(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

(02-26-2013 12:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

lol...that makes it even better. However, I think Delany has other plans for Notre Dame.

There's this assumption that just because the Big Ten and SEC can raid the ACC (possible because of the sheer money difference involve)d, the Big 12 can follow right behind them. I simply don't believe that's true. The Big 12 has done a good job of selling themselves as strong to the general public, but they're paper tigers. The money difference between the Big 12 and ACC is not going to be very large (if not non-existent) and ESPN may very well decide the let it stay that way even in the wake of defections... just as it did with the Big 12 itself in 2010/11. You could very well see the Big Ten and SEC take 2 schools each from the ACC, but then the Big 12 isn't able to poach anyone. The ACC can then just add UConn and Cincinnati to get back up to 12 schools. Frankly, that seems more realistic than these mass mergers.

As much as conference realignment has provided a lot of movement between conferences, the number of schools that are in the "club" is hardly any different today than it was in 1998. Out of everyone that was an AQ school in 1998, every single one is in one of the 5 "contract" conferences now with the exception of Temple (who doesn't even really count since they were kicked out by the Big East itself for a period of time). Only TCU, Utah and Louisville have moved up in status. So, over the course of 15 years and a massive number of changes, the effect has been that 1 has been dropped from power status and 3 have moved up, with a net change of +2. It's been made very clear that the power club isn't big enough to hold 80 teams (as evidenced by the kicking out of the Big East from that club when it lost its legacy members). Instead, that power club has continuously shown that it only wants 65 to 70 members.

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's this assumption that just because the Big Ten and SEC can raid the ACC (possible because of the sheer money difference involve)d, the Big 12 can follow right behind them. I simply don't believe that's true. The Big 12 has done a good job of selling themselves as strong to the general public, but they're paper tigers. The money difference between the Big 12 and ACC is not going to be very large (if not non-existent) and ESPN may very well decide the let it stay that way even in the wake of defections... just as it did with the Big 12 itself in 2010/11. You could very well see the Big Ten and SEC take 2 schools each from the ACC, but then the Big 12 isn't able to poach anyone. The ACC can then just add UConn and Cincinnati to get back up to 12 schools. Frankly, that seems more realistic than these mass mergers.

As much as conference realignment has provided a lot of movement between conferences, the number of schools that are in the "club" is hardly any different today than it was in 1998. Out of everyone that was an AQ school in 1998, every single one is in one of the 5 "contract" conferences now with the exception of Temple (who doesn't even really count since they were kicked out by the Big East itself for a period of time). Only TCU, Utah and Louisville have moved up in status. So, over the course of 15 years and a massive number of changes, the effect has been that 1 has been dropped from power status and 3 have moved up, with a net change of +2. It's been made very clear that the power club isn't big enough to hold 80 teams (as evidenced by the kicking out of the Big East from that club when it lost its legacy members). Instead, that power club has continuously shown that it only wants 65 to 70 members.

You forgot about USF and Cincinnati. FWIW the Big East is still a BCS conference next year. Also UConn moved up from 1AA to BCS.

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

lol...that makes it even better. However, I think Delany has other plans for Notre Dame.

This would have been the football Big East we all thought we were joining...plus a few.

A lot of good points made in this thread...I just want to add a few thoughts.

1) As to why the move to 16 and the collapse of the ACC? Just like ESPN benefited by the collapse of the BE (it got the teams it wanted to go to other conferences) it is driven by money and TV. While having to pay more for each remaining conference, ESPN does not have to invest serious money in 6, or 5 conferences in the future. Just as the nBE has less bargaining power for TV contracts, so too would the ACC and thus Espn could keep them at a reduced rate (or not) and put their efforts into ensuring that every airing of an SEC/Big10/Big12 game was meaningful (no longer showing Ole Miss, Northwestern, or Texas Tech) much like Monday night football wants to show only the marquee matchups. If you are not in one of the major conferences going forward, you will be even less relevant given the media concentration and fascination with the most elite conferences.

2) I do agree that the Big12 has issues also...they are just two schools defections away from imploding as was discussed above. A

3) All indications are that the SEC and Big 10 are going to 16 eventually (I agree with much of what was written above about only doing so to add value ..but I think the value is to the networks also...not just the conferences -- see point #1 above). We all know how much influence ESPN (Fox, CBS for that matter) has on things....much of this movement I am convinced is spurred on by their interests. If this assumption is correct,I certainly can imagine the Pac12 following suit by raiding the Big 12.

