the Big 10.

The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The SEC goes to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The PAC moves to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State
The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia, T.C.U., and either Houston or Baylor.

The Big 10 agrees because they get balanced growth, a large market with a future AAU prospect, a national brand in hoops, and they set boundaries with those two adds for the corners of their footprint.

The SEC agrees because OU is one of the two top brands left and their rival the Big 10 isn't getting Texas. The two Oklahoma schools give the SEC as many as possibly three games a year in Dallas. Oklahoma multiplies the SEC's already great content value, and Auburn and possibly Alabama can move East helping to re-balance the conference.

The PAC agrees because they land the top brand in the nation add two AAU schools, gain to rivals with the Big 10, and add 33 million viewers in the central time zone to their footprint to boost the PACN.

The ACC agrees to get 28 million added to their footprint, to get a network, and to solidify their ability to remain a P4 conference.

There is a potential wrinkle here however unlikely. If N.B.C. does go after the 2nd half of the Big 10 rights Notre Dame might be swayed to take Virginia Tech's place, ever how unlikely it is a possibility. If it ever did happen everything else remains the same and Virginia Tech stays in the ACC. T.C.U. and West Virginia get added.

But all of this happens, and happens relatively soon (a year or two) if the networks help to broker out the Big 12 to facilitate Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's moves. If not we wait 6 to 8 years and only the brands move.

I believe it will be brokered because it earns the schools more money sooner, and because it protects the little brothers as we like to call them. JR

(05-22-2016 09:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The only possible ACC school that I could see involved in the next round of realignment would be Virginia Tech and I'll explain in a minute.

Texas came out this week and through a source close to the Athletic Department essentially said that if the Big 12 broke apart that Texas and OU would continue to play each other even if they were in different conference homes.

Texas has never made conciliatory statements unless something merited it, ever! In fact when they issue them it is usually done in a way that makes it seem as though they are being proactive rather than reactive. So this was a really big deal.

Everyone pretty much knew that there would be no G5 additions made to the Big 12 because their value to the conference was negligible and because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want more strings attached should they decide to leave.

Boren made that desire public with his declaration of expand and kill the LHN and give us a Big 12N or else!

So after much wrangling if Texas issues a statement like this it means they are ready to leave as well. But how? The GOR is binding. Dissolution is how. It takes 8 Big 12 schools voting to disband to do the deed. With 3, possibly 4 schools, worth having how do you get to 8?

The networks have to be involved so that arranged movement and payout deals tip the balance to get the required members moved. And that means that Texas, OU, and Kansas moving together is probably kaput.

Think in network terms for a moment here. FOX and ESPN are not exactly chummy I'm sure after the Big 10 contract bids. But they do both have about a 50% stake in the Big 12 and they both have an equal 50% split of the leased product from the PAC.

The big prize for both is Texas. If Texas goes to the Big 10 it is a non starter for ESPN. If Texas goes to the ACC or SEC it is a non starter for FOX. So Texas is the key piece. The only place outside of the soon to be Ex-Big 12 where FOX and ESPN can split Bevo is the PAC. Whether the PAC sells a % of their network to both FOX or ESPN or they don't sell, Texas is a 50/50 product in the PAC.

Now for the second issue. If Texas and Oklahoma don't move together, and if the deal is a brokered one they won't (too much value for 1 conference to place the leftovers efficiently) then Oklahoma has to have Oklahoma State with them. They can't schedule both Texas and OSU as OOC games and play a 9 game conference schedule and guarantee 7 home games without 2 G5 schools being on the schedule.
This rules out the Big 10 for Oklahoma. The Big 10 can't take O.S.U. The SEC can.

The Big 10 will like get Kansas (AAU, national basketball brand, westward expansion candidate for balance, birthplace of basketball). Without a football brand the Big 10 will be a problem because they won't accept this arrangement.

The ACC needs and wants a network. Virginia Tech to the Big 10 gives Delany one of the coveted markets and a regional football brand. This move doesn't hurt the ACC footprint. But if N.D. is to remain independent then the ACC will need three new schools. West Virginia reconnects their conference footprint and brings good basketball and another football brand. T.C.U. is easy to access and brings a whopper of a market for the new ACCN. Add Houston (less likely Baylor) to that mixture and now you have an I-10 series between Houston & Tallahassee.

