As an outsider, be careful what you wish for. Obviously there's money to be made in the B10, but it takes 5 years to get a full share of the distributions from the conference (see Rutgers who has some of the highest subsidies in the country).

Also, you might be shedding your overlords of Duke, UNC and Virginia to only find yourself under foot of Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. There's an old saying about the devil you know vs. the one you don't. B10 has unbalanced division where they have OSU, Michigan, MSU and PSU in one division and all the schools that start with the letter I that nobody watches in the other.

(12-04-2018 11:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  As an outsider, be careful what you wish for. Obviously there's money to be made in the B10, but it takes 5 years to get a full share of the distributions from the conference (see Rutgers who has some of the highest subsidies in the country).

Also, you might be shedding your overlords of Duke, UNC and Virginia to only find yourself under foot of Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. There's an old saying about the devil you know vs. the one you don't. B10 has unbalanced division where they have OSU, Michigan, MSU and PSU in one division and all the schools that start with the letter I that nobody watches in the other.

The B10 would be a disaster for GT. Really, for almost anyone in the ACC, and that includes Pitt. And, according to actual revenue reports, and even with the money fronted to UMD to jump, the Terps are behind Pitt and Syracuse over the last five available years in net collected conference revenue when factoring in exit fees and such. Rutgers is over $40M behind. The B10 is not generous to newbies. And now, exit fees are much worse and the network is about to level some things.

In any case, it just fans venting on message board because they got passed on by meaningless bowls and landed in a worse meaningless bowl, because it is more palatable to imagine that someone in the ACC office with an evil chortle and pencil thin mustache is wringing his hands in glee because they got to stick it to Tech.

(12-04-2018 10:46 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  My belief is that there are three stages - considering, gauging intent with all known conditions/commitments being spelled out, and finally formally/or given permission to formally invite. The way conference invites go, the first stage happens in two parts - beginning with determining if there is interest on the conference's side to explore further and if yes, then part two is gauging if there is reciprocal interest from the side of the potential invitee. If yes to both, then the second stage happens still informally but more in-depth in order to have both sides know exactly what the commitment will mean from both sides. Then if it manages to get through that stage successfully, an actual invite goes out or is in hand to go out and the conference prays like hell that the invitee doesn't pull an ND like what happened to the Big Ten back in 1999.

As I see it based mostly on rumors and conjecture at the time, GT to the Big Ten was probably done at the first part of the first stage but not sure the interest was high enough to get to the second part of the first stage. I could be wrong there. From all reports, the VT to SEC got through the first part of stage one, but ended with the second part of stage one with VT not showing enough interest at that time.

The OU to SEC seems to have gotten through a large portion of the second stage but failed due each side wanting something the other wasn't willing to give (or not give).

The PAC invite to the Texahoma schools and Colorado actually got to the third stage according to all reports. But the PAC must have been somewhat wary of true interest on the part of the Texahoma schools since Colorado accepted their invite on June 10th. The Texahoma schools each declined four days later which kept the Big 12 in tact so Utah was invited three days after that as #12.

I am willing to admit my knowledge of the PAC-B12 isn't the best so I may have some details wrong or other details missing. But I think the examples overall give some idea why I believe it is a three-stage process.

Cheers,
Neil

You are pretty much on target. But OU/OSU to the SEC never advanced beyond stage 1. We never got to details at all. And to Crazy Paco OU got in touch with the SEC offices through the back door at a time after Nebraska and Colorado bolted, in the midst of or very shortly after Texa-homa fell apart. A&M was formalizing at the time (much quicker process since we had been in talks since '91), and Missouri had reached stage 2 as you call it. Boren wanted to know if we were interested. We said of course. Then he laid the OSU comes too requirement upon us and we said no. Then Boren tells Tramel that they turned us down. That kind of revisionist face saving goes on all of the time. That's the long and short of the OU/OSU to SEC circa 2010-1 stuff. Boren was trying to bump not only Missouri out of the SEC invite but A&M as well and that was never, ever going to fly. Now if he had just offered OU in lieu of Missouri it might have gotten really, really interesting.

But your stages are essentially correct. And by everything I understand about Texa-homa to the PAC it got to the third stage for De Loss Dodds (which is key) who took it upon himself to speak for A&M and when they found out that Dodds had about worked a deal they didn't want to be a part of it ticked off the Aggie administration which preferred the SEC and stated their desires for the SEC to Dodds at the time. The deal supposedly fell apart in discussing with the PAC who would be an acceptable replacement for A&M. It gets murkier with that part because there is a Baylor version and a Kansas version. But like you the Texahoma / PAC stuff is hardly in my wheelhouse. Bullet has interesting insight into all of that.

My understanding on Va Tech / SEC talks is that they were set as part of a bigger deal which also fell through, but we had reached the formal talks stage (your stage 2) which is essentially everyone laying the cards out on the table where particulars and legalities are hashed out. It's the stage where NDA's are usually signed as well.

