(08-12-2021 06:23 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Can it be TCU and Houston instead of TCU and TT?

Your options are varied but center around TCU:

TCU / Baylor (yes Baylor) national champions in hoops easier access than Tech & decent football.

TCU / Oklahoma St. Solid in all sports good attendance and carries significant market presence in DFW so this two covers an audience of 15 million

TCU / Texas Tech. Tech is a better candidate for the PAC I think. Too far.

TCU / Kansas State. See OSU only with 2 million fewer people.

TCU / WVU. You know the drill here.

TCU / ISU You gain at both Western corners but they don't really help each other.

Option 1 is more assessible. Option 2 has more impact on DFW. Those are the best options in my opinion.

(08-12-2021 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 06:23 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Can it be TCU and Houston instead of TCU and TT?

Your options are varied but center around TCU:

TCU / Baylor (yes Baylor) national champions in hoops easier access than Tech & decent football.

TCU / Oklahoma St. Solid in all sports good attendance and carries significant market presence in DFW so this two covers an audience of 15 million

TCU / Texas Tech. Tech is a better candidate for the PAC I think. Too far.

TCU / Kansas State. See OSU only with 2 million fewer people.

TCU / WVU. You know the drill here.

TCU / ISU You gain at both Western corners but they don't really help each other.

Option 1 is more assessible. Option 2 has more impact on DFW. Those are the best options in my opinion.

The ACC already has 6 private schools including Notre Dame (small enrollment, alumni, and fan bases). Thats been a huge problem. If we move into Texas, we need to get ACCN carriage throughout the state. To do that, wouldn't one need to be a public school? Does Houston make more sense? They're good in football and basketball. Maybe add TCU for ACCN subscriptions in the DFW area. If I had a choice, I'd drop WF and NCSU for TCU, Baylor, Houston, and T. Boone Pickens U.

(08-12-2021 07:15 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 06:23 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Can it be TCU and Houston instead of TCU and TT?

Your options are varied but center around TCU:

TCU / Baylor (yes Baylor) national champions in hoops easier access than Tech & decent football.

TCU / Oklahoma St. Solid in all sports good attendance and carries significant market presence in DFW so this two covers an audience of 15 million

TCU / Texas Tech. Tech is a better candidate for the PAC I think. Too far.

TCU / Kansas State. See OSU only with 2 million fewer people.

TCU / WVU. You know the drill here.

TCU / ISU You gain at both Western corners but they don't really help each other.

Option 1 is more assessible. Option 2 has more impact on DFW. Those are the best options in my opinion.

The ACC already has 6 private schools including Notre Dame (small enrollment, alumni, and fan bases). Thats been a huge problem. If we move into Texas, we need to get ACCN carriage throughout the state. To do that, wouldn't one need to be a public school? Does Houston make more sense? They're good in football and basketball. Maybe add TCU for ACCN subscriptions in the DFW area. If I had a choice, I'd drop WF and NCSU for TCU, Baylor, Houston, and T. Boone Pickens U.

I just don't see promotions if we head this way. First ESPN's incentive to reward is in diffusing delays among the 8. You have TCU/OSU as an option. If Wake decides not to pursue NIL and more importantly a world in which stipend caps are removed, think next summer, then you could take Kansas State or Baylor in their place. The issue with Houston is in carrying their own city. Texas, Texas A&M, and LSU draw more there and Baylor draws well. In DFW Tech, OSU, and KSU have decent alumni bases as do A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Is this assuming Kansas has a place to go or is the football program so bad they are not considered.

(08-12-2021 07:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 07:15 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 06:23 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Can it be TCU and Houston instead of TCU and TT?

Your options are varied but center around TCU:

TCU / Baylor (yes Baylor) national champions in hoops easier access than Tech & decent football.

TCU / Oklahoma St. Solid in all sports good attendance and carries significant market presence in DFW so this two covers an audience of 15 million

TCU / Texas Tech. Tech is a better candidate for the PAC I think. Too far.

TCU / Kansas State. See OSU only with 2 million fewer people.