Texas moves to the PAC with Texas Tech as the price. Iowa State gives the PAC another AAU school and a built in rival game with the Big 10. Kansas State now gives them a second built in rival game with the Big 10.

The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The SEC goes to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The PAC moves to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State
The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia, T.C.U., and either Houston or Baylor.

The Big 10 agrees because they get balanced growth, a large market with a future AAU prospect, a national brand in hoops, and they set boundaries with those two adds for the corners of their footprint.

The SEC agrees because OU is one of the two top brands left and their rival the Big 10 isn't getting Texas. The two Oklahoma schools give the SEC as many as possibly three games a year in Dallas. Oklahoma multiplies the SEC's already great content value, and Auburn and possibly Alabama can move East helping to re-balance the conference.

The PAC agrees because they land the top brand in the nation add two AAU schools, gain to rivals with the Big 10, and add 33 million viewers in the central time zone to their footprint to boost the PACN.

The ACC agrees to get 28 million added to their footprint, to get a network, and to solidify their ability to remain a P4 conference.

There is a potential wrinkle here however unlikely. If N.B.C. does go after the 2nd half of the Big 10 rights Notre Dame might be swayed to take Virginia Tech's place, ever how unlikely it is a possibility. If it ever did happen everything else remains the same and Virginia Tech stays in the ACC. T.C.U. and West Virginia get added.

But all of this happens, and happens relatively soon (a year or two) if the networks help to broker out the Big 12 to facilitate Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's moves. If not we wait 6 to 8 years and only the brands move.

I believe it will be brokered because it earns the schools more money sooner, and because it protects the little brothers as we like to call them. JR

If it works out this way then my only question would be..."are we done?"

There obviously wouldn't be a lot of products on the table to move to 18 with. Are we better off at 16 having only added the state of OK to the footprint?

If the Big 12 is parsed this way, and it makes as much sense as anything else, do we eventually move to a place where conferences are interested in developing new programs for the purpose of padding their voting totals in matters of P5 autonomy?

This was the basis of the conversation I had with Mr. SEC where he said Cincinnati might be a viable addition in that sort of climate. Not saying this could happen sometime soon or anything. When the next round of contracts come up for negotiation, however, could that sort of approach lead to a new round of expansion that involves programs with enough resources to compete at a P5 level that have not already merited inclusion.

I think you've talked about the in the past where programs that are on par with the lower level programs of the P5 might warrant inclusion in order to protect against lawsuits on the basis of arbitrary membership requirements.

(05-22-2016 09:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:50 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:42 AM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

Well, to be fair, VTech and NC State have been rumored as schools for the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt have been rumored for the Big 10, though that was before they expanded with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

The only possible ACC school that I could see involved in the next round of realignment would be Virginia Tech and I'll explain in a minute.

Texas came out this week and through a source close to the Athletic Department essentially said that if the Big 12 broke apart that Texas and OU would continue to play each other even if they were in different conference homes.

Texas has never made conciliatory statements unless something merited it, ever! In fact when they issue them it is usually done in a way that makes it seem as though they are being proactive rather than reactive. So this was a really big deal.

Everyone pretty much knew that there would be no G5 additions made to the Big 12 because their value to the conference was negligible and because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want more strings attached should they decide to leave.

Boren made that desire public with his declaration of expand and kill the LHN and give us a Big 12N or else!

So after much wrangling if Texas issues a statement like this it means they are ready to leave as well. But how? The GOR is binding. Dissolution is how. It takes 8 Big 12 schools voting to disband to do the deed. With 3, possibly 4 schools, worth having how do you get to 8?

The networks have to be involved so that arranged movement and payout deals tip the balance to get the required members moved. And that means that Texas, OU, and Kansas moving together is probably kaput.

Think in network terms for a moment here. FOX and ESPN are not exactly chummy I'm sure after the Big 10 contract bids. But they do both have about a 50% stake in the Big 12 and they both have an equal 50% split of the leased product from the PAC.

