Re-posted for the LSUtah fella...

(04-29-2013 12:32 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  The biggest problem with attempting to realign the divisions with Maryland in the conference was that Virginia had to be accounted for in that:

a) UVA gets an annual FB game with UNC
b) UVA gets an annual FB game with Maryland, and
c) UVA gets an annual FB game with Virginia Tech (likely by state mandate)

Had any attempt been made to swap Maryland with Virginia Tech, Virginia loses one of its 3 annual games (Maryland).

It could have worked with a Maryland / GT swap...

However, moving Maryland out of the Atlantic would have resulted in the disruption of the most underrated and heated FB rivalry in the conference -- Maryland/NC State (the schools and fans LOVED that game, so that needed to be protected).

Now, with Maryland out of the picture, we can (and will) keep the zipper pattern.

While I take the ADs at their word that they are not interested in re-adjusting, but rather just plugging Louisville in Maryland's spot, if they ever want to re-visit, and maintain their core principles, this could work:

Coastal / Atlantic cross-rival

Duke / Wake Forest
Louisville / Georgia Tech
Miami / FSU
North Carolina / NC State
Pitt / Syracuse
Virginia / Clemson
Virginia Tech / BC

With the only possible complaints coming from VT (in regards to playing BC) and UNC (losing its exposure to the city of Atlanta).

Just say "no" to a N/S alignment. Too many egos to make it work.

(04-29-2013 01:00 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 12:49 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 12:22 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:45 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:34 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  The ACC signed a GORs because the conference leaders: (1) the "academic" powers in UNC/Virginia didn't want to become second-class sports programs in the BIG, etc.; and (2) the others finally woke up and realized the ACC is a "better" conference of schools than the Big XII. The conference also put loyalty and relationships in front of cash flow. Ironic given the ACC built its middle by raiding the Big East . . . I admit I'm surprised by the leadership within the conference. I expected the BIG would poach a UNC/Virginia and in the ensuing panic, Florida, Miami, etc. would bolt to the Big XII . . . but this is what you get when you have "leadership" among your members, and a real conference commissioner.

the B1G was never a option for UNC period. anybody that knows & understands the way UNC operates knows this.

I know you want to believe UNC is above the fray . . . but the Tobacco Road schools would have had no choice if the Big XII could have acted boldly before the GORs to take four ACC schools, including likely Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville . . . and anyone who understands the way UNC operates knows this; they wouldn't have liked it one bit, but UNC and Georgia Tech/Virginia would have been BIG bound and cashed their $40-50 million a year with regrets . . .

There is nothing the Big 12 could have done to get an ACC school. No ACC school wants to be in the Big 12. Outside of Texas and Oklahoma look at that conference. Plus all the travel nightmares.

Again, I know you want to believe that, but all the Big XII had to do was ask Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and they were out the door if the asking would have happened on the heels of Maryland . . . but they didn't, and the Big XII will regret it.

That's just batshit crazy talk.

(04-29-2013 02:20 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 01:00 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 12:49 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 12:22 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:45 AM)mj4life Wrote:  the B1G was never a option for UNC period. anybody that knows & understands the way UNC operates knows this.

I know you want to believe UNC is above the fray . . . but the Tobacco Road schools would have had no choice if the Big XII could have acted boldly before the GORs to take four ACC schools, including likely Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville . . . and anyone who understands the way UNC operates knows this; they wouldn't have liked it one bit, but UNC and Georgia Tech/Virginia would have been BIG bound and cashed their $40-50 million a year with regrets . . .

There is nothing the Big 12 could have done to get an ACC school. No ACC school wants to be in the Big 12. Outside of Texas and Oklahoma look at that conference. Plus all the travel nightmares.

Again, I know you want to believe that, but all the Big XII had to do was ask Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and they were out the door if the asking would have happened on the heels of Maryland . . . but they didn't, and the Big XII will regret it.

That's just batshit crazy talk.

That is crazy talk. Where in the world did you get that from?

The ACC will not align with any North/South deal. The two Virginia schools would never go for it as they would pretty much get stuck with the old Big East. I do think GT and Louisville could switch divisions and crossover rivals though.

(04-29-2013 09:29 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  And with the GoR done he also said their our now more opportunities in regards to TV-(Network $$$$) that was not possible before with their partnership with ESPN. Just my guess...the ACC once the network get up and running will be making a lot of $$$...which explains why FSU, Clemson, NC State etc.etc are on board with this...they saw the numbers from the World Wide Leader.

Also in ACC Division Lineup News...Louisville is going to take over Maryland slot & schedule starting in 2014.

