(07-24-2022 10:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/im_biggmojo/status/1...5484619788

BREAKING NEWS

(07-24-2022 10:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1542605638097932290

YOU MAY SAY I’M A DREAMER

(07-25-2022 04:20 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 10:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1542605638097932290

YOU MAY SAY I’M A DREAMER

I'm aware that USC and ND are private. My point is that they are the exception, not the rule. Current private membership is Vanderbilt and Northwestern in the SEC and B1G. They have historically admitted large, public state schools with large enrollments and alumni bases. Wf, Duke, Syracuse,and BC don't even compare to USC or ND. Miami is also a little different. All that being said, I'd like any expansion to prioritize large public schools in large TV markets and competitive football programs, hence the appeal of Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Utah, etc. Baylor is another possible exception since their enrollment is over 20k. At the end of the day, I'd be shocked if ACC leadership has the backbone to make a bold expansion move with any PAC or Big 12 schools, though.

(07-25-2022 06:12 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 04:20 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 10:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1542605638097932290

YOU MAY SAY I’M A DREAMER

I'm aware that USC and ND are private. My point is that they are the exception, not the rule. Current private membership is Vanderbilt and Northwestern in the SEC and B1G. They have historically admitted large, public state schools with large enrollments and alumni bases. Wf, Duke, Syracuse,and BC don't even compare to USC or ND. Miami is also a little different. All that being said, I'd like any expansion to prioritize large public schools in large TV markets and competitive football programs, hence the appeal of Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Utah, etc. Baylor is another possible exception since their enrollment is over 20k. At the end of the day, I'd be shocked if ACC leadership has the backbone to make a bold expansion move with any PAC or Big 12 schools, though.

Agree with most of this post. Just want to clarify that Syracuse's enrollment is 22K and the city of Syracuse is larger than the city of Waco. And even stadium capacity is about the same. What we lack that Baylor has is easy access to high school football prospects.

Cheers,
Neil

These national pundits are gullible to think ESPN won't pay ND what they want in order to keep them out of the B1G. Outside of money, there isn't one reason for ND to even flirt with the B1G.

(07-24-2022 09:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 11:45 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

TTech has a greater reach in Texas but a combo of TCU/Baylor helps in C/N TX. TCU and Baylor also are more similar instutionally with many of the ACC private schools. In addition, Ft Worth and Waco are far preferable for visiting fans.

Texas Tech does have it's merit...bigger FB stadium, 3rd brand wise. The privates have better academic profiles.

I hear ya ... but ...

At this point, I'm thinking "survival" more than "fit".

And Texas Tech is a stronger brand than TCU.

Hell ... they are bullying the hell out of TCU right now ... TCU recently released single game tickets for all home games EXCEPT Texas Tech, because of what Tech did last year -- outnumbering home fans by scooping up all their unsold tickets and tuning an away game into a home game. TCU is trying to make that impossible by not releasing single game tickets for the Tech game.

Well ... Tech fans answered this by buying up season ticket packages now, with the plan to sell the Oklahoma game to Sooner fans to recap a good hunk of that expense, using their ticket for their game, and eating the other home games to ruin the home field advantage TCU would have in those contests.

In my opinion, a committed fan base like this is more important than how they institutionally fit with the ACC.

BUT ... that's not all.


On top of that ... they recently announced a $200 million dollar football stadium up grade ....

https://www.dallasnews.com/sports/texas-...l-program/

... AND they announced an NIL package for ALL football players of $25,000 each.

https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb...texas-tech



If the ACC wants to be the 3rd best -- you need schools with the commitment level that the Red Raiders are showing.


Jut my two cents.

(All this is really academic. I don't expect the ACC to do ANYTHING frankly.)

In case you are wondering what’s going on

For instance, the Pac-12 is in discussions with the ACC about a scheduling and network partnership that involves ESPN, something SI reported earlier this summer and an agreement that is still very much alive, Pac-12 and ACC officials say. Many have their doubts if such a move is worthwhile.

Others are behind it.

“It’s got merit,” [Utah AD]Harlan says. “Maybe we do a scheduling doubleheader in Vegas. We could raise their value as well as our own.”

https://www.si.com/college/2022/07/30/pa...-kliavkoff

(07-25-2022 06:12 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-25-2022 04:20 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 10:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?

https://twitter.com/CFBHome/status/1542605638097932290

YOU MAY SAY I’M A DREAMER

I'm aware that USC and ND are private. My point is that they are the exception, not the rule. Current private membership is Vanderbilt and Northwestern in the SEC and B1G. They have historically admitted large, public state schools with large enrollments and alumni bases. Wf, Duke, Syracuse,and BC don't even compare to USC or ND. Miami is also a little different. All that being said, I'd like any expansion to prioritize large public schools in large TV markets and competitive football programs, hence the appeal of Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, Utah, etc. Baylor is another possible exception since their enrollment is over 20k. At the end of the day, I'd be shocked if ACC leadership has the backbone to make a bold expansion move with any PAC or Big 12 schools, though.

Syracuse is quite a bit bigger than Notre Dame. It is almost as large as Clemson for enrollment. Throw in the two spinoff, specialized adjacent SUNY schools it around 26K students

(07-24-2022 08:22 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  There are 2 worst case scenarios. The PAC adds some B12 schools or the B12 adds some PAC schools. In either case, that conference would be a formidable competitor for the #3 conference title and corresponding media money. The worst thing the ACC could do is nothing.