The big prize for both is Texas. If Texas goes to the Big 10 it is a non starter for ESPN. If Texas goes to the ACC or SEC it is a non starter for FOX. So Texas is the key piece. The only place outside of the soon to be Ex-Big 12 where FOX and ESPN can split Bevo is the PAC. Whether the PAC sells a % of their network to both FOX or ESPN or they don't sell, Texas is a 50/50 product in the PAC.

Now for the second issue. If Texas and Oklahoma don't move together, and if the deal is a brokered one they won't (too much value for 1 conference to place the leftovers efficiently) then Oklahoma has to have Oklahoma State with them. They can't schedule both Texas and OSU as OOC games and play a 9 game conference schedule and guarantee 7 home games without 2 G5 schools being on the schedule.
This rules out the Big 10 for Oklahoma. The Big 10 can't take O.S.U. The SEC can.

The Big 10 will like get Kansas (AAU, national basketball brand, westward expansion candidate for balance, birthplace of basketball). Without a football brand the Big 10 will be a problem because they won't accept this arrangement.

The ACC needs and wants a network. Virginia Tech to the Big 10 gives Delany one of the coveted markets and a regional football brand. This move doesn't hurt the ACC footprint. But if N.D. is to remain independent then the ACC will need three new schools. West Virginia reconnects their conference footprint and brings good basketball and another football brand. T.C.U. is easy to access and brings a whopper of a market for the new ACCN. Add Houston (less likely Baylor) to that mixture and now you have an I-10 series between Houston & Tallahassee.

Texas moves to the PAC with Texas Tech as the price. Iowa State gives the PAC another AAU school and a built in rival game with the Big 10. Kansas State now gives them a second built in rival game with the Big 10.

The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The SEC goes to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The PAC moves to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State
The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia, T.C.U., and either Houston or Baylor.

The Big 10 agrees because they get balanced growth, a large market with a future AAU prospect, a national brand in hoops, and they set boundaries with those two adds for the corners of their footprint.

The SEC agrees because OU is one of the two top brands left and their rival the Big 10 isn't getting Texas. The two Oklahoma schools give the SEC as many as possibly three games a year in Dallas. Oklahoma multiplies the SEC's already great content value, and Auburn and possibly Alabama can move East helping to re-balance the conference.

The PAC agrees because they land the top brand in the nation add two AAU schools, gain to rivals with the Big 10, and add 33 million viewers in the central time zone to their footprint to boost the PACN.

The ACC agrees to get 28 million added to their footprint, to get a network, and to solidify their ability to remain a P4 conference.

There is a potential wrinkle here however unlikely. If N.B.C. does go after the 2nd half of the Big 10 rights Notre Dame might be swayed to take Virginia Tech's place, ever how unlikely it is a possibility. If it ever did happen everything else remains the same and Virginia Tech stays in the ACC. T.C.U. and West Virginia get added.

But all of this happens, and happens relatively soon (a year or two) if the networks help to broker out the Big 12 to facilitate Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's moves. If not we wait 6 to 8 years and only the brands move.

I believe it will be brokered because it earns the schools more money sooner, and because it protects the little brothers as we like to call them. JR

I would offer this for discussion as an alternative.

PAC: Texas, TT, Iowa St & Kansas St
SEC: Oklahoma & Oklahoma St
B1G: Kansas & VT
ACC: Either WV, Cincy & UCONN or TCU, Baylor & Houston

If ND does come into play then I think they would have to take VT place in the ACC instead of the B1G. So the PAC, B1G & SEC would stay the same but the ACC would add ND, WV & Cincinnati.

I just don't think that TCU with either Baylor or Houston would create enough of a demand in Texas to add value to an ACCN. Nor do I think that they could maintain their current level of success without a Texas and/or Oklahoma connection. I don't see them as viable options for the ACC.

With 4 conferences of 16, do we go to a 4x4 model or a 2x8? I would assume that the P4 would move to a 4 team CCG model. 4 division champs or 2 division champs with 2 wild cards. The 4x4 model would create more flexibility in the conference schedule.

