(04-01-2017 11:53 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Perhaps I am alone in my view but I could see The ACC adding UConn for strategic reasons. UConn needs to be ACC to keep them from The Big Ten. Presently The Big Ten is slow playing the Huskies just like The Big 12 did Louisville.

If The ACC chose to invite UConn we would add another flagship university with multiple competitive programs. Those that believe a spot should be held for Notre Dame are sadly mistaken. The Irish will never give up their independence unless they are forced to.

I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
CJ

I don't see the downside of UConn being in the B1G. It might even shake PSU loose.

Nothing screams "PSU should join the ACC" better than PSU being in a pod w/ UConn, Rutgers, and Maryland.

And a division of OSU, MSU, Michigan, PSU, Indiana, UConn, RU, and UMD might actually be worse for PSU. The teams in the top half are too good to consistently beat (higher level), and the teams in the bottom half are consistently too bad to ever be interesting to fans, players, or recruits.

(04-02-2017 09:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

1) See A, B, C, D, and E below.
A) Why would a champs only format happen? The SEC is never going to be for it because they are virtually guaranteed to always send one team as is, and they want to ability to send a second. The B1G will probably always be against it because they are also probably guaranteed to virtually always send at least one team, and they would probably want to ability to send a second. Additionally, they would oppose it to keep ND from joining the ACC in full. ND will always use their control of the Indy vote to oppose it so they can have a stronger bargaining position w/ the ACC.
B) SU played 2 more driveable basketball games this year than it will in future years. Adding distant schools and screwing w/ schedules adds to costs - especially when it's coupled w/ having to play nobody schools in the middle of nowhere.
C) Plus there's the issue of convincing ND to stop playing almost every ACC rival that they have to play 3 schools that they don't care about: UL, Baylor, and TCU. The irony of telling ND that they can only play BC in conference once every 6 years, but they have to play TCU every year is a little much.
D) I honestly think that the ACC would be better off w/ Texas as a partial and no extra baggage than having Texas + 2 baggage schools. So why would the ACC push Texas to join? Having Texas as a partial means that every ACC school would get to play Texas on a regular basis (vs 2/3rd of the conference), and it would mean that the ACC would lose 4 football games, but it wouldn't have to shell out ~$60 million for TCU and Baylor. There's no way that TCU + Baylor + 4 Texas fb games is worth $60 million.
E) Good luck convincing Texas that they'd rather play that setup than 5 ACC fb games + OU + 5 Texas games (possibly including TAMU) + 1 big OOC game in FB.

2) The SEC isn't going to 18. "Hey Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, why play Alabama, Aurburn, and LSU when you can play WVU and Kansas" line wouldn't go over so well. If the SEC took OU and OSU, then KU, WVU, and probably MIZZOU would be on the table. All 3 of those schools are better fits for the B1G than UConn, Cincy, Temple, and any other school that you listed. And I have a hard time believing that the SEC would care if they lost MIZZOU. MIZZOU has turned into a mess since joining the SEC, and WVU is a better fit for the SEC east anyway.

And good luck convincing Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State that UConn football belongs in the B1G. I personally think that adding a 15 year old football program (at the FBS level) that plays on a toxic waste dump that's 20-30 minutes from campus to the conference that pushes its history the harder than any other FBS conference would be hilarious, but it won't happen - ever. So no, UConn doesn't fit in the B1G at all.

3) No. Your math is wrong. If 6 Big XII schools left the conference, the TV contract would be renegotiated downward. Assuming that the 4 remaining schools are worth $15 million each, and 4 additional schools were added worth $4 million each, the total 8 school conference TV payout would be $76 million. If FOX moved 4 Big XII schools to the Pac and kept the conference's media payout at a steady $25 million (which they would have to do to make the move happen), they would pay an incremental $100 million. Therefore, your solution would be $24 million more expensive, and FOX would arguably get worse content. Why would they do that?

4) See parts A, B, and C below.
A) AAU has next to nothing to do w/ academics, multiple B1G schools voted to kick Nebraska out, and all knew that Nebraska would be kicked out when Nebraska was added.
B) Given that the ACC has a history of being a markedly better academic conference, I doubt that the B1G is snobbier. It's possible, but it would be like saying that the SEC is snobbier than the B1G. It may be true, but it's unlikely.
C) What do you expect the B1G to say? "We don't even begin to care about academics and we'll invite anybody." I don't trust self-serving statements. It would be one thing if the statement went against their own interest. Then the only plausible motivation would be to tell the truth. But self-serving statements are puffery. (See the reasoning behind Rule 804(b)(3)(A) - Hearsay Exception - Statements Against Interest: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804)

(04-01-2017 11:53 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Perhaps I am alone in my view but I could see The ACC adding UConn for strategic reasons. UConn needs to be ACC to keep them from The Big Ten. Presently The Big Ten is slow playing the Huskies just like The Big 12 did Louisville.

