(03-31-2017 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

That sounds about right, JR.

I don't know what the conference leaders want, much less what's actually going to happen, but I can guess what ESPN would like:

ACC:
* Notre Dame & Texas non-football members, each play 5 ACC games (thus guaranteeing 5 TV games for the ACC, 5 to be divided between UT and ND, with the one stuck with only 2 possibly hosting the other?)
* Add Oklahoma and one of the Texas schools, tbd, to get to 16 for football, 18 for basketball (despite recent success, the ACC needs another football powerhouse, IMO).

SEC:
* Add Kansas to pair with Kentucky basketball (something the SEC really could use!) and with Missouri football (renewed rivalry game).
* Add West Virginia, to get better SEC penetration into the Pittsburgh / Cincinnati markets, and yet another rabid fan base.
* I could even see the SEC adding 2 more to get to 18 - possibly another Texas school or even 2 more, and/or maybe Oklahoma State.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what WILL happen, just that it gives ESPN control over virtually every Big XII piece worth having (with 18 teams in both the ACC & SEC). There are certainly other ways to configure this - although if you stipulate Texas + 2 "friends" to the ACC, that part may have to be done first.

Besides, I really like the idea of Kansas to the SEC.

(03-31-2017 10:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

That sounds about right, JR.

I don't know what the conference leaders want, much less what's actually going to happen, but I can guess what ESPN would like:

ACC:
* Notre Dame & Texas non-football members, each play 5 ACC games (thus guaranteeing 5 TV games for the ACC, 5 to be divided between UT and ND, with the one stuck with only 2 possibly hosting the other?)
* Add Oklahoma and one of the Texas schools, tbd, to get to 16 for football, 18 for basketball (despite recent success, the ACC needs another football powerhouse, IMO).

SEC:
* Add Kansas to pair with Kentucky basketball (something the SEC really could use!) and with Missouri football (renewed rivalry game).
* Add West Virginia, to get better SEC penetration into the Pittsburgh / Cincinnati markets, and yet another rabid fan base.
* I could even see the SEC adding 2 more to get to 18 - possibly another Texas school or even 2 more, and/or maybe Oklahoma State.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what WILL happen, just that it gives ESPN control over virtually every Big XII piece worth having (with 18 teams in both the ACC & SEC). There are certainly other ways to configure this - although if you stipulate Texas + 2 "friends" to the ACC, that part may have to be done first.

Besides, I really like the idea of Kansas to the SEC.

The SEC will insist on Oklahoma. We have 1 objective and that is depth of penetration into the DFW market. If Texas is independent they don't need Oklahoma and Oklahoma isn't going to do a flyover to play all sports on the East Coast. I would think you are looking at T.C.U. or Tech. I think the SEC will likely have to take OSU to land OU, although I would rather see Kansas in that second slot.

But even if the ACC was fortunate enough to land OU, the SEC would not be taking W.V.U.. We might take T.C.U. to be in DFW in a very tangible way, and if we were fortunate Kansas would be a nice mate. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would be other less favorable alternatives for DFW.

Anyway that's how I see it at 16.

Now if we are talking 18 things could break quite differently. The problem for the SEC here is that with either OU or UT we can afford to take one of the others. But UT and OU are the only two that actually make us money. So I think for the ACC 16 full members and 2 partials is your 18. For the SEC it will be OU plus 1 or nothing.

Besides ESPN knows that it would ruin its relationship with the SEC should it scheme to take away the only addition outside of A&M that we wanted to the West. Especially after the failed deal in 2011.

But don't be surprised if Texas wants their own division and Texa-homa for the SEC becomes a viable possibility.

We'll see in about 5 years God willing!

Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

(04-01-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

*PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

(03-31-2017 05:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But keep in mind the circumstances back then when ND was given their partial membership deal were hardly the conditions that exist now. The ACC was in a very precarious position back then and was perceived as the P5 conference most likely to implode - until the ND deal solidified the league.


Cheers,
Neil

notre dame's announcement (sep. 12, 2012) preceded maryland's (nov. 19, 2012) ...

REVISIONIST HISTORY

I'm with you NZM, I don't know why people continue to have interest in adding schools like Baylor and TCU. They don't move the needle at all. I know I'm in the minority but I'd much rather have some combination of UConn, WVU and Cincy.

(04-01-2017 12:46 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  I know I'm in the minority but I'd much rather have some combination of UConn, WVU and Cincy.

QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD

(03-31-2017 10:06 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  A & M left the Big XII because of Texas dedicated network FIFY.

Additionally ... Texas would never admit that A & M made a good move by making the same exact move themselves, years later. Especially when there are BETTER academic conferences to choose from.

Texas will NEVER join the SEC. EVER.

The Texas–Texas A&M football rivalry was an American college football rivalry between the Texas Longhorns and Texas A&M Aggies. The rivalry was played every year between 1915 and 2011, until A&M left the Big 12 Conference to join the Southeastern Conference.

