Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
ken d Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,794
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 346
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #121
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(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).

What I believe makes the most sense for the SEC is to offer spots to both Texas and Oklahoma with no special network deals. If Texas balks, as many here believe they will for a number of reasons, then offer their spot to Kansas instead.

Move Missouri to the western division, and Alabama & Auburn to the east. Now both divisions are strong in both football and basketball, and Texas is stranded in the Big XII (now the Big 8) as king of the (mole)hill.

The SEC's divisions are geographically rational and relatively balanced competitively.

WEST:
Mississippi St
Ole Miss
LSU
Arkansas
Texas A&M
Oklahoma
Kansas
Missouri

EAST:
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Auburn

ESPN is happy as a clam. Worst case for them vis a vis Texas is that the Big XII stays at 8, giving Texas one more OOC game for the LHN. The remaining Big XII members eventually have a smaller pie to share but they only have to split it 8 ways.
04-03-2017 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 20,092
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1828
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #122
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(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.

I think that if the BIG ever contemplates adding UCONN that we should enthusiastically encourage them to do so for the same reason that we do not want them......it would be detrimental to football. It helps us of the BIG weakens their football product.

Quote:I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
This might possibly be the two worst things the ACC could do to itself.
04-03-2017 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lou_C Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,250
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Florida State
Location:
Post: #123
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-03-2017 10:44 AM)Kaplony 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.

I think that if the BIG ever contemplates adding UCONN that we should enthusiastically encourage them to do so for the same reason that we do not want them......it would be detrimental to football. It helps us of the BIG weakens their football product.

Quote:I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
This might possibly be the two worst things the ACC could do to itself.

Agreed.
04-03-2017 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,716
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #124
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-03-2017 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  What I believe makes the most sense for the SEC is to offer spots to both Texas and Oklahoma with no special network deals. If Texas balks, as many here believe they will for a number of reasons, then offer their spot to Kansas instead.

By now, you know how it works: it’s all a “done deal” until it isn’t.

At the height of the conference realignment drama, all signs pointed to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State leaving — or, at the very least, wanting to leave — for the Pac-12, but in the 11th hour, the Pac-12 decided not to expand any further.
-- cft

timing's everything ...
expect a desperate pac to rekindle the bromance ...

LOVE TRIANGLE
(This post was last modified: 04-03-2017 11:46 AM by green.)
04-03-2017 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,716
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #125
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-03-2017 10:41 AM)ken d Wrote:  ESPN is happy as a clam. Worst case for them vis a vis Texas is that the Big XII stays at 8, giving Texas one more OOC game for the LHN. The remaining Big XII members eventually have a smaller pie to share but they only have to split it 8 ways.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
"'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more."
-- Edgar Allan Poe

NEVERMORE
04-03-2017 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,347
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 503
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #126
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-03-2017 09:29 AM)green Wrote:  
(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


As with eggs and baskets.......

DON'T PUT ALL YOUR APPLES IN ONE CART
04-03-2017 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #127
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  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.

1) See below.
A) All the controversy adds value in and of itself, but that point aside, the prospect of adding a second school adds more value than any increase in the regular season. I don't think that counting on either the SEC or the B1G to vote for a conf champ-only requirement is realistic. They haven't in the past.
B) The fact that winning the NIT is a highlight for TCU basketball speaks volumes. Also, neither school has ever had sustained success in football. Both have/had really great coaches which over-performed. But even then, Baylor was cheating like crazy and is about to get sanctioned into the Stone Age. Plus Baylor went from 1991-2 until 2010-11 without winning a bowl game, and TCU is ~4 years removed from the MWC. Keep that in mind. Also Dallas might as well be Los Angeles, which might as well be the Twin Cities for half the conference. It's the middle of nowhere. And I think you missed my point about the 20 game schedule.
C) Now you're breaking up the NC 4. There are a lot of ways to divide divisions, but there aren't any ways that I see which are cleaner than the current setup. That's because you're trying to add 2 schools that aren't interesting to any existing ACC schools.
D) You're ignoring the possibility of Texas as a partial. And Texas can definitely swing the travel pains. Schools have done it for decades. Except that Texas would A) have access to the best olympic sports conference in the country and B) the most favorable football schedule in the country. Additionally, TCU and Baylor are flavor of the week football programs that have never had sustained success, and Baylor might be finished - especially if they get sanctioned into the stone age.
E) I don't see Texas in the SEC, either. The same goes for B1G. They'd be trading being second fiddle to Alabama to being second fiddle to Ohio State/Michigan. But those limitations strengthen the ACC's hand. We can argue about the LHN and their relationship w/ ESPN, but if you're right, then that factor also strengthen's the ACC's hand. So, assuming that you don't think that Baylor + TCU + 4 Texas football games are worth ~$60 million (or more), then I think keeping Texas as indy is a better move for the conference. As I mentioned earlier, it also lets half the conference see (and recruit) Texas way more often.

