Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #1
Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.
03-19-2017 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-19-2017 11:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.

There are a couple of things we know that might lend credence to this...

1. The ACC Network is coming on line and needs strong markets to make it as profitable as possible.

2. The AAC is getting ready to add Wichita State. Would that suggest they know they're going to lose a school or two?

I don't know, but it makes you think.
03-20-2017 02:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-20-2017 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 11:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.

There are a couple of things we know that might lend credence to this...

1. The ACC Network is coming on line and needs strong markets to make it as profitable as possible.

2. The AAC is getting ready to add Wichita State. Would that suggest they know they're going to lose a school or two?

I don't know, but it makes you think.

Drop Navy, add Notre Dame all in with the other three and it would work.
03-20-2017 03:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-20-2017 03:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:13 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 11:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.

There are a couple of things we know that might lend credence to this...

1. The ACC Network is coming on line and needs strong markets to make it as profitable as possible.

2. The AAC is getting ready to add Wichita State. Would that suggest they know they're going to lose a school or two?

I don't know, but it makes you think.

Drop Navy, add Notre Dame all in with the other three and it would work.

True, but I don't see Notre Dame giving up its football independence for a ACC schedule
03-20-2017 04:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #5
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-19-2017 11:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.

03-lmfao
Just another rumor started by some UConn fan, trying to keep their "name" in the pot as a possibility.
UConn needs to try the B1G.
03-20-2017 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-20-2017 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-19-2017 11:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  https://the-boneyard.com/threads/confere...ll.108814/

Not a great source, but the idea makes sense. Add more markets prior to launch of the Network. Scheduling would be an issue with more members. Rotating divisions might be the answer if they did expand.

If I was the ACC, I would look at WVU, UConn, Cincy, maybe Navy.

03-lmfao
Just another rumor started by some UConn fan, trying to keep their "name" in the pot as a possibility.
UConn needs to try the B1G.

If things break right for the SEC and ACC they will get a look by the Big 10.
03-20-2017 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #7
Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?
03-20-2017 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.
03-20-2017 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Phlipper33 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 602
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Texas A&M
Location: Arlington, TX
Post: #9
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.
03-21-2017 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-21-2017 07:12 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.

Well, I think the whole impetus behind a Texa-homa move would be to create a critical mass economically that would permit the SEC to eventually lure a North Carolina and Virginia school into the SEC. That puts us at 20, allows for 4 divisions of 5, and gives us control over the entire region from essentially the old Mason/Dixon line all the way to the Rio Grande inclusive of the entire Gulf region.

I think it's the best hand to play. Texas could sell it as essentially getting an enhanced SWC in their new division and by promoting themselves as a King of the division as Alabama moves East. The money and the familiarity would be the salve for the ego. The Aggies could then seek to level their karma annually.
03-21-2017 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-21-2017 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 07:12 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.

Well, I think the whole impetus behind a Texa-homa move would be to create a critical mass economically that would permit the SEC to eventually lure a North Carolina and Virginia school into the SEC. That puts us at 20, allows for 4 divisions of 5, and gives us control over the entire region from essentially the old Mason/Dixon line all the way to the Rio Grande inclusive of the entire Gulf region.

I think it's the best hand to play. Texas could sell it as essentially getting an enhanced SWC in their new division and by promoting themselves as a King of the division as Alabama moves East. The money and the familiarity would be the salve for the ego. The Aggies could then seek to level their karma annually.

If we are going to 20 and can't get a NC or VA school, just grab the value programs of the B12: Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, West Virginia.
03-21-2017 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-21-2017 09:20 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 07:12 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.

Well, I think the whole impetus behind a Texa-homa move would be to create a critical mass economically that would permit the SEC to eventually lure a North Carolina and Virginia school into the SEC. That puts us at 20, allows for 4 divisions of 5, and gives us control over the entire region from essentially the old Mason/Dixon line all the way to the Rio Grande inclusive of the entire Gulf region.

I think it's the best hand to play. Texas could sell it as essentially getting an enhanced SWC in their new division and by promoting themselves as a King of the division as Alabama moves East. The money and the familiarity would be the salve for the ego. The Aggies could then seek to level their karma annually.

If we are going to 20 and can't get a NC or VA school, just grab the value programs of the B12: Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas, West Virginia.