The first meeting was in 1894.
-- wiki

horns leapfrog ags by upselling games under our banner ...
v. notre dame
v. fsu
v. clemson
v. georgia tech
v. louisville
v. north carolina
v. virginia tech
v. Miami
whet the appetite of tv, fan & recruit alike ...

MMM MMM GOOD

(03-31-2017 11:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 10:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

That sounds about right, JR.

I don't know what the conference leaders want, much less what's actually going to happen, but I can guess what ESPN would like:

ACC:
* Notre Dame & Texas non-football members, each play 5 ACC games (thus guaranteeing 5 TV games for the ACC, 5 to be divided between UT and ND, with the one stuck with only 2 possibly hosting the other?)
* Add Oklahoma and one of the Texas schools, tbd, to get to 16 for football, 18 for basketball (despite recent success, the ACC needs another football powerhouse, IMO).

SEC:
* Add Kansas to pair with Kentucky basketball (something the SEC really could use!) and with Missouri football (renewed rivalry game).
* Add West Virginia, to get better SEC penetration into the Pittsburgh / Cincinnati markets, and yet another rabid fan base.
* I could even see the SEC adding 2 more to get to 18 - possibly another Texas school or even 2 more, and/or maybe Oklahoma State.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what WILL happen, just that it gives ESPN control over virtually every Big XII piece worth having (with 18 teams in both the ACC & SEC). There are certainly other ways to configure this - although if you stipulate Texas + 2 "friends" to the ACC, that part may have to be done first.

Besides, I really like the idea of Kansas to the SEC.

The SEC will insist on Oklahoma. We have 1 objective and that is depth of penetration into the DFW market. If Texas is independent they don't need Oklahoma and Oklahoma isn't going to do a flyover to play all sports on the East Coast. I would think you are looking at T.C.U. or Tech. I think the SEC will likely have to take OSU to land OU, although I would rather see Kansas in that second slot.

But even if the ACC was fortunate enough to land OU, the SEC would not be taking W.V.U.. We might take T.C.U. to be in DFW in a very tangible way, and if we were fortunate Kansas would be a nice mate. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would be other less favorable alternatives for DFW.

Anyway that's how I see it at 16.

Now if we are talking 18 things could break quite differently. The problem for the SEC here is that with either OU or UT we can afford to take one of the others. But UT and OU are the only two that actually make us money. So I think for the ACC 16 full members and 2 partials is your 18. For the SEC it will be OU plus 1 or nothing.

Besides ESPN knows that it would ruin its relationship with the SEC should it scheme to take away the only addition outside of A&M that we wanted to the West. Especially after the failed deal in 2011.

But don't be surprised if Texas wants their own division and Texa-homa for the SEC becomes a viable possibility.

We'll see in about 5 years God willing!

Ultimately, isn't the cleanest, most simple solution to add both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC West (along with moving Mizzou out of the East) and shift Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East?

At that point, from the point of view of ESPN, they don't really need to do anything with the ACC (whose scheduling situation is already complicated enough), and they don't really need to do anything with - or for - the remaining Big XII schools. They can simply stay at 8 or replace Tex-homa with 2 decent football programs, with an understanding that ESPN won't try to undermine their NY6 bowl tie-in or power conference status regardless what they choose to do.

With this move, I'm not at all sure the B1G or PAC would feel a need to respond in kind, simply because there isn't a valuable "in kind" for them to pursue.

Peace in our time.

(04-01-2017 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  Ultimately, isn't the cleanest, most simple solution to add both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC West (along with moving Mizzou out of the East) and shift Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East?

At that point, from the point of view of ESPN, they don't really need to do anything with the ACC (whose scheduling situation is already complicated enough), and they don't really need to do anything with - or for - the remaining Big XII schools. They can simply stay at 8 or replace Tex-homa with 2 decent football programs, with an understanding that ESPN won't try to undermine their NY6 bowl tie-in or power conference status regardless what they choose to do.

With this move, I'm not at all sure the B1G would feel a need to respond in kind, simply because there isn't a valuable "in kind" for them to pursue.

Peace in our time.

the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.
-- frankthetank.me

did you bother to ask the parties involved ...
texas wants its network ...
sec won't accede ...
deal breaker from the jump ...
look ...
this is mental masturbation ...
longtime longhorn athletic director went on record ...
should the big12 break up ...
howdy ACC ...

ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING

Since all I've heard from UCONN fans is how ZOMG AMAZING their women's hoops team is ... and since they just lost to Mississippi State ... let's just extend an invite to Mississippi State.

(04-01-2017 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 11:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 10:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:39 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Count me among those who think that the LHN exists primarily to keep Texas away from Fox.