PAC
Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State

Stanford, Cal, Utah, Colorado

Texas, TT, Iowa State, Kansas State

B1G
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Illinois

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern

Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

Penn State, Maryland, VT, Rutgers

SEC
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

LSU, A&M, Auburn, Ole Miss

Alabama, Tennessee, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Vanderbilt

ACC
FSU, NC State, WF, BC

Notre Dame, NC, Duke, Virginia

Clemson, GT, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, WV

Play your 3 divisional games plus 2 permanent rivals & rotate 1 game from each division for an 8 game schedule. You could also play 9 games by having 3 permanent rivals.

At 16 I feel like both a 7-2 or a 3-2-2-2 system won't work because of natural rivalries, etc. So the best way would be a divisionless system and a 3-6 system that lets schools play rivals and then rotates through the rest of the league quickly. A 4-5 system would work too but the rotation wouldn't be as clean. A 3-6 system probably works well, however, as a TN fan I doubt we could keep all our "rivals" in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. (Sorry Kentucky and Vandy fans... though I wonder how the SEC views those rivalries. I assume we would wind up with something like Alabama/Vandy/Georgia or Alabama/Vandy/Ole Miss).

At 18 you could do three divisions and do 5-2-2 but rivalries are still not kept in tact.

The shift from 5 to 4 Power leagues does affect the balance of power. Right now it is clearly PAC 12/Big 10 vs. SEC/Big 12 with ACC leaning toward the PAC 12/Big 10 side but a swing vote. Losing the Big 12 means the SEC is outnumbered verses the Pac 16 and Big 10/16.

Thus the best possible outcome for the SEC may simply be the status quo.

(05-19-2016 09:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I just don't buy MHver3 as a source of real information.

I don't see why any ACC school would be signing a new GOR when:

1) They already have one.

2) The purpose for the original GOR was to set the stage for an ACCN and secure the league's future.

So if an ACCN isn't coming without guarantees and the current GOR has holes in it then I would be looking for a ticket out of town if I was some of those schools. The last thing I would be doing is chaining myself down.

ya, I would want to know if Notre Dame signed first because they're joining for football...

I would want to know if the ACC would be promised $$$ at least close to what the SEC and B1G get

if those 2 issues are grey areas, I wouldn't sign

Very nice, but I made two tweaks,...

(05-22-2016 06:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  SEC
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State Texas

LSU, A&M, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss

Alabama, Tennessee, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Auburn

(05-22-2016 09:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:50 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:42 AM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

Well, to be fair, VTech and NC State have been rumored as schools for the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt have been rumored for the Big 10, though that was before they expanded with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

The only possible ACC school that I could see involved in the next round of realignment would be Virginia Tech and I'll explain in a minute.

Texas came out this week and through a source close to the Athletic Department essentially said that if the Big 12 broke apart that Texas and OU would continue to play each other even if they were in different conference homes.

Texas has never made conciliatory statements unless something merited it, ever! In fact when they issue them it is usually done in a way that makes it seem as though they are being proactive rather than reactive. So this was a really big deal.

Everyone pretty much knew that there would be no G5 additions made to the Big 12 because their value to the conference was negligible and because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want more strings attached should they decide to leave.

Boren made that desire public with his declaration of expand and kill the LHN and give us a Big 12N or else!

So after much wrangling if Texas issues a statement like this it means they are ready to leave as well. But how? The GOR is binding. Dissolution is how. It takes 8 Big 12 schools voting to disband to do the deed. With 3, possibly 4 schools, worth having how do you get to 8?

The networks have to be involved so that arranged movement and payout deals tip the balance to get the required members moved. And that means that Texas, OU, and Kansas moving together is probably kaput.

Think in network terms for a moment here. FOX and ESPN are not exactly chummy I'm sure after the Big 10 contract bids. But they do both have about a 50% stake in the Big 12 and they both have an equal 50% split of the leased product from the PAC.