2) See below.
A) It wasn't cherry picking. Those are the schools that call the shots. I guess I could have also included TAMU, Arky, and S. Carolina, but that only helps my points. Additionally, those games are protected under the *current* setup. Who knows what would happen w/ expansion. And lastly, you mentioned 3 games. I listed 9 (UT-Bama, UT-LSU, UT-Auburn, UF-Bama, UF-LSU, UF-Auburn, UGA-Bama, UGA-LSU, and UGA-Auburn), but I could have easily more than doubled that list by adding TAMU, USC (east), and Arkansas.

B) You're seeing UMD and RU when I think that you should be seeing Penn State.

3) I don't follow your math, but I will categorically say that the Pac isn't going to add any schools that dilute their TV deal, and TV networks won't willingly pay more incremental money for schools that aren't worth it. Therefore, teams that aren't worth at least the Pac average won't be added. The teams that you listed aren't worth the Pac average, and I think that they're too far away to capture the interest of Pac fans. It is cheaper to trigger the renegotiation clause in the existing Big XII contract and negotiate FMV than it is to pay Pac rates.

You make a solid point about the possibility of semi-final games having value, but I doubt those games would be worth more than a couple million. I'm also not completely sold that some of the upper level MWC schools wouldn't be a better long term add for the Pac, but that's a whole different can of worms.

4) See below.
A) Notre Dame in '99. The AAU thing is correlation. There aren't really any midwestern universities that have formidable athletic departments that aren't AAU. In fact, the vast majority of B1G schools were in the B1G before the AAU was formed.

B) I'll respect your opinion, and I can't prove otherwise. We might just have to agree to disagree on this point.

C) Good luck getting that from the B1G. Ask any old Notre Dame fan as to their opinion on Michigan. And, honestly, look through a number of Gee's comments while he was president of OSU.

5) That's exactly why I think that adding them would be a bad idea. Money ultimately comes from fan interest. I just don't see ACC fans caring about TCU and Baylor. You don't. I don't. Who does?
04-04-2017 10:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,053
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #128
Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-04-2017 10:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  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.

1) See below.
A) All the controversy adds value in and of itself, but that point aside, the prospect of adding a second school adds more value than any increase in the regular season. I don't think that counting on either the SEC or the B1G to vote for a conf champ-only requirement is realistic. They haven't in the past.
B) The fact that winning the NIT is a highlight for TCU basketball speaks volumes. Also, neither school has ever had sustained success in football. Both have/had really great coaches which over-performed. But even then, Baylor was cheating like crazy and is about to get sanctioned into the Stone Age. Plus Baylor went from 1991-2 until 2010-11 without winning a bowl game, and TCU is ~4 years removed from the MWC. Keep that in mind. Also Dallas might as well be Los Angeles, which might as well be the Twin Cities for half the conference. It's the middle of nowhere. And I think you missed my point about the 20 game schedule.
C) Now you're breaking up the NC 4. There are a lot of ways to divide divisions, but there aren't any ways that I see which are cleaner than the current setup. That's because you're trying to add 2 schools that aren't interesting to any existing ACC schools.
D) You're ignoring the possibility of Texas as a partial. And Texas can definitely swing the travel pains. Schools have done it for decades. Except that Texas would A) have access to the best olympic sports conference in the country and B) the most favorable football schedule in the country. Additionally, TCU and Baylor are flavor of the week football programs that have never had sustained success, and Baylor might be finished - especially if they get sanctioned into the stone age.
E) I don't see Texas in the SEC, either. The same goes for B1G. They'd be trading being second fiddle to Alabama to being second fiddle to Ohio State/Michigan. But those limitations strengthen the ACC's hand. We can argue about the LHN and their relationship w/ ESPN, but if you're right, then that factor also strengthen's the ACC's hand. So, assuming that you don't think that Baylor + TCU + 4 Texas football games are worth ~$60 million (or more), then I think keeping Texas as indy is a better move for the conference. As I mentioned earlier, it also lets half the conference see (and recruit) Texas way more often.

