(05-06-2017 01:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

I can tell that you put a lot of work into the scheduling.
If something drastic happens and Texas does not move to the ACC as a partial or permanent member, I like the addition of Cincinnati.

Did it in about 10 minutes & in 1 draft.

If the ACCN & the SECN are bundled & a scheduling alliance is created then it doesn't matter where Texas goes. The ACC can get value out of them in the SEC & not have to venture with westward expansion. This would be the ideal outcome for the ACC if expansion occurred again. Texas is a better fit in the SEC & Cincinnati would establish recruiting grounds in Ohio for the ACC, helping out ND as well. The only question would be do we stop at 16 or would we need to go to 18 with WV & UCONN.

(05-06-2017 02:02 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

in time for next go 'round ...
ut in whole or in part to ACC ...
ou & osu to pac ...
big12 remnants merge with the american to form a more perfect union ...
at the end of the day ...
4 power leagues on roughly equal footing ...
see things play out ...

NATTY FATTY

Bundling the SECN & ACCN together & it doesn't matter which of us they choose. I would prefer not having to take 3-4 Texas schools.

SIAMESE TWINS

(05-06-2017 05:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 02:02 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

in time for next go 'round ...
ut in whole or in part to ACC ...
ou & osu to pac ...
big12 remnants merge with the american to form a more perfect union ...
at the end of the day ...
4 power leagues on roughly equal footing ...
see things play out ...

NATTY FATTY

Bundling the SECN & ACCN together & it doesn't matter which of us they choose. I would prefer not having to take 3-4 Texas schools.

SIAMESE TWINS

I don't think that it's in the best interest for the ACC to take more than 1 Texas school (that school being the University of Texas), so I don't think that it will ever happen.

But it does absolutely matter which conference Tex would be in. Bundling doesn't ensure equal splits.

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

ND football is not joining the ACC, at least not any time in anyone's foreseeable future.

The existance of the ACC Network is irrelevant to that issue.

(05-06-2017 06:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

ND football is not joining the ACC, at least not any time in anyone's foreseeable future.

The existance of the ACC Network is irrelevant to that issue.

Thank the Lord!

(05-06-2017 06:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

Permanent crossovers?
ND- Cincinnati & Miami
Pitt- VT & Louisville
Syr- Louisville & Clemson
BC- Cincinnati & Virginia
UL- Pittsburgh & Syracuse
Cin- ND & BC
Miami- ND & FSU
WF- NC & Duke
FSU- Miami & GT
Clem- GT & Syracuse
VT- Virginia & Pittsburgh
NC St- NC & Duke
NC- NC St & WF
Duke- NC St & WF
Virginia- VT & BC
GT- Clemson & FSU

ND football is not joining the ACC, at least not any time in anyone's foreseeable future.

The existance of the ACC Network is irrelevant to that issue.

We shall see.

If the ACC adds any team outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

(05-07-2017 10:53 AM)nole Wrote:  If the ACC adds any time outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

I agree with you. To get Cincinnati we need ND first AND a bundling of the SECN with the ACCN with equal money.

(05-07-2017 11:03 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:53 AM)nole Wrote:  If the ACC adds any time outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

I agree with you. To get Cincinnati we need ND first AND a bundling of the SECN with the ACCN with equal money.

Cincy won't ever be in the ACC.

I think that the choices are UMD (won't happen for at least a generation), PSU (won't happen for a long time - the B1G is committed to keeping them), WVU (long shot), SEC East team (FL, UT, USCarolina - wont happen for a long time), Texas (might happen in some capacity after their GoR ends/gets close to ending), and Notre Dame (might happen when the TV contract expires in ~20 years).

Nobody else has a realistic shot.

(05-07-2017 12:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:03 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:53 AM)nole Wrote:  If the ACC adds any time outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

I agree with you. To get Cincinnati we need ND first AND a bundling of the SECN with the ACCN with equal money.

Cincy won't ever be in the ACC.

I think that the choices are UMD (won't happen for at least a generation), PSU (won't happen for a long time - the B1G is committed to keeping them), WVU (long shot), SEC East team (FL, UT, USCarolina - wont happen for a long time), Texas (might happen in some capacity after their GoR ends/gets close to ending), and Notre Dame (might happen when the TV contract expires in ~20 years).

Nobody else has a realistic shot.

I think that the ACC will invite which ever schools that ESPN suggests that we invite. They have all of the viewership data and know which schools pair well with each other and which markets that they want to focus on with ACC teams.