If The ACC chose to invite UConn we would add another flagship university with multiple competitive programs. Those that believe a spot should be held for Notre Dame are sadly mistaken. The Irish will never give up their independence unless they are forced to.

I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
CJ

CJ,
Uconn's opportunity has passed.
If the ACC had chosen to secure the northeast with basketball (in the hopes that football would grow) they would have taken Syracuse and UConn (instead of Pitt).
BUT...
It was unlikely that UConn could eventually grow their football program to help the ACC and there is not enough interest in college sports in New England to make having 2 NE schools profitable for the ACC.

(04-02-2017 11:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

1) See A, B, C, D, and E below.
A) Why would a champs only format happen? The SEC is never going to be for it because they are virtually guaranteed to always send one team as is, and they want to ability to send a second. The B1G will probably always be against it because they are also probably guaranteed to virtually always send at least one team, and they would probably want to ability to send a second. Additionally, they would oppose it to keep ND from joining the ACC in full. ND will always use their control of the Indy vote to oppose it so they can have a stronger bargaining position w/ the ACC.
B) SU played 2 more driveable basketball games this year than it will in future years. Adding distant schools and screwing w/ schedules adds to costs - especially when it's coupled w/ having to play nobody schools in the middle of nowhere.
C) Plus there's the issue of convincing ND to stop playing almost every ACC rival that they have to play 3 schools that they don't care about: UL, Baylor, and TCU. The irony of telling ND that they can only play BC in conference once every 6 years, but they have to play TCU every year is a little much.
D) I honestly think that the ACC would be better off w/ Texas as a partial and no extra baggage than having Texas + 2 baggage schools. So why would the ACC push Texas to join? Having Texas as a partial means that every ACC school would get to play Texas on a regular basis (vs 2/3rd of the conference), and it would mean that the ACC would lose 4 football games, but it wouldn't have to shell out ~$60 million for TCU and Baylor. There's no way that TCU + Baylor + 4 Texas fb games is worth $60 million.
E) Good luck convincing Texas that they'd rather play that setup than 5 ACC fb games + OU + 5 Texas games (possibly including TAMU) + 1 big OOC game in FB.

2) The SEC isn't going to 18. "Hey Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, why play Alabama, Aurburn, and LSU when you can play WVU and Kansas" line wouldn't go over so well. If the SEC took OU and OSU, then KU, WVU, and probably MIZZOU would be on the table. All 3 of those schools are better fits for the B1G than UConn, Cincy, Temple, and any other school that you listed. And I have a hard time believing that the SEC would care if they lost MIZZOU. MIZZOU has turned into a mess since joining the SEC, and WVU is a better fit for the SEC east anyway.

And good luck convincing Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State that UConn football belongs in the B1G. I personally think that adding a 15 year old football program (at the FBS level) that plays on a toxic waste dump that's 20-30 minutes from campus to the conference that pushes its history the harder than any other FBS conference would be hilarious, but it won't happen - ever. So no, UConn doesn't fit in the B1G at all.

3) No. Your math is wrong. If 6 Big XII schools left the conference, the TV contract would be renegotiated downward. Assuming that the 4 remaining schools are worth $15 million each, and 4 additional schools were added worth $4 million each, the total 8 school conference TV payout would be $76 million. If FOX moved 4 Big XII schools to the Pac and kept the conference's media payout at a steady $25 million (which they would have to do to make the move happen), they would pay an incremental $100 million. Therefore, your solution would be $24 million more expensive, and FOX would arguably get worse content. Why would they do that?

4) See parts A, B, and C below.
A) AAU has next to nothing to do w/ academics, multiple B1G schools voted to kick Nebraska out, and all knew that Nebraska would be kicked out when Nebraska was added.
B) Given that the ACC has a history of being a markedly better academic conference, I doubt that the B1G is snobbier. It's possible, but it would be like saying that the SEC is snobbier than the B1G. It may be true, but it's unlikely.
C) What do you expect the B1G to say? "We don't even begin to care about academics and we'll invite anybody." I don't trust self-serving statements. It would be one thing if the statement went against their own interest. Then the only plausible motivation would be to tell the truth. But self-serving statements are puffery. (See the reasoning behind Rule 804(b)(3)(A) - Hearsay Exception - Statements Against Interest: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804)

1) See below:
A) It would give a clear cut path to the CFP, no more committees or computers. It would add value to the regular season & the extended conference championships. Why? More $$$. A champs only model was originally considered & would be easily done with a P4. $$$ has already been the overruling factor thus far.