The big prize for both is Texas. If Texas goes to the Big 10 it is a non starter for ESPN. If Texas goes to the ACC or SEC it is a non starter for FOX. So Texas is the key piece. The only place outside of the soon to be Ex-Big 12 where FOX and ESPN can split Bevo is the PAC. Whether the PAC sells a % of their network to both FOX or ESPN or they don't sell, Texas is a 50/50 product in the PAC.

Now for the second issue. If Texas and Oklahoma don't move together, and if the deal is a brokered one they won't (too much value for 1 conference to place the leftovers efficiently) then Oklahoma has to have Oklahoma State with them. They can't schedule both Texas and OSU as OOC games and play a 9 game conference schedule and guarantee 7 home games without 2 G5 schools being on the schedule.
This rules out the Big 10 for Oklahoma. The Big 10 can't take O.S.U. The SEC can.

The Big 10 will like get Kansas (AAU, national basketball brand, westward expansion candidate for balance, birthplace of basketball). Without a football brand the Big 10 will be a problem because they won't accept this arrangement.

The ACC needs and wants a network. Virginia Tech to the Big 10 gives Delany one of the coveted markets and a regional football brand. This move doesn't hurt the ACC footprint. But if N.D. is to remain independent then the ACC will need three new schools. West Virginia reconnects their conference footprint and brings good basketball and another football brand. T.C.U. is easy to access and brings a whopper of a market for the new ACCN. Add Houston (less likely Baylor) to that mixture and now you have an I-10 series between Houston & Tallahassee.

Texas moves to the PAC with Texas Tech as the price. Iowa State gives the PAC another AAU school and a built in rival game with the Big 10. Kansas State now gives them a second built in rival game with the Big 10.

The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The SEC goes to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The PAC moves to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State
The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia, T.C.U., and either Houston or Baylor.

The Big 10 agrees because they get balanced growth, a large market with a future AAU prospect, a national brand in hoops, and they set boundaries with those two adds for the corners of their footprint.

The SEC agrees because OU is one of the two top brands left and their rival the Big 10 isn't getting Texas. The two Oklahoma schools give the SEC as many as possibly three games a year in Dallas. Oklahoma multiplies the SEC's already great content value, and Auburn and possibly Alabama can move East helping to re-balance the conference.

The PAC agrees because they land the top brand in the nation add two AAU schools, gain to rivals with the Big 10, and add 33 million viewers in the central time zone to their footprint to boost the PACN.

The ACC agrees to get 28 million added to their footprint, to get a network, and to solidify their ability to remain a P4 conference.

There is a potential wrinkle here however unlikely. If N.B.C. does go after the 2nd half of the Big 10 rights Notre Dame might be swayed to take Virginia Tech's place, ever how unlikely it is a possibility. If it ever did happen everything else remains the same and Virginia Tech stays in the ACC. T.C.U. and West Virginia get added.

But all of this happens, and happens relatively soon (a year or two) if the networks help to broker out the Big 12 to facilitate Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's moves. If not we wait 6 to 8 years and only the brands move.

I believe it will be brokered because it earns the schools more money sooner, and because it protects the little brothers as we like to call them. JR

First, re. the GoR rumor: I agree that ESPN is likely looking for a long term extension of the media rights deal, so the GoR needs to be adjusted accordingly.
But some members of the conference must resent how badly they have been misused by ESPN. Delany has been rewarded for refusing to bow to ESPN and his success could embolden John Swofford to rebel as well. There may be a contingent of schools who would like to pass on the ESPN version of the ACCN and try another avenue. Raycom and Fox regional networks hold between them 31 football and 60 MBB games. That's more than enough content for a cable channel. Add the non-revs and preview/review, and school specific feel good programming, you got yourself a shiny new 24 hour ACCN. Fox would sacrifice FS2 in a heartbeat for an opportunity to stab ESPN like that. Three caveats: I don't know if ESPN placed restrictions on the games they sold to Raycom i.e. "syndication only," and how does this affect the $45 million bump in lieu of an ACCN. Does ESPN still owe it? Does ESPN have exclusive rights to an eventual ACCN?
JR, I know you envision the networks as puppetmasters in realignment, and I can't dispute your arguments. But a move like this would cut a few of those strings. ESPN would find a thousand way to punish the ACC if they made this move, but it might be worth it.
Second, re. Dissecting the Big 12: I don't believe that there will be a cordial, orderly redistribution of these teams when the conference finally folds. In your latest version, The B1G is awarded VT and kansas. They would stand at 14 before they would accept that. They need a FB stud on the Western frontier. They have their eye on Oklahoma. Texas doesn't want to play in the Pacific Time Zone. He1nous has a version that gives Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the grateful SEC. That ain't happenin' either. There is no way to broker this fairly, so there will be tug o' war. B1G and SEC have much at stake.

