(02-26-2018 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Strictly comparing Texas Tech and Houston...

If we're not taking Texas then I'm not sure what Texas Tech really offers us.

If I had to pick between the two, I'd take Houston. Are they more valuable today? No, but what about 20 and 50 years from now?

Houston is the 5th largest metro in the country with 6.7 million people. We have a good presence there already, but UH represents a potentially significant upgrade in marketshare in the long run.

Geographically, Lubbock is a long haul even from East Texas whereas Houston would offer much more reasonable travel for everyone in the Western half of the league and it wouldn't be a bad flight to cities in the Eastern division.

UH already has over 42K students whereas TTU has 37K.

They were both established in the 1920s, but UH has living alumni around 250K. Only numbers I could find on TTU was that they've awarded about 200K degrees during their existence so their living alumni can't be larger than what UH brings.

Attendance for the last 5 years:

Houston:

2017 = 32,583
2016 = 38,953
2015 = 33,980
2014 = 28,311
2013 = 24,256

Texas Tech:

2017 = 55,065
2016 = 58,250
2015 = 56,340
2014 = 58,934
2013 = 57,933

Advantage for Tech, but I think it should be noted that they are the only game in town for that whole region of TX...a sparsely populated region outside of a couple of population centers. Theoretically, Houston should be able to draw just as many if not more given the size of their home market and that's a discredit to them, but if all things are equal and either one were added to the SEC then I think UH has greater potential. Tech has probably reached their peak in fan support given their pecking order behind UT and A&M.

Revenue for the last 5 years:

Houston:

2016 = 48.8M
2015 = 50.8M
2014 = 45.4M
2013 = 39.4M
2012 = 35.5M

Texas Tech:

2016 = 79.3M
2015 = 72.7M
2014 = 69.8M
2013 = 66.2M
2012 = 62.0M

Tech has the clear advantage in revenue, but I'm not sure how much of that difference is strictly earned. The Big 12 minus UT and OU wouldn't be worth nearly as much on the open market.

TV ratings...

In 2016, these were the showings for Houston for nationally broadcast games:

Oklahoma = 5.7M
Cincinnati = 2.1M
Texas State = 252K
UConn = 1.4M
Tulsa = 454K
SMU = 473K
Louisville = 2.4M
Memphis = 3M
San Diego State(bowl game) = 3.7M

And now for Texas Tech:

Arizona State = 834K
Kansas = 513K
West Virginia = 834K
Oklahoma = 2.3M
TCU = 505K
Texas = 1M
Oklahoma State = 901K
Iowa State = 346K
Baylor = 1.7M

Considering the level of competition was in Tech's favor, they should have blown Houston out of the water in that comparison, but they really didn't.

All of this leads me to believe that Houston and Texas Tech's fan bases aren't that different in size.

Neither school is a slam dunk as far as an economic windfall goes, but if we had to pick one I'd feel better about UH.

Tech gets oil money. Houston doesn't. Academically Tech is rated higher. Then check the number of sports offered and competitiveness in all of them.

You mounted a nice defense of Houston, but A&M carries that market already.

But I don't think either are pressing matters. Tech only gets in with Texas, like OSU only gets in with Oklahoma. I still think our strongest move would be just those 4 schools, outside of course of the long shot of just OU and UT. I wouldn't mind having Tech and the Horns. 33 million is an extremely large regional audience for non prime games. They add to our value in so many ways.

(02-26-2018 11:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 11:04 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Strictly comparing Texas Tech and Houston...

If we're not taking Texas then I'm not sure what Texas Tech really offers us.

If I had to pick between the two, I'd take Houston. Are they more valuable today? No, but what about 20 and 50 years from now?

Houston is the 5th largest metro in the country with 6.7 million people. We have a good presence there already, but UH represents a potentially significant upgrade in marketshare in the long run.

Geographically, Lubbock is a long haul even from East Texas whereas Houston would offer much more reasonable travel for everyone in the Western half of the league and it wouldn't be a bad flight to cities in the Eastern division.

UH already has over 42K students whereas TTU has 37K.

They were both established in the 1920s, but UH has living alumni around 250K. Only numbers I could find on TTU was that they've awarded about 200K degrees during their existence so their living alumni can't be larger than what UH brings.

Attendance for the last 5 years:

Houston:

2017 = 32,583
2016 = 38,953
2015 = 33,980
2014 = 28,311
2013 = 24,256

Texas Tech:

2017 = 55,065
2016 = 58,250
2015 = 56,340
2014 = 58,934
2013 = 57,933

Advantage for Tech, but I think it should be noted that they are the only game in town for that whole region of TX...a sparsely populated region outside of a couple of population centers. Theoretically, Houston should be able to draw just as many if not more given the size of their home market and that's a discredit to them, but if all things are equal and either one were added to the SEC then I think UH has greater potential. Tech has probably reached their peak in fan support given their pecking order behind UT and A&M.

