(07-10-2017 05:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Everything I've read says that there was a serious attempt by Kentucky politicians to get Louisville in the spot that ultimately went to West Virginia.

That means that probably at least half of the remaining eight teams (five Big 8 teams, and three SWC teams) thought that Louisville would've been a worthy add to pair with TCU.


So why didn't they just add both?!

One factor that was mentioned was that they needed 45 conference games per their TV contracts and you can't do a balanced schedule with 11 teams and a 9 game conference schedule. If you go to 8, then you only have 44 conference.

They just didn't have a 12th team they were happy with.

I know this is very valid ....... but seriously, why would it have mattered that much if the schedule wasn't exactly balanced??

(07-10-2017 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 08:44 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 07:56 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college...ve-forward

It would be interesting to see the list of schools that Bowlsby "could cry over" passing on.

Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Louisville & BYU?

I believe Pittsburgh & the B12 were in talks before A&M & Missouri left, would they still have left if Pitt & Syracuse were coming in? If so then still replace them with TCU & WV. Add Louisville & BYU for 14. Would ND find a B12 with those 14 schools more enticing? Cincinnati to the ACC to replace Maryland?

Its been written that the Big 12 was talking to Pitt and Pitt called up the ACC where they preferred to go and quickly got an offer.

You have it backwards. The conference, not the school, always initiates these types of discussions.

The ACC saw that the Big 12 and Pitt were talking seriously about a jointure and the ACC was fearful that they were getting close to an agreement, so it interceded.

Smart move.

Pitt did quickly accept the ACCs offer, but that's only because the ACC is a much more attractive destination on basically every level for a school located in the eastern United States.

(07-10-2017 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  All that said, Louisville has been a valuable addition to ACC sports and I don't think anyone can argue that the Big XII made a tactical error in not inviting the Cardinals - along with the Mountaineers - when they had the chance.

I respect what Louisville has accomplished athletically the past 10 years, greatly respect it.

But, I've reasoned it through on my own, and have read the numerous posts on the subject on this forum, and ... I still don't know how the Big 12's position in the power 5 firmament would be any different than what it is if they had Louisville as a member right now.

(07-11-2017 02:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  All that said, Louisville has been a valuable addition to ACC sports and I don't think anyone can argue that the Big XII made a tactical error in not inviting the Cardinals - along with the Mountaineers - when they had the chance.

I respect what Louisville has accomplished athletically the past 10 years, greatly respect it.

But, I've reasoned it through on my own, and have read the numerous posts on the subject on this forum, and ... I still don't know how the Big 12's position in the power 5 firmament would be any different than what it is if they had Louisville as a member right now.

Louisville alone or with West Virginia changes nothing for The Big 12.

However, if (and it's a BIG if) The Big 12 would have taken UofL off the board, and forced The ACC to take UCConn, would Clemson or Florida State agreed to sign a GOR? Or would have Clemson and Florida State listened more intently to the Big 12's proposals.

So it wasn't Louisville and The Big 12, it was Louisville being available for The ACC that may have changed everything.

No Louisville = No GOR, No GOR = No Network, No Network = Clemson and Florida State jumping to The Big 12 or UVA even GaTech jumping to The Big Ten.

Something to think about....
CJ

(07-11-2017 03:17 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 02:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  All that said, Louisville has been a valuable addition to ACC sports and I don't think anyone can argue that the Big XII made a tactical error in not inviting the Cardinals - along with the Mountaineers - when they had the chance.

I respect what Louisville has accomplished athletically the past 10 years, greatly respect it.

But, I've reasoned it through on my own, and have read the numerous posts on the subject on this forum, and ... I still don't know how the Big 12's position in the power 5 firmament would be any different than what it is if they had Louisville as a member right now.

Louisville alone or with West Virginia changes nothing for The Big 12.

However, if (and it's a BIG if) The Big 12 would have taken UofL off the board, and forced The ACC to take UCConn, would Clemson or Florida State agreed to sign a GOR? Or would have Clemson and Florida State listened more intently to the Big 12's proposals.

So it wasn't Louisville and The Big 12, it was Louisville being available for The ACC that may have changed everything.

No Louisville = No GOR, No GOR = No Network, No Network = Clemson and Florida State jumping to The Big 12 or UVA even GaTech jumping to The Big Ten.

Something to think about....
CJ

My personal opinion, the answer is NO

(07-10-2017 05:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 05:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 10:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Everything I've read says that there was a serious attempt by Kentucky politicians to get Louisville in the spot that ultimately went to West Virginia.

That means that probably at least half of the remaining eight teams (five Big 8 teams, and three SWC teams) thought that Louisville would've been a worthy add to pair with TCU.