(05-29-2016 08:13 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 09:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:50 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 08:42 AM)FloridaState1990 Wrote:  Funny that all of those who haven't signed have all been rumored to be discussion with other conferences in the last couple of years.

Well, to be fair, VTech and NC State have been rumored as schools for the SEC. Syracuse and Pitt have been rumored for the Big 10, though that was before they expanded with Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland.

The only possible ACC school that I could see involved in the next round of realignment would be Virginia Tech and I'll explain in a minute.

Texas came out this week and through a source close to the Athletic Department essentially said that if the Big 12 broke apart that Texas and OU would continue to play each other even if they were in different conference homes.

Texas has never made conciliatory statements unless something merited it, ever! In fact when they issue them it is usually done in a way that makes it seem as though they are being proactive rather than reactive. So this was a really big deal.

Everyone pretty much knew that there would be no G5 additions made to the Big 12 because their value to the conference was negligible and because Texas and Oklahoma didn't want more strings attached should they decide to leave.

Boren made that desire public with his declaration of expand and kill the LHN and give us a Big 12N or else!

So after much wrangling if Texas issues a statement like this it means they are ready to leave as well. But how? The GOR is binding. Dissolution is how. It takes 8 Big 12 schools voting to disband to do the deed. With 3, possibly 4 schools, worth having how do you get to 8?

The networks have to be involved so that arranged movement and payout deals tip the balance to get the required members moved. And that means that Texas, OU, and Kansas moving together is probably kaput.

Think in network terms for a moment here. FOX and ESPN are not exactly chummy I'm sure after the Big 10 contract bids. But they do both have about a 50% stake in the Big 12 and they both have an equal 50% split of the leased product from the PAC.

The big prize for both is Texas. If Texas goes to the Big 10 it is a non starter for ESPN. If Texas goes to the ACC or SEC it is a non starter for FOX. So Texas is the key piece. The only place outside of the soon to be Ex-Big 12 where FOX and ESPN can split Bevo is the PAC. Whether the PAC sells a % of their network to both FOX or ESPN or they don't sell, Texas is a 50/50 product in the PAC.

Now for the second issue. If Texas and Oklahoma don't move together, and if the deal is a brokered one they won't (too much value for 1 conference to place the leftovers efficiently) then Oklahoma has to have Oklahoma State with them. They can't schedule both Texas and OSU as OOC games and play a 9 game conference schedule and guarantee 7 home games without 2 G5 schools being on the schedule.
This rules out the Big 10 for Oklahoma. The Big 10 can't take O.S.U. The SEC can.

The Big 10 will like get Kansas (AAU, national basketball brand, westward expansion candidate for balance, birthplace of basketball). Without a football brand the Big 10 will be a problem because they won't accept this arrangement.

The ACC needs and wants a network. Virginia Tech to the Big 10 gives Delany one of the coveted markets and a regional football brand. This move doesn't hurt the ACC footprint. But if N.D. is to remain independent then the ACC will need three new schools. West Virginia reconnects their conference footprint and brings good basketball and another football brand. T.C.U. is easy to access and brings a whopper of a market for the new ACCN. Add Houston (less likely Baylor) to that mixture and now you have an I-10 series between Houston & Tallahassee.

Texas moves to the PAC with Texas Tech as the price. Iowa State gives the PAC another AAU school and a built in rival game with the Big 10. Kansas State now gives them a second built in rival game with the Big 10.

The Big 10 goes to 16 with Kansas and Virginia Tech.
The SEC goes to 16 with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
The PAC moves to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State
The ACC moves to 16 with West Virginia, T.C.U., and either Houston or Baylor.