4) What we really have are three secure conference (Pac12, SEC, Big10) and two upper conferences (ACC and Big12). Will moves by the secure conference lead to the demise of both of these two? I think at a minimum they will weaken both of them...what that means for the nBE teams is anyone's guess.

(02-26-2013 12:46 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There's this assumption that just because the Big Ten and SEC can raid the ACC (possible because of the sheer money difference involve)d, the Big 12 can follow right behind them. I simply don't believe that's true. The Big 12 has done a good job of selling themselves as strong to the general public, but they're paper tigers. The money difference between the Big 12 and ACC is not going to be very large (if not non-existent) and ESPN may very well decide the let it stay that way even in the wake of defections... just as it did with the Big 12 itself in 2010/11. You could very well see the Big Ten and SEC take 2 schools each from the ACC, but then the Big 12 isn't able to poach anyone. The ACC can then just add UConn and Cincinnati to get back up to 12 schools. Frankly, that seems more realistic than these mass mergers.

As much as conference realignment has provided a lot of movement between conferences, the number of schools that are in the "club" is hardly any different today than it was in 1998. Out of everyone that was an AQ school in 1998, every single one is in one of the 5 "contract" conferences now with the exception of Temple (who doesn't even really count since they were kicked out by the Big East itself for a period of time). Only TCU, Utah and Louisville have moved up in status. So, over the course of 15 years and a massive number of changes, the effect has been that 1 has been dropped from power status and 3 have moved up, with a net change of +2. It's been made very clear that the power club isn't big enough to hold 80 teams (as evidenced by the kicking out of the Big East from that club when it lost its legacy members). Instead, that power club has continuously shown that it only wants 65 to 70 members.

You forgot about USF and Cincinnati. FWIW the Big East is still a BCS conference next year. Also UConn moved up from 1AA to BCS.

I'm talking about going forward: there is a clear line between the "contract conferences" (B1G, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC) and the Gang of Five, so that's the divide that matters now. When you look at the total effect, what happened was effectively a consolidation of 6 conferences into 5.

(02-26-2013 12:51 PM)HSV Fan Wrote:  A lot of good points made in this thread...I just want to add a few thoughts.

1) As to why the move to 16 and the collapse of the ACC? Just like ESPN benefited by the collapse of the BE (it got the teams it wanted to go to other conferences) it is driven by money and TV. While having to pay more for each remaining conference, ESPN does not have to invest serious money in 6, or 5 conferences in the future. Just as the nBE has less bargaining power for TV contracts, so too would the ACC and thus Espn could keep them at a reduced rate (or not) and put their efforts into ensuring that every airing of an SEC/Big10/Big12 game was meaningful (no longer showing Ole Miss, Northwestern, or Texas Tech) much like Monday night football wants to show only the marquee matchups. If you are not in one of the major conferences going forward, you will be even less relevant given the media concentration and fascination with the most elite conferences.

2) I do agree that the Big12 has issues also...they are just two schools defections away from imploding as was discussed above. A

3) All indications are that the SEC and Big 10 are going to 16 eventually (I agree with much of what was written above about doing to add value only...I think the value is to the networks also...not just the conferences -- see point #1 above). We all know how much influence ESPN has on things....much of this movement I am convinced is spurred on by their interests. If this assumption is correct,I certainly can imagine the Pac12 following suit by raiding the Big 12.

4) What we really have are three secure conference (Pac12, SEC, Big10) and two upper conferences (ACC and Big12). Will moves by the secure conference lead to the demise of both of these two? I think at a minimum they will weaken both of them...

The big difference here is that ESPN owns 100% of the ACC games for the long-term, whereas the other leagues are split up between ESPN and Fox and/or CBS. Believe me, ESPN has a *lot* riding in the preservation of the ACC. Even if you believe that ESPN proactively destroyed the Big East, why the heck would they then turn around and support the destruction of the ACC that benefited the most from such destruction of the Big East? That makes no sense if this conspiracy theory holds. The last thing that ESPN wants is to see the Big Ten Network and Fox get even stronger by adding a school like UNC. As I've told many people here before, ESPN wants the exact *opposite* of what you're arguing. It's a complete misnomer that realignment is a good thing for ESPN or any other TV network. They have to deal with it because competitors such as the BTN exist, but if they had their druthers, they'd MUCH rather be paying smaller amounts to smaller conferences that have to compete with each other on price and exposure than having to deal with fewer superconferences that approach NFL-like pricing power.

which because of TV networks, could become 4.

