(05-10-2017 03:54 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 02:19 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 11:59 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 08:57 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(05-10-2017 05:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  TerryD has posted maps several times to illustrate Notre Dame's strategy on game placement. It includes the Bay Area, LA, Texas, up and down the east coast, and the mid-west..........you know where all of the people are. Why wouldn't Texas (a national brand) want the same product distribution?
If Texas does come to the ACC, I think it will be on a partial deal, like Notre Dame, so that it won't be necessary to bring "friends", but it will give the ego driven Longhorns about a 20 year window to see if they can make it as a "national brand". If successful, it would give ESPN another collegiate sports anchor on which to build for the future when the number of teams in the P4 may be pared down.
This is a long term strategy, and gives Texas an opportunity to be Texas and the ACCN access to 28 million subscribers.

Texas & ND don't have the same recruiting philosophy. The Longhorns can recruit a full top 10 class without leaving their state. ND HAS to recruit nationally. Texas could still possibly achieve that as an independent but without them being a football member of the ACC, I don't see them offering much value to the ACC. If they brought their Olympic sports then they would be wise to want some regional travel partners & that wouldn't benefit the ACC either. If the ACC lands Texas then I think it will be as a full member with a couple travel partners.

Lenville....
You do realize that Notre Dame is doing more than just recruiting football players in all of those locations, right? They are creating National exposure for the University that helps in football recruiting and student recruiting too, name recognition, alumni relations etc., etc..
As far as Texas' value to the ACC...........do the math...28 million people which would be maybe 10 million households, 5 million cable subscribers @ $1 per month (min)= $5 million per month for the ACCN. That's a lot of value.
And travel partners? I never have really figured that one out. All it means it's just a shorter trip for one baseball series per year or one basketball game every other year. Travel partner is more for fan identification than it is for travel reduction and Texas (like Notre Dame) doesn't have to worry about fan identification.

There are better ways to recruit students than football games. I was once, & would be still, gung-ho on Texas IF the ACC could get them in full & solely but I don't see that happening. It doesn't make sense for Texas. Texas & ND would be optimum for the ACC but that's a long shot.

XLance is right. ND sees the football team merely as a marketing arm for the university.

ND recruits students from all over the country and uses the football team to help do that.

They have often said this themselves.

As I said earlier, their philosophies are different.

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/the-lo...tle-051115

The LHN will impact what UT decides to do in the future. The current GOR for the Big 12 ends before the LHN, if I recall. If UT does not work a deal for the benefit of the Big 12, the Big 12 as we know it could be gone (it's half way there anyway with UNL, TAMU, Mizzou and Colorado gone).

Regardless, the LHN is not likely to suddenly become financially viable before the end of the deal. Besides the $15MM UT is guaranteed was once thought big money but is now small compared to the money the other conferences are generating. The guarantee does not grow unless there are profits while the conference payouts continue to grow.

To be sure, we should not forget that UT gets an equal share of the Big 12 TV deal. This hampers any rush decision by UT because they are making plenty of money between the LHN and the Big 12 deal. UT's conference mates are losing ground, explaining why OU has wandering eyes. Nevertheless, UT can sit back and play their cards close to their vest in this drawn out game of chicken and then decide who gets the golden goose (or turd, depending on one's perspective).

(05-09-2017 02:09 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  It's very hard for me to imagine Texas landing in the ACC without state partners. There's political considerations that would be unbearable, and just the flat out fact that they would be so on an island.

I don't think the ACC is going to get Texas, but if I did, I think it would be a brokered deal with ESPN and the SEC that sent OU and OSU to the SEC and Texas and TT to the ACC. If they really wanted to break the Big 12's GOR (by having 8 vote to resolve the Big 12), they could potentially do Texas, TT, TCU, KSU to the ACC, and OU, OSU, Kansas, and WVU to the SEC. There are a lot of things about that which are crazy, but also a lot of things that make a ton of sense. A lot of rivalries would be preserved or renewed, the two conferences would share two major bowls, and most importantly, it would totally checkmate any future realignment additions of any consequence at all by the B1G and PAC.

I think Texas could get away with leaving Baylor behind as tainted as they are right now. They might be able to leave TCU behind if ND was willing to take that spot. But that only places 7 of the Big 12 schools, so you're waiting out the GOR in that case.

I don't think that's going to happen, but it makes some sense and has some plausibility.

There really are no political considerations. With TAMU in the SEC, nobody wanting TTech, Baylor and TCU religiously affiliated schools and SMU, Rice and Houston in the G5, who is going to force UT to do anything. TAMU would help UT get what they want, there is no incentive for TAMU to fight over what is a non-issue to them.