B) 2 nobody schools? TCU just won the NIT & Baylor was a 3 seed in the tournament this year. Not to mention that their football teams has contended for CFP spots recently. While Baylor maybe in the middle of nowhere, TCU is in DFW area. The ACC is already going to a 20 game basketball schedule, so you may have to go to TCU instead of WF. Syracuse will still likely get Pitt & BC H&H. I'm not seeing the big deal here.

C) The divisions can be sit up differently, mine was just an example. Here's another: Texas/TCU/Baylor/UofL/Miami/WF, ND/Pitt/Syr/BC/VT/NCST, FSU/Clemson/NC/Duke/GT/Virginia.

D) The ACC would be better off financially with Texas in fully. If the ACC can get Texas without 2 tagalongs that would be ideal. Why have them though, for the same scheduling reasons you keep referring to for Syracuse. Without them Texas would always be traveling for away games. Their value would come from the ACCN & in their help in landing Texas. They also add 2 quality football teams as well.

E) Texas will need a conference for their Olympic sports. ESPN owns the LHN, good luck to them in convincing ESPN to let them go to FOX. I don't see Texas playing second fiddle to Alabama either. If the ACC were to land Texas, my preference would be with Houston & Cincinnati as the tagalongs.

2) Nice cherry picking of games there. Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia & Florida/LSU could all be rivalry games. They would get Kansas once every six years.

If they could be convinced that Maryland & Rutgers football belonged in the B1G, I don't think UCONN would be that far off. We'll agree to disagree on Missouri & UCONN.

3) Actually in this scenario 7 teams would have left the B12 & all going to ESPN. You're right though that the PAC could stay at 12 but they wouldn't get the extra $ from an extended conference championship or the benefits of expanding their network footprint eastward. I could see how FOX & the PAC could go either way here. The only real expense here would be bumping Houston up & a slight bump for the other 15. (Using random numbers for an example: $25 million for Houston plus $30 million to give the other 15 a $2 million bump= $55 million. Compare that to paying a new version of the B12: 10 teams X $10 million each= $100 million minus the decrease for 3 schools 3X$13 million)= $39 million. So that's about $6 million more to revamp the B12. That's also without any gains they may get by having those 4 included in the PACN.)

4) See below:
A) Nebraska was still a member of the AAU when they joined. I don't make the B1G guidelines, I just predict that they will follow them. Name 1 university that the B1G has invited that isn't an AAU member.

B) Obviously it's just my opinion that the B1G is snobbier but it has merit when you compare the history of the 2 conferences. For the record, I didn't think that UofL had shot at the ACC either but here we are. Has anyone in the ACC ever made comparable comments to Gee's?

C) I expect the B1G to show class, dignity & respect for others. Did you read Gee comments about ND & the SEC? They set their own guidelines, I think they will follow them.

5) If it weren't for the $, which Clemson & FSU are focused on, I would be happier with Cincinnati & WV IF the ACC were to expand at all. I really don't want Louisville stuck in a western division with Texas schools.

(04-02-2017 12:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 11:53 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Perhaps I am alone in my view but I could see The ACC adding UConn for strategic reasons. UConn needs to be ACC to keep them from The Big Ten. Presently The Big Ten is slow playing the Huskies just like The Big 12 did Louisville.

If The ACC chose to invite UConn we would add another flagship university with multiple competitive programs. Those that believe a spot should be held for Notre Dame are sadly mistaken. The Irish will never give up their independence unless they are forced to.

I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
CJ

CJ,
Uconn's opportunity has passed.
If the ACC had chosen to secure the northeast with basketball (in the hopes that football would grow) they would have taken Syracuse and UConn (instead of Pitt).
BUT...
It was unlikely that UConn could eventually grow their football program to help the ACC and there is not enough interest in college sports in New England to make having 2 NE schools profitable for the ACC.

I gotta agree with Lance on this ...

The Big Ten is slow playing UConn because they would much rather have Texas and Kansas. UConn is only on the Big Ten's radar in the minds of Connecticut Husky fans.

(04-01-2017 05:18 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 12:44 PM)green Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 05:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But keep in mind the circumstances back then when ND was given their partial membership deal were hardly the conditions that exist now. The ACC was in a very precarious position back then and was perceived as the P5 conference most likely to implode - until the ND deal solidified the league.


Cheers,
Neil

notre dame's announcement (sep. 12, 2012) preceded maryland's (nov. 19, 2012) ...

