(07-01-2022 06:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 06:02 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 05:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 04:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Say ND & Oregon go to the B1G, would taking the best of the west pay off($)? Do they add enough to the ACCN? Will ESPN pay substantially more for them? If yes then take them! (Stanford, Cal, Washington, Arizona, Colorado & either Utah, Arizona St or Kansas)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Only two programs are a concern from the PAC (WSU is relatively small and geographically isolated; and Oregon State is bad in revenue sports and doesn’t carry a big market). ESPN should be salivating at potentially picking-up western brands. The problem is that there needs to be enough programs to compensate for cross-country travel on non-revenue sports. You need at least 4 programs.

IMO - accretive (in order): Washington / Stanford, Arizona State / Cal and Oregon; dilutive (but may be needed for pairing reasons): Arizona, Utah and Colorado. Given the favorable terms that ESPN has on the ACC deal, they should increase payouts for all eight members.

Travel may be a reason to add 10. 4 six team pods. In that case I would take the best of the PAC (6) & the B12 (4). Cal, Stanford, Washington, Arizona, Arizona St & Colorado. Oklahoma St, Kansas & 2 Texas schools? Western expansion creates a traveling nightmare & 24 seems to big. I also expect Louisville to get stuck in some western pod.

Another solution would be to just add 4 or 6 & not do pods. Let the western teams play each other every year & then incorporate them into our now established 3-5-5 schedule as the ninth game, a 3-5-5+1 format.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think 24 is too many. I think the BIG will stop at 16 without ND or at 18 with ND. With 18 teams, the BIG may go with 10 conference games: 3-7-7.

The ACC has 14 east coast teams. As proposed in the OP, the ACC can get to 20 by adding five Pac 12 teams plus one B12 team.

My pick for P12: Cal, Stanford, Washington, Utah, and Arizona (or ASU)

But is there anyone worth from the B12?

Well, I wouldn't go way across the country but Kansas, Baylor, TCU and grab Cincinnati would be good for 18 if going to 20 then Houston, WVU or any combination of these 6 solid sports programs

(07-03-2022 11:31 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 06:14 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 06:02 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 05:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-01-2022 04:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Say ND & Oregon go to the B1G, would taking the best of the west pay off($)? Do they add enough to the ACCN? Will ESPN pay substantially more for them? If yes then take them! (Stanford, Cal, Washington, Arizona, Colorado & either Utah, Arizona St or Kansas)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. Only two programs are a concern from the PAC (WSU is relatively small and geographically isolated; and Oregon State is bad in revenue sports and doesn’t carry a big market). ESPN should be salivating at potentially picking-up western brands. The problem is that there needs to be enough programs to compensate for cross-country travel on non-revenue sports. You need at least 4 programs.

IMO - accretive (in order): Washington / Stanford, Arizona State / Cal and Oregon; dilutive (but may be needed for pairing reasons): Arizona, Utah and Colorado. Given the favorable terms that ESPN has on the ACC deal, they should increase payouts for all eight members.

Travel may be a reason to add 10. 4 six team pods. In that case I would take the best of the PAC (6) & the B12 (4). Cal, Stanford, Washington, Arizona, Arizona St & Colorado. Oklahoma St, Kansas & 2 Texas schools? Western expansion creates a traveling nightmare & 24 seems to big. I also expect Louisville to get stuck in some western pod.

Another solution would be to just add 4 or 6 & not do pods. Let the western teams play each other every year & then incorporate them into our now established 3-5-5 schedule as the ninth game, a 3-5-5+1 format.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think 24 is too many. I think the BIG will stop at 16 without ND or at 18 with ND. With 18 teams, the BIG may go with 10 conference games: 3-7-7.

The ACC has 14 east coast teams. As proposed in the OP, the ACC can get to 20 by adding five Pac 12 teams plus one B12 team.

My pick for P12: Cal, Stanford, Washington, Utah, and Arizona (or ASU)

But is there anyone worth from the B12?

Well, I wouldn't go way across the country but Kansas, Baylor, TCU and grab Cincinnati would be good for 18 if going to 20 then Houston, WVU or any combination of these 6 solid sports programs

If they added revenue/value then they would already be here. The PAC schools would add revenue/value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-30-2022 06:43 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The ACC is currently in a safe place thanks to the GoR but given the latest news some people are wondering whether the ACC needs to expand as a defensive move.

I don’t think it’s nessesary to add but let’s think about a scenario where the ACC becomes 20.

Step 1.

Settle with ND. Get as much money as possible and let them leave.

Step 2.