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

lol...that makes it even better. However, I think Delany has other plans for Notre Dame.

To hell with Delany's " plans".

(02-26-2013 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The big difference here is that ESPN owns 100% of the ACC games for the long-term, whereas the other leagues are split up between ESPN and Fox and/or CBS. Believe me, ESPN has a *lot* riding in the preservation of the ACC. Even if you believe that ESPN proactively destroyed the Big East, why the heck would they then turn around and support the destruction of the ACC that benefited the most from such destruction of the Big East? That makes no sense if this conspiracy theory holds. The last thing that ESPN wants is to see the Big Ten Network and Fox get even stronger by adding a school like UNC. As I've told many people here before, ESPN wants the exact *opposite* of what you're arguing. It's a complete misnomer that realignment is a good thing for ESPN or any other TV network. They have to deal with it because competitors such as the BTN exist, but if they had their druthers, they'd MUCH rather be paying smaller amounts to smaller conferences that have to compete with each other on price and exposure than having to deal with fewer superconferences that approach NFL-like pricing power.

That makes a lot of sense, but let's not pretend that ESPN hasn't guided realignment to suit its own ends.

(02-26-2013 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:51 PM)HSV Fan Wrote:  A lot of good points made in this thread...I just want to add a few thoughts.

1) As to why the move to 16 and the collapse of the ACC? Just like ESPN benefited by the collapse of the BE (it got the teams it wanted to go to other conferences) it is driven by money and TV. While having to pay more for each remaining conference, ESPN does not have to invest serious money in 6, or 5 conferences in the future. Just as the nBE has less bargaining power for TV contracts, so too would the ACC and thus Espn could keep them at a reduced rate (or not) and put their efforts into ensuring that every airing of an SEC/Big10/Big12 game was meaningful (no longer showing Ole Miss, Northwestern, or Texas Tech) much like Monday night football wants to show only the marquee matchups. If you are not in one of the major conferences going forward, you will be even less relevant given the media concentration and fascination with the most elite conferences.

2) I do agree that the Big12 has issues also...they are just two schools defections away from imploding as was discussed above. A

3) All indications are that the SEC and Big 10 are going to 16 eventually (I agree with much of what was written above about doing to add value only...I think the value is to the networks also...not just the conferences -- see point #1 above). We all know how much influence ESPN has on things....much of this movement I am convinced is spurred on by their interests. If this assumption is correct,I certainly can imagine the Pac12 following suit by raiding the Big 12.

4) What we really have are three secure conference (Pac12, SEC, Big10) and two upper conferences (ACC and Big12). Will moves by the secure conference lead to the demise of both of these two? I think at a minimum they will weaken both of them...

The big difference here is that ESPN owns 100% of the ACC games for the long-term, whereas the other leagues are split up between ESPN and Fox and/or CBS. Believe me, ESPN has a *lot* riding in the preservation of the ACC. Even if you believe that ESPN proactively destroyed the Big East, why the heck would they then turn around and support the destruction of the ACC that benefited the most from such destruction of the Big East? That makes no sense if this conspiracy theory holds. The last thing that ESPN wants is to see the Big Ten Network and Fox get even stronger by adding a school like UNC. As I've told many people here before, ESPN wants the exact *opposite* of what you're arguing. It's a complete misnomer that realignment is a good thing for ESPN or any other TV network. They have to deal with it because competitors such as the BTN exist, but if they had their druthers, they'd MUCH rather be paying smaller amounts to smaller conferences that have to compete with each other on price and exposure than having to deal with fewer superconferences that approach NFL-like pricing power.