I don't think the SEC had ever before, or since, gotten to that phase with an ACC school. F.S.U. got deeper but were independent at the time. Clemson has never gotten past stage 1.

This is dumb.

GT adds no relative value to the SEC. They can add value to the ACC, B10, or B12. Huge travel and cultural problems come with the B10 and B12. Most importantly GT can not compete financially with Texas, OU, Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State when it comes to football.

I had to be in Atlanta over the weekend. I saw JUST ONE GT sticker on a car, and only one item for sale in a sports store just a mile from the Varsity Drive Inn. A conference change can't fix any of that.

Having to play Clemson as their crossover is their only downside to being in the Coastal. We will trade with you tomorrow. You will be trading UNC, Duke, VT, UVa, Pitt, Miami, and Clemson for Clemson, FSU, Syracuse, WF, BC, Louisville and you get to keep UNC.

No one is going anywhere until the GOR expires sometime in the 2030s.

(12-05-2018 09:35 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No one is going anywhere until the GOR expires sometime in the 2030s.

+3 You are spot on!

(12-05-2018 09:35 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No one is going anywhere until the GOR expires sometime in the 2030s.

But that, like everything else, is negotiable.

I like Georgia tech and Clemson to the sec and wvu, UConn and Cincinnati to the acc to create two 16 team leagues for espn. Each league has 4 pods of 4 and 2 game playoff. Having historic rivals and overlap schools as conference mates is much better than the far flung one state strategy for expansion.

(12-05-2018 10:34 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I like Georgia tech and Clemson to the sec and wvu, UConn and Cincinnati to the acc to create two 16 team leagues for espn. Each league has 4 pods of 4 and 2 game playoff. Having historic rivals and overlap schools as conference mates is much better than the far flung one state strategy for expansion.

WVU and Cincinnati are ok.

While we’re at it, why not FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, VT & Louisville to the B12(16). ACC adds UCF, USF, Cincinnati & ECU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-05-2018 11:35 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  While we’re at it, why not FSU, Miami, Clemson, GT, VT & Louisville to the B12(16). ACC adds UCF, USF, Cincinnati & ECU.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might as well then go to -

ACC Northwest

ND/Pitt/Syracuse/BC/VT/WF/Miami

ACC Southeast

UVa, Duke, UNC, NCSU, CU, GT, FSU


Crossovers:

ND/GT
BC/Duke
Miami/FSU
WF/NCSU
Syracuse/UNC
Pitt/Clemson
VT/UVa

I guess you could replace Uconn with Temple to get to 16.

SEC

N: UK, UT, Vandy, UF
E: UGA, Gtech, Clem, Scar
S: Ala, Aub, Ole Miss, MSU
W: LSU, TA&M, Ark, Mo

ACC

N: BC, Cuse, ND, Temple or UConn
W: Pitt, WVU, Cincy, Lville
E: UNC, Duke, UVA, Vtech
S: NC state, Wake, FSU, Miami

that is a good balanced setup for ESPN to sell the ACCN and SECN. Just convince ND football to join, HA. Not sure what would happen to the big 10, pac 12 and big 12. I'm sure the big 10 would like OU and KU to get to 16 with Texas, Texas Tech and 2 from TCU, Houston, OK state going to the pac 16. OR you could have the big 10 just jump to 32 if the rules are getting changed. In that case, Oregon state and Washington state get dropped.

(12-05-2018 03:05 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I guess you could replace Uconn with Temple to get to 16.

SEC

N: UK, UT, Vandy, UF
E: UGA, Gtech, Clem, Scar
S: Ala, Aub, Ole Miss, MSU
W: LSU, TA&M, Ark, Mo

ACC

N: BC, Cuse, ND, Temple or UConn
W: Pitt, WVU, Cincy, Lville
E: UNC, Duke, UVA, Vtech
S: NC state, Wake, FSU, Miami

Clemson is not going anywhere.

N: BC, Cuse, ND, Pitt
W: WVU, Cincy, Louisville, VA Tech
E: UNC, Duke, Wake, UVA
S: NC State, FSU, Clemson, Miami

Question, exactly where would they go?

(12-08-2018 05:54 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Question, exactly where would they go?

(12-05-2018 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 09:35 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No one is going anywhere until the GOR expires sometime in the 2030s.

But that, like everything else, is negotiable.

And excessively expensive.

(12-09-2018 12:32 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-05-2018 09:35 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  No one is going anywhere until the GOR expires sometime in the 2030s.

But that, like everything else, is negotiable.

And excessively expensive.

That kind of depends. If you are Clemson or FSU, absolutely. Wake Forest or BC, probably a bit less so. Not sure exactly where Georgia Tech would fit along that spectrum.

Georgia Tech was on life support when they joined the ACC.

(12-09-2018 03:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  Georgia Tech was on life support when they joined the ACC.

Notre Dame breaking up collective bargaining has spelled the end of independence unless you have a religion behind you. Look at the lengths NMSU and Liberty have to go to scheduling wise. Liberty and NMSU played each other twice this year in football.