Therefore, if Texas joined the ACC either all-in or as Notre Dame, there would be no justification for the LHN.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

Mark they would simply convert it into another regional studio like Charlotte. I would think that both the SEC and ACC would use it and that Texas would be compensated for a % of the remaining contract either by reductions in the increase to the other teams in whatever conference they joined (and I do think it would have to be ESPN held) or ESPN might simply buy it out at a reduced rate. Either way it is a very workable situation.

It's just that I think optimally the Horns will want a couple of buddies. So if they joined as a partial it might make sense for the ACC to take two of those buddies as full members to 16. Then N.D. and U.T. could work whatever # of conference games they ultimately agree to play into your network whether that was just their road games or their road games and a dedicated home game.

I just don't see the Horns headed your way without regional/state buddies being part of the deal. Travel for their minor sports will need some more local venues besides their own to reduce overhead.

That sounds about right, JR.

I don't know what the conference leaders want, much less what's actually going to happen, but I can guess what ESPN would like:

ACC:
* Notre Dame & Texas non-football members, each play 5 ACC games (thus guaranteeing 5 TV games for the ACC, 5 to be divided between UT and ND, with the one stuck with only 2 possibly hosting the other?)
* Add Oklahoma and one of the Texas schools, tbd, to get to 16 for football, 18 for basketball (despite recent success, the ACC needs another football powerhouse, IMO).

SEC:
* Add Kansas to pair with Kentucky basketball (something the SEC really could use!) and with Missouri football (renewed rivalry game).
* Add West Virginia, to get better SEC penetration into the Pittsburgh / Cincinnati markets, and yet another rabid fan base.
* I could even see the SEC adding 2 more to get to 18 - possibly another Texas school or even 2 more, and/or maybe Oklahoma State.

NOTE: I'm not saying that's what WILL happen, just that it gives ESPN control over virtually every Big XII piece worth having (with 18 teams in both the ACC & SEC). There are certainly other ways to configure this - although if you stipulate Texas + 2 "friends" to the ACC, that part may have to be done first.

Besides, I really like the idea of Kansas to the SEC.

The SEC will insist on Oklahoma. We have 1 objective and that is depth of penetration into the DFW market. If Texas is independent they don't need Oklahoma and Oklahoma isn't going to do a flyover to play all sports on the East Coast. I would think you are looking at T.C.U. or Tech. I think the SEC will likely have to take OSU to land OU, although I would rather see Kansas in that second slot.

But even if the ACC was fortunate enough to land OU, the SEC would not be taking W.V.U.. We might take T.C.U. to be in DFW in a very tangible way, and if we were fortunate Kansas would be a nice mate. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech would be other less favorable alternatives for DFW.

Anyway that's how I see it at 16.

Now if we are talking 18 things could break quite differently. The problem for the SEC here is that with either OU or UT we can afford to take one of the others. But UT and OU are the only two that actually make us money. So I think for the ACC 16 full members and 2 partials is your 18. For the SEC it will be OU plus 1 or nothing.

Besides ESPN knows that it would ruin its relationship with the SEC should it scheme to take away the only addition outside of A&M that we wanted to the West. Especially after the failed deal in 2011.

But don't be surprised if Texas wants their own division and Texa-homa for the SEC becomes a viable possibility.

We'll see in about 5 years God willing!

Ultimately, isn't the cleanest, most simple solution to add both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC West (along with moving Mizzou out of the East) and shift Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East?

At that point, from the point of view of ESPN, they don't really need to do anything with the ACC (whose scheduling situation is already complicated enough), and they don't really need to do anything with - or for - the remaining Big XII schools. They can simply stay at 8 or replace Tex-homa with 2 decent football programs, with an understanding that ESPN won't try to undermine their NY6 bowl tie-in or power conference status regardless what they choose to do.

With this move, I'm not at all sure the B1G or PAC would feel a need to respond in kind, simply because there isn't a valuable "in kind" for them to pursue.

Peace in our time.

That's pretty much it Ken D. Figuring out where to place everyone else at this point is not in the interest of the bottom line of ESPN.

(04-01-2017 02:30 PM)green Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 02:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  Ultimately, isn't the cleanest, most simple solution to add both Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC West (along with moving Mizzou out of the East) and shift Alabama and Auburn to the SEC East?

At that point, from the point of view of ESPN, they don't really need to do anything with the ACC (whose scheduling situation is already complicated enough), and they don't really need to do anything with - or for - the remaining Big XII schools. They can simply stay at 8 or replace Tex-homa with 2 decent football programs, with an understanding that ESPN won't try to undermine their NY6 bowl tie-in or power conference status regardless what they choose to do.

With this move, I'm not at all sure the B1G would feel a need to respond in kind, simply because there isn't a valuable "in kind" for them to pursue.

Peace in our time.

the SEC continues to be simply a non-starter for the Longhorns.
-- frankthetank.me

did you bother to ask the parties involved ...
texas wants its network ...
sec won't accede ...
deal breaker from the jump ...
look ...
this is mental masturbation ...
longtime longhorn athletic director went on record ...
should the big12 break up ...
howdy ACC ...