(05-06-2017 05:48 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-06-2017 02:02 PM)green Wrote:  

(05-05-2017 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  New ACC in time for the ACCN?
ND, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

Louisville, Cincinnati, Miami, WF

FSU, Clemson, VT, NC State

NC, Duke, Virginia, GT

in time for next go 'round ...
ut in whole or in part to ACC ...
ou & osu to pac ...
big12 remnants merge with the american to form a more perfect union ...
at the end of the day ...
4 power leagues on roughly equal footing ...
see things play out ...

NATTY FATTY

Bundling the SECN & ACCN together & it doesn't matter which of us they choose. I would prefer not having to take 3-4 Texas schools.

SIAMESE TWINS

Yup it stretches our geography too far. 16/18 hybrid is biggest I could see the ACC realistically grow. 16/18 hybrid adds UConn, Cincy and Georgetown or Nova. You could sub in UCF or USF for either UConn or Cincy.

With 20 to 24 teams (Bringing in TX and B12 orphans) then you basically would have two separate divisions with little interplay. The only way 20-24 teams would work better is with Pods.

(05-07-2017 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 12:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:03 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:53 AM)nole Wrote:  If the ACC adds any time outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

I agree with you. To get Cincinnati we need ND first AND a bundling of the SECN with the ACCN with equal money.

Cincy won't ever be in the ACC.

I think that the choices are UMD (won't happen for at least a generation), PSU (won't happen for a long time - the B1G is committed to keeping them), WVU (long shot), SEC East team (FL, UT, USCarolina - wont happen for a long time), Texas (might happen in some capacity after their GoR ends/gets close to ending), and Notre Dame (might happen when the TV contract expires in ~20 years).

Nobody else has a realistic shot.

I think that the ACC will invite which ever schools that ESPN suggests that we invite. They have all of the viewership data and know which schools pair well with each other and which markets that they want to focus on with ACC teams.

The same ESPN that has the ACC with a $16 Million revenue gap?

Better hope their 'suggestion' is one that is best for the ACC and not ESPN. Because a $16 million gap is gonna matter. If that gap grows, things are gonna get really interesting.


The desire of so many ACC fan bases to add dead weight like Cinci, UCF, UConn, Georgetown, Big 12 orphans will simply destabilize the ACC.

ESPN won't be able to save the ACC in the future. The ACC is going to have to think for itself. So far, that has worked out to the effect of a $16 million revenue gap.

(05-07-2017 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yup it stretches our geography too far. 16/18 hybrid is biggest I could see the ACC realistically grow. 16/18 hybrid adds UConn, Cincy and Georgetown or Nova. You could sub in UCF or USF for either UConn or Cincy.

With 20 to 24 teams (Bringing in TX and B12 orphans) then you basically would have two separate divisions with little interplay. The only way 20-24 teams would work better is with Pods.

That's nit realistic because the football schools absolutely do not want UConn, and if they don't want UConn they certainly don't want Georgetown or Nova.

I'll never understand the fascination that the Big East refugees have with recreating what they tried so hard to escape. It didn't work then, it's not going to work now.

(05-07-2017 06:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yup it stretches our geography too far. 16/18 hybrid is biggest I could see the ACC realistically grow. 16/18 hybrid adds UConn, Cincy and Georgetown or Nova. You could sub in UCF or USF for either UConn or Cincy.

With 20 to 24 teams (Bringing in TX and B12 orphans) then you basically would have two separate divisions with little interplay. The only way 20-24 teams would work better is with Pods.

That's nit realistic because the football schools absolutely do not want UConn, and if they don't want UConn they certainly don't want Georgetown or Nova.

I'll never understand the fascination that the Big East refugees have with recreating what they tried so hard to escape. It didn't work then, it's not going to work now.

Relax, these are all "water cooler" scenarios...Bottom-line: Money Talks, BS Walks!

The ACC won't add anybody unless it is close to net neutral or a positive. (I don't see the ACC going away from the socialistic money payment distribution model anytime soon)

The Big 3 eastern based conferences won't do anything until the Big 12 or Notre Dame makes moves.

(05-07-2017 06:07 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 02:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yup it stretches our geography too far. 16/18 hybrid is biggest I could see the ACC realistically grow. 16/18 hybrid adds UConn, Cincy and Georgetown or Nova. You could sub in UCF or USF for either UConn or Cincy.