Wait, how are they going to set up a network when ESPN owns all of their rights? ESPN would have to agree to give you guys BACK inventory while paying you the same and allowing you to become a competitor against their own channels. This makes zero sense. The other leagues didn't have full exclusive contracts so it was able to be worked out. ESPN owns EVERYTHING the ACC could put on air already. Why would they agree to this?

It's not radically different than the SEC, which had to buy back Tier 3 rights just to have something to give ESPN for a network. And while Tier 3 rights are something, they're pretty crappy rights in the overall scheme of things.

I suspect there are at least some restrictions on what ESPN can take from the ACC. Meaning they literally cannot take every single game of every single sport (not to mention the sub-license deal with Raycom). You can negotiate some of those restrictions and maybe toss in some other stuff (coach's show?). If the SEC can make it work, it's not radically different for the ACC (and likely chepaer for ESPN as they can duplicate some of the costs they put out for the SEC).

(04-29-2013 02:22 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  The ACC will not align with any North/South deal. The two Virginia schools would never go for it as they would pretty much get stuck with the old Big East. I do think GT and Louisville could switch divisions and crossover rivals though.

If GT and Louisville switch, what I'd like to see is for UVA/VT/Louisville and GT/Clemson/BC to not have permanent cross-divisional rivals. Just rotate them through. Any "rivalry" would just be contrived. Let the ones that really need the cross-divisional rival to keep it.

(04-29-2013 02:43 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:29 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:07 AM)Maize Wrote:  And with the GoR done he also said their our now more opportunities in regards to TV-(Network $$$$) that was not possible before with their partnership with ESPN. Just my guess...the ACC once the network get up and running will be making a lot of $$$...which explains why FSU, Clemson, NC State etc.etc are on board with this...they saw the numbers from the World Wide Leader.

Also in ACC Division Lineup News...Louisville is going to take over Maryland slot & schedule starting in 2014.

Wait, how are they going to set up a network when ESPN owns all of their rights? ESPN would have to agree to give you guys BACK inventory while paying you the same and allowing you to become a competitor against their own channels. This makes zero sense. The other leagues didn't have full exclusive contracts so it was able to be worked out. ESPN owns EVERYTHING the ACC could put on air already. Why would they agree to this?

It's not radically different than the SEC, which had to buy back Tier 3 rights just to have something to give ESPN for a network. And while Tier 3 rights are something, they're pretty crappy rights in the overall scheme of things.

I suspect there are at least some restrictions on what ESPN can take from the ACC. Meaning they literally cannot take every single game of every single sport (not to mention the sub-license deal with Raycom). You can negotiate some of those restrictions and maybe toss in some other stuff (coach's show?). If the SEC can make it work, it's not radically different for the ACC (and likely chepaer for ESPN as they can duplicate some of the costs they put out for the SEC).

There were some public comments about there being different Tier 3 rights on basketball and football which favored UNC. ESPN clarified it with a public statement saying there was no difference. They have the right to take everything the ACC produces in every sport. Now they don't want it all or have a place for it all.

(04-29-2013 11:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:53 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:34 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  The ACC signed a GORs because the conference leaders: (1) the "academic" powers in UNC/Virginia didn't want to become second-class sports programs in the BIG, etc.; and (2) the others finally woke up and realized the ACC is a "better" conference of schools than the Big XII. The conference also put loyalty and relationships in front of cash flow.

IMO, you omit a big (3), which is that the agreement with Notre Dame boosted their cash flow (which ALWAYS matters to administrators. Always) up enough so that (1) and (2) could be implemented.

If the ACC's money was still stuck down at around $17 million, it would have been difficult if not impossible to get schools outside of NC and VA to sign a GoR.

I agree that ND "saved" the ACC by its partial membership.

That must really piss off Jim Delany. :)

... and that just breaks your heart, right?

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:46 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:32 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I agree with the geographic divisions.

North-
BC
Cuse
Pitt
UofL
UVA
VT
NC St (One of the NC schools would need to go north and for competitive balance it's the Wolfpack)

South-
FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
UNC
Duke
Wake

Miami goes north.

North------------South
Boston College----Wake Forest
Louisville----------Clemson
Miami-------------Florida State
Pitt---------------NC State
Syracuse----------Duke
Virginia------------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-------Georgia Tech

That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:46 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:32 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I agree with the geographic divisions.

North-
BC
Cuse
Pitt
UofL
UVA
VT
NC St (One of the NC schools would need to go north and for competitive balance it's the Wolfpack)

South-
FSU
Miami
GT
Clemson
UNC
Duke
Wake

Miami goes north.