REVISIONIST HISTORY

ACC imploding was talked about WELL before Maryland left.

NEEDS TO DO MORE RESEARCH

NEEDS BETTER CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IF ONE BELIEVES MARYLAND LEAVING WAS THE IMPETUS FOR ACC IMPLOSION TALKS BACK IN 2012

DONE WITH INANE POSTER WHO LACKS CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO AT LEAST HAVE A WELL ARGUED POINT OF VIEW

Cheers,
Neil

up against a near photographic memory ...
if ya got it, flaunt it ...

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

(03-31-2017 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 12:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 08:05 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(03-30-2017 07:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  ....... The new Texas leadership doesn’t have the West Coast preference that their leaders circa 2010 had, so any new deal with the Pac-12 seems to be out. At the same time, the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.

I don't like using the word "NEVER", but ... Texas will never join the SEC. They've always had the academic snob factor over the SEC. So that is strike 1, but maybe a bigger strike would be Texas A & M in the SEC.

So ... it's really only a 3 conference "race" ... and I think "going west" won't be something Texas want's to do .. so ... it's REALLY only ...

.... Big Ten versus ACC.

Or football independence. Which honestly plays to the ACC's advantage. As they can do the "Notre Dame deal".


Time will tell.

And yet they have been in talks with the SEC three times since just prior to the '92 expansion. What folks say and what they will do are often two different things separated only by a justification. And in the years that are ahead of us money may be all the justification they need. And if not that they could always say they joined the conference that would give their brother state school Texas Tech a home as well.

Suffice it to say that in politics, business, and conference realignment there are no gestalts.

But ... A & M Is in the SEC now. And the A & M - Longhorn rivalry is VERY real. Texas AIN'T going to the SEC ... EVER.

Also -- at the end of the day, Texas won't sacrifice itself, to save Texas Tech. Or any other school in the state of Texas. They look out for themselves first, period.

This is Exactly why you can't rule anything out!

Texas has options.
ESPN may want to use Texas in several ways, and it's possible that the Longhorns could end up in the PAC, SEC or the ACC.

I would look for Texas to opt for a scenario that allowed the 'Horns to keep relationships with: Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU, and Rice, even if that means a partial conference membership (like Notre Dame).

any team not named Texas, Notre Dame, or Penn State is dead weight for the ACC.

Never got why folks are eager to add more dead weight to the conference with the lowest revenue per team and the gap against P2 is growing huge.

(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 11:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

1) See A, B, C, D, and E below.
A) Why would a champs only format happen? The SEC is never going to be for it because they are virtually guaranteed to always send one team as is, and they want to ability to send a second. The B1G will probably always be against it because they are also probably guaranteed to virtually always send at least one team, and they would probably want to ability to send a second. Additionally, they would oppose it to keep ND from joining the ACC in full. ND will always use their control of the Indy vote to oppose it so they can have a stronger bargaining position w/ the ACC.
B) SU played 2 more driveable basketball games this year than it will in future years. Adding distant schools and screwing w/ schedules adds to costs - especially when it's coupled w/ having to play nobody schools in the middle of nowhere.
C) Plus there's the issue of convincing ND to stop playing almost every ACC rival that they have to play 3 schools that they don't care about: UL, Baylor, and TCU. The irony of telling ND that they can only play BC in conference once every 6 years, but they have to play TCU every year is a little much.
D) I honestly think that the ACC would be better off w/ Texas as a partial and no extra baggage than having Texas + 2 baggage schools. So why would the ACC push Texas to join? Having Texas as a partial means that every ACC school would get to play Texas on a regular basis (vs 2/3rd of the conference), and it would mean that the ACC would lose 4 football games, but it wouldn't have to shell out ~$60 million for TCU and Baylor. There's no way that TCU + Baylor + 4 Texas fb games is worth $60 million.
E) Good luck convincing Texas that they'd rather play that setup than 5 ACC fb games + OU + 5 Texas games (possibly including TAMU) + 1 big OOC game in FB.

2) The SEC isn't going to 18. "Hey Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, why play Alabama, Aurburn, and LSU when you can play WVU and Kansas" line wouldn't go over so well. If the SEC took OU and OSU, then KU, WVU, and probably MIZZOU would be on the table. All 3 of those schools are better fits for the B1G than UConn, Cincy, Temple, and any other school that you listed. And I have a hard time believing that the SEC would care if they lost MIZZOU. MIZZOU has turned into a mess since joining the SEC, and WVU is a better fit for the SEC east anyway.