TCU / WVU. You know the drill here.

TCU / ISU You gain at both Western corners but they don't really help each other.

Option 1 is more assessible. Option 2 has more impact on DFW. Those are the best options in my opinion.

The ACC already has 6 private schools including Notre Dame (small enrollment, alumni, and fan bases). Thats been a huge problem. If we move into Texas, we need to get ACCN carriage throughout the state. To do that, wouldn't one need to be a public school? Does Houston make more sense? They're good in football and basketball. Maybe add TCU for ACCN subscriptions in the DFW area. If I had a choice, I'd drop WF and NCSU for TCU, Baylor, Houston, and T. Boone Pickens U.

I just don't see promotions if we head this way. First ESPN's incentive to reward is in diffusing delays among the 8. You have TCU/OSU as an option. If Wake decides not to pursue NIL and more importantly a world in which stipend caps are removed, think next summer, then you could take Kansas State or Baylor in their place. The issue with Houston is in carrying their own city. Texas, Texas A&M, and LSU draw more there and Baylor draws well. In DFW Tech, OSU, and KSU have decent alumni bases as do A&M, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Good point about promotions, had not considered that. The real question is which two make the ACC the most money. Pretty sure WVU isn't one of those two unless paired with ND, which isn't happening.

The only school in Texas that mattered is now off to the SEC. TCU doesn’t draw the average Joe fans like Texas does for the ACCN. Neither does Baylor, or TTU, or Houston, or SMU, or Rice…

(08-12-2021 10:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only school in Texas that mattered is now off to the SEC. TCU doesn’t draw the average Joe fans like Texas does for the ACCN. Neither does Baylor, or TTU, or Houston, or SMU, or Rice…

Drawing the average fan is probably not the point. Hitting key elements in a contract would seem to matter most. There is no Texas comparison on the East Coast. If TCU makes the ACCN in state for Texas, as ND does for Indiana, and Syracuse does for NY, Then it needs to be said that with the 2020 Census, Texas now has almost 30 M people, having added 4 million over the last decade. When it comes to growth over the last decade, Texas is followed by Florida at 2.7 M, California at 2.2 M, Georgia and Washington both with 1 M each, NC with .9 M NY with 820K, Arizona and Colorado both with 3/4 of a million growth.

West Va is losing people the fastest, followed by Illinois, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri are all low growth states. Oklahoma is moderate growth. If there is ESPN money in it I can see TCU getting at least 13 of 15 votes. It's the second school that would be tough.

(08-12-2021 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 10:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only school in Texas that mattered is now off to the SEC. TCU doesn’t draw the average Joe fans like Texas does for the ACCN. Neither does Baylor, or TTU, or Houston, or SMU, or Rice…

Drawing the average fan is probably not the point. Hitting key elements in a contract would seem to matter most. There is no Texas comparison on the East Coast. If TCU makes the ACCN in state for Texas, as ND does for Indiana, and Syracuse does for NY, Then it needs to be said that with the 2020 Census, Texas now has almost 30 M people, having added 4 million over the last decade. When it comes to growth over the last decade, Texas is followed by Florida at 2.7 M, California at 2.2 M, Georgia and Washington both with 1 M each, NC with .9 M NY with 820K, Arizona and Colorado both with 3/4 of a million growth.

West Va is losing people the fastest, followed by Illinois, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri are all low growth states. Oklahoma is moderate growth. If there is ESPN money in it I can see TCU getting at least 13 of 15 votes. It's the second school that would be tough.

I like the idea of adding TCU - they even have a football national championship in their history!

The second team is tricky. TCU would be isolated if all alone. Baylor or Oklahoma State make the most sense. (I like Houston as a program, but I understand if the networks don't want to add schools to the P5 right now).

As much as I know a lot of folks hate the idea of growing that large, I think the ACC should consider a package of TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and WVU - provided that ESPN pays enough.

Two schools in Texas ensures ACCN carriage in that state, plus Oklahoma and West-by-God-Virginia, as well. Texas alone could be worth an extra $360M/year if they can get full distribution at in-state rates; even for 18 teams, that works out to $20M per school per year.