So why didn't they just add both?!

One factor that was mentioned was that they needed 45 conference games per their TV contracts and you can't do a balanced schedule with 11 teams and a 9 game conference schedule. If you go to 8, then you only have 44 conference.

They just didn't have a 12th team they were happy with.

I know this is very valid ....... but seriously, why would it have mattered that much if the schedule wasn't exactly balanced??

Makes it harder to determine a champion if one team plays 8 and the rest play 9. Now you could have a designated conference game (for example Louisville-Kentucky could have been a designated Big 12 conference game for Louisville), but schools usually prefer to keep it simple.

(07-11-2017 03:19 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:17 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 02:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  All that said, Louisville has been a valuable addition to ACC sports and I don't think anyone can argue that the Big XII made a tactical error in not inviting the Cardinals - along with the Mountaineers - when they had the chance.

I respect what Louisville has accomplished athletically the past 10 years, greatly respect it.

But, I've reasoned it through on my own, and have read the numerous posts on the subject on this forum, and ... I still don't know how the Big 12's position in the power 5 firmament would be any different than what it is if they had Louisville as a member right now.

Louisville alone or with West Virginia changes nothing for The Big 12.

However, if (and it's a BIG if) The Big 12 would have taken UofL off the board, and forced The ACC to take UCConn, would Clemson or Florida State agreed to sign a GOR? Or would have Clemson and Florida State listened more intently to the Big 12's proposals.

So it wasn't Louisville and The Big 12, it was Louisville being available for The ACC that may have changed everything.

No Louisville = No GOR, No GOR = No Network, No Network = Clemson and Florida State jumping to The Big 12 or UVA even GaTech jumping to The Big Ten.

Something to think about....
CJ

My personal opinion, the answer is NO

Louisville had very little to do with the GOR. That was going to happen with or without Louisville. The football schools (the ones that make their budget off football - Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, NC State) would not have voted for UConn - it's that simple. BC was not going to vote for UConn.

Notre Dame was key to the GOR. MD's shenanigans nixed the deal to add Penn State.

The ACC would have operated at 13 for football and 14 for everything else.

The next two players would have been Cincy and Navy. While not nearly the addition of Louisville, Cincy is in a much better geographic location than UConn. You can recruit the tri-State of Ohio/KY/Indiana from Cincinatti. You just don't need both Louisville and Cincy. Adding Navy would have upped ND's commitment from 5 to 6 games a year. GT, VT, BC, and NC State would likely not have opposed Cincy or Navy.

But look at it this way, even if the ACC stayed at 13, that doesn't change the B12 internal problems

(07-11-2017 03:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Louisville had very little to do with the GOR. That was going to happen with or without Louisville. The football schools (the ones that make their budget off football - Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, NC State) would not have voted for UConn - it's that simple. BC was not going to vote for UConn.

Notre Dame was key to the GOR. MD's shenanigans nixed the deal to add Penn State.

The ACC would have operated at 13 for football and 14 for everything else.

The next two players would have been Cincy and Navy. While not nearly the addition of Louisville, Cincy is in a much better geographic location than UConn. You can recruit the tri-State of Ohio/KY/Indiana from Cincinatti. You just don't need both Louisville and Cincy. Adding Navy would have upped ND's commitment from 5 to 6 games a year. GT, VT, BC, and NC State would likely not have opposed Cincy or Navy.

But look at it this way, even if the ACC stayed at 13, that doesn't change the B12 internal problems

Penn State leaving the Big Ten for the ACC was ever on the table?

BYU shot themselves in the foot in 2011 with their TV demands, they would have been a slam dunk then. Now in a PC dominated era BYU is a pariah and the B12 will not touch them with a 10 foot pole.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I've always believed UofL knew they were going to get an ACC invite even when the Big12 stuff was going on in regards to UofL and WVU. I don't think UofL really ever even entertained the though of the Big 12. Now i know media reports and all kind of BS was said back then. However, most likely some powerful people at and connected to UofL and the ACC were in talks even back then. I think those conversations and secrecy of them are why UofL is in the ACC....whether people believe that or not the fact remains UofL is in the ACC so that alone could lead some credence that perhaps they knew all along where there home would ultimately be. Who knows? I'm of the belief anything reported in regards to past and future conference realignment can be taken with a box of salt. When stuff goes down it usually leaked right before stuff goes down ha-ha. Almost all the news leading up to whatever has been wrong.