2) See below.
A) It wasn't cherry picking. Those are the schools that call the shots. I guess I could have also included TAMU, Arky, and S. Carolina, but that only helps my points. Additionally, those games are protected under the *current* setup. Who knows what would happen w/ expansion. And lastly, you mentioned 3 games. I listed 9 (UT-Bama, UT-LSU, UT-Auburn, UF-Bama, UF-LSU, UF-Auburn, UGA-Bama, UGA-LSU, and UGA-Auburn), but I could have easily more than doubled that list by adding TAMU, USC (east), and Arkansas.

B) You're seeing UMD and RU when I think that you should be seeing Penn State.

3) I don't follow your math, but I will categorically say that the Pac isn't going to add any schools that dilute their TV deal, and TV networks won't willingly pay more incremental money for schools that aren't worth it. Therefore, teams that aren't worth at least the Pac average won't be added. The teams that you listed aren't worth the Pac average, and I think that they're too far away to capture the interest of Pac fans. It is cheaper to trigger the renegotiation clause in the existing Big XII contract and negotiate FMV than it is to pay Pac rates.

You make a solid point about the possibility of semi-final games having value, but I doubt those games would be worth more than a couple million. I'm also not completely sold that some of the upper level MWC schools wouldn't be a better long term add for the Pac, but that's a whole different can of worms.

4) See below.
A) Notre Dame in '99. The AAU thing is correlation. There aren't really any midwestern universities that have formidable athletic departments that aren't AAU. In fact, the vast majority of B1G schools were in the B1G before the AAU was formed.

B) I'll respect your opinion, and I can't prove otherwise. We might just have to agree to disagree on this point.

C) Good luck getting that from the B1G. Ask any old Notre Dame fan as to their opinion on Michigan. And, honestly, look through a number of Gee's comments while he was president of OSU.

5) That's exactly why I think that adding them would be a bad idea. Money ultimately comes from fan interest. I just don't see ACC fans caring about TCU and Baylor. You don't. I don't. Who does?

The B1G & PAC originally supported a champs only model.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...a.amp.html

The next stance Delany will likely take is asking that only conference champions be eligible for the four-team playoff. This is a direct move against the SEC and Mike Slive, who was been in position to have two teams in a four-team playoff numerous times in the past few seasons.

Slive is understandably on the opposite side of the debate, coming out publicly in favor of taking the top four ranked teams, regardless of conference affiliation. If three SEC, Big 12 or even Big Ten teams are ranked in the top four, then those teams make the playoff.

However, in the current era of six straight BCS championships by the SEC, the top four teams will likely include no more than one team from any conference other than the SEC.

With the sting of an all-SEC championship game fresh in the minds of Delany and others, there is no way the Big Ten university presidents send Delany to the June meetings with instructions to back down on this decision.

And given that college football cannot do something so simple as pick the top four teams for a playoff (that would make too much sense), Delany will likely continue to propose only conference champions make the playoff. He will certainly have the support of the less successful and smaller conferences that struggle every year to rank a champion in front of the second-best SEC team.

With the five old non-automatic-qualifying conferences, the Pac-12 and the Big East on the side of Delany, he will have a lot of pull against Slive and whoever else wants the top four teams in the playoff.


What this will set up is a chance for compromise, and the answer has already been floated publicly by Delany to gain public approval. That idea is to only allow conference champions into the four-team playoff, but only if those conference champions rank in the top six overall.
04-05-2017 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gitanole Offline
Bartender
*

Posts: 367
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 63
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Beach Bohemia
Post: #129
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
Another rumour? Ugh. Make it stop.

The ACC has every reason to stand pat where it is. Small wonder, then, that this is exactly what we see the ACC doing.

Stability. It's a beautiful thing.

04-cheers

Two events could shift the status quo: Notre Dame going all in, or the Big 12 unraveling. The first we will never see coming until it's announced, if ever. The second we'll know more about in a few years, after the ACC conference network is up.

What if Notre Dame goes all in? The ACC will naturally want to add one more member. The commissioner will phone Penn State first and Texas second, but the bid is more likely to go to Connecticut or Cincinnati.

What if the Big 12 unravels? Much depends on Texas and Oklahoma, as we know. And the key there is how important it is to each school to take company. How much do they want to stay together? To keep any other current conference mates?