I think that would be an excellent fall back position if we can't.
03-21-2017 11:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
It would be several years before we knew whether or not a move into NC and VA would be feasible assuming we took Texahoma. I think that's the takeaway. We could theoretically take Kansas and West Virginia, but they would probably be off the board by then unless we moved in from day one.

The problem with that is it may hamper our ability to take Eastern schools at some point in the future so I'm not really sure how to proceed.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech in the first place, but I wouldn't gamble on that.
03-22-2017 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-22-2017 10:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It would be several years before we knew whether or not a move into NC and VA would be feasible assuming we took Texahoma. I think that's the takeaway. We could theoretically take Kansas and West Virginia, but they would probably be off the board by then unless we moved in from day one.

The problem with that is it may hamper our ability to take Eastern schools at some point in the future so I'm not really sure how to proceed.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech in the first place, but I wouldn't gamble on that.

I believe there are several reasons to take from the Big 12 first:

1. Doing what it takes to land Oklahoma and Texas takes the biggest money off of the board and adds the only two schools that add to our bottom line outright.

2. The largest part of our revenue comes from donations and ticket sales. No other part of the country matches our passion for football like the Southwest. The Big 12 has the 2nd best saturation numbers outside of the SEC. Saturation means the highest % of total households watching college football on any given Saturday. Their viewers tend to watch not only the school of their choice, but the others as well. The farther North you go in the Big 12 the less this is true. Texas almost matches Alabama in saturation numbers and Oklahoma isn't far behind. Therefore taking Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State simply adds to the solidarity that makes the SEC what it is to the networks already.

North Carolina and Virginia have nowhere near these saturation numbers.

3. The passion in Texas and Oklahoma extends to baseball and softball too. And Swimming & Diving, Track & Field, Tennis, Golf, and Equestrian are sports that share emphasis as well. Basketball is slightly more valued in the Big 12 than perhaps it is in the SEC. So, in spite of UT's particular academic leanings, there is no easier fit culturally for those schools than the SEC. There is a difference in Southwest culture and Deep South culture but not as much as there would be with other regions and conferences.

4. The additions of Texas and Oklahoma would only add to the disparity between the SEC's revenue and that of other conferences, particularly the ACC. This means that well into the future options for future growth "might" still become available to the East. The move would also cement our position within the NCAA with regards to money and influence.

5. I don't see Kansas and West Virginia as cultural fits. That doesn't mean I would exclude them out of hand. However the zenith of our earning potential would probably end with the additions of Texahoma. It would end with just taking OU and UT, but the others may be the deal maker and their absence the deal breaker.

6. If we landed Texahoma there would be no schools left in the ACC that added to our value at this time. So further additions wouldn't be needed or considered until the value of one or several of those schools rose significantly. I might add that with Texas and Oklahoma the prestige and wealth of the SEC would rise significantly enough that once again having only the University of Florida in the Sunshine State would not be an issue. The value to athletes of selecting an SEC school would be at an all time high.
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2017 11:14 AM by JRsec.)
03-22-2017 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #15
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-21-2017 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 07:12 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.

Well, I think the whole impetus behind a Texa-homa move would be to create a critical mass economically that would permit the SEC to eventually lure a North Carolina and Virginia school into the SEC. That puts us at 20, allows for 4 divisions of 5, and gives us control over the entire region from essentially the old Mason/Dixon line all the way to the Rio Grande inclusive of the entire Gulf region.

I think it's the best hand to play. Texas could sell it as essentially getting an enhanced SWC in their new division and by promoting themselves as a King of the division as Alabama moves East. The money and the familiarity would be the salve for the ego. The Aggies could then seek to level their karma annually.

If any North Carolina or Virginia schools were to move to the SEC it would be after the 2035-36 season.
What ever will happens with Texas will take place before then.
03-22-2017 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Soobahk40050 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,555
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 103
I Root For: Tennessee
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-22-2017 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-22-2017 10:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It would be several years before we knew whether or not a move into NC and VA would be feasible assuming we took Texahoma. I think that's the takeaway. We could theoretically take Kansas and West Virginia, but they would probably be off the board by then unless we moved in from day one.

The problem with that is it may hamper our ability to take Eastern schools at some point in the future so I'm not really sure how to proceed.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech in the first place, but I wouldn't gamble on that.

I believe there are several reasons to take from the Big 12 first:

1. Doing what it takes to land Oklahoma and Texas takes the biggest money off of the board and adds the only two schools that add to our bottom line outright.