ALL OVER BUT THE SHOUTING

Frank is citing a deal offered the ACC in 2011. It was rejected and things moved on. Besides, Frank is a Yank and at the bottom of his piece he is touting another B1G super scoop. Please!

(04-01-2017 12:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

*PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

In this scenario Baylor & TCU are there as regional partners for Texas. Even as a partial member Texas would want/need regional partners for their Olympic sports & putting them in a southern division without them doesn't cut it. My personal preference there would be Houston & Cincinnati but I think the ACC would be stuck with 2. Why Texas at all? For the $$$. Otherwise bring a combination of Cincinnati, WV, Houston & UCONN with ND.

The SEC could stop at 16 with Oklahoma & Oklahoma St & that would put Kansas & UCONN in the B1G.

Why would the B12 leftovers invite new members when they could make more $ in the PAC? What do they offer the PAC? With the B12 gone, FOX would make a play for the PAC & consolidate their expenses into 1 conference while moving the PAC footprint east. 1/2 ownership of the PACN? Likely included.

If Kansas goes to the SEC then what's left for the B1G? They could be the odd dog & stay at 14 but while the other power conferences are bringing in additional revenue from their expanded conference championships they wouldn't be. UCONN would be a no brainer I think in this scenario. As for the second, did you notice the (?) next to Cincinnati? Their options would be very limited. Cincinnati? Temple? BYU? Other? Stay at 15?

(04-01-2017 04:30 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 12:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

*PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

In this scenario Baylor & TCU are there as regional partners for Texas. Even as a partial member Texas would want/need regional partners for their Olympic sports & putting them in a southern division without them doesn't cut it. My personal preference there would be Houston & Cincinnati but I think the ACC would be stuck with 2. Why Texas at all? For the $$$. Otherwise bring a combination of Cincinnati, WV, Houston & UCONN with ND.

The SEC could stop at 16 with Oklahoma & Oklahoma St & that would put Kansas & UCONN in the B1G.

Why would the B12 leftovers invite new members when they could make more $ in the PAC? What do they offer the PAC? With the B12 gone, FOX would make a play for the PAC & consolidate their expenses into 1 conference while moving the PAC footprint east. 1/2 ownership of the PACN? Likely included.

If Kansas goes to the SEC then what's left for the B1G? They could be the odd dog & stay at 14 but while the other power conferences are bringing in additional revenue from their expanded conference championships they wouldn't be. UCONN would be a no brainer I think in this scenario. As for the second, did you notice the (?) next to Cincinnati? Their options would be very limited. Cincinnati? Temple? BYU? Other? Stay at 15?

1. Is Texas in an ACC south pod really more geographically burdensome than MIZZOU playing in the SEC East, Washington State/Washington playing in the Pac 10, BC in the ACC, Miami in the BIG EAST, etc? I don't think so. They wouldn't need any additional schools, and the ACC doesn't need to add Texas as a partial. Why would the ACC take on dead weight? Wouldn't that impact every existing ACC school's travel budget. Your assumptions don't look realistic to me.

2. PSU was the driving force behind RU and UMD. Other schools were open to the idea of the adds because UMD Brings value in and of itself, and both areas are good for donors, academic recruiting, and athletic recruiting for existing B1G schools to various degrees. Furthermore, PSU had a credible threat to jump to the ACC.

Those forces don't exist for UConn. So why would the B1G add UConn?

3. The Big XII schools would invite others because the NCAA mandates a minimum of 8 schools, and it wouldn't make sense for the Big XII to blow up the Big XII and lose conference assets.

The Big XII schools couldn't just go to the PAC because they'd need an invite from the PAC first, and that isn't on the table because they don't add significant value to the PAC.

And FOX wouldn't want it to happen because those schools aren't worth the PAC TV deal, and the existing PAC schools aren't going to add any new schools that water down their TV deal. It's cheaper for FOX to just renegotiate the Big XII contract.

4. The B1G was MIZZOU's first choice and dream conference. Why not add MIZZOU if there's an advantage to going to 16? Then there's going to be a free school out of KU, OU, OSU, and WVU. KU and OU would be the obvious favorites, but OSU and WVU are both better adds than Temple, Cincy, etc.

Seriously, why would PSU sign off on Temple? Why would Maryland and Rutgers (for whatever their opinion matters)? Why would tOSU sign off on UC? Why would any other B1G school that recruits Ohio heavily? And why would any B1G school schedule regular football games in CT?

For any move to be realistically plausible, the parties w/ the bargaining power need to win.

(04-01-2017 12:44 PM)green Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 05:55 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But keep in mind the circumstances back then when ND was given their partial membership deal were hardly the conditions that exist now. The ACC was in a very precarious position back then and was perceived as the P5 conference most likely to implode - until the ND deal solidified the league.