(08-12-2021 11:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 10:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only school in Texas that mattered is now off to the SEC. TCU doesn’t draw the average Joe fans like Texas does for the ACCN. Neither does Baylor, or TTU, or Houston, or SMU, or Rice…

Drawing the average fan is probably not the point. Hitting key elements in a contract would seem to matter most. There is no Texas comparison on the East Coast. If TCU makes the ACCN in state for Texas, as ND does for Indiana, and Syracuse does for NY, Then it needs to be said that with the 2020 Census, Texas now has almost 30 M people, having added 4 million over the last decade. When it comes to growth over the last decade, Texas is followed by Florida at 2.7 M, California at 2.2 M, Georgia and Washington both with 1 M each, NC with .9 M NY with 820K, Arizona and Colorado both with 3/4 of a million growth.

West Va is losing people the fastest, followed by Illinois, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri are all low growth states. Oklahoma is moderate growth. If there is ESPN money in it I can see TCU getting at least 13 of 15 votes. It's the second school that would be tough.

I like the idea of adding TCU - they even have a football national championship in their history!

The second team is tricky. TCU would be isolated if all alone. Baylor or Oklahoma State make the most sense. (I like Houston as a program, but I understand if the networks don't want to add schools to the P5 right now).

As much as I know a lot of folks hate the idea of growing that large, I think the ACC should consider a package of TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and WVU - provided that ESPN pays enough.

Two schools in Texas ensures ACCN carriage in that state, plus Oklahoma and West-by-God-Virginia, as well. Texas alone could be worth an extra $360M/year if they can get full distribution at in-state rates; even for 18 teams, that works out to $20M per school per year.

But Mark, it opens the whole contract for re-evaluation. This is the paramount benefit. The ACCN is the cherry on top.

And there is a future angle that bears mentioning. If we have 2 all ESPN conferences break away from the NCAA and certain PAC and B1G schools refuse to do so it opens the possibility to do in the breakaway what could not be done in realignment, raid both conferences. The B1G could well experience a split over this matter and I believe the PAC absolutely would.

My point is the greatest potential for growth in ACC funds would be if in a breakaway our two conferences move in total, we become the beneficiary of the split over leaving the NCAA in the other two. Therein resides ESPN's complete ownership of the top football programs in the nation.

And if the breakaway is complete for all 4 with no division in the ranks the ACC is still better positioned financially.

And basketball only conferences will follow. They've been hurt more by the NCAA's sticky fingers than anyone.

Please educate me, the markets matter again? What about Washington, DC? What about Philly? NYC?!?! I wonder how many casual ACC fans even know what TCU stands for? If you twisted my arm, I’d take SMU over TCU.

We went from market (BC, Syracuse, Pitt) to brand (Louisville) back to some combo of market and brand? I don’t think any Texas schools left have the brand value, and there are giant open markets for all of the sports besides football on the east coast the ACCN doesn’t have a flag in.

*Insert mandatory football drives the bus comment*

Okay, somebody get on the phone with Fordham in Yankee Stadium and Villanova at Franklin Field!

(08-13-2021 07:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  Please educate me, the markets matter again? What about Washington, DC? What about Philly? NYC?!?! I wonder how many casual ACC fans even know what TCU stands for? If you twisted my arm, I’d take SMU over TCU.

We went from market (BC, Syracuse, Pitt) to brand (Louisville) back to some combo of market and brand? I don’t think any Texas schools left have the brand value, and there are giant open markets for all of the sports besides football on the east coast the ACCN doesn’t have a flag in.

*Insert mandatory football drives the bus comment*

Tulane too!

The problem at this point is that considering what's available....

In order to have any further meaningful realignment some trades with either the SEC or B1G would be necessary.

(08-13-2021 07:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  Please educate me, the markets matter again? What about Washington, DC? What about Philly? NYC?!?! I wonder how many casual ACC fans even know what TCU stands for? If you twisted my arm, I’d take SMU over TCU.