Taken from a macro-economic viewpoint, I understand your assertions regarding ESPN's desire for more not less competition by smaller conferences rather than NFL-like entities. However, what this argument doesn't consider is that while ESPN may have to pay more for an SEC contract, it will pay substantially less for access to a lot of other schools to fill its less desirable time slots and networks. For example, pay more for the ACC contract, but end up in total paying a lot less for two conferences by now having the value of the BE worth less in this era of tv-inflation on contract values. [it is a hypothetical and we will never know, but what if the marquee BE schools hadn't left for the ACC?...given the value of sports on tv going up as it has for many reasons, I contend that ESPN would be out of pocket more in total trying to retain the rights to both the BE and ACC] Put this on top of trying to secure SEC and Big12 rights (and some Pac12), it becomes more manageable and cost efficient to eliminate major competing conferences and pick up the scraps for peanuts.

(02-26-2013 01:10 PM)HSV Fan Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:51 PM)HSV Fan Wrote:  A lot of good points made in this thread...I just want to add a few thoughts.

1) As to why the move to 16 and the collapse of the ACC? Just like ESPN benefited by the collapse of the BE (it got the teams it wanted to go to other conferences) it is driven by money and TV. While having to pay more for each remaining conference, ESPN does not have to invest serious money in 6, or 5 conferences in the future. Just as the nBE has less bargaining power for TV contracts, so too would the ACC and thus Espn could keep them at a reduced rate (or not) and put their efforts into ensuring that every airing of an SEC/Big10/Big12 game was meaningful (no longer showing Ole Miss, Northwestern, or Texas Tech) much like Monday night football wants to show only the marquee matchups. If you are not in one of the major conferences going forward, you will be even less relevant given the media concentration and fascination with the most elite conferences.

2) I do agree that the Big12 has issues also...they are just two schools defections away from imploding as was discussed above. A

3) All indications are that the SEC and Big 10 are going to 16 eventually (I agree with much of what was written above about doing to add value only...I think the value is to the networks also...not just the conferences -- see point #1 above). We all know how much influence ESPN has on things....much of this movement I am convinced is spurred on by their interests. If this assumption is correct,I certainly can imagine the Pac12 following suit by raiding the Big 12.

4) What we really have are three secure conference (Pac12, SEC, Big10) and two upper conferences (ACC and Big12). Will moves by the secure conference lead to the demise of both of these two? I think at a minimum they will weaken both of them...

The big difference here is that ESPN owns 100% of the ACC games for the long-term, whereas the other leagues are split up between ESPN and Fox and/or CBS. Believe me, ESPN has a *lot* riding in the preservation of the ACC. Even if you believe that ESPN proactively destroyed the Big East, why the heck would they then turn around and support the destruction of the ACC that benefited the most from such destruction of the Big East? That makes no sense if this conspiracy theory holds. The last thing that ESPN wants is to see the Big Ten Network and Fox get even stronger by adding a school like UNC. As I've told many people here before, ESPN wants the exact *opposite* of what you're arguing. It's a complete misnomer that realignment is a good thing for ESPN or any other TV network. They have to deal with it because competitors such as the BTN exist, but if they had their druthers, they'd MUCH rather be paying smaller amounts to smaller conferences that have to compete with each other on price and exposure than having to deal with fewer superconferences that approach NFL-like pricing power.

Taken from a macro-economic viewpoint, I understand your assertions regarding ESPN's desire for more not less competition by smaller conferences rather than NFL-like entities. However, what this argument doesn't consider is that while ESPN may have to pay more for an SEC contract, it will pay substantially less for access to a lot of other schools to fill its less desirable time slots and networks. For example, pay more for the ACC contract, but end up in total paying a lot less for two conferences by now having the value of the BE worth less in this era of tv-inflation on contract values. [it is a hypothetical and we will never know, but what if the marquee BE schools hadn't left for the ACC?...given the value of sports on tv going up as it has for many reasons, I contend that ESPN would be out of pocket more in total trying to retain the rights to both the BE and ACC] Put this on top of trying to secure SEC and Big12 rights (and some Pac12), it becomes more manageable and cost efficient to eliminate major competing conferences and pick up the scraps for peanuts.

Well, hold on a sec. ESPN isn't paying any more to the SEC - they're just setting up an SEC Network that will derive its own subcriber fees, of which the SEC will get a large cut. ESPN's deal with the SEC isn't likely to increase on a per-school basis, but the SEC will get more as a result of thier network.