Cheers,
Neil

notre dame's announcement (sep. 12, 2012) preceded maryland's (nov. 19, 2012) ...

REVISIONIST HISTORY

ACC imploding was talked about WELL before Maryland left.

NEEDS TO DO MORE RESEARCH

NEEDS BETTER CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS IF ONE BELIEVES MARYLAND LEAVING WAS THE IMPETUS FOR ACC IMPLOSION TALKS BACK IN 2012

DONE WITH INANE POSTER WHO LACKS CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS TO AT LEAST HAVE A WELL ARGUED POINT OF VIEW

Cheers,
Neil

(04-01-2017 04:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 04:30 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 12:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

*PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

In this scenario Baylor & TCU are there as regional partners for Texas. Even as a partial member Texas would want/need regional partners for their Olympic sports & putting them in a southern division without them doesn't cut it. My personal preference there would be Houston & Cincinnati but I think the ACC would be stuck with 2. Why Texas at all? For the $$$. Otherwise bring a combination of Cincinnati, WV, Houston & UCONN with ND.

The SEC could stop at 16 with Oklahoma & Oklahoma St & that would put Kansas & UCONN in the B1G.

Why would the B12 leftovers invite new members when they could make more $ in the PAC? What do they offer the PAC? With the B12 gone, FOX would make a play for the PAC & consolidate their expenses into 1 conference while moving the PAC footprint east. 1/2 ownership of the PACN? Likely included.

If Kansas goes to the SEC then what's left for the B1G? They could be the odd dog & stay at 14 but while the other power conferences are bringing in additional revenue from their expanded conference championships they wouldn't be. UCONN would be a no brainer I think in this scenario. As for the second, did you notice the (?) next to Cincinnati? Their options would be very limited. Cincinnati? Temple? BYU? Other? Stay at 15?

1. Is Texas in an ACC south pod really more geographically burdensome than MIZZOU playing in the SEC East, Washington State/Washington playing in the Pac 10, BC in the ACC, Miami in the BIG EAST, etc? I don't think so. They wouldn't need any additional schools, and the ACC doesn't need to add Texas as a partial. Why would the ACC take on dead weight? Wouldn't that impact every existing ACC school's travel budget. Your assumptions don't look realistic to me.

2. PSU was the driving force behind RU and UMD. Other schools were open to the idea of the adds because UMD Brings value in and of itself, and both areas are good for donors, academic recruiting, and athletic recruiting for existing B1G schools to various degrees. Furthermore, PSU had a credible threat to jump to the ACC.

Those forces don't exist for UConn. So why would the B1G add UConn?

3. The Big XII schools would invite others because the NCAA mandates a minimum of 8 schools, and it wouldn't make sense for the Big XII to blow up the Big XII and lose conference assets.

The Big XII schools couldn't just go to the PAC because they'd need an invite from the PAC first, and that isn't on the table because they don't add significant value to the PAC.

And FOX wouldn't want it to happen because those schools aren't worth the PAC TV deal, and the existing PAC schools aren't going to add any new schools that water down their TV deal. It's cheaper for FOX to just renegotiate the Big XII contract.

4. The B1G was MIZZOU's first choice and dream conference. Why not add MIZZOU if there's an advantage to going to 16? Then there's going to be a free school out of KU, OU, OSU, and WVU. KU and OU would be the obvious favorites, but OSU and WVU are both better adds than Temple, Cincy, etc.

Seriously, why would PSU sign off on Temple? Why would Maryland and Rutgers (for whatever their opinion matters)? Why would tOSU sign off on UC? Why would any other B1G school that recruits Ohio heavily? And why would any B1G school schedule regular football games in CT?

For any move to be realistically plausible, the parties w/ the bargaining power need to win.

1) None of those schools are Texas. They would want them for scheduling purposes. In my scenario Texas & ND are full members. Why take Texas, $$$. With the ACC in 3 divisions of 6, how would it "impact every existing ACC school's travel budget"? The PAC wouldn't likely take TCU or Baylor due to their religious affiliations, hence the ACC being stuck with them.

2) As I said in my last response, the B1G could decide to stay at 14. The only drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to go to multiple divisions & have an extended conference championship. Why UCONN? Who else would be left?

3) In this scenario we have a P4 model for the CFP's so not being in one of the P4's would really make it difficult to make the CFP's. Moving a few teams to the PAC would be cheaper than paying for 2 conferences, incentive for FOX. PACN distribution would be another.

4) I don't think that Missouri will leave the SEC, after a B1G rejection why would they? Kansas could be a possibility, their choice between the SEC & B1G. Academics are huge for the B1G, WV wouldn't have a chance. (Neither would Louisville for that matter.) Kansas & UCONN have the academics. The B1G would have limited options. IIRC, Kansas 2nd tier rights are with ESPN.