Revenue for the last 5 years:

Houston:

2016 = 48.8M
2015 = 50.8M
2014 = 45.4M
2013 = 39.4M
2012 = 35.5M

Texas Tech:

2016 = 79.3M
2015 = 72.7M
2014 = 69.8M
2013 = 66.2M
2012 = 62.0M

Tech has the clear advantage in revenue, but I'm not sure how much of that difference is strictly earned. The Big 12 minus UT and OU wouldn't be worth nearly as much on the open market.

TV ratings...

In 2016, these were the showings for Houston for nationally broadcast games:

Oklahoma = 5.7M
Cincinnati = 2.1M
Texas State = 252K
UConn = 1.4M
Tulsa = 454K
SMU = 473K
Louisville = 2.4M
Memphis = 3M
San Diego State(bowl game) = 3.7M

And now for Texas Tech:

Arizona State = 834K
Kansas = 513K
West Virginia = 834K
Oklahoma = 2.3M
TCU = 505K
Texas = 1M
Oklahoma State = 901K
Iowa State = 346K
Baylor = 1.7M

Considering the level of competition was in Tech's favor, they should have blown Houston out of the water in that comparison, but they really didn't.

All of this leads me to believe that Houston and Texas Tech's fan bases aren't that different in size.

Neither school is a slam dunk as far as an economic windfall goes, but if we had to pick one I'd feel better about UH.

Tech gets oil money. Houston doesn't. Academically Tech is rated higher. Then check the number of sports offered and competitiveness in all of them.

You mounted a nice defense of Houston, but A&M carries that market already.

But I don't think either are pressing matters. Tech only gets in with Texas, like OSU only gets in with Oklahoma. I still think our strongest move would be just those 4 schools, outside of course of the long shot of just OU and UT. I wouldn't mind having Tech and the Horns. 33 million is an extremely large regional audience for non prime games. They add to our value in so many ways.

If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

(02-27-2018 12:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 12:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  If they shift Texas to the ACC then they'll need several regional partners. Baylor and TCU may be enough, I don't know.

If we're asked to take Texas Tech in all that then even then I'd argue a 3rd TX school might be better if we're taking 6. Iowa State and Kansas are fairly good options, but perhaps splitting 6 TX schools among the SEC and ACC would be better for market penetration and ratings.

Placing all 10 would be very hard and even 8 wouldn't be easy if Notre Dame decides to go all in. Going to 20 would be the only option if they want to get this over with in the next couple of years.

Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 02:23 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Which gets me to thinking...

The SEC could add Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, and SMU

SMU would give us a direct presence in DFW, but do it with a program that wouldn't be as much of a competitive threat as TCU would be. SMU is a small school, but it's a good school and they actually generate more revenue than Houston if I remember correctly.

The ACC could take Texas, TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, West Virginia, and Notre Dame.

If the 2 leagues split 6 properties among the state of TX then that creates more opportunities for crossover games within the state.

Texas A&M versus Texas = the 2 bell cows fight it out
Texas Tech versus TCU = 2 upstarts with a decent rivalry
SMU versus Baylor = Baptists versus Methodists

Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

Probably a favor to some degree.

After 4 schools left, the league probably needed ESPN's help to maintain some relevancy in the market. That and the networks overpaid so they needed to protect their investment.

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if the ACC gets Texas and if we want 3 Texas schools each conference the SEC would need to insist that we add Texas Tech and T.C.U.. Let the ACC take Baylor and Houston. They don't have A&M so they'll need Houston. S.M.U. doesn't offer as much as T.C.U.. But, the Ponies have a 1 billion dollar athletic endowment and if they ACC wanted them they could certainly grow back into the role.

I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  I think we would end up with Texas, Baylor TCU and Notre Dame in an 18 school league.

Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well if we pick up the 2 Oklahoma's and Kansas along with either Texas Tech or W.V.U. then it might be doable.

ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

Why would it piss off the better football programs?
Notre Dame guarantees every program in the ACC a home game at least every 6 years, and doesn't take a full media cut from the conference.
The folks at Clemson and Florida State are smart enough to understand business and also smart enough to realize that neither has the cachet of Notre Dame or Texas.
When you start from a position where your Champion didn't have an auto bid to any New Year's day bowl game, you learn to be flexible and adapt in order to survive and thrive.

(03-02-2018 03:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

A 3 way division would be difficult though, not mathematically, but from the standpoint of profitability.

The B1G is going to have interest in the same programs we do, essentially. If they can't get at least one of them then I'm not sure they have motivation to be involved. Unfortunately, there are really only two such programs that move the need for any of these conferences. If the B1G can't get either UT or OU then I'm not sure they would be too interested.

I don't know if anyone would go for this, but what if the 3 leagues crafted a plan where the B1G took a couple of key pieces from the ACC?