North------------South
Boston College----Wake Forest
Louisville----------Clemson
Miami-------------Florida State
Pitt---------------NC State
Syracuse----------Duke
Virginia------------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-------Georgia Tech

That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:46 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Miami goes north.

North------------South
Boston College----Wake Forest
Louisville----------Clemson
Miami-------------Florida State
Pitt---------------NC State
Syracuse----------Duke
Virginia------------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-------Georgia Tech

That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame.

Yup, then they lost to us in the Orange Bowl.

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:46 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Miami goes north.

North------------South
Boston College----Wake Forest
Louisville----------Clemson
Miami-------------Florida State
Pitt---------------NC State
Syracuse----------Duke
Virginia------------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-------Georgia Tech

That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

They are easily the bottom two BCS teams in average attendance.

The ACC was no more down the year we won than it has been any other year for the past decade.

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:46 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Miami goes north.

North------------South
Boston College----Wake Forest
Louisville----------Clemson
Miami-------------Florida State
Pitt---------------NC State
Syracuse----------Duke
Virginia------------North Carolina
Virginia Tech-------Georgia Tech

That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

But this wasn't about attendance, it was about "ineptitude" and Wake Forest isn't in football or basketball. It was a misguided remark because Wake Forest is pretty good. Six bowls in twenty years is about 30% of the time and there are plenty of schools that would love to go to that many bowls. If the year WF won the conference was a down year then that was a good time for State (wish they had) UNC-CH or UVA to step up, but none of them did, Wake did.

(04-29-2013 07:56 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  The ACC was no more down the year we won than it has been any other year for the past decade.

You're kidding right? Both FSU and Miami went 3-5 in the league that year. Duke went 0-12 overall. UNC went 2-6 in the conference.

(04-29-2013 08:03 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 09:50 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  That could work too. Geographic divisions are the only way to go. I have no idea who is in which division right now.

You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

But this wasn't about attendance, it was about "ineptitude" and Wake Forest isn't in football or basketball. It was a misguided remark because Wake Forest is pretty good. Six bowls in twenty years is about 30% of the time and there are plenty of schools that would love to go to that many bowls. If the year WF won the conference was a down year then that was a good time for State (wish they had) UNC-CH or UVA to step up, but none of them did, Wake did.

6 in 20 years is the 2nd least amount in the whole conference during that time. Only Duke is worse. Everyone else in the conference (except Maryland) have double digit bowl appearances.

(04-29-2013 08:05 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:56 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  The ACC was no more down the year we won than it has been any other year for the past decade.

You're kidding right? Both FSU and Miami went 3-5 in the league that year. Duke went 0-12 overall. UNC went 2-6 in the conference.

Sounds like parity to me.

(04-29-2013 08:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:03 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 11:13 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You have to avoid having Duke and Wake in the same division due to their historic ineptitude.

Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

But this wasn't about attendance, it was about "ineptitude" and Wake Forest isn't in football or basketball. It was a misguided remark because Wake Forest is pretty good. Six bowls in twenty years is about 30% of the time and there are plenty of schools that would love to go to that many bowls. If the year WF won the conference was a down year then that was a good time for State (wish they had) UNC-CH or UVA to step up, but none of them did, Wake did.

6 in 20 years is the 2nd least amount in the whole conference during that time. Only Duke is worse. Everyone else in the conference (except Maryland) have double digit bowl appearances.

How long has it been since UNC has won the conference?

That's not parity. That was the worst ACC season ever for FSU. Also the last time Duke went winless. UNC hasn't has a record that bad since that year.

(04-29-2013 08:13 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:07 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 08:03 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 07:08 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Between the big 4 (UNC-CH, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest) which one was the last to finish first in the conference in football?

Wake. Which is a shame. They took advantage of an extremely down ACC.

But both schools have some of the smallest stadiums for a power conference. Neither have a strong following. Duke just made a bowl for the first time in almost 20 years and Wake has only been to 6 bowls in the last 20 years

But this wasn't about attendance, it was about "ineptitude" and Wake Forest isn't in football or basketball. It was a misguided remark because Wake Forest is pretty good. Six bowls in twenty years is about 30% of the time and there are plenty of schools that would love to go to that many bowls. If the year WF won the conference was a down year then that was a good time for State (wish they had) UNC-CH or UVA to step up, but none of them did, Wake did.

6 in 20 years is the 2nd least amount in the whole conference during that time. Only Duke is worse. Everyone else in the conference (except Maryland) have double digit bowl appearances.

How long has it been since UNC has won the conference?

Forever ago which is why Wake winning the league is a shame. That would be like Vandy winning the SEC.