The Big 10 agrees because they get balanced growth, a large market with a future AAU prospect, a national brand in hoops, and they set boundaries with those two adds for the corners of their footprint.

The SEC agrees because OU is one of the two top brands left and their rival the Big 10 isn't getting Texas. The two Oklahoma schools give the SEC as many as possibly three games a year in Dallas. Oklahoma multiplies the SEC's already great content value, and Auburn and possibly Alabama can move East helping to re-balance the conference.

The PAC agrees because they land the top brand in the nation add two AAU schools, gain to rivals with the Big 10, and add 33 million viewers in the central time zone to their footprint to boost the PACN.

The ACC agrees to get 28 million added to their footprint, to get a network, and to solidify their ability to remain a P4 conference.

There is a potential wrinkle here however unlikely. If N.B.C. does go after the 2nd half of the Big 10 rights Notre Dame might be swayed to take Virginia Tech's place, ever how unlikely it is a possibility. If it ever did happen everything else remains the same and Virginia Tech stays in the ACC. T.C.U. and West Virginia get added.

But all of this happens, and happens relatively soon (a year or two) if the networks help to broker out the Big 12 to facilitate Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's moves. If not we wait 6 to 8 years and only the brands move.

I believe it will be brokered because it earns the schools more money sooner, and because it protects the little brothers as we like to call them. JR

First, re. the GoR rumor: I agree that ESPN is likely looking for a long term extension of the media rights deal, so the GoR needs to be adjusted accordingly.
But some members of the conference must resent how badly they have been misused by ESPN. Delany has been rewarded for refusing to bow to ESPN and his success could embolden John Swofford to rebel as well. There may be a contingent of schools who would like to pass on the ESPN version of the ACCN and try another avenue. Raycom and Fox regional networks hold between them 31 football and 60 MBB games. That's more than enough content for a cable channel. Add the non-revs and preview/review, and school specific feel good programming, you got yourself a shiny new 24 hour ACCN. Fox would sacrifice FS2 in a heartbeat for an opportunity to stab ESPN like that. Three caveats: I don't know if ESPN placed restrictions on the games they sold to Raycom i.e. "syndication only," and how does this affect the $45 million bump in lieu of an ACCN. Does ESPN still owe it? Does ESPN have exclusive rights to an eventual ACCN?
JR, I know you envision the networks as puppetmasters in realignment, and I can't dispute your arguments. But a move like this would cut a few of those strings. ESPN would find a thousand way to punish the ACC if they made this move, but it might be worth it.
Second, re. Dissecting the Big 12: I don't believe that there will be a cordial, orderly redistribution of these teams when the conference finally folds. In your latest version, The B1G is awarded VT and kansas. They would stand at 14 before they would accept that. They need a FB stud on the Western frontier. They have their eye on Oklahoma. Texas doesn't want to play in the Pacific Time Zone. He1nous has a version that gives Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the grateful SEC. That ain't happenin' either. There is no way to broker this fairly, so there will be tug o' war. B1G and SEC have much at stake.

When I speak of brokering the caveat is cooperation if everyone profits. The Big 10 did take Rutgers for a market. Virginia Tech would be very tempting for them. Kansas probably not.

If there is no cooperation between networks and conferences to broker out the Big 12 then I completely agree it will be carnage. The result of that would be the eventual demise of the ACC. Should either the Big 10 or SEC land a Texas/Oklahoma combo the payouts would be so high with regards to those in the ACC that the lure of a Virginia school and North Carolina school may reach critical mass. FOX may want that kind of carnage because it benefits them the most. But ESPN may push to just broker 8 of the Big 12 teams and pay for the necessity of doing so. It might be cheaper in the long run than getting into a messy product war with FOX.

And remember right now ESPN has the ability to place eight if they make it profitable for the ACC & SEC.

Anyway it's going to be very fun to see what happens.

BTW: Your theory has strong merit as well should FOX see an opportunity and seize it. But my understanding is that those rights are now owned severely by Racyom and Yes a FOX affiliate.