We went from market (BC, Syracuse, Pitt) to brand (Louisville) back to some combo of market and brand? I don’t think any Texas schools left have the brand value, and there are giant open markets for all of the sports besides football on the east coast the ACCN doesn’t have a flag in.

*Insert mandatory football drives the bus comment*

Tulane too!

If you want to create an academic alliance with SMU and Tulane, by all means.
If you want to schedule them in football, knock yourself out.
The fact is that neither school has enough fans to carry their own city, much less state.

While there is no single school in Texas which could get ACCN distribution, a combination of 2 might. They'll never rival Texas and Texas A&M, but that's not an option anyway.

(08-13-2021 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 11:51 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 10:44 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 10:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only school in Texas that mattered is now off to the SEC. TCU doesn’t draw the average Joe fans like Texas does for the ACCN. Neither does Baylor, or TTU, or Houston, or SMU, or Rice…

Drawing the average fan is probably not the point. Hitting key elements in a contract would seem to matter most. There is no Texas comparison on the East Coast. If TCU makes the ACCN in state for Texas, as ND does for Indiana, and Syracuse does for NY, Then it needs to be said that with the 2020 Census, Texas now has almost 30 M people, having added 4 million over the last decade. When it comes to growth over the last decade, Texas is followed by Florida at 2.7 M, California at 2.2 M, Georgia and Washington both with 1 M each, NC with .9 M NY with 820K, Arizona and Colorado both with 3/4 of a million growth.

West Va is losing people the fastest, followed by Illinois, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and Vermont. Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri are all low growth states. Oklahoma is moderate growth. If there is ESPN money in it I can see TCU getting at least 13 of 15 votes. It's the second school that would be tough.

I like the idea of adding TCU - they even have a football national championship in their history!

The second team is tricky. TCU would be isolated if all alone. Baylor or Oklahoma State make the most sense. (I like Houston as a program, but I understand if the networks don't want to add schools to the P5 right now).

As much as I know a lot of folks hate the idea of growing that large, I think the ACC should consider a package of TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and WVU - provided that ESPN pays enough.

Two schools in Texas ensures ACCN carriage in that state, plus Oklahoma and West-by-God-Virginia, as well. Texas alone could be worth an extra $360M/year if they can get full distribution at in-state rates; even for 18 teams, that works out to $20M per school per year.

But Mark, it opens the whole contract for re-evaluation. This is the paramount benefit. The ACCN is the cherry on top.

And there is a future angle that bears mentioning. If we have 2 all ESPN conferences break away from the NCAA and certain PAC and B1G schools refuse to do so it opens the possibility to do in the breakaway what could not be done in realignment, raid both conferences. The B1G could well experience a split over this matter and I believe the PAC absolutely would.

My point is the greatest potential for growth in ACC funds would be if in a breakaway our two conferences move in total, we become the beneficiary of the split over leaving the NCAA in the other two. Therein resides ESPN's complete ownership of the top football programs in the nation.

And if the breakaway is complete for all 4 with no division in the ranks the ACC is still better positioned financially.

And basketball only conferences will follow. They've been hurt more by the NCAA's sticky fingers than anyone.

Yes, I realize the value of being able to renegotiate - hence the value of taking Big XII teams "off ESPN's hands" potentially carries more value than adding the teams the ACC would prefer like Houston or Cincinnati - but ESPN would make that call.

(08-13-2021 08:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  Please educate me, the markets matter again? What about Washington, DC? What about Philly? NYC?!?! I wonder how many casual ACC fans even know what TCU stands for? If you twisted my arm, I’d take SMU over TCU.

We went from market (BC, Syracuse, Pitt) to brand (Louisville) back to some combo of market and brand? I don’t think any Texas schools left have the brand value, and there are giant open markets for all of the sports besides football on the east coast the ACCN doesn’t have a flag in.

*Insert mandatory football drives the bus comment*

Tulane too!

If you want to create an academic alliance with SMU and Tulane, by all means.
If you want to schedule them in football, knock yourself out.
The fact is that neither school has enough fans to carry their own city, much less state.