And good luck convincing Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State that UConn football belongs in the B1G. I personally think that adding a 15 year old football program (at the FBS level) that plays on a toxic waste dump that's 20-30 minutes from campus to the conference that pushes its history the harder than any other FBS conference would be hilarious, but it won't happen - ever. So no, UConn doesn't fit in the B1G at all.

3) No. Your math is wrong. If 6 Big XII schools left the conference, the TV contract would be renegotiated downward. Assuming that the 4 remaining schools are worth $15 million each, and 4 additional schools were added worth $4 million each, the total 8 school conference TV payout would be $76 million. If FOX moved 4 Big XII schools to the Pac and kept the conference's media payout at a steady $25 million (which they would have to do to make the move happen), they would pay an incremental $100 million. Therefore, your solution would be $24 million more expensive, and FOX would arguably get worse content. Why would they do that?

4) See parts A, B, and C below.
A) AAU has next to nothing to do w/ academics, multiple B1G schools voted to kick Nebraska out, and all knew that Nebraska would be kicked out when Nebraska was added.
B) Given that the ACC has a history of being a markedly better academic conference, I doubt that the B1G is snobbier. It's possible, but it would be like saying that the SEC is snobbier than the B1G. It may be true, but it's unlikely.
C) What do you expect the B1G to say? "We don't even begin to care about academics and we'll invite anybody." I don't trust self-serving statements. It would be one thing if the statement went against their own interest. Then the only plausible motivation would be to tell the truth. But self-serving statements are puffery. (See the reasoning behind Rule 804(b)(3)(A) - Hearsay Exception - Statements Against Interest: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804)

1) See below:
A) It would give a clear cut path to the CFP, no more committees or computers. It would add value to the regular season & the extended conference championships. Why? More $$$. A champs only model was originally considered & would be easily done with a P4. $$$ has already been the overruling factor thus far.

B) 2 nobody schools? TCU just won the NIT & Baylor was a 3 seed in the tournament this year. Not to mention that their football teams has contended for CFP spots recently. While Baylor maybe in the middle of nowhere, TCU is in DFW area. The ACC is already going to a 20 game basketball schedule, so you may have to go to TCU instead of WF. Syracuse will still likely get Pitt & BC H&H. I'm not seeing the big deal here.

C) The divisions can be sit up differently, mine was just an example. Here's another: Texas/TCU/Baylor/UofL/Miami/WF, ND/Pitt/Syr/BC/VT/NCST, FSU/Clemson/NC/Duke/GT/Virginia.

D) The ACC would be better off financially with Texas in fully. If the ACC can get Texas without 2 tagalongs that would be ideal. Why have them though, for the same scheduling reasons you keep referring to for Syracuse. Without them Texas would always be traveling for away games. Their value would come from the ACCN & in their help in landing Texas. They also add 2 quality football teams as well.

E) Texas will need a conference for their Olympic sports. ESPN owns the LHN, good luck to them in convincing ESPN to let them go to FOX. I don't see Texas playing second fiddle to Alabama either. If the ACC were to land Texas, my preference would be with Houston & Cincinnati as the tagalongs.

2) Nice cherry picking of games there. Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia & Florida/LSU could all be rivalry games. They would get Kansas once every six years.

If they could be convinced that Maryland & Rutgers football belonged in the B1G, I don't think UCONN would be that far off. We'll agree to disagree on Missouri & UCONN.

3) Actually in this scenario 7 teams would have left the B12 & all going to ESPN. You're right though that the PAC could stay at 12 but they wouldn't get the extra $ from an extended conference championship or the benefits of expanding their network footprint eastward. I could see how FOX & the PAC could go either way here. The only real expense here would be bumping Houston up & a slight bump for the other 15. (Using random numbers for an example: $25 million for Houston plus $30 million to give the other 15 a $2 million bump= $55 million. Compare that to paying a new version of the B12: 10 teams X $10 million each= $100 million minus the decrease for 3 schools 3X$13 million)= $39 million. So that's about $6 million more to revamp the B12. That's also without any gains they may get by having those 4 included in the PACN.)

4) See below:
A) Nebraska was still a member of the AAU when they joined. I don't make the B1G guidelines, I just predict that they will follow them. Name 1 university that the B1G has invited that isn't an AAU member.

B) Obviously it's just my opinion that the B1G is snobbier but it has merit when you compare the history of the 2 conferences. For the record, I didn't think that UofL had shot at the ACC either but here we are. Has anyone in the ACC ever made comparable comments to Gee's?

C) I expect the B1G to show class, dignity & respect for others. Did you read Gee comments about ND & the SEC? They set their own guidelines, I think they will follow them.