Wait until the BIG is done. They would take ND and Stan for sure. Not sure if they would to go beyond 18.

Step 3.

Get one East team. Either WV, Cincy or UCF
Get five West/Texas teams

Step 4.

Set up four pods as follows:

NE pod: BC, Cuse, Pitt, Louisville and East team that added
Coastal: UNC, Duke, VT, UVa, GT
Atlantic: NCSU, WF, Clemson, FSU, Miami
West pod: five West/Texas teams

Step 5: Play nine conference games (essentially 4-5-5-5).

This 20 team conference setup won’t prevent the ACC teams get poached. What it does is to prevent the ACC from falling further behind from #3 spot.

Just a note on scheduling that way...

When two 5-team pods meet there'd be an odd 25 cross-podial games between them. Collectively, one pod or the other would have to host a majority of those games. Same regarding the other two pods. Eventually the two pods that initially hosted a majority of cross-podial games would meet and, in that same year, the other two would also meet. So there would be a situation where too many teams in one 10-team group would be due 5 home games and too many teams in the other 10-team group would be due 4 home games... In short, not all teams could annually switch between 5 & 4 or 4 & 5 home games. Which is to say not all teams could have 9 home games and 9 away games in every 2-year period. One of the following would need to happen:

• In addition to two 5-home game seasons and two 4-home game seasons, 1, 3 or all 5 teams per pod would have one 6-home game season and one 3-home game season per 6-year cycle, with those in two particular pods offsetting the others.

• 2, 6 or 10 pairs of cross-podial teams (involving 1, 3 or all 5 teams in each pod) would play at a neutral site every time they meet.

• 1, 3 or all 5 teams per pod would play three 5-home game seasons consecutively, followed by three 4-home game seasons (or vice versa), with those teams in 2 particular pods offsetting the others. Specifically, for half of those involved it would be repeating 5-4-4-4-5-5 (or 5-5-4-4-4-5) and for the other half it would be repeating 4-5-5-5-4-4 (or 4-4-5-5-5-4.)

Those options might all be untenable... With or without the use of pods, though, teams could still have 4 annual rivals and they could play exactly 5 others in any given year. But they can't exchange an odd 5 for 5 every year without causing problems. Some non-permanent opponents would need to play each other twice in a row, like the 14-team ACC plans to do with the upcoming 3-5 deal.

But, if acceptable, the simplest thing to do with 20 teams and 9-game schedules would be to give teams an odd number of annual rivals, leaving them with an even number of non-permanent opponents each year. There's no problem switching in and out an even number. That can be done every year without issue.

(07-03-2022 05:32 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If they added revenue/value then they would already be here. The PAC schools would add revenue/value.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure about that? They have strong credentials but live in a part of the country that really doesn't care about collegiate athletics. I'm pretty sure they don't add value and that will be proven out by the fact that no one else is added.

USC and UCLA represented 21% of the Pac12 TV contract and Oregon and Washington represented 26%. Or so I've seen posted. So with those 4 out of the way, I don't see how anyone else adds value to an ACC contract.

(07-04-2022 06:27 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-03-2022 05:32 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If they added revenue/value then they would already be here. The PAC schools would add revenue/value.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure about that? They have strong credentials but live in a part of the country that really doesn't care about collegiate athletics. I'm pretty sure they don't add value and that will be proven out by the fact that no one else is added.

USC and UCLA represented 21% of the Pac12 TV contract and Oregon and Washington represented 26%. Or so I've seen posted. So with those 4 out of the way, I don't see how anyone else adds value to an ACC contract.

Am I sure? No, which is why I favor more dissolving the ACC & creating the P2 now rather than later. However, one of the reasons the PAC failed is due to its failed network. The ACCN is setup better & east coast exposure could elevate the western schools. While the top brand value will be gone from the PAC, the same can be said of the B12.

Cal, Stanford(?), Oregon(?), Washington(?), Colorado, Arizona, Arizona St, Utah

V

Oklahoma St, TT, TCU, Baylor, Kansas, Iowa St, Cincinnati, WV

Neither group or any combination of these two groups = USC/UCLA or Okl/Texas & the B1G is not done yet. The key to the west would be getting Stanford, Oregon & Washington build from there.

Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati for 18 with Houston, WVU for 20 were suggested in the post I responded to. If those 4-6 schools offered value to the ACC then they would already be here.

(07-04-2022 06:27 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(07-03-2022 05:32 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If they added revenue/value then they would already be here. The PAC schools would add revenue/value.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you sure about that? They have strong credentials but live in a part of the country that really doesn't care about collegiate athletics. I'm pretty sure they don't add value and that will be proven out by the fact that no one else is added.

