(10-19-2013 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 01:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's all moot anyway. If the SEC and ACC were to consume the Big 12 with both moving to 18 then I could see the swap working. Here's why. If Virginia were still guaranteed an annual game with Va Tech and U.N.C. and Duke could both still play N.C. State in basketball and U.N.C. in football as in an agreed arrangement between the SEC and ACC then swapping Virginia Tech and N.C. State loses the ACC footprint 0 viewers and in moving to 18 they would Texas as a hybrid, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas Christian and Baylor they would be adding almost 31 million viewers to their footprint. The value of that gambit is simply too strong to pass on. The SEC could pick up Oklahoma State and West Virginia while acquiring their goals in Virginia and North Carolina and with the full understanding that Kansas would be headed to the Big 10. That accounts for 8 schools and the end of the Big 12. In that scenario both the ACC and SEC can afford their additions to 18, none need expand any further, and ESPN will have protected 2 of the 3 brands they coveted most. FOX gets Kansas to the Big 10 possibly with Iowa State and the PAC can expand from what's available to them or just pocket the extra playoff revenue from the division of the 5th share.

In order for this whole thing to work, Texas has to move west.
If we were to stay at 64, I could see Vanderbilt moving to the ACC with Notre Dame.
This actually helps the ACC as a basketball league and pushes the ACC westward. It also helps Vanderbilt to be more competitive on the football field with games against other private schools.
The SEC would get Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and either Baylor or Kansas State. The B1G takes Kansas and has to absorb Iowa State.
That means that Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and either Baylor of Kansas State moves to the PAC. West Virginia gets left out. That accounts for 9 of the Big 12 and is geographically friendly.
The more likely scenario is to stay at 65 (which I think is the max number)
In that case West Virginia moves to the ACC with South Carolina, and Notre Dame stays a partial ACC member (with every thing else staying the same)....this accounts for all of the Big 12 in as geographically friendly manner as possible.

The Big Ten has to absorb Iowa State? Not happening. Texas has to move West? Not happening either.

If the goal is AAU schools, the B1G could do far worse the ISU. I think you're just biased on that one, HO. It would eliminate totally Iowa's B1G advantage.

If the goal was *just* AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

(10-19-2013 04:16 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  If the goal was AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

It would have been Missouri before Nebraska not ISU.

I don't know why folks like Bit still continue the talking point of the Big Ten's goal being simply about AAU schools when the Nebraska choice over Missouri made it plainly obvious that AAU is a helpful characteristic to have but it isn't make or break.

Folks saying I am being biased about Iowa State know nothing about the Big Ten.

(10-19-2013 04:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:16 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  If the goal was AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

It would have been Missouri before Nebraska not ISU.

I don't know why folks like Bit still continue the talking point of the Big Ten's goal being simply about AAU schools when the Nebraska choice over Missouri made it plainly obvious that AAU is a helpful characteristic to have but it isn't make or break.

Folks saying I am being biased about Iowa State know nothing about the Big Ten.

For the 4 conference alignment with playoff is going to work the less desirable schools have to end up somewhere. Every conference will end up having to take a "stinker".

(10-19-2013 04:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:16 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  If the goal was AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

It would have been Missouri before Nebraska not ISU.

I don't know why folks like Bit still continue the talking point of the Big Ten's goal being simply about AAU schools when the Nebraska choice over Missouri made it plainly obvious that AAU is a helpful characteristic to have but it isn't make or break.

Folks saying I am being biased about Iowa State know nothing about the Big Ten.

Just yanking your chain after all the AAU and academic comments you've made previously about the B1G. I thought you'd figure that out...

(10-19-2013 05:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:16 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  If the goal was AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

It would have been Missouri before Nebraska not ISU.

I don't know why folks like Bit still continue the talking point of the Big Ten's goal being simply about AAU schools when the Nebraska choice over Missouri made it plainly obvious that AAU is a helpful characteristic to have but it isn't make or break.

Folks saying I am being biased about Iowa State know nothing about the Big Ten.

For the 4 conference alignment with playoff is going to work the less desirable schools have to end up somewhere. Every conference will end up having to take a "stinker".