5) If it weren't for the $, which Clemson & FSU are focused on, I would be happier with Cincinnati & WV IF the ACC were to expand at all. I really don't want Louisville stuck in a western division with Texas schools.

This is such a Big East attitude. The lowest revenue conference is upset the football schools carry the revenue situation are too focused on money.

Big college sports is gonna be a Power 2 with 16-20 something teams in it and all the Big East type schools (and some unlucky schools) are gonna be out of the big sports game.

So 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 for the ACC should be:

15) Notre Dame
16) Penn State
17) West Virginia
18) Connecticut
19) Maryland
20) South Carolina

(04-02-2017 04:26 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 11:04 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 09:56 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.

1) See A, B, C, D, and E below.
A) Why would a champs only format happen? The SEC is never going to be for it because they are virtually guaranteed to always send one team as is, and they want to ability to send a second. The B1G will probably always be against it because they are also probably guaranteed to virtually always send at least one team, and they would probably want to ability to send a second. Additionally, they would oppose it to keep ND from joining the ACC in full. ND will always use their control of the Indy vote to oppose it so they can have a stronger bargaining position w/ the ACC.
B) SU played 2 more driveable basketball games this year than it will in future years. Adding distant schools and screwing w/ schedules adds to costs - especially when it's coupled w/ having to play nobody schools in the middle of nowhere.
C) Plus there's the issue of convincing ND to stop playing almost every ACC rival that they have to play 3 schools that they don't care about: UL, Baylor, and TCU. The irony of telling ND that they can only play BC in conference once every 6 years, but they have to play TCU every year is a little much.
D) I honestly think that the ACC would be better off w/ Texas as a partial and no extra baggage than having Texas + 2 baggage schools. So why would the ACC push Texas to join? Having Texas as a partial means that every ACC school would get to play Texas on a regular basis (vs 2/3rd of the conference), and it would mean that the ACC would lose 4 football games, but it wouldn't have to shell out ~$60 million for TCU and Baylor. There's no way that TCU + Baylor + 4 Texas fb games is worth $60 million.
E) Good luck convincing Texas that they'd rather play that setup than 5 ACC fb games + OU + 5 Texas games (possibly including TAMU) + 1 big OOC game in FB.

2) The SEC isn't going to 18. "Hey Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida, why play Alabama, Aurburn, and LSU when you can play WVU and Kansas" line wouldn't go over so well. If the SEC took OU and OSU, then KU, WVU, and probably MIZZOU would be on the table. All 3 of those schools are better fits for the B1G than UConn, Cincy, Temple, and any other school that you listed. And I have a hard time believing that the SEC would care if they lost MIZZOU. MIZZOU has turned into a mess since joining the SEC, and WVU is a better fit for the SEC east anyway.

And good luck convincing Michigan, PSU, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State that UConn football belongs in the B1G. I personally think that adding a 15 year old football program (at the FBS level) that plays on a toxic waste dump that's 20-30 minutes from campus to the conference that pushes its history the harder than any other FBS conference would be hilarious, but it won't happen - ever. So no, UConn doesn't fit in the B1G at all.

3) No. Your math is wrong. If 6 Big XII schools left the conference, the TV contract would be renegotiated downward. Assuming that the 4 remaining schools are worth $15 million each, and 4 additional schools were added worth $4 million each, the total 8 school conference TV payout would be $76 million. If FOX moved 4 Big XII schools to the Pac and kept the conference's media payout at a steady $25 million (which they would have to do to make the move happen), they would pay an incremental $100 million. Therefore, your solution would be $24 million more expensive, and FOX would arguably get worse content. Why would they do that?

4) See parts A, B, and C below.
A) AAU has next to nothing to do w/ academics, multiple B1G schools voted to kick Nebraska out, and all knew that Nebraska would be kicked out when Nebraska was added.
B) Given that the ACC has a history of being a markedly better academic conference, I doubt that the B1G is snobbier. It's possible, but it would be like saying that the SEC is snobbier than the B1G. It may be true, but it's unlikely.
C) What do you expect the B1G to say? "We don't even begin to care about academics and we'll invite anybody." I don't trust self-serving statements. It would be one thing if the statement went against their own interest. Then the only plausible motivation would be to tell the truth. But self-serving statements are puffery. (See the reasoning behind Rule 804(b)(3)(A) - Hearsay Exception - Statements Against Interest: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804)

1) See below:
A) It would give a clear cut path to the CFP, no more committees or computers. It would add value to the regular season & the extended conference championships. Why? More $$$. A champs only model was originally considered & would be easily done with a P4. $$$ has already been the overruling factor thus far.