It might be hard to believe but most of this stuff really is held close to the vest by those that are really in the know because those in the know are playing a part in what happens, as it should be. Internet blogs and sports writers for the most part really don't know what's going on until its leaked right before stuff happens. I've looked at some of these peoples track record going back to as far as the Texas A&M move up until now and its laughable...of course for the most part people have very short memories and these people know that so they act as if their credibility is stellar and remains in tact, even though the track record say's otherwise.

(07-11-2017 05:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Louisville had very little to do with the GOR. That was going to happen with or without Louisville. The football schools (the ones that make their budget off football - Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, NC State) would not have voted for UConn - it's that simple. BC was not going to vote for UConn.

Notre Dame was key to the GOR. MD's shenanigans nixed the deal to add Penn State.

The ACC would have operated at 13 for football and 14 for everything else.

The next two players would have been Cincy and Navy. While not nearly the addition of Louisville, Cincy is in a much better geographic location than UConn. You can recruit the tri-State of Ohio/KY/Indiana from Cincinatti. You just don't need both Louisville and Cincy. Adding Navy would have upped ND's commitment from 5 to 6 games a year. GT, VT, BC, and NC State would likely not have opposed Cincy or Navy.

But look at it this way, even if the ACC stayed at 13, that doesn't change the B12 internal problems

Penn State leaving the Big Ten for the ACC was ever on the table?

If the revenue of the ACC network explode the ACC is even ground With Big 10, my opinion of course.

(07-11-2017 05:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Louisville had very little to do with the GOR. That was going to happen with or without Louisville. The football schools (the ones that make their budget off football - Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, NC State) would not have voted for UConn - it's that simple. BC was not going to vote for UConn.

Notre Dame was key to the GOR. MD's shenanigans nixed the deal to add Penn State.

The ACC would have operated at 13 for football and 14 for everything else.

The next two players would have been Cincy and Navy. While not nearly the addition of Louisville, Cincy is in a much better geographic location than UConn. You can recruit the tri-State of Ohio/KY/Indiana from Cincinatti. You just don't need both Louisville and Cincy. Adding Navy would have upped ND's commitment from 5 to 6 games a year. GT, VT, BC, and NC State would likely not have opposed Cincy or Navy.

But look at it this way, even if the ACC stayed at 13, that doesn't change the B12 internal problems

Penn State leaving the Big Ten for the ACC was ever on the table?

Yeah, but that's history now. PSU was not really happy in the B10 for a while - nothing new. Barry Alvarez addressed this subject a number of years ago.

Push factors are what make for P-5 moves to other P-5's - it's not really the "extra" money. PSU is not a mid-western school. Adding MD and Rutgers and a more eastern turn for the B10 was enough to placate PSU's feeling of isolation. MD's system president wanted to take MD to the B10 for a number of years, in part to get away from Duke and UNC, and he could bamboozle his board over the COI but his issue was about taking over U Maryland - the graduate schools that were cut away from UM-College Park back in 1970. MD was always an impediment to adding PSU and they didn't want to be in an ACC where they existed in a Northern Division that existed as so:

ND, Pitt, Penn State, Syracuse, BC, MD, VT, and an 8th that has never been revealed to my knowledge - you can make a case for that 8th to be UVa, or Duke, or NC State - my suspicion is it would be Duke putting MD way behind the football 8 Ball of ND, PSU, and VT and also behind Duke in basketball with a league set up that protected the Duke/UNC games, the UVa/VT games, etc., etc.

MD dropped the dime on the ACC's spymasters - WF and the rest is history and part of why the exit was so bitter.

You can see the appeal of such a division to PSU and ND and of course it may have been that ND was not willing to fully commit leaving the 8th spot in the division and the 16th football spot to anyone in the B10 who was unhappy being "little brother". Any little brother would have suited ND and PSU.

I look forward to living long enough to read the book.

(07-11-2017 06:41 PM)PusherT Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 05:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 03:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Louisville had very little to do with the GOR. That was going to happen with or without Louisville. The football schools (the ones that make their budget off football - Clemson, FSU, VT, GT, NC State) would not have voted for UConn - it's that simple. BC was not going to vote for UConn.

Notre Dame was key to the GOR. MD's shenanigans nixed the deal to add Penn State.

The ACC would have operated at 13 for football and 14 for everything else.

The next two players would have been Cincy and Navy. While not nearly the addition of Louisville, Cincy is in a much better geographic location than UConn. You can recruit the tri-State of Ohio/KY/Indiana from Cincinatti. You just don't need both Louisville and Cincy. Adding Navy would have upped ND's commitment from 5 to 6 games a year. GT, VT, BC, and NC State would likely not have opposed Cincy or Navy.