-B1G takes a couple of nice properties from the ACC along with a couple of Big 12 little brothers.

-ACC backfills with Texas and others

-SEC gets the OK schools and a few new markets

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

A 3 way division would be difficult though, not mathematically, but from the standpoint of profitability.

The B1G is going to have interest in the same programs we do, essentially. If they can't get at least one of them then I'm not sure they have motivation to be involved. Unfortunately, there are really only two such programs that move the need for any of these conferences. If the B1G can't get either UT or OU then I'm not sure they would be too interested.

I don't know if anyone would go for this, but what if the 3 leagues crafted a plan where the B1G took a couple of key pieces from the ACC?

-B1G takes a couple of nice properties from the ACC along with a couple of Big 12 little brothers.

-ACC backfills with Texas and others

-SEC gets the OK schools and a few new markets

The next realignment is going to answer a great many questions that divide opinion on realignment. How tied at the hip are OU and OSU, KU and KSU, UT and TTU. If these schools have political obligations to the other state schools then realignment to the Big 10 is dead. Heck, it might be why some of them aren't there already.

And given the economic reality of the what I discussed in the other thread here, at what point, especially in very small states, does the major state school separate from the less known state school?

Face it ATU, the Big 10 and SEC could easily split the Big 12 and leave the ACC out except for two issues. The Big 10's insistence on AAU status, and the fact that only two of those schools, or either one in combination with another, would add to our bottom line.

We talk about Missouri being a blocking move to the Big 10 expansion Southward in the Midwest. But the PAC's addition of Colorado was equally effective as when coupled with Missouri's move leaves the least profitable of the three as the Big 10's only path Southward, Kansas.

If partners are required in these moves and state schools try to stick together then the SEC wins at least the pair of Oklahoma schools. If it doesn't matter then the Big 10 might well land OU and KU or UT and KU. If the SEC and Big 10 split the schools then I could see UT and KU to the Big 10 and OU and either TTU, T.C.U., or WVU to the SEC. If the Big 10 took OU and KU then Texas and whoever they wanted might be what the SEC would do. But my point is we may be reaching a point where the smaller states can't support two large schools. And that could alter what we believe about realignment.

I also don't rule out the likelihood that the SEC and Big 10 would simply pass on the remainder of the Big 12 schools and look to 2036 for potential additions. Neither of our conferences is hurting for cash.

It is why however the safest play for the SEC would be to offer the Texa-homa 4. Our offer would be substantially more than that of the PAC, and I don't see the Big 10 making that offer.

If we made that play then the ACC has no path to growing financially and the Big 10 would realize that and wait to make a play for Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and would make another run at N.D..

I simply don't think the SEC could go wrong by taking 5 state schools that dominate the viewing of a population of 33 and soon to be 34 million.

(03-02-2018 01:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 03:37 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

Don't forget that ESPN might want to warm up to the Big 10 if they intend to go hard after their rights again.

So the division could be 3 ways instead of two.

It's just that I think it would be easier and probably a better long term strategy if ESPN absorbed the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC. And yes it would take two conferences of 20 to do it.

A 3 way division would be difficult though, not mathematically, but from the standpoint of profitability.

The B1G is going to have interest in the same programs we do, essentially. If they can't get at least one of them then I'm not sure they have motivation to be involved. Unfortunately, there are really only two such programs that move the need for any of these conferences. If the B1G can't get either UT or OU then I'm not sure they would be too interested.

I don't know if anyone would go for this, but what if the 3 leagues crafted a plan where the B1G took a couple of key pieces from the ACC?

-B1G takes a couple of nice properties from the ACC along with a couple of Big 12 little brothers.

-ACC backfills with Texas and others

-SEC gets the OK schools and a few new markets

The next realignment is going to answer a great many questions that divide opinion on realignment. How tied at the hip are OU and OSU, KU and KSU, UT and TTU. If these schools have political obligations to the other state schools then realignment to the Big 10 is dead. Heck, it might be why some of them aren't there already.

And given the economic reality of the what I discussed in the other thread here, at what point, especially in very small states, does the major state school separate from the less known state school?

Face it ATU, the Big 10 and SEC could easily split the Big 12 and leave the ACC out except for two issues. The Big 10's insistence on AAU status, and the fact that only two of those schools, or either one in combination with another, would add to our bottom line.

We talk about Missouri being a blocking move to the Big 10 expansion Southward in the Midwest. But the PAC's addition of Colorado was equally effective as when coupled with Missouri's move leaves the least profitable of the three as the Big 10's only path Southward, Kansas.

If partners are required in these moves and state schools try to stick together then the SEC wins at least the pair of Oklahoma schools. If it doesn't matter then the Big 10 might well land OU and KU or UT and KU. If the SEC and Big 10 split the schools then I could see UT and KU to the Big 10 and OU and either TTU, T.C.U., or WVU to the SEC. If the Big 10 took OU and KU then Texas and whoever they wanted might be what the SEC would do. But my point is we may be reaching a point where the smaller states can't support two large schools. And that could alter what we believe about realignment.