B) 2 nobody schools? TCU just won the NIT & Baylor was a 3 seed in the tournament this year. Not to mention that their football teams has contended for CFP spots recently. While Baylor maybe in the middle of nowhere, TCU is in DFW area. The ACC is already going to a 20 game basketball schedule, so you may have to go to TCU instead of WF. Syracuse will still likely get Pitt & BC H&H. I'm not seeing the big deal here.

C) The divisions can be sit up differently, mine was just an example. Here's another: Texas/TCU/Baylor/UofL/Miami/WF, ND/Pitt/Syr/BC/VT/NCST, FSU/Clemson/NC/Duke/GT/Virginia.

D) The ACC would be better off financially with Texas in fully. If the ACC can get Texas without 2 tagalongs that would be ideal. Why have them though, for the same scheduling reasons you keep referring to for Syracuse. Without them Texas would always be traveling for away games. Their value would come from the ACCN & in their help in landing Texas. They also add 2 quality football teams as well.

E) Texas will need a conference for their Olympic sports. ESPN owns the LHN, good luck to them in convincing ESPN to let them go to FOX. I don't see Texas playing second fiddle to Alabama either. If the ACC were to land Texas, my preference would be with Houston & Cincinnati as the tagalongs.

2) Nice cherry picking of games there. Alabama/Tennessee, Auburn/Georgia & Florida/LSU could all be rivalry games. They would get Kansas once every six years.

If they could be convinced that Maryland & Rutgers football belonged in the B1G, I don't think UCONN would be that far off. We'll agree to disagree on Missouri & UCONN.

3) Actually in this scenario 7 teams would have left the B12 & all going to ESPN. You're right though that the PAC could stay at 12 but they wouldn't get the extra $ from an extended conference championship or the benefits of expanding their network footprint eastward. I could see how FOX & the PAC could go either way here. The only real expense here would be bumping Houston up & a slight bump for the other 15. (Using random numbers for an example: $25 million for Houston plus $30 million to give the other 15 a $2 million bump= $55 million. Compare that to paying a new version of the B12: 10 teams X $10 million each= $100 million minus the decrease for 3 schools 3X$13 million)= $39 million. So that's about $6 million more to revamp the B12. That's also without any gains they may get by having those 4 included in the PACN.)

4) See below:
A) Nebraska was still a member of the AAU when they joined. I don't make the B1G guidelines, I just predict that they will follow them. Name 1 university that the B1G has invited that isn't an AAU member.

B) Obviously it's just my opinion that the B1G is snobbier but it has merit when you compare the history of the 2 conferences. For the record, I didn't think that UofL had shot at the ACC either but here we are. Has anyone in the ACC ever made comparable comments to Gee's?

C) I expect the B1G to show class, dignity & respect for others. Did you read Gee comments about ND & the SEC? They set their own guidelines, I think they will follow them.

5) If it weren't for the $, which Clemson & FSU are focused on, I would be happier with Cincinnati & WV IF the ACC were to expand at all. I really don't want Louisville stuck in a western division with Texas schools.

This is such a Big East attitude. The lowest revenue conference is upset the football schools carry the revenue situation are too focused on money.

Big college sports is gonna be a Power 2 with 16-20 something teams in it and all the Big East type schools (and some unlucky schools) are gonna be out of the big sports game.

Put FSU & Clemson in that western division with us & the Texas schools then.

Seeing as I started this thread and it has diverted into CR squared, I'll put in my take. First off, Texas is not joining the ACC to be quasi-independent in football. That would mean that they are not kings of their conference. There is, however, one P5 conference out there that is having viewership problems and would be willing to compromise a tad. Enter the Pac-12. I absolutely believe a deal will be made that allows Texas to keep the Longhorn Network and there still be a Pac-12 Network. For political purposes, they will be joined by Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. This will get the Pac-12 into the Central Time Zone and into the minds of the Eastern viewer. The calculus has changed since 2011. Both the Pac-12 and Big 12 are in big doo-doo compared to the others. A merger of sorts would benefit the Texahoma 4 and the Pac 12.

This will result in the Big 12 being down to six members, the most valuable of which is Kansas. There will be a war between the B1G and SEC for them, and the B1G will win because Kansas will think about academics. They'll be joined by UConn (of course, but let's face it, they are the only school left the B1G would take at this point).

The SEC, who would have added WVU if they got Kansas decides that no combo is worth it (WVU is in a small state, and there are no more state flagships close enough and relevant enough) so they stick with 14.

The Big 12 is down to five schools: Iowa State, Kansas State, TCU, Baylor, and West Virginia. They add seven to get back to 12 teams: BYU, Boise State, Houston, UCF, USF, Cincy, and Air Force.