But look at it this way, even if the ACC stayed at 13, that doesn't change the B12 internal problems

Penn State leaving the Big Ten for the ACC was ever on the table?

If the revenue of the ACC network explode the ACC is even ground With Big 10, my opinion of course.

Schools as small as the ACC can not expect even ground money with B10 schools who are on average twice the size of ACC schools and have twice to three times the alumni. 85% is the best the ACC can do but TV money does not equalize the difference between a full 100K football stadium 7 weekends a year and a full 48K football stadium 6 weekends a year.

(07-11-2017 09:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You can see the appeal of such a division to PSU and ND and of course it may have been that ND was not willing to fully commit leaving the 8th spot in the division and the 16th football spot to anyone in the B10 who was unhappy being "little brother". Any little brother would have suited ND and PSU.

Can't see any of the original Big 10 in the Eastern Timezone taking them up on that offer. If Notre Dame were fully in that division/league for football, then maybe Purdue ... maybe ... but then that wouldn't have been possible because the spot would only be open because of the lack of Notre Dame being in. Illinois and westward wouldn't make any sense.

Would have to be Rutgers, I would think. Or, the better option, would be W Virginia, for football rivalries with MD, PSU, Pitt, and VT.

(07-11-2017 03:17 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 02:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  All that said, Louisville has been a valuable addition to ACC sports and I don't think anyone can argue that the Big XII made a tactical error in not inviting the Cardinals - along with the Mountaineers - when they had the chance.

I respect what Louisville has accomplished athletically the past 10 years, greatly respect it.

But, I've reasoned it through on my own, and have read the numerous posts on the subject on this forum, and ... I still don't know how the Big 12's position in the power 5 firmament would be any different than what it is if they had Louisville as a member right now.

Louisville alone or with West Virginia changes nothing for The Big 12.

However, if (and it's a BIG if) The Big 12 would have taken UofL off the board, and forced The ACC to take UCConn, would Clemson or Florida State agreed to sign a GOR? Or would have Clemson and Florida State listened more intently to the Big 12's proposals.

So it wasn't Louisville and The Big 12, it was Louisville being available for The ACC that may have changed everything.

No Louisville = No GOR, No GOR = No Network, No Network = Clemson and Florida State jumping to The Big 12 or UVA even GaTech jumping to The Big Ten.

Something to think about....
CJ

OK, if viewed from an impact-on-ACC angle, you make some good points, although Clemson/FSU to Big 12 is IMO too much of a stretch.

Absolutely incredible, if the ultimate reason Big 12 passed on Louisville is it thought it could get Clemson and FL St ...

Earlier someone mentioned that the Big 12 got greedy and passed on adding Louisville and Cincinnati in addition to WVU and TCU because they were greedy and thought they could land bigger fish in Clemson and Florida St.

Truthfully, I think it was short sighted to think they could break the ACC and only walk away with the two biggest football schools. The then 8 member Big 12 needed to invite 8 ACC schools, creating divisions or pods so that the new East Coast arrivals had rivals and travel partners. In addition to Florida St and Clemson they needed to send offers to Miami, GT, UNC, Duke, VT, and UVA--leaving behind WF, NC St, Maryland, BC, and possibly expansion members Pitt and Syracuse. Invites for the latter 6 would be contingent on the first two accepting. My preference would be to structure it as two divisions of 8 with 7 division games and 1 rotating crossover in football.

The Big Ten is still free to make an eastern gambit with an expansion candidate pool that includes Maryland, Rutgers, BC, Pitt, Cuse, and ND (maybe they take all 6 if they are feeling daring)

the SEC has room to maneuver too. They can grab NC St to get into that market and Louisville, WVU, and Cincinnati are all accessible.

Leftovers from the ACC and Big East reorganize under the banner of whichever conference is left on stronger footing. The era of the Power 4 is ushered in and the entire Big 12 membership is safely "in" as a result of their alliance with the ACC schools.

Quote:The Big 12 has found its worst enemy — now it's time to leave it behind and move forward

The Big 12 is leaving its worst enemy behind? David Boren is retiring?

[quote='Wedge' pid='14441952' dateline='1499877439']

Quote:The Big 12 is leaving its worst enemy behind? David Boren is retiring? :

Not until he moves OK into the SEC

Big 12 missed the boat, when it did not become the Big 16, which it owned the name of The Big 16.

1) Texas
2) Texas Tech
3) Baylor
4) Oklahoma
5) Oklahoma State
6) Kansas
7) Kansas State
8) Iowa State
9) West Virginia
10) Cincinnati
11) Louisville
12) Memphis
13) Central Florida
14) South Florida
15) BYU
16) TCU