(04-01-2017 06:46 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 04:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 04:30 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 12:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 09:14 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Oklahoma & Kansas goes to the SEC. If they go to 18 then they take 2 of Oklahoma St, TT & WV.

Texas & ND as full members of the ACC. 2 of TCU, Houston, TT, Baylor & Cincinnati come along as well. What Houston, TCU & Cincinnati offer is a vote that wouldn't automatically go with Texas.

The PAC could expand with TT, Houston, Kansas State & Iowa State. The B1G would have UCONN & room for 1 more, who?

PAC
Arizona, Arizona St, TT, Houston

UCLA, Stanford, USC, Cal

Oregon, Oregon St, Wash, Wash St

Colorado, Utah, Kansas St, Iowa St


SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, A&M

Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky

Florida, Georgia, SC, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, WV


ACC
Texas, ND, TCU, Baylor, Louisville, Miami

FSU, Clemson, Pittsburgh, GT, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, WF


B1G
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern

Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati (?)

Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UCONN

*PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

In this scenario Baylor & TCU are there as regional partners for Texas. Even as a partial member Texas would want/need regional partners for their Olympic sports & putting them in a southern division without them doesn't cut it. My personal preference there would be Houston & Cincinnati but I think the ACC would be stuck with 2. Why Texas at all? For the $$$. Otherwise bring a combination of Cincinnati, WV, Houston & UCONN with ND.

The SEC could stop at 16 with Oklahoma & Oklahoma St & that would put Kansas & UCONN in the B1G.

Why would the B12 leftovers invite new members when they could make more $ in the PAC? What do they offer the PAC? With the B12 gone, FOX would make a play for the PAC & consolidate their expenses into 1 conference while moving the PAC footprint east. 1/2 ownership of the PACN? Likely included.

If Kansas goes to the SEC then what's left for the B1G? They could be the odd dog & stay at 14 but while the other power conferences are bringing in additional revenue from their expanded conference championships they wouldn't be. UCONN would be a no brainer I think in this scenario. As for the second, did you notice the (?) next to Cincinnati? Their options would be very limited. Cincinnati? Temple? BYU? Other? Stay at 15?

1. Is Texas in an ACC south pod really more geographically burdensome than MIZZOU playing in the SEC East, Washington State/Washington playing in the Pac 10, BC in the ACC, Miami in the BIG EAST, etc? I don't think so. They wouldn't need any additional schools, and the ACC doesn't need to add Texas as a partial. Why would the ACC take on dead weight? Wouldn't that impact every existing ACC school's travel budget. Your assumptions don't look realistic to me.

2. PSU was the driving force behind RU and UMD. Other schools were open to the idea of the adds because UMD Brings value in and of itself, and both areas are good for donors, academic recruiting, and athletic recruiting for existing B1G schools to various degrees. Furthermore, PSU had a credible threat to jump to the ACC.

Those forces don't exist for UConn. So why would the B1G add UConn?

3. The Big XII schools would invite others because the NCAA mandates a minimum of 8 schools, and it wouldn't make sense for the Big XII to blow up the Big XII and lose conference assets.

The Big XII schools couldn't just go to the PAC because they'd need an invite from the PAC first, and that isn't on the table because they don't add significant value to the PAC.

And FOX wouldn't want it to happen because those schools aren't worth the PAC TV deal, and the existing PAC schools aren't going to add any new schools that water down their TV deal. It's cheaper for FOX to just renegotiate the Big XII contract.

4. The B1G was MIZZOU's first choice and dream conference. Why not add MIZZOU if there's an advantage to going to 16? Then there's going to be a free school out of KU, OU, OSU, and WVU. KU and OU would be the obvious favorites, but OSU and WVU are both better adds than Temple, Cincy, etc.

Seriously, why would PSU sign off on Temple? Why would Maryland and Rutgers (for whatever their opinion matters)? Why would tOSU sign off on UC? Why would any other B1G school that recruits Ohio heavily? And why would any B1G school schedule regular football games in CT?

For any move to be realistically plausible, the parties w/ the bargaining power need to win.

1) None of those schools are Texas. They would want them for scheduling purposes. In my scenario Texas & ND are full members. Why take Texas, $$$. With the ACC in 3 divisions of 6, how would it "impact every existing ACC school's travel budget"? The PAC wouldn't likely take TCU or Baylor due to their religious affiliations, hence the ACC being stuck with them.

2) As I said in my last response, the B1G could decide to stay at 14. The only drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to go to multiple divisions & have an extended conference championship. Why UCONN? Who else would be left?

3) In this scenario we have a P4 model for the CFP's so not being in one of the P4's would really make it difficult to make the CFP's. Moving a few teams to the PAC would be cheaper than paying for 2 conferences, incentive for FOX. PACN distribution would be another.