2. The largest part of our revenue comes from donations and ticket sales. No other part of the country matches our passion for football like the Southwest. The Big 12 has the 2nd best saturation numbers outside of the SEC. Saturation means the highest % of total households watching college football on any given Saturday. Their viewers tend to watch not only the school of their choice, but the others as well. The farther North you go in the Big 12 the less this is true. Texas almost matches Alabama in saturation numbers and Oklahoma isn't far behind. Therefore taking Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State simply adds to the solidarity that makes the SEC what it is to the networks already.

North Carolina and Virginia have nowhere near these saturation numbers.

3. The passion in Texas and Oklahoma extends to baseball and softball too. And Swimming & Diving, Track & Field, Tennis, Golf, and Equestrian are sports that share emphasis as well. Basketball is slightly more valued in the Big 12 than perhaps it is in the SEC. So, in spite of UT's particular academic leanings, there is no easier fit culturally for those schools than the SEC. There is a difference in Southwest culture and Deep South culture but not as much as there would be with other regions and conferences.

4. The additions of Texas and Oklahoma would only add to the disparity between the SEC's revenue and that of other conferences, particularly the ACC. This means that well into the future options for future growth "might" still become available to the East. The move would also cement our position within the NCAA with regards to money and influence.

5. I don't see Kansas and West Virginia as cultural fits. That doesn't mean I would exclude them out of hand. However the zenith of our earning potential would probably end with the additions of Texahoma. It would end with just taking OU and UT, but the others may be the deal maker and their absence the deal breaker.

6. If we landed Texahoma there would be no schools left in the ACC that added to our value at this time. So further additions wouldn't be needed or considered until the value of one or several of those schools rose significantly. I might add that with Texas and Oklahoma the prestige and wealth of the SEC would rise significantly enough that once again having only the University of Florida in the Sunshine State would not be an issue. The value to athletes of selecting an SEC school would be at an all time high.

Would three of the four do the trick? I.e Texas/Tech/OK or Texas/OK/OK State? The other could be an out of conference game, but doesn't require any of these schools to play two rivals OOC. That could leave room for Kansas a basketball/academic play, or for one eastern school if/when the times comes.
03-22-2017 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-22-2017 12:00 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  
(03-22-2017 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-22-2017 10:12 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It would be several years before we knew whether or not a move into NC and VA would be feasible assuming we took Texahoma. I think that's the takeaway. We could theoretically take Kansas and West Virginia, but they would probably be off the board by then unless we moved in from day one.

The problem with that is it may hamper our ability to take Eastern schools at some point in the future so I'm not really sure how to proceed.

Ideally, we wouldn't have to take Oklahoma State or Texas Tech in the first place, but I wouldn't gamble on that.

I believe there are several reasons to take from the Big 12 first:

1. Doing what it takes to land Oklahoma and Texas takes the biggest money off of the board and adds the only two schools that add to our bottom line outright.

2. The largest part of our revenue comes from donations and ticket sales. No other part of the country matches our passion for football like the Southwest. The Big 12 has the 2nd best saturation numbers outside of the SEC. Saturation means the highest % of total households watching college football on any given Saturday. Their viewers tend to watch not only the school of their choice, but the others as well. The farther North you go in the Big 12 the less this is true. Texas almost matches Alabama in saturation numbers and Oklahoma isn't far behind. Therefore taking Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State simply adds to the solidarity that makes the SEC what it is to the networks already.

North Carolina and Virginia have nowhere near these saturation numbers.

3. The passion in Texas and Oklahoma extends to baseball and softball too. And Swimming & Diving, Track & Field, Tennis, Golf, and Equestrian are sports that share emphasis as well. Basketball is slightly more valued in the Big 12 than perhaps it is in the SEC. So, in spite of UT's particular academic leanings, there is no easier fit culturally for those schools than the SEC. There is a difference in Southwest culture and Deep South culture but not as much as there would be with other regions and conferences.

4. The additions of Texas and Oklahoma would only add to the disparity between the SEC's revenue and that of other conferences, particularly the ACC. This means that well into the future options for future growth "might" still become available to the East. The move would also cement our position within the NCAA with regards to money and influence.

5. I don't see Kansas and West Virginia as cultural fits. That doesn't mean I would exclude them out of hand. However the zenith of our earning potential would probably end with the additions of Texahoma. It would end with just taking OU and UT, but the others may be the deal maker and their absence the deal breaker.