If having company is a priority, the most likely destination for both is the PAC. That is the only conference with four spaces to offer. The Big Ten or SEC could compete here if either is willing to expand to 18. Whatever Texas and Oklahoma decide, Oklahoma State would get a bid along with one other school.

The exit of four B12 schools would leave six B12 schools looking for new homes. Two of these schools would go, depending on where the first four went, to the B1G or SEC. The schools would talk to the ACC but geography and economics favour those two conferences.

Once six schools from the B12 have homes in two other conferences it is unlikely that the ACC takes anybody. A discussion would re-open of taking West Virginia but the odds are less than 50% that the Mountaineers would get a bid.

That's my read. We'll see what happens.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2017 04:22 PM by Gitanole.)
04-05-2017 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,716
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #130
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-05-2017 04:17 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  What if Notre Dame goes all in? The ACC will naturally want to add one more member. The commissioner will phone Penn State second and Texas first FIFY

[Image: wonka-strike-that.gif]

what makes you so sure ...
15 is a nice round number ...

STRIKE THAT REVERSE IT
04-06-2017 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,053
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #131
Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 10:26 AM)green Wrote:  
(04-05-2017 04:17 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  What if Notre Dame goes all in? The ACC will naturally want to add one more member. The commissioner will phone Penn State second and Texas first FIFY

[Image: wonka-strike-that.gif]

what makes you so sure ...
15 is a nice round number ...

STRIKE THAT REVERSE IT

15 is my favorite scenario. A 3x5 would work well. Oklahoma to the SEC & Kansas to the B1G to put them at 15. PAC? They could bring in Texas with 2-5 friends. Bringing in 6 would allow them to create an eastern division & leave the other two alone.

#Worksforme
(This post was last modified: 04-06-2017 10:38 AM by Lenvillecards.)
04-06-2017 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
green Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,716
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Miami
Location:
Post: #132
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 10:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  15 is my favorite scenario.

UNTIL SOMETHING BETTER COMES ALONG
04-06-2017 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #133
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-05-2017 12:50 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  
(04-04-2017 10:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-02-2017 01:17 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  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.

1) See below.
A) All the controversy adds value in and of itself, but that point aside, the prospect of adding a second school adds more value than any increase in the regular season. I don't think that counting on either the SEC or the B1G to vote for a conf champ-only requirement is realistic. They haven't in the past.
B) The fact that winning the NIT is a highlight for TCU basketball speaks volumes. Also, neither school has ever had sustained success in football. Both have/had really great coaches which over-performed. But even then, Baylor was cheating like crazy and is about to get sanctioned into the Stone Age. Plus Baylor went from 1991-2 until 2010-11 without winning a bowl game, and TCU is ~4 years removed from the MWC. Keep that in mind. Also Dallas might as well be Los Angeles, which might as well be the Twin Cities for half the conference. It's the middle of nowhere. And I think you missed my point about the 20 game schedule.
C) Now you're breaking up the NC 4. There are a lot of ways to divide divisions, but there aren't any ways that I see which are cleaner than the current setup. That's because you're trying to add 2 schools that aren't interesting to any existing ACC schools.
D) You're ignoring the possibility of Texas as a partial. And Texas can definitely swing the travel pains. Schools have done it for decades. Except that Texas would A) have access to the best olympic sports conference in the country and B) the most favorable football schedule in the country. Additionally, TCU and Baylor are flavor of the week football programs that have never had sustained success, and Baylor might be finished - especially if they get sanctioned into the stone age.
E) I don't see Texas in the SEC, either. The same goes for B1G. They'd be trading being second fiddle to Alabama to being second fiddle to Ohio State/Michigan. But those limitations strengthen the ACC's hand. We can argue about the LHN and their relationship w/ ESPN, but if you're right, then that factor also strengthen's the ACC's hand. So, assuming that you don't think that Baylor + TCU + 4 Texas football games are worth ~$60 million (or more), then I think keeping Texas as indy is a better move for the conference. As I mentioned earlier, it also lets half the conference see (and recruit) Texas way more often.

2) See below.
A) It wasn't cherry picking. Those are the schools that call the shots. I guess I could have also included TAMU, Arky, and S. Carolina, but that only helps my points. Additionally, those games are protected under the *current* setup. Who knows what would happen w/ expansion. And lastly, you mentioned 3 games. I listed 9 (UT-Bama, UT-LSU, UT-Auburn, UF-Bama, UF-LSU, UF-Auburn, UGA-Bama, UGA-LSU, and UGA-Auburn), but I could have easily more than doubled that list by adding TAMU, USC (east), and Arkansas.