4) I don't think that Missouri will leave the SEC, after a B1G rejection why would they? Kansas could be a possibility, their choice between the SEC & B1G. Academics are huge for the B1G, WV wouldn't have a chance. (Neither would Louisville for that matter.) Kansas & UCONN have the academics. The B1G would have limited options. IIRC, Kansas 2nd tier rights are with ESPN.

1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

Perhaps I am alone in my view but I could see The ACC adding UConn for strategic reasons. UConn needs to be ACC to keep them from The Big Ten. Presently The Big Ten is slow playing the Huskies just like The Big 12 did Louisville.

If The ACC chose to invite UConn we would add another flagship university with multiple competitive programs. Those that believe a spot should be held for Notre Dame are sadly mistaken. The Irish will never give up their independence unless they are forced to.

I say grab UConn, go to 9 conference games and move on.
CJ

(04-01-2017 07:11 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 06:46 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 04:57 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 04:30 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(04-01-2017 12:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  *PSU isn't going to want to play a school w/ 15 years of fbs history in a small, off campus stadium built on a dump. They don't recruit out of CT, and they already have a game in the NYC area for donors every other year. UConn isn't getting a B1G invite like RU and UMD did.

*The B1G isn't going to undercut tOSU by legitimizing another Ohio school.

*Baylor and TCU don't add anything significant to the ACC.

*I don't think that the SEC would want to go past 16 - and that desire for 16 would come as a result of a push for a semifinal ccg for 16 team conferences.

*TT, Houston, KSU, and ISU don't add value to the Pac.

I could see Texas taking a ND deal w/ the ACC (and the ACC splitting Olympic sports into north-south divisions to minimize travel costs of minor sports and/or creating pods: UTex-FSU-Miami-GT/Clemson, Duke-UNC-WF-NCSU, GT/Clemson-UVA-VT-UL, BC-SU-ND-Pitt). I could see the B1G taking Mizzou from the SEC and OU/KU from the Big XII. I could see the SEC taking WVU, OSU, OU/KU

Texas Tech, ISU, Baylor, TCU, and KSU would probably invite Houston, BYU, Cincinnati, and possibly Tulane/Rice/Tulsa, and continue the Big XII.

UConn would probably join the BIG EAST.

In this scenario Baylor & TCU are there as regional partners for Texas. Even as a partial member Texas would want/need regional partners for their Olympic sports & putting them in a southern division without them doesn't cut it. My personal preference there would be Houston & Cincinnati but I think the ACC would be stuck with 2. Why Texas at all? For the $$$. Otherwise bring a combination of Cincinnati, WV, Houston & UCONN with ND.

The SEC could stop at 16 with Oklahoma & Oklahoma St & that would put Kansas & UCONN in the B1G.

Why would the B12 leftovers invite new members when they could make more $ in the PAC? What do they offer the PAC? With the B12 gone, FOX would make a play for the PAC & consolidate their expenses into 1 conference while moving the PAC footprint east. 1/2 ownership of the PACN? Likely included.

If Kansas goes to the SEC then what's left for the B1G? They could be the odd dog & stay at 14 but while the other power conferences are bringing in additional revenue from their expanded conference championships they wouldn't be. UCONN would be a no brainer I think in this scenario. As for the second, did you notice the (?) next to Cincinnati? Their options would be very limited. Cincinnati? Temple? BYU? Other? Stay at 15?

1. Is Texas in an ACC south pod really more geographically burdensome than MIZZOU playing in the SEC East, Washington State/Washington playing in the Pac 10, BC in the ACC, Miami in the BIG EAST, etc? I don't think so. They wouldn't need any additional schools, and the ACC doesn't need to add Texas as a partial. Why would the ACC take on dead weight? Wouldn't that impact every existing ACC school's travel budget. Your assumptions don't look realistic to me.

2. PSU was the driving force behind RU and UMD. Other schools were open to the idea of the adds because UMD Brings value in and of itself, and both areas are good for donors, academic recruiting, and athletic recruiting for existing B1G schools to various degrees. Furthermore, PSU had a credible threat to jump to the ACC.

Those forces don't exist for UConn. So why would the B1G add UConn?

3. The Big XII schools would invite others because the NCAA mandates a minimum of 8 schools, and it wouldn't make sense for the Big XII to blow up the Big XII and lose conference assets.

The Big XII schools couldn't just go to the PAC because they'd need an invite from the PAC first, and that isn't on the table because they don't add significant value to the PAC.

And FOX wouldn't want it to happen because those schools aren't worth the PAC TV deal, and the existing PAC schools aren't going to add any new schools that water down their TV deal. It's cheaper for FOX to just renegotiate the Big XII contract.

4. The B1G was MIZZOU's first choice and dream conference. Why not add MIZZOU if there's an advantage to going to 16? Then there's going to be a free school out of KU, OU, OSU, and WVU. KU and OU would be the obvious favorites, but OSU and WVU are both better adds than Temple, Cincy, etc.

