Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.
09-11-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  Duke put the kibosh on Oklahoma.

If I'm ESPN though, I wouldn't be happy about it no matter who made the decision.

That lack of movement has cost them a lot of time and money.
09-11-2017 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and SMU

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.
09-11-2017 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 12:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and Houston

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.

FIFY
09-11-2017 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and Houston

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.

FIFY

I would pick Houston too although I can never seem to predict what ACC schools want and don't want...lol
09-11-2017 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 01:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and Houston

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.

FIFY

I would pick Houston too although I can never seem to predict what ACC schools want and don't want...lol

Adding a school in the 4th largest U.S. city would be preferable even to the ACC/ESPN than a second private in Dallas / Ft. Worth.
09-11-2017 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 808
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and Houston

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.

FIFY

Agreed with Houston over SMU. Should the B1G and ACC both come to call on Connecticut, would Connecticut have a preference? If they went B1G, would Memphis or perhaps Temple be in the running for ACC #20?
09-11-2017 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 02:29 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 12:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 08:57 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.

Absolutely. If your divisional schedule is 4 or 5 games there is a lot of flexibility. And if winning the division puts in into the playoff for the finals then it changes your whole thinking about cross divisional scheduling.

As to additions, I think if expansion is made independent of the other conferences then a good case could be made for expansion to 20 out of the Big 12 and with the very schools you mention. Although there might be some debate over whether #6 would be ISU or WVU. The prospect of picking up 3 AAU schools would be the favored position of the presidents. What WVU brings athletically would likely be the networks preference. Still the decision wouldn't be a deal breaker either way.

But if expansion is made in conjunction with the same for the ACC then the property disposition changes. Throw in the PAC or B1G and it changes yet again.

I think the SEC and ACC could both go to 20 without much fuss although I don't know if the ACC would accept any Western options if they're not getting Texas.

SEC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

ACC adds Notre Dame, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UConn, TCU, and Houston

That's several fairly weak products for the ACC although they would all pretty much fit the league's profile.

FIFY

Agreed with Houston over SMU. Should the B1G and ACC both come to call on Connecticut, would Connecticut have a preference? If they went B1G, would Memphis or perhaps Temple be in the running for ACC #20?

Both are larger markets.
09-11-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.
(This post was last modified: 09-11-2017 03:49 PM by XLance.)
09-11-2017 03:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.

The ACC must go West, or it will eventually be absorbed. If the SEC and Big 10 carve up the Big 12 the financial inequity will eventually lead to the dismemberment of the ACC. What you are mistaken about is the need of Texas itself. Houston, and T.C.U. would give the ACC quite enough of Texas's markets to be able to survive.
09-11-2017 04:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.

The ACC must go West, or it will eventually be absorbed. If the SEC and Big 10 carve up the Big 12 the financial inequity will eventually lead to the dismemberment of the ACC. What you are mistaken about is the need of Texas itself. Houston, and T.C.U. would give the ACC quite enough of Texas's markets to be able to survive.

There you go with your absolutes again. Doomed, absorbed, dismembered it's all a bunch of 04-bs.
If the ACC goes big, we will max out at 18; adding West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincinnati and South Carolina and remain an all ETZ conference.

The SEC would be free to add all of the value left out of the Big 12 (Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech).
09-11-2017 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 04:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.

The ACC must go West, or it will eventually be absorbed. If the SEC and Big 10 carve up the Big 12 the financial inequity will eventually lead to the dismemberment of the ACC. What you are mistaken about is the need of Texas itself. Houston, and T.C.U. would give the ACC quite enough of Texas's markets to be able to survive.

There you go with your absolutes again. Doomed, absorbed, dismembered it's all a bunch of 04-bs.
If the ACC goes big, we will max out at 18; adding West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincinnati and South Carolina and remain an all ETZ conference.

The SEC would be free to add all of the value left out of the Big 12 (Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech).

If the ACC adds South Carolina then I will eat my shoe.

BTW, UConn is in the ETZ and was the runner-up to Louisville. Assuming the B1G doesn't take them then to the ACC they go.
09-11-2017 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.

The ACC must go West, or it will eventually be absorbed. If the SEC and Big 10 carve up the Big 12 the financial inequity will eventually lead to the dismemberment of the ACC. What you are mistaken about is the need of Texas itself. Houston, and T.C.U. would give the ACC quite enough of Texas's markets to be able to survive.

There you go with your absolutes again. Doomed, absorbed, dismembered it's all a bunch of 04-bs.
If the ACC goes big, we will max out at 18; adding West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincinnati and South Carolina and remain an all ETZ conference.