B) You're seeing UMD and RU when I think that you should be seeing Penn State.

3) I don't follow your math, but I will categorically say that the Pac isn't going to add any schools that dilute their TV deal, and TV networks won't willingly pay more incremental money for schools that aren't worth it. Therefore, teams that aren't worth at least the Pac average won't be added. The teams that you listed aren't worth the Pac average, and I think that they're too far away to capture the interest of Pac fans. It is cheaper to trigger the renegotiation clause in the existing Big XII contract and negotiate FMV than it is to pay Pac rates.

You make a solid point about the possibility of semi-final games having value, but I doubt those games would be worth more than a couple million. I'm also not completely sold that some of the upper level MWC schools wouldn't be a better long term add for the Pac, but that's a whole different can of worms.

4) See below.
A) Notre Dame in '99. The AAU thing is correlation. There aren't really any midwestern universities that have formidable athletic departments that aren't AAU. In fact, the vast majority of B1G schools were in the B1G before the AAU was formed.

B) I'll respect your opinion, and I can't prove otherwise. We might just have to agree to disagree on this point.

C) Good luck getting that from the B1G. Ask any old Notre Dame fan as to their opinion on Michigan. And, honestly, look through a number of Gee's comments while he was president of OSU.

5) That's exactly why I think that adding them would be a bad idea. Money ultimately comes from fan interest. I just don't see ACC fans caring about TCU and Baylor. You don't. I don't. Who does?

The B1G & PAC originally supported a champs only model.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication...a.amp.html

The next stance Delany will likely take is asking that only conference champions be eligible for the four-team playoff. This is a direct move against the SEC and Mike Slive, who was been in position to have two teams in a four-team playoff numerous times in the past few seasons.

Slive is understandably on the opposite side of the debate, coming out publicly in favor of taking the top four ranked teams, regardless of conference affiliation. If three SEC, Big 12 or even Big Ten teams are ranked in the top four, then those teams make the playoff.

However, in the current era of six straight BCS championships by the SEC, the top four teams will likely include no more than one team from any conference other than the SEC.

With the sting of an all-SEC championship game fresh in the minds of Delany and others, there is no way the Big Ten university presidents send Delany to the June meetings with instructions to back down on this decision.

And given that college football cannot do something so simple as pick the top four teams for a playoff (that would make too much sense), Delany will likely continue to propose only conference champions make the playoff. He will certainly have the support of the less successful and smaller conferences that struggle every year to rank a champion in front of the second-best SEC team.

With the five old non-automatic-qualifying conferences, the Pac-12 and the Big East on the side of Delany, he will have a lot of pull against Slive and whoever else wants the top four teams in the playoff.


What this will set up is a chance for compromise, and the answer has already been floated publicly by Delany to gain public approval. That idea is to only allow conference champions into the four-team playoff, but only if those conference champions rank in the top six overall.

Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

I think a lot has changed in the Midwest since the original setup was negotiated.
04-06-2017 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 20,092
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1828
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #134
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

IMO at this point Delany doesn't know whether to wind his butt or scratch his watch in regards to the playoff. The first year looked good with Ohio State winning the title but the past two years he's had both his champion (Michigan State '15) and "best team" (Ohio State '16) beat like a red headed step child. This past season would have been bad for them no matter what way the went. While Penn State probably wouldn't have got shut out against Clemson their defensive scheme would have given up a whole lot more than Ohio State did.
04-06-2017 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #135
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 08:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

IMO at this point Delany doesn't know whether to wind his butt or scratch his watch in regards to the playoff. The first year looked good with Ohio State winning the title but the past two years he's had both his champion (Michigan State '15) and "best team" (Ohio State '16) beat like a red headed step child. This past season would have been bad for them no matter what way the went. While Penn State probably wouldn't have got shut out against Clemson their defensive scheme would have given up a whole lot more than Ohio State did.

How the teams perform in the FF wouldn't change. The bigger question is the consistency that they'd get there. The B1G has yet to miss a playoff and was a game away from sending 2 teams this year - w/ a 3rd waiting in the wings.