6. If we landed Texahoma there would be no schools left in the ACC that added to our value at this time. So further additions wouldn't be needed or considered until the value of one or several of those schools rose significantly. I might add that with Texas and Oklahoma the prestige and wealth of the SEC would rise significantly enough that once again having only the University of Florida in the Sunshine State would not be an issue. The value to athletes of selecting an SEC school would be at an all time high.

Would three of the four do the trick? I.e Texas/Tech/OK or Texas/OK/OK State? The other could be an out of conference game, but doesn't require any of these schools to play two rivals OOC. That could leave room for Kansas a basketball/academic play, or for one eastern school if/when the times comes.

Sure, but it would depend upon what Texas and Oklahoma wanted. Tech could likely find a home in the PAC (which needs market exposure). Oklahoma State on the other hand might not.

However, remember that both UT and OU might prefer to have those games in division so that their OOC could be against other big name draws.
(This post was last modified: 03-22-2017 12:10 PM by JRsec.)
03-22-2017 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,231
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #18
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
The only prayer that the SEC has of landing Tejas is to convince Oklahoma to join the SEC first after they have cut the tether to Oklahoma State. It might work.
But then comes the Texas politics into play,........ it still might work, but Texas Tech and Baylor are screwed (TCU would be screwed too, but they have already been screwed and they know how to deal with it) but Texas politicians have a long memory, but it still might work.

The thing that just might throw the biggest monkey wrench into the works is this: Texas (as well as Oklahoma), don't need the SEC to make money. They might make more with the sec but they don't need the sec to make more money than any other school.
03-22-2017 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
(03-22-2017 11:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-21-2017 07:12 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2017 02:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  I don't think that the ACC will expand until Texas makes up their mind as to what they are doing. Exception would be ND coming all in.

Expanding for the ACCN? Would any AAC team bring enough fan support to drive the demand for premium rates? The ACC is in the beginning stages of a new lucrative tv contract with an extended GOR, why go through another round of negotiations?

All slow time garbage aside, I don't see Texas going to the ACC period. The distance is too great. They have no natural rivals outside of Notre Dame, a school they occasionally schedule. Plus Texas does care about the other sports. Minor sports have to be parked somewhere if they go independent. I just don't see it happening.

As to additions, your options are Connecticut and West Virginia. Both programs have athletic departments that earn well above the ACC MEAN. Snag one of those and get N.D. all in and you have your 16. Or, snag both and let N.D. remain aloof. I think that's your future. Cincinnati doesn't even meet your mean and is lower than Wake Forest in athletic revenue. Navy is the most absurd speculation that keeps coming up. They likely do not want a P conference association and they travel light, make less than most lower tier G5 schools, and would add nothing to the ACC coffers.

The only way the ACC could land Texas is by offering them a division of their rivals from their region. I don't see that happening either.

If Texas truly wants to ignore the SEC they will take Tech, T.C.U., and possibly Rice and head to the PAC.

If Oklahoma wants to maintain games in Texas (in addition to the Horns) they will join the SEC and the SEC will likely have to take O.S.U. with them.

Kansas joins the Big 10 with one other.

That's the most likely way this ends if Texas ignores the SEC.

If Texas wants to remain more regional they will join the SEC with OU, or possibly with OU, TTU, and OSU.

They essentially get to keep what they want by doing so:
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

This becomes their division. If the SEC remains a two division conference then add Texas A&M, L.S.U. and Ole Miss to that division.

The priorities here for these decisions are in this order:
1. Revenue
2. Ease of access for paying fans, which includes travel for all sports.
3. Scheduling games for all sports that their fans are interested in attending.
4. Academic considerations.

Of those the ACC only checks the box for academics.
The SEC checks the first three and academic average for the conference is slightly above that of the Big 12.

The PAC checks only #4.

The Big 10 checks #1 and #4.

This is what the administrators and trustees of these schools will be looking at. It sure as hell won't be what the twitter guys, beat writers, or message board junkies post.

In my mind the real question surrounding Texas is will they move to the SEC, or try to reform their own conference? I think the preference is for the latter. And, that's is why, and the only reason why, the SEC might think about moving beyond 16. We can take Texas and Oklahoma along with Tech and O.S.U. and still stay above our mean in revenue, while locking out the only schools that rival conferences could benefit from taking.

I too could see the PAC if they ignore the SEC. If the SEC is indeed willing to go more than 16 I think the public Texahoma 4 make a ton of sense. I still think the SEC would rather move into North Carolina and Virginia then double dip in Oklahoma, and triple dip in Texas - but I don't think they'd be able to take just Texas and OU.