While there is no single school in Texas which could get ACCN distribution, a combination of 2 might. They'll never rival Texas and Texas A&M, but that's not an option anyway.

And there’s the problem. Even TCU+Texas Tech doesn’t get anywhere near ONE of Texas or Texas A&M. This is what I’ve been saying all along with Cincinnati and Ohio State. Who cares if you get in a state if it doesn’t move the needle? Waste of resources and essentially stealing wins from our current members.

We know what the conference NEEDS to do: maximize our current inventory. Until we do that there is no need to look outside of it.

I like adding WVU, TCU, OSU, and KU. Nice 6/3 with crossover setup. Play the 2 in your pod, the crossover, and 1 from each of the other pods for 8 games. This also adds three more SEC rivalry games - KU/MIZZOU, OU/OSU, TCU/UT(stretch?).


BC, UL, and Clemson crossovers are also a stretch. UL / OSU seems like a good match and a Game in Dallas for Clemson would be great. BC and KU are the odd ones out.

I thought VOLS/EERS would have been a good SEC Rivalry but was surprised to find out that they have only played once.

(08-13-2021 08:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:07 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:31 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  Please educate me, the markets matter again? What about Washington, DC? What about Philly? NYC?!?! I wonder how many casual ACC fans even know what TCU stands for? If you twisted my arm, I’d take SMU over TCU.

We went from market (BC, Syracuse, Pitt) to brand (Louisville) back to some combo of market and brand? I don’t think any Texas schools left have the brand value, and there are giant open markets for all of the sports besides football on the east coast the ACCN doesn’t have a flag in.

*Insert mandatory football drives the bus comment*

Tulane too!

If you want to create an academic alliance with SMU and Tulane, by all means.
If you want to schedule them in football, knock yourself out.
The fact is that neither school has enough fans to carry their own city, much less state.

While there is no single school in Texas which could get ACCN distribution, a combination of 2 might. They'll never rival Texas and Texas A&M, but that's not an option anyway.

And there’s the problem. Even TCU+Texas Tech doesn’t get anywhere near ONE of Texas or Texas A&M. This is what I’ve been saying all along with Cincinnati and Ohio State. Who cares if you get in a state if it doesn’t move the needle? Waste of resources and essentially stealing wins from our current members.

We know what the conference NEEDS to do: maximize our current inventory. Until we do that there is no need to look outside of it.

This is the right answer. Increase the value of the rights:
1. No more FCS games. WF - Gardner Webb is worthless to ESPN.
2. Go divisionless with 9 conference games. 5 permanent rivals each to ensure we get the most valuable matchups every season (e.g. Clemson VT)

Going without divisions to ensure the most attractive in-conference inventory is a good first step.

Going without buy-a-win games is a mixed bag. First off in some states there's political pressure to schedule in-state buy-a-win games against FCS a form of welfare to lesser programs in state. Secondly, I notice the SEC seems to be able to schedule a buy-a-win game. Typically the week before their ACC rivalry game. While I've heard ESPN talking heads complain about it, most notably Herbstreit, I've seen *ZERO* impetus from the SEC itself to stop the practice. Third ... if you eliminate buy-a-win games there are some teams in the conference which may end up becoming Kansas. Duke and Wake are pretty notorious for this. Duke may be among the lightest schedulers in the country year in year out. Lastly, Cavman tried this. Bless his little heart, Cavman scheduled way over his head. USC when they were good. Oregon when they were REALLY good. Boise State. Cavman took L after L after L and nobody gave a damn that it came against a good team. I don't see anybody cheering on GT for having a schedule featuring 4 teams in the preseason Top 10. And if (when?) GT collects four Ls for those 4 games nobody will say "yeah but at least they scheduled tough!" You can schedule crazy hard if you're a program established enough to be able to compete at a high enough level to win some. If you're doing a total rebuild or a from the ground up build scheduling hard will just hurt you.

Yeah, probably shouldn’t get rid of the buy-a-win games. Wake-App State was a great yearly matchup back in the day, but it is definitely not a buy-a-win. It would be good for ESPN though.