And I think we can quantify how much ESPN saved by gutting the BE. Let's pretend that the BE signs that 2011 deal with ESPN for $130M/year and the ACC keeps their deal as-is for $200M/year. ESPN then shells out $330M/year for 30 schools' media rights and arguably two of the top three basketball conferences in the country ratings-wise. Now back to reality: the ACC is getting signed for about $275M with its latest iteration of the TV deal and the BE for $20M, for a total of $295M for 26 schools' media rights (assuming the C7 sign with Fox). ESPN just saved $35M/year, but lost 4 total schools.

(02-26-2013 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:51 PM)HSV Fan Wrote:  A lot of good points made in this thread...I just want to add a few thoughts.

1) As to why the move to 16 and the collapse of the ACC? Just like ESPN benefited by the collapse of the BE (it got the teams it wanted to go to other conferences) it is driven by money and TV. While having to pay more for each remaining conference, ESPN does not have to invest serious money in 6, or 5 conferences in the future. Just as the nBE has less bargaining power for TV contracts, so too would the ACC and thus Espn could keep them at a reduced rate (or not) and put their efforts into ensuring that every airing of an SEC/Big10/Big12 game was meaningful (no longer showing Ole Miss, Northwestern, or Texas Tech) much like Monday night football wants to show only the marquee matchups. If you are not in one of the major conferences going forward, you will be even less relevant given the media concentration and fascination with the most elite conferences.

2) I do agree that the Big12 has issues also...they are just two schools defections away from imploding as was discussed above. A

3) All indications are that the SEC and Big 10 are going to 16 eventually (I agree with much of what was written above about doing to add value only...I think the value is to the networks also...not just the conferences -- see point #1 above). We all know how much influence ESPN has on things....much of this movement I am convinced is spurred on by their interests. If this assumption is correct,I certainly can imagine the Pac12 following suit by raiding the Big 12.

4) What we really have are three secure conference (Pac12, SEC, Big10) and two upper conferences (ACC and Big12). Will moves by the secure conference lead to the demise of both of these two? I think at a minimum they will weaken both of them...

The big difference here is that ESPN owns 100% of the ACC games for the long-term, whereas the other leagues are split up between ESPN and Fox and/or CBS. Believe me, ESPN has a *lot* riding in the preservation of the ACC. Even if you believe that ESPN proactively destroyed the Big East, why the heck would they then turn around and support the destruction of the ACC that benefited the most from such destruction of the Big East? That makes no sense if this conspiracy theory holds. The last thing that ESPN wants is to see the Big Ten Network and Fox get even stronger by adding a school like UNC. As I've told many people here before, ESPN wants the exact *opposite* of what you're arguing. It's a complete misnomer that realignment is a good thing for ESPN or any other TV network. They have to deal with it because competitors such as the BTN exist, but if they had their druthers, they'd MUCH rather be paying smaller amounts to smaller conferences that have to compete with each other on price and exposure than having to deal with fewer superconferences that approach NFL-like pricing power.

I don't understand why you always have to rain on our parade. These boards have been miserable for months, we finally get a topic everyone seems to be excited about (albeit gloriously disillusioned) and you have to come back with the hammer of reality.

For the sake of the mods that have to deal with the bad attitudes of all the posters, can you please give it a rest?

(02-26-2013 01:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

lol...that makes it even better. However, I think Delany has other plans for Notre Dame.

To hell with Delany's " plans".

TerryD...3 years ago, Swarbrick was quoted in a Thamel NYT piece saying "You each could invent a scenario that would force our hand." This is the article that referred to seismic change and all of that good stuff.

I know that was a long time ago. That said, I think we'd agree that part of B1G strategy has to include luring ND into full conference affiliation. It's a rhetorical question but I have to ask, what equals seismic change? B1G takes 2, SEC takes 2? B1G takes 4, SEC takes 2? Does it revolve around NC and Duke? I don't really see any scenario in which ND is B1G #16, but is it really all that far-fetched to see ND as B1G #18 or #20?

Conversely, does the creation of the C7 conference change things? That seems like a nice little place to park ND's olympic sports if conference armageddon comes to fruition.