Seriously, why would PSU sign off on Temple? Why would Maryland and Rutgers (for whatever their opinion matters)? Why would tOSU sign off on UC? Why would any other B1G school that recruits Ohio heavily? And why would any B1G school schedule regular football games in CT?

For any move to be realistically plausible, the parties w/ the bargaining power need to win.

1) None of those schools are Texas. They would want them for scheduling purposes. In my scenario Texas & ND are full members. Why take Texas, $$$. With the ACC in 3 divisions of 6, how would it "impact every existing ACC school's travel budget"? The PAC wouldn't likely take TCU or Baylor due to their religious affiliations, hence the ACC being stuck with them.

2) As I said in my last response, the B1G could decide to stay at 14. The only drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to go to multiple divisions & have an extended conference championship. Why UCONN? Who else would be left?

3) In this scenario we have a P4 model for the CFP's so not being in one of the P4's would really make it difficult to make the CFP's. Moving a few teams to the PAC would be cheaper than paying for 2 conferences, incentive for FOX. PACN distribution would be another.

4) I don't think that Missouri will leave the SEC, after a B1G rejection why would they? Kansas could be a possibility, their choice between the SEC & B1G. Academics are huge for the B1G, WV wouldn't have a chance. (Neither would Louisville for that matter.) Kansas & UCONN have the academics. The B1G would have limited options. IIRC, Kansas 2nd tier rights are with ESPN.

1) Why would Texas join in full? And travel costs would go up because by playing teams on the other side of the country (Dallas teams), ACC schools would lose games against schools in driving range. Flying is more expensive than bussing, especially if it leads to hotel stays.
2) The schools that I listed earlier (OK State, OU, WVU, and KU) would be left and MIZZOU is probably still on the table. All of those schools would be better than adding UConn.
3) How would moving teams to the PAC be cheaper/better? The Pac payout would have to stay the same or go up to make the move. So assuming that it happened, Fox would be paying ~$20-30 million for each school. Why would FOX do that if they're worth ~$10-15 million each? And what do you mean 2 conferences being a bad thing? It's not like FOX wouldn't be getting content. They'd just get it cheaper.

4) MIZZOU would leave because they're a better institutional fit for the B1G, and the TV money is similar. That's much of why the B1G was their first choice. Why would that change? If academics were THAT important w/ regards to preventing schools from joining conferences, Nebraska wouldn't have gotten an invite, and KU wouldn't be on the table as a widely accepted possibility. UL got into the ACC after all. It's not like the B1G is snobbier than the ACC, or like WVU is markedly worse than UL.

1) Texas would join in full for the same reason as ND, champs only CFP. ND isn't joining unless that happens. Except for Louisville, ND & Miami it really wouldn't impact anyone else schedule. Syracuse, for example, would only go to Texas 3 times in 12 years for football. How many bus trips is Syracuse taking now in basketball/Olympic sports? These 3 teams have to travel anyway. The NC & Virginia schools would be in the same division so travel would be better for them. FSU would get GT every year as well. You would play your 5 division games, plus 1 rival & 1 each from the other 2 divisions.

Tex/TCU/Baylor/ND/Miami/UofL
FSU/Clem/GT/Syr/Pitt/BC
NC/Duke/NCSt/WF/Virg/VT

2) The B1G & the SEC will battle over Oklahoma, I presume that the SEC will win that battle. The SEC would be more willing to take in Oklahoma State to. Next battle would be over Kansas. This battle would be a toss up but since ESPN has their 2nd tier rights they will push the SEC. The SEC would need 1 more for 18, WV would be bring a solid brand & a new market. Even if a miracle happened & the B1G offered WV as well, they would take the SEC. The new divisional lineup helps keep Missouri thrilled in the SEC along with their renewed rivalry with Kansas, they aren't going anywhere. UCONN is a state flagship with excellent academics & the largest AD budget in the G5, they fit in the B1G. They would fit into the ACC as well.

3) Keeping 4 teams at the same rate, or even with a slight bump, is cheaper than paying 10-16 schools $10+ million each. Those schools that would move up, how much are they getting paid now? Remember 7 B12 schools would be off of FOX's books. Also, should the PAC give FOX a piece of their network that would be another source of income. Wouldn't the PACN get better distribution bundled with FOX networks? I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility either that TT, Houston, Iowa State & Kansas St wouldn't take a lesser PAC share to remain in a P4 conference with CFP access & $. The new B12 wouldn't be considered a P4 & would likely get G5(6) level CFP $.

4) Nebraska was AAU at the time. Kansas is still. WV isn't even close. The B1G is far snobbery than the ACC, thank goodness. Gee made the B1G feelings for schools like Louisville & WV perfectly clear.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation....sville-sec

The top goal of Big Ten presidents is to "make certain that we have institutions of like-minded academic integrity," Gee said. "So you won't see us adding Louisville," a member of the Big East conference that is also joining the ACC.