I also don't rule out the likelihood that the SEC and Big 10 would simply pass on the remainder of the Big 12 schools and look to 2036 for potential additions. Neither of our conferences is hurting for cash.

It is why however the safest play for the SEC would be to offer the Texa-homa 4. Our offer would be substantially more than that of the PAC, and I don't see the Big 10 making that offer.

If we made that play then the ACC has no path to growing financially and the Big 10 would realize that and wait to make a play for Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and would make another run at N.D..

I simply don't think the SEC could go wrong by taking 5 state schools that dominate the viewing of a population of 33 and soon to be 34 million.

I think what we generally think of as Power 5 state schools will probably survive. There has been such a great investment in these institutions over the generations by both taxpayers and donors that it will be hard to get rid of them. What I mean is that so many of them are integrated into local and state economies that I think we'd have to see a major economic depression before they would be found useless.

These smaller state schools though are living on borrowed time. Get rid of most of them and that at least frees up resources to keep the major schools afloat.

That's actually one of the reasons I think the state of TX will push hard to get Houston in because they at least have potential to survive into the next generation even if they don't have a top athletic brand. I think the time may be coming soon where outside of the Power schools, there won't be very many schools that impact their respective states. Athletic competition is too good of a marketing tool and without it, a lot of schools will struggle to gain attention or build alumni bases. There would be exceptions to that, of course, but in general those would be the dynamics.

From our perspective, I would consider this collection...

Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas

Taking all the major state schools for TX would cement that state as SEC territory not just from a market perspective, but politically. From a profitability standpoint, Texas and Texas A&M would allow for full penetration into the state, but doing them a favor and adding both Texas Tech and Houston would be better for their economy. Tying the league and the massive state of TX together should pay dividends for everyone. When a Legislator walks into the Capitol in Austin, it won't even matter what part of the state he's from as he'll be of the opinion that the SEC is their league and any other collection of schools is second fiddle on the pecking order.

It'd be the same for the state of OK although obviously the economic impact would be smaller. Taking Kansas would be securing the flagship of another state and helping our status among the AAU club. It's a small state, however, so I'm not sure Kansas State would be too attractive to anyone else.

I don't think the B1G would be interested in any of the others unless maybe they added Iowa State in conjunction with a broader move to the East. The ACC might take TCU to help with market penetration, but the impact for them wouldn't the same.

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN has spent a lot of time and energy pimping the Big 12 since the SECN launched.

I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

They should do the same. I would welcome that.

(03-02-2018 01:24 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 11:24 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I hadn't noticed.

I do like XLance's idea of holding at 18, but in that scenario I think Notre Dame might remain independent. If so, the ACC should add Texas, Baylor, TCU and WVU for maximum rivalry brand multipliers (as JR always talks about). The SEC gets OU, OSU, Kansas and Texas Tech. Both leagues pick up internal rivalries, plus the opportunity for new ACC/SEC rivalry games as well.

Internal rivalries created/preserved:
ACC: WVU vs. Syracuse, Pitt and VT; Texas vs. TCU, Baylor
SEC: TAMU vs. OU, OSU, TT; Missouri vs. Kansas, OU, OSU

If Texas joined the ACC with a pod of schools, I think Texas and Notre Dame would remain independent in football and join all in in all other sports. Texas would look like a hero in the state legislature by protecting another Texas school in D 1 sports while also opening up their schedule to play other schools.

I could see an ACC with Notre Dame and Texas partial, full members Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor and West Virginia. Could easily substitute Baylor and/or WVU for other Big 12 schools.

An SEC with OU, OSU, and possibly KU and WVU could happen if Texas joins the ACC in a dismantled Big 12.

To make the numbers work, they might have to do something like that.

The 2 leagues would have to take at least 8 between them and if Notre Dame went all in at 18 then that's only 7.

Maybe this...

SEC takes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and TCU

ACC takes Texas as a partial, Texas Tech, Baylor, Houston, and West Virginia

That would leave Kansas State and Iowa State scrambling, but going to 20 would be the only way to take care of all of them.

Also, adding another partial member to the ACC could really piss off some of their better football programs. ND was the necessary evil to keep the paychecks within reach of the other top conferences. Giving another school that treatment might get make a FSU or Clemson wonder why they shouldn’t do the same.

I think ND will go all in eventually, but I'm not sure it will be within the next few years.

I don't think that ND will join, at least before 2036, unless the playoffs are legally, structurally limited to P4 conference only champs.

I don't see anything else that would amount to the 12 gauge shotgun to ND's head that would make it very reluctantly and unwillingly put its football program in a conference.