Not so 'formidable', I'd say. The main things sustaining the ACC right now: a conference network, a long-term grant of rights, and a connection with Notre Dame. The PAC or B12 have nothing similar, and adding San Diego State or shuffling Arizona schools won't get them there.

Anyway, the outcome after a while would likely be the same even if we do see some quick shuffling out west. We're moving to a landscape where top 'conferences' have 20-24 teams. That points to a #3 Middleweight Conference of similar size. However it starts, it ends as a coast-to-coast mashup of ACC/PAC/B12 survivors. Create Eastern and Western divisions from there and on you go.

(08-01-2022 11:21 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 08:22 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  There are 2 worst case scenarios. The PAC adds some B12 schools or the B12 adds some PAC schools. In either case, that conference would be a formidable competitor for the #3 conference title and corresponding media money. The worst thing the ACC could do is nothing.

Not so 'formidable', I'd say. The main things sustaining the ACC right now: a conference network, a long-term grant of rights, and a connection with Notre Dame. The PAC or B12 have nothing similar, and adding San Diego State or shuffling Arizona schools won't get them there.

Anyway, the outcome after a while would likely be the same even if we do see some quick shuffling out west. We're moving to a landscape where top 'conferences' have 20-24 teams. That points to a #3 Middleweight Conference of similar size. However it starts, it ends as a coast-to-coast mashup of ACC/PAC/B12 survivors. Create Eastern and Western divisions from there and on you go.

All the more reason to grab any team NOW that increases ACC payouts - even if only by $5M/school. Every million dollars helps!!!

The problem with the ACC expanding is the presence of saboteurs in the ACC?

The PAC apparently had an alleged saboteur is the form of USC (Frau Holt formerly of UNC ) voting against the PAC expanding to include any Big XII schools (worried about extended PAC GoR). This was during last year when that conference was in turmoil over OkU and UT moving to the SEC. Then having USC leaving to join the BIG citing more money after effectively sabotaging the PAC from making more money with expansion.

What agents in the ACC are likely to be saboteurs? Preventing the ACC from making more money by voting against expansion candidates, or potential deals to increase revenue, unless they get a chance to bolt for greener pastures.

ND can be considered a saboteur since they have a vote in conference expansion and could act against ACC interests.

Duke, UNC, and UVA could all be considered saboteurs since they have previously acted against ACC interests in favor of their own schools priorities.

Fanbases from FSU, Clemson, and Miami suggest they want their schools to engage in sabotage. Preventing the ACC from making more money unless they get a chance to bolt for greener conferences.

So the only schools that we know will act in best interest of the ACC is WF, BC, Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt because they at best only have lateral moves available, and need the conference to make money.

The three schools that may decide the future are GT, VT, and NC State. Though VT and NC State may have their hands tied due to state politics.

Syracuse actually is a possibility for the B1G. It helps shore up the NE and adds a Top BB brand

No where else can you have 35K to a conference basketball game.

(08-02-2022 01:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Syracuse actually is a possibility for the B1G. It helps shore up the NE and adds a Top BB brand

No where else can you have 35K to a conference basketball game.

https://twitter.com/deafgeoff/status/378586576307384320

SAYS WHO

If the Big Ten and SEC actually go to 24 (adding 8 more schools each including Notre Dame) ....

The "best of the rest" could assemble into a group of 24 and you would have 72 schools in the new "Power 3".

Obviously, there'd be clear delineation between the Big/SEC and the P3 conference, but that P3 conference should have access to the playoff -- which is what they should be fighting for most, IMO.

(08-01-2022 04:34 PM)AeroWolf Wrote:  The problem with the ACC expanding is the presence of saboteurs in the ACC?

The PAC apparently had an alleged saboteur is the form of USC (Frau Holt formerly of UNC ) voting against the PAC expanding to include any Big XII schools (worried about extended PAC GoR). This was during last year when that conference was in turmoil over OkU and UT moving to the SEC. Then having USC leaving to join the BIG citing more money after effectively sabotaging the PAC from making more money with expansion.

What agents in the ACC are likely to be saboteurs? Preventing the ACC from making more money by voting against expansion candidates, or potential deals to increase revenue, unless they get a chance to bolt for greener pastures.

ND can be considered a saboteur since they have a vote in conference expansion and could act against ACC interests.

Duke, UNC, and UVA could all be considered saboteurs since they have previously acted against ACC interests in favor of their own schools priorities.

Fanbases from FSU, Clemson, and Miami suggest they want their schools to engage in sabotage. Preventing the ACC from making more money unless they get a chance to bolt for greener conferences.

So the only schools that we know will act in best interest of the ACC is WF, BC, Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt because they at best only have lateral moves available, and need the conference to make money.

The three schools that may decide the future are GT, VT, and NC State. Though VT and NC State may have their hands tied due to state politics.

Any ACC school who would sabotage ACC expansion on, say, the non-written word of someone that the school will be invited to join the SEC and/or B1G "soon" is as stupid as Commissioner Phillips was for believing the Big Ten would have his back if he voted against CFP expansion. Trust no one, and act in your TANGIBLE best interests, not some pie-in-the-sky promise which may never materialize! That means helping your current, actual partners make more money for you NOW.