With 20 to 24 teams (Bringing in TX and B12 orphans) then you basically would have two separate divisions with little interplay. The only way 20-24 teams would work better is with Pods.

That's nit realistic because the football schools absolutely do not want UConn, and if they don't want UConn they certainly don't want Georgetown or Nova.

I'll never understand the fascination that the Big East refugees have with recreating what they tried so hard to escape. It didn't work then, it's not going to work now.

Not all of us do. The original Big East conference was pretty special as were the rivalries with Georgetown and Villanova. But that's from a different era and I really doubt the Atlantic Coast Conference will opt for a hybrid format in the future. Plus as Mark mentioned this is just water cooler talk. Nothing else.

(05-07-2017 05:47 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 01:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 12:36 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 11:03 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-07-2017 10:53 AM)nole Wrote:  If the ACC adds any time outside of ND (not happening) or Texas, it will crater from within with the dead weight (Cinci is dead weight). The revenue gap will grow to a point where football schools won't renew (or they don't survive).

ACC already has way too much dead weight in the conference. Must hope Texas would go ACC if Big 12 goes under....but its tough to see.

I agree with you. To get Cincinnati we need ND first AND a bundling of the SECN with the ACCN with equal money.

Cincy won't ever be in the ACC.

I think that the choices are UMD (won't happen for at least a generation), PSU (won't happen for a long time - the B1G is committed to keeping them), WVU (long shot), SEC East team (FL, UT, USCarolina - wont happen for a long time), Texas (might happen in some capacity after their GoR ends/gets close to ending), and Notre Dame (might happen when the TV contract expires in ~20 years).

Nobody else has a realistic shot.

I think that the ACC will invite which ever schools that ESPN suggests that we invite. They have all of the viewership data and know which schools pair well with each other and which markets that they want to focus on with ACC teams.

The same ESPN that has the ACC with a $16 Million revenue gap?

Better hope their 'suggestion' is one that is best for the ACC and not ESPN. Because a $16 million gap is gonna matter. If that gap grows, things are gonna get really interesting.


The desire of so many ACC fan bases to add dead weight like Cinci, UCF, UConn, Georgetown, Big 12 orphans will simply destabilize the ACC.

ESPN won't be able to save the ACC in the future. The ACC is going to have to think for itself. So far, that has worked out to the effect of a $16 million revenue gap.

Georgetown wouldn't be a dead weight. They would only impact basketball and Olympic sports. Their basketball program is above the ACC average, and their Olympic sports aren't bad.

It would be one thing if anybody was pushing for then as a full member, but I have yet to see that happen. I agree about UConn, UC, UCF, and anybody in the Big XII not named Texas, though.

Georgetown ABSOLUTELY would be dead weight. It wouldn't be close.

The insistence that the Big East part 2 is the direction the ACC should go is why the ACC is $16 million behind right now.

Adding dead weight gives you numbers, but the farther that revenue gap goes, the shakier the conference becomes.

(05-08-2017 08:38 AM)nole Wrote:  Georgetown ABSOLUTELY would be dead weight. It wouldn't be close.

The insistence that the Big East part 2 is the direction the ACC should go is why the ACC is $16 million behind right now.

Adding dead weight gives you numbers, but the farther that revenue gap goes, the shakier the conference becomes.

....you do realize they make more than we do right now, right? You do realize that their program has done more than the average ACC program as per most (if not all) reasonable metrics, right? You do realize that the have existing and potential massive rivalries w/ multiple existing ACC member, right?

In what world are they dead weight? Name your metric.

(05-08-2017 08:38 AM)nole Wrote:  the ACC is $16 million behind right now

where are you getting that number ...

OUT OF THIN AIR

I wouldnt call Georgetown dead weight, because they certainly are NOT dead weight. But I would like to move on from having partial members. It was tried, and it worked for a while in the BE. But it didnt last because too many different programs had too many different priorities. I loved the BE and I had some great times watching some of those games. But I do not want the ACC to be anything like the BE when it comes down to partial members. I miss being in a conference with Georgetown and Uconn and Nova, but I have grown to love watching the ACC win championships in both football and basketball. As far as Im concerned, Syracuse is in the best conference for Syracuse. ND is the only partial member that I would like for the ACC to be involved with. And I can certainly understand how some original ACC fans get frustrated seeing folks floating these ideas about adding bb only schools.