(02-26-2013 01:39 PM)Tampa Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 11:59 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  For those keeping track, if his prediction comes to fruition, with the teams mentioned:

Northeast - Pitt, UConn, Temple, Boston College
East Coast - ECU, Navy, Wake Forest
Florida - USF, UCF, Miami
Mid-America - Memphis, Louisville, Cinci
South - SMU, UH, Tulane

I'd watch that.

ND for basketball, baseball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. plus 3-5 football games per year?

lol...that makes it even better. However, I think Delany has other plans for Notre Dame.

To hell with Delany's " plans".

TerryD...3 years ago, Swarbrick was quoted in a Thamel NYT piece saying "You each could invent a scenario that would force our hand." This is the article that referred to seismic change and all of that good stuff.

I know that was a long time ago. That said, I think we'd agree that part of B1G strategy has to include luring ND into full conference affiliation. It's a rhetorical question but I have to ask, what equals seismic change? B1G takes 2, SEC takes 2? B1G takes 4, SEC takes 2? Does it revolve around NC and Duke? I don't really see any scenario in which ND is B1G #16, but is it really all that far-fetched to see ND as B1G #18 or #20?

Conversely, does the creation of the C7 conference change things? That seems like a nice little place to park ND's olympic sports if conference armageddon comes to fruition.

I think he largely was referring to playoff access.

ND still needs bowl access and November opponents.

That leaves out the C7 except as a last ditch resort.

(02-26-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know that anyone would want to absorb that bunch. They wouldn't even qualify as a conference any more.

Would anyone really want Wake forest if they weren't attached to the other Carolina schools? Now that Miami's been knocked off their perch, does anyone really want them?

Certainly someone would jump at Louisville, Pitt, and BC. I could easily see the Big East absorbing them - perhaps with Miami. Or I could see the best of the Big East building a new conference with some combination of those 5.

I believe with both the ACC and the Big East being owned completely by ESPN, that they will decide which conference will remain, and who will be invited to that conference based on their opinion as to who adds value.

(02-26-2013 02:40 PM)Coog82 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know that anyone would want to absorb that bunch. They wouldn't even qualify as a conference any more.

Would anyone really want Wake forest if they weren't attached to the other Carolina schools? Now that Miami's been knocked off their perch, does anyone really want them?

Certainly someone would jump at Louisville, Pitt, and BC. I could easily see the Big East absorbing them - perhaps with Miami. Or I could see the best of the Big East building a new conference with some combination of those 5.

I believe with both the ACC and the Big East being owned completely by ESPN, that they will decide which conference will remain, and who will be invited to that conference based on their opinion as to who adds value.

ESPN does not completely own either conference. They have exclusive television rights. No ownership stake. Does that give them supreme influence? Sure but that doesn't mean they can force them to do crap.

(02-26-2013 02:47 PM)krux Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 02:40 PM)Coog82 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know that anyone would want to absorb that bunch. They wouldn't even qualify as a conference any more.

Would anyone really want Wake forest if they weren't attached to the other Carolina schools? Now that Miami's been knocked off their perch, does anyone really want them?

Certainly someone would jump at Louisville, Pitt, and BC. I could easily see the Big East absorbing them - perhaps with Miami. Or I could see the best of the Big East building a new conference with some combination of those 5.

I believe with both the ACC and the Big East being owned completely by ESPN, that they will decide which conference will remain, and who will be invited to that conference based on their opinion as to who adds value.

ESPN does not completely own either conference. They have exclusive television rights. No ownership stake. Does that give them supreme influence? Sure but that doesn't mean they can force them to do crap.

Those who have the gold own college presidents. Especially those who manage money like our government, and that would be most of them.

(02-26-2013 10:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know that anyone would want to absorb that bunch. They wouldn't even qualify as a conference any more.

Would anyone really want Wake forest if they weren't attached to the other Carolina schools? Now that Miami's been knocked off their perch, does anyone really want them?

Certainly someone would jump at Louisville, Pitt, and BC. I could easily see the Big East absorbing them - perhaps with Miami. Or I could see the best of the Big East building a new conference with some combination of those 5.

Wake Forest is a darn good school for any conference. They are fairly small and private but they aren't the only school that fits that category. The are also very highly regarded academically. They have a strong sports tradition as well. They won a conference championship in football just a few years ago, something no other NC ACC school has been able to do. Their basketball has always been strong. A few recent down years are just that, a few down years. Their golf program is one of the best around.