As for your option of Texas forming their own conference, what schools do you think they could get? I'd assume you'd start with the same 4, perhaps adding TCU and/or Rice. I wouldn't think Baylor would make it this time. Slight chance for Kansas, but I'm not sure about Kansas State. Iowa State and West Virginia are too far away and they would get left behind. Houston and SMU would be possibilities to join as well.

Who would Texas be able to pull from outside the state? Could they possibly get Arkansas to come back from the SEC? There's occasionally been rumors of the Arizona schools not being satisfied in the PAC, would they be willing to join, possibly with New Mexico as a bridge? Adding those three would really make it the new Southwest Conference geographically. Notre Dame can't join because of their contract with ACC, I'm not sure that Texas could actually reform a conference that's any better than the current Big 12. Is replacing West Virginia and Iowa State with Arizona and Arizona State really that much better? I'm sure they'd love to replace Baylor with Houston (or even Rice) at the moment, but that's really hard to do legally.

And even if Texas could find enough friends to make their own conference, there's the problems with getting involved in the playoff contract and getting automatic bids for their champion to the NCAA tourney. The NCAA would almost certainly vote them in as a conference, not forcing them to wait the 8 years or whatever it is, and I'm sure they could negotiate into the CFP money, but there would be lawsuits from all the Big 12 schools that got left behind. Texas would have been much better off trying to form their own conference (with perhaps football independent) 20 years ago, I just don't see it happening now.

At this point in time I think Texas would rather keep everything as is. Playing OU and Tech (and to a lesser extent OSU, TCU, and Baylor) every year is more important than playing UCLA/USC/Cal/Stanford. The SEC makes a lot of sense for them, but I still think there's too much pride that would get hurt to follow Aggie (and Arky) East.

Well, I think the whole impetus behind a Texa-homa move would be to create a critical mass economically that would permit the SEC to eventually lure a North Carolina and Virginia school into the SEC. That puts us at 20, allows for 4 divisions of 5, and gives us control over the entire region from essentially the old Mason/Dixon line all the way to the Rio Grande inclusive of the entire Gulf region.

I think it's the best hand to play. Texas could sell it as essentially getting an enhanced SWC in their new division and by promoting themselves as a King of the division as Alabama moves East. The money and the familiarity would be the salve for the ego. The Aggies could then seek to level their karma annually.

If any North Carolina or Virginia schools were to move to the SEC it would be after the 2035-36 season.
What ever will happens with Texas will take place before then.

If we landed Texa-homa it would definitely be long before the ACC GOR expired. The great thing about stopping at 18 for us is that it leaves the door open for ESPN and the ACC on down the road.

I doubt the SEC would ever take schools from the ACC, but the SEC might rescue schools if need be.

Let's say that the financial disparity between the SEC and Big 10 and the rest of the P conferences remains and that the Big 10 wants more of a Northeastern presence. So in 2035 Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Notre Dame head finally to the Big 10. Should Tobacco Road and ESPN want to protect its other product the formation of a league with the SEC then becomes a possibility. Or if it was a matter of further consolidation of brands then Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State could join as the 4th six school division. I'm sure there are other options out there as well. But the idea here is that an 18 school SEC is fine for the duration with the brands I mentioned. And it shouldn't be thought of as a threat to the ACC, but as a safe haven for ESPN properties should the future require downsizing, consolidation, or should another network use the Big 10 to poach ACC properties.

With higher education downsizing to fit the demands it may one day be essential for Virginia and North Carolina to once again separate from Virginia Tech and N.C. State in both alliance and mission. If population shifts continue toward the Southeast Coast then association with Flagship schools from neighboring states may be in order. Who knows it might even mean a subdivision of the SEC into a more Southeastern component and a more Southwestern component. Anyway, with the GOR's we are talking beyond our average lifespans here. The point being the SEC's taking of Texas and OU would actually cement the lifeline for the ACC schools as far as having options moving forward.

From an athletic standpoint just look at the gulf between the top 30 P schools now in revenue and the next 35. We are entering into a segregation that may eventually necessitate a realignment that permeates all conference boundaries.
03-22-2017 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #20
Rumor? ACC looking to Add 2-3 schools by 2018?
20 years is beyond our average lifespan? I don't know about you old geezers but I'm still planning on being here. Lol
03-22-2017 01:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.