Who knows if James Franklin will continue to perform at PSU. But I have a hard time seeing Urban Meyer's OSU dropping off, and the same goes for Harbaugh's Michigan teams. And if they all did, I think that there's a very good chance that at least one of Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Michigan State will be waiting to carry the conference's banner (most likely Wisconsin and MSU).
04-06-2017 09:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable
*

Posts: 20,092
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 1828
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #136
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 09:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 08:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

IMO at this point Delany doesn't know whether to wind his butt or scratch his watch in regards to the playoff. The first year looked good with Ohio State winning the title but the past two years he's had both his champion (Michigan State '15) and "best team" (Ohio State '16) beat like a red headed step child. This past season would have been bad for them no matter what way the went. While Penn State probably wouldn't have got shut out against Clemson their defensive scheme would have given up a whole lot more than Ohio State did.

How the teams perform in the FF wouldn't change. The bigger question is the consistency that they'd get there. The B1G has yet to miss a playoff and was a game away from sending 2 teams this year - w/ a 3rd waiting in the wings.

Who knows if James Franklin will continue to perform at PSU. But I have a hard time seeing Urban Meyer's OSU dropping off, and the same goes for Harbaugh's Michigan teams. And if they all did, I think that there's a very good chance that at least one of Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Michigan State will be waiting to carry the conference's banner (most likely Wisconsin and MSU).

The more they get exposed the better chance they'll get left out. The only team out of the three that has proven anything and deserves concern is Ohio State and they go into the upcoming season toting a 31 point beatdown.
04-06-2017 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,053
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 328
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #137
Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 11:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 09:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 08:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

IMO at this point Delany doesn't know whether to wind his butt or scratch his watch in regards to the playoff. The first year looked good with Ohio State winning the title but the past two years he's had both his champion (Michigan State '15) and "best team" (Ohio State '16) beat like a red headed step child. This past season would have been bad for them no matter what way the went. While Penn State probably wouldn't have got shut out against Clemson their defensive scheme would have given up a whole lot more than Ohio State did.

How the teams perform in the FF wouldn't change. The bigger question is the consistency that they'd get there. The B1G has yet to miss a playoff and was a game away from sending 2 teams this year - w/ a 3rd waiting in the wings.

Who knows if James Franklin will continue to perform at PSU. But I have a hard time seeing Urban Meyer's OSU dropping off, and the same goes for Harbaugh's Michigan teams. And if they all did, I think that there's a very good chance that at least one of Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Michigan State will be waiting to carry the conference's banner (most likely Wisconsin and MSU).

The more they get exposed the better chance they'll get left out. The only team out of the three that has proven anything and deserves concern is Ohio State and they go into the upcoming season toting a 31 point beatdown.

I would think that Delaney is thinking that the SEC would be in that position more often than the B1G & that he still would want to prevent that. The B1G has been on the verge of being left out & getting two in, why not play it safe? What are the odds of a B1G champ not being ranked in the top 6 or maybe 10? How about a P4 CFP where the champs automatically get a spot? You play your way in by winning your expanded conference championship. How much is the B12 supposed to get for their CC game? You could easily tack that on for each P4 conference for an extra round of CC games. How much would have a B1G final 4 of Ohio St, Penn State, Michigan & Wisconsin been worth this season? It's like expanding the CFP without actually expanding it. No committee or computers, you must win your conference.
(This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 10:26 AM by Lenvillecards.)
04-07-2017 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #138
RE: Rumor-UConn and Cincy to ACC in 2018?
(04-06-2017 11:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 09:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 08:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  
(04-06-2017 06:42 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Would you support a champs only model if you were the B1G commish after this year?

IMO at this point Delany doesn't know whether to wind his butt or scratch his watch in regards to the playoff. The first year looked good with Ohio State winning the title but the past two years he's had both his champion (Michigan State '15) and "best team" (Ohio State '16) beat like a red headed step child. This past season would have been bad for them no matter what way the went. While Penn State probably wouldn't have got shut out against Clemson their defensive scheme would have given up a whole lot more than Ohio State did.

How the teams perform in the FF wouldn't change. The bigger question is the consistency that they'd get there. The B1G has yet to miss a playoff and was a game away from sending 2 teams this year - w/ a 3rd waiting in the wings.

Who knows if James Franklin will continue to perform at PSU. But I have a hard time seeing Urban Meyer's OSU dropping off, and the same goes for Harbaugh's Michigan teams. And if they all did, I think that there's a very good chance that at least one of Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, or Michigan State will be waiting to carry the conference's banner (most likely Wisconsin and MSU).

The more they get exposed the better chance they'll get left out. The only team out of the three that has proven anything and deserves concern is Ohio State and they go into the upcoming season toting a 31 point beatdown.

I'd agree if I didn't think that money talked in the NCAA.
04-07-2017 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.