The Mountain West (down to 10) picks up SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and Memphis.

East Carolina, Temple, and Navy go independent. The American evaporates.

(04-02-2017 06:46 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  So 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 for the ACC should be:

15) Notre Dame
16) Penn State
17) West Virginia
18) Connecticut
19) Maryland
20) South Carolina

21. Dallas Cowboys
22. John Madden All-stars

(04-02-2017 08:58 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 06:46 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  So 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 for the ACC should be:

15) Notre Dame
16) Penn State
17) West Virginia
18) Connecticut
19) Maryland
20) South Carolina

21. Dallas Cowboys
22. John Madden All-stars

I don't think anyone leaves the Big 10 so scratch Penn State and Maryland off. I don't think South Carolina will ever leave the SEC, so scratch them off. Notre Dame will not be joining the conference for football in my lifetime, and I'm 54 years old. So that leaves us with West Virginia and Connecticut if we go to 16 teams.

(04-02-2017 11:09 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 08:58 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(04-02-2017 06:46 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  So 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 for the ACC should be:

15) Notre Dame
16) Penn State
17) West Virginia
18) Connecticut
19) Maryland
20) South Carolina

21. Dallas Cowboys
22. John Madden All-stars

I don't think anyone leaves the Big 10 so scratch Penn State and Maryland off. I don't think South Carolina will ever leave the SEC, so scratch them off. Notre Dame will not be joining the conference for football in my lifetime, and I'm 54 years old. So that leaves us with West Virginia and Connecticut if we go to 16 teams.

That's the pair (West Virginia and UConn) I would have removed first.

(04-02-2017 04:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  I would look for Texas to opt for a scenario that allowed the 'Horns to keep relationships with: Texas Tech, Baylor, SMU, TCU, and Rice, even if that means a partial conference membership (like Notre Dame).

In a perfect world for Texas (as described to me by my Big 12 guy), they would want to join the ACC as full members with… wait for it… Notre Dame.
-- frankthetank.me

only notre dame's intransigence can upset the apple cart ...

THAT'S WHAT FRIENDS ARE FOR

(04-02-2017 08:26 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  There is, however, one P5 conference out there that is having viewership problems and would be willing to compromise a tad. Enter the Pac-12. I absolutely believe a deal will be made that allows Texas to keep the Longhorn Network and there still be a Pac-12 Network. For political purposes, they will be joined by Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State.

if you go east instead of west you're flying with the clock instead of against the clock ...
it's better to fly with the clock for kids ...
so if we ever do anything ...
we'll go east.
-- deloss dodds

FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES

(04-01-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 02:30 PM)green Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  Ultimately, isn't the cleanest, most simple solution to add both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC West (along with moving Mizzou out of the East) and shift Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East?

At that point, from the point of view of ESPN, they don't really need to do anything with the ACC (whose scheduling situation is already complicated enough), and they don't really need to do anything with - or for - the remaining Big XII schools. They can simply stay at 8 or replace Tex-homa with 2 decent football programs, with an understanding that ESPN won't try to undermine their NY6 bowl tie-in or power conference status regardless what they choose to do.

With this move, I'm not at all sure the B1G would feel a need to respond in kind, simply because there isn't a valuable "in kind" for them to pursue.

Peace in our time.

the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.
-- frankthetank.me

did you bother to ask the parties involved ...
texas wants its network ...
sec won't accede ...
deal breaker from the jump ...
look ...
this is mental masturbation ...
longtime longhorn athletic director went on record ...
should the big12 break up ...
howdy ACC ...

ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING

Frank is citing a deal offered the ACC in 2011.

I don’t position this blog as a newsbreaking site, but I have heard from a knowledgeable person with extensive contacts with current and former Big 12 members (i.e. knew specific details about Nebraska heading to the Big Ten and Texas A&M to the SEC beforehand that couldn’t have been simply guessed from the news) that basically had this to say: Oklahoma isn’t happy with the Big 12 and wants to get out.
-- Posted: July 29, 2015

texas to ACC got your goat ...

LOST TRACK OF TIME

(03-31-2017 05:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But keep in mind the circumstances back then when ND was given their partial membership deal were hardly the conditions that exist now. The ACC was in a very precarious position back then and was perceived as the P5 conference most likely to implode - until the ND deal solidified the league.


Cheers,
Neil

louisville's inclusion which blunted big12 aspiration of eastward expansion ...
an onerous grant of rights including signatories from thought-to-be holdouts fsu & clemson ...
and a network to call our very own went a long way towards stabilizing the league ...

ALL'S QUIET ON THE EASTERN FRONT