USC and UCLA represented 21% of the Pac12 TV contract and Oregon and Washington represented 26%. Or so I've seen posted. So with those 4 out of the way, I don't see how anyone else adds value to an ACC contract.

I am not sure if the BIG will take Oregon and Washington.

First of all ND hasn’t decided to leave yet. They may want to stay for a few more years to cut the buy out amounts

And even if ND decides to leave, the BIG’s most profitable move would be to add only one team among Stanford, Oregon and Washington to pair with ND.

So most likely two out of Stanford, Oregon and Washington would be left out along with Cal. Then, the ACC would have the chance to add these three schools plus Colorado and Arizona school to form West pod.

Lastly, expanding to 20 is a defensive move. The most profitable move would probably be just to add Cal and Washington and stop at 16.

(07-03-2022 07:34 AM)ShakeNBake Wrote:  BIG goes to 20 with ND, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.

^^^^

Big 12 will then (or probably before) take Arizona, Arizona State, Utah & Colorado

PAC still survives even with only 3 teams left (Cal, Oregon State, Washington State)
because of $ merging with MWC + 1 of the many Texas G5's to make 16.

SEC matches Big 10's 20 team conferences adding 4 from Clemson*, Florida State*, North Carolina?, Virginia Tech?, & Miami?

The ACC in this moment will not have power over the Big 12 to poach and have no targets all the way in the PAC even if they wanted.

This is where I think the AAC comes into play for the ACC.
Memphis, South Florida, SMU (could be in PAC), East Carolina in my opinion would be the best and only real options available.
I say take all 4 to get to 14 and stop.

(07-04-2022 12:56 PM)grapes Wrote:  

(07-03-2022 07:34 AM)ShakeNBake Wrote:  BIG goes to 20 with ND, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.

^^^^

Big 12 will then (or probably before) take Arizona, Arizona State, Utah & Colorado

PAC still survives even with only 3 teams left (Cal, Oregon State, Washington State)
because of $ merging with MWC + 1 of the many Texas G5's to make 16.

SEC matches Big 10's 20 team conferences adding 4 from Clemson*, Florida State*, North Carolina?, Virginia Tech?, & Miami?

The ACC in this moment will not have power over the Big 12 to poach and have no targets all the way in the PAC even if they wanted.

This is where I think the AAC comes into play for the ACC.
Memphis, South Florida, SMU (could be in PAC), East Carolina in my opinion would be the best and only real options available.
I say take all 4 to get to 14 and stop.

My gut feeling is this: if the ACC doesn't add some Big XII teams - soon! - they may end up with no choice but to add from the American Athletic Conference remnants.

(07-04-2022 08:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-04-2022 12:56 PM)grapes Wrote:  

(07-03-2022 07:34 AM)ShakeNBake Wrote:  BIG goes to 20 with ND, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington.

^^^^

Big 12 will then (or probably before) take Arizona, Arizona State, Utah & Colorado

PAC still survives even with only 3 teams left (Cal, Oregon State, Washington State)
because of $ merging with MWC + 1 of the many Texas G5's to make 16.

SEC matches Big 10's 20 team conferences adding 4 from Clemson*, Florida State*, North Carolina?, Virginia Tech?, & Miami?

The ACC in this moment will not have power over the Big 12 to poach and have no targets all the way in the PAC even if they wanted.

This is where I think the AAC comes into play for the ACC.
Memphis, South Florida, SMU (could be in PAC), East Carolina in my opinion would be the best and only real options available.
I say take all 4 to get to 14 and stop.

My gut feeling is this: if the ACC doesn't add some Big XII teams - soon! - they may end up with no choice but to add from the American Athletic Conference remnants.

Unfortunately the Big 12 is in a really weird position of power. They already have one up over the ACC as we speak because they don't have any major teams like the 4 the ACC have. Weird right? So i'm saying they won't leave because the ACC has better teams you ask? Absolutely, because your major brands are a red flag and create an unstable picture for your conference. The Big 12 is going to be great, but they are at this sweet spot where they're really good but not good enough to really get any more teams poached by the Big 2. This creates an odd stability factor I never imagined seeing. So if any Big 12 team asks themselves if the ACC is a better spot without those major brands the answer is no. They won't move to the ACC unless your big 4 are for sure not leaving, and that will never be the case with the Big 10 and SEC making 100M a year per school. Trust me I wish you guys had power because this would for sure open a spot for Memphis.