Baylor has little influence in State politics, as opposed to when Ann Richards was governor (when the Big 12 formed). TCU has no influence of note. U of H is a far more desirable University that TTU, plus Lubbock is in the middle of nowhere - you may as well invite the PAC, Hawaii and U's of Tokyo, Shanghai, and a few others because they have potential for growth in their markets, but not Lubbock.

It is likely that UT is waiting to see if there is a viable option of keeping the Big 12 together (add teams, a defection or two from a P5, Hillary Clinton to stop sounding shrill, Trump to keep his mouth shut, Al Qaeda to befriend Israel, Putin to to be nice to Russians, essentially the impossible). If not, then UT will be flying to lots of places they would rather not, though, these places are likely to be better destinations that they currently are traveling to:

Currently:
Lubbock
Iowa (I have driven through Iowa twice, that's three times too many)
Manhattan (the little apple, not the Big Apple)
Stillwater (the name says it all)
(I leave off OU/Norman because the game is played annually in Dallas)

SEC:
Gulf Coast schools
Atlantic Coast schools
Alabama
College Station (easy drive, they hate each other, great for TV)

PAC 12:
California (X4!)
Arizona
Washington (O.K. Maybe not, and having to go to to Oregon would negate and Washington benefit)
Colorado (the mountains, something few Texans ever really get to see) negated by Utah (cool mountains, not as much revelry as Texans tend to like)

B1G:
A few good for TV games but weak on destinations
Rutgers (close to NYC, but they would have to attend a game in a cesspool of waste)
Columbus is close to the NFL HoF and the USAF museum

ACC:
East Coast from Beantown to Miami
Several made for TV games
Every team located close enough to things to do (can make a long weekend for an away game trip)
Great hoops
Best lacrosse (UT has a good club team!)
Excellent baseball conference (as s the SEC)
Playing in Pitt would be better than Morgantown because they would lose the 90 minute bus ride from Pitt to Morgantown plus be in a bigger city

The LHN has proven that UT cannot go solo. They lack the cache (not the cash) to go solo and they have always enjoyed being in a conference. The issue is which conference to join.

Working under the premise that ESPN forgoes their rights to Fox for their B1G & PAC content in exchange for the B12, mainly Texas & Oklahoma, would this be a bad setup? To stay in those markets they could also bring in Cincinnati & BYU.

Would it be worth it to Fox to give up the B12, mostly Texas & Oklahoma, for full rights to the B1G & the PAC? I think it would but would it worth it to ESPN? Possibly. What would ESPN do with the B12? Divvy it up between the SEC & the ACC taking them to 20(+?) or add G5 teams to the B12 to challenge Fox for a slice of the B1G & PAC markets? (Cincinnati & BYU for example.) Interesting premise.

To end it now I think they would have to divvy up the B12. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, TT & Kansas State (or BYU?) to the SEC. SEC at 20.

Texas, TCU, Baylor, ND (or Kansas State if BYU to SEC), WV, Cincinnati (for a slice of the B1G market) to the ACC. Pending on BYU & ND, would the ACC go to 24 with ND in full or stay at 21 in a 3x7?

SEC
Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas State, Iowa State, TT

A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Kansas

Alabama, LSU, Tennessee, Miss St, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Auburn, SC, Kentucky

ACC
Texas, TCU, Baylor, WV, Cincinnati

ND, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, GT

FSU, Clemson, Miami, NC St, WF

4 division games + 1 permanent rival + 1 from each division for 8 conference games. Each play 2 from the other conference for 10 total games. Maybe give BYU a 5-6 game scheduling alliance between the 2 conferences.

Big Ten football gets great TV ratings and guarantees basic cable in all of the Big Ten footprint states... but the rights are already the most expensive of any P5 conference. Will ESPN be able to afford them? They may have to bid on a strictly "tier 2" package instead of a split "tier 1 + 2" like they did this time around.

(05-11-2017 09:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Big Ten football gets great TV ratings and guarantees basic cable in all of the Big Ten footprint states... but the rights are already the most expensive of any P5 conference.

so are their expenses ...

NOTHIN' BUT NET

(05-11-2017 09:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Big Ten football gets great TV ratings and guarantees basic cable in all of the Big Ten footprint states... but the rights are already the most expensive of any P5 conference. Will ESPN be able to afford them? They may have to bid on a strictly "tier 2" package instead of a split "tier 1 + 2" like they did this time around.

With all the pro sports within the B1G/PAC footprint I don't think that ESPN would have to worry about being dropped from basic cable.