As they say in Animal House they are all distinguished and deserving in some way. Let's not call them stinkers. We could call them Lonnie, Mohammed, Jugdish, Sydney, and Clayton. If the Big 10 takes Sydney the SEC will take Clayton and the PAC will take Jugdish, and the ACC needs to help out with either Lonnie or Mohammed.

(10-19-2013 07:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 05:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 04:16 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  If the goal was AAU, it would have been ISU before Nebraska.

It would have been Missouri before Nebraska not ISU.

I don't know why folks like Bit still continue the talking point of the Big Ten's goal being simply about AAU schools when the Nebraska choice over Missouri made it plainly obvious that AAU is a helpful characteristic to have but it isn't make or break.

Folks saying I am being biased about Iowa State know nothing about the Big Ten.

For the 4 conference alignment with playoff is going to work the less desirable schools have to end up somewhere. Every conference will end up having to take a "stinker".

As they say in Animal House they are all distinguished and deserving in some way. Let's not call them stinkers. We could call them Lonnie, Mohammed, Jugdish, Sydney, and Clayton. If the Big 10 takes Sydney the SEC will take Clayton and the PAC will take Jugdish, and the ACC needs to help out with either Lonnie or Mohammed.

When I was in school during rush, we used to direct Lonnie, Mohammed, Jugdish, Sydney and Clayton into the "fourth group". Eric Stratton rush chairman, damn glad to meet you.

(10-17-2013 03:06 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(10-17-2013 02:47 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(10-16-2013 08:28 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Concerning NC State and Vanderbilt... the question is not so much about head to head value as the value to each conference if a switch were to occur. Is it fair to say that the ACC owns the Raleigh market right now? I would hope so considering they have 3 teams within it. Vanderbilt brings the Nashville market (#29) and a new state. NC State would bring a new market and state to the SEC. Vandy fits culturally with the ACC, and NC State would find that they fit well in the SEC, especially if given the opportunity to step away from brother just like TAMU.

Not sure that I completely agree with this. You take State out of ACC but then you still have all of the (ECU, big Raleigh presence!) Unc and to a lesser extent Duke (basketball) and Wake tv fans. Move State to the SEC and at first ratings go up because the rest of the NC schools want to watch state lose. I feel that eventually the novelty will wear off and only state fans would care.

You take Vandy out of Nashville but you still have all of the Tennessee fans in Nashville. Vandy and UT compliment each other for TV eyeballs imo. If Vandy leaves for the ACC the UT fans in Nashville become disinterested in Vandy and visa versa.

I have no supporting evidence other than my interactions with the fan bases....just some thoughts. Not even sure I'm clearly getting my thought process across.

I follow, Beta, and you are probably right. In terms of viewership, losing Vandy would have very little impact in Nashville. Most football fans in town root for some other team, especially UT, UK, and Alabama because of transplants. Southern middle TN is actually very pro Auburn. Basically, outside of the actual Vandy campus, there are very few Commodore fans. Vandy brings pretty much everything else that is important, though, and they really are quite stellar in the Olympic sports and usually pretty decent in basketball. They are great at baseball.

It would be interesting to see what would happen in the state of NC if we brought in NC State. Would you end up with the casual fan who did not attend UNC switching their "team"? Clemson and South Carolina is probably a good test case; what happened in that state when one team left the ACC? A generation later, are more casual fans becoming USC or Clemson fans? Of course, alumni and those that live in the campus cities will lean that way, but what about those living in Charleston or Rock Hill?

In regards to your second paragraph it's hard to say what would happen. I agree, it would be very interesting (and painful for me to watch). I honestly don't know who draws the casual fan in SC. I visit the state fairly regularly, but everyone I know there pulls for an out of state team or went to USC/Clemson. Most of my experience is in MB/Charleston area and I see plenty of Clemson and S. Car stickers on cars/t-shirts on people. I'd say it's pretty even. I also see tons of NCstate/ECU stuff in myrtle too but I think both schools have sizable alumni in the area/popular vacation spot for our fan bases. The coast is a tricky area to gauge due to transplants. I grew up in two different coastal cities before attending ECU and the fandom is very random.