The SEC would be free to add all of the value left out of the Big 12 (Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech).

If the ACC adds South Carolina then I will eat my shoe.

BTW, UConn is in the ETZ and was the runner-up to Louisville. Assuming the B1G doesn't take them then to the ACC they go.

Salt or hot sauce?
09-11-2017 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 04:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:21 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 04:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 03:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  While 20 is "pie in the sky" and extremely unlikely for any conference, the ACC would have a similar stance to the supposed position of the PAC in that we would not "go west" without Texas.
Houston, would not be in line for a SEC invitation in that the combination of LSU and A&M pretty well has the Houston market covered without having to take up another membership spot.

The ACC must go West, or it will eventually be absorbed. If the SEC and Big 10 carve up the Big 12 the financial inequity will eventually lead to the dismemberment of the ACC. What you are mistaken about is the need of Texas itself. Houston, and T.C.U. would give the ACC quite enough of Texas's markets to be able to survive.

There you go with your absolutes again. Doomed, absorbed, dismembered it's all a bunch of 04-bs.
If the ACC goes big, we will max out at 18; adding West Virginia, Notre Dame, Cincinnati and South Carolina and remain an all ETZ conference.

The SEC would be free to add all of the value left out of the Big 12 (Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech).

If the ACC adds South Carolina then I will eat my shoe.

BTW, UConn is in the ETZ and was the runner-up to Louisville. Assuming the B1G doesn't take them then to the ACC they go.

Salt or hot sauce?

Personally, I prefer sauteed in olive oil and finished with a little cheese.
09-11-2017 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.
09-11-2017 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.
09-11-2017 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.
09-11-2017 08:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

If ESPN ever offered and could deliver to the ACC; Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame, I doubt it would have been turned down even with Duke's objection to Oklahoma.
09-11-2017 08:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,817
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 08:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 07:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When ESPN gets through running a cost / benefit analysis of the ACC then you will need to add the Texas markets of Houston and Dallas, shore up your beltway bridge to New England with WVU, and add either Cincy or UConn.

Otherwise your pieces are worth more elsewhere.

We could live with Texas and TCU for 16 + 1, and either Cincinnati or West Virginia for 18 if Notre Dame comes soon.

Going back to an earlier conversation, if I'm ESPN and I offered you UT, OU, KU, and ND and it was turned down then I'm in no mood to cater to particular sensibilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN played a more than advertised role in making sure Louisville went to the ACC despite the fact that the school didn't really fit the profile.

I'm sure that will factor in. However, we don't need to think any deeper than just business. ESPN makes more money from the SEC. We'll get our shot at the top product. Texas will have a say in where they go, as long as it is an ESPN held product. Geography will come into play as well.
09-11-2017 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 11:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-11-2017 01:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Just for the heck of it, I've made maps out of the groupings you made. I didn't differentiate based on division but just a general layout of markings:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000002&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000003&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...999997&z=6


I get that you intended to have concentrations in the states of Florida, California and Texas. What I like about the "B1G" group is that you add up the teams East of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border plus Cincinnati you come up with 12 programs. A lot of games in relative close distance compared with the current Big Ten. Having Wake Forest is a small price to pay for having this set up and I'd like playing Wake Forest in other sports as well. Winston-Salem would be a nice trip during the late fall months. Some of the Carolina folks would be very uncomfortable with being in a Yankee association but their focus on basketball forces them to make a presence in the New York City area since at least the 1940s and the ACC already is playing games in Brooklyn and Yankee Stadium in the two main sports, anyway.

I think grouping for distance of travel for minor sports is a undervalued means of cutting overhead. Besides, most of our rivals are within relative close proximity. Allowances can certainly be made if you are playing 5 divisional games your could easily have 3 permanent rivals and rotate 2 more cross divisional games and still play 1 OOC against each of the other conferences.

There's oodles of flexibility there for keeping familiar schedules, maintaining rivalries, and still giving the networks cross conference content.

And since each conference generally keeps what amounts to 1 full share for conference expenses then these 72 schools essentially save 2 full members shares to split by just paying 3 conference sets of overhead as opposed to 5. And the sales of the old conference properties can add to the bottom line as well.

In a weird kind of way it is a return to the halcyon past when you didn't need to travel 10,000 miles to play a full schedule in football except the use of modern video and internet would make it possible for fans of all programs to follow their teams without the use of a transistor radio. And the competition would be "purer" in that there wouldn't be this elitist garbage about whether a program has to belong to a state flagship or a private school in order to play games against.

Which is why this has little chance of happening but I've been wrong before.
09-11-2017 11:30 PM
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.