(01-01-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

It's a clever way of shedding the "burden" of having to protect NC State's interest without risking the possibility of losing the Walmart fans in that state. State gets to have their own TAMU moment but through going north, instead.

One drawback is I don't think ND would do a full membership. ND might continue their association with the ACC that would be more tight than they had with the Big East with some changes. Louisville would be an interesting case, as I am not sure whether they would pick being in an expanded SEC with Texas and Oklahoma over the basketball prestige of the ACC. In that hypothetical, they may end up letting the SEC make the decision for them. I doubt a basketball-focused ACC would pick WVU over UCONN due to academic consideration. Maybe Cincinnati over the other two to smooth any tensions.

Louisville, UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Cincinnati/Connecticut

Also interesting that State lists several Big Ten universities (including the two newbies) as peers. Both State and VPI have been close or knocking on the door of AAU. Doesn't mean they get in but would not be surprised if they do within thirty years.

(01-02-2016 06:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

It's a clever way of shedding the "burden" of having to protect NC State's interest without risking the possibility of losing the Walmart fans in that state. State gets to have their own TAMU moment but through going north, instead.

One drawback is I don't think ND would do a full membership. ND might continue their association with the ACC that would be more tight than they had with the Big East with some changes. Louisville would be an interesting case, as I am not sure whether they would pick being in an expanded SEC with Texas and Oklahoma over the basketball prestige of the ACC. In that hypothetical, they may end up letting the SEC make the decision for them. I doubt a basketball-focused ACC would pick WVU over UCONN due to academic consideration. Maybe Cincinnati over the other two to smooth any tensions.

Louisville, UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Cincinnati/Connecticut

Also interesting that State lists several Big Ten universities (including the two newbies) as peers. Both State and VPI have been close or knocking on the door of AAU. Doesn't mean they get in but would not be surprised if they do within thirty years.

I think that's right. In that scenario I think the SEC takes West Virginia. I also think it would be an extremely smart move by Oklahoma and Texas and here's why. In the 60's the Longhorns dominated Texas football. In the 60's every kid in the state played. That's not so anymore and things really began to shift in the 80's reaching a peak in the 2000's. There are simply too many P5 Texas programs right now and adding Houston would be make it only worse. The pool of talent is shrinking along with the popularity for playing the game in High School. The days of including T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Rice as in the old SWC days are over. The result has been the diminishing talent of Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma all three of which are historically strong programs who have suffered enormously under the demographic and cultural shifts in the availability of talent.

Does that mean that the state of Texas is no longer a top talent producer? In no way do I mean that. But it does mean that the state of Texas can no longer support 6 large programs in the state, and endure the cherry-picking of everyone else, and maintain any kind of dominance in the sport.

By moving Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC not only do they reunite with historic rivals A&M and Arkansas, but they distance themselves brand wise from the rest. Let Kansas head to the Big 10. In an SEC Western division minus Alabama who would move East the Horns and Sooners could rise again with A&M to be the three who would challenge for football prominence. They also would be there with L.S.U. and Arkansas for content games that their fans would look forward to each year.

If Texas wants to keep its fiefdom in state they are not only cutting their own throats but those of long time rival Oklahoma and hindering their in state rival A&M.

By letting Virginia Tech and N.C. State go to the Big 10 North Carolina and Virginia increase their in state presence and prominence, while giving the Big 10 some much needed recruiting grounds.

Moving forward the BTN is going to be more married to markets than the SECN which will likely be able to morph to streaming a bit more through their content. Adding Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State to that content value would be a huge and very popular regional move. I do think that this is a workable solution in that N.D. gets more of what it would want.

As usual the rub will be the Horns. With the ACC grouping the pressure would be on Clemson to make the jump to the SEC as well. I think it is the only school that would be left in the ACC that would suffer a fairly severe internal conflict on that matter.

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

This has possibilities.
I would shift Vanderbilt to the East and Tennessee to the Central. I think that unless Kentucky truly wanted Louisville in that we would take West Virginia here.

I do think that Clemson would have some pretty big internal conflicts over remaining with the better academic schools or going for the football move. Historically two of their bigger rivals would now be in the SEC East (South Carolina and Georgia) and Auburn would be another favorite of theirs for football. And they love their baseball and their basketball is usually sub ACC standards.

I could see this...

SEC takes Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, NC State

B1G takes Kansas, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame

PAC takes Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Iowa State...I don't see them having 6 quality schools available to them

The ACC reforms itself into the old Big East...essentially.

Miami, Memphis, Wake Forest, Old Dominion, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Temple, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College

(01-02-2016 06:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

It's a clever way of shedding the "burden" of having to protect NC State's interest without risking the possibility of losing the Walmart fans in that state. State gets to have their own TAMU moment but through going north, instead.

One drawback is I don't think ND would do a full membership. ND might continue their association with the ACC that would be more tight than they had with the Big East with some changes. Louisville would be an interesting case, as I am not sure whether they would pick being in an expanded SEC with Texas and Oklahoma over the basketball prestige of the ACC. In that hypothetical, they may end up letting the SEC make the decision for them. I doubt a basketball-focused ACC would pick WVU over UCONN due to academic consideration. Maybe Cincinnati over the other two to smooth any tensions.

Louisville, UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Cincinnati/Connecticut

Also interesting that State lists several Big Ten universities (including the two newbies) as peers. Both State and VPI have been close or knocking on the door of AAU. Doesn't mean they get in but would not be surprised if they do within thirty years.

NC State and Virginia Tech are the two most Big 10esque teams in the ACC. Both of those schools are internally structured and operate like Big Ten Universities.

(01-02-2016 08:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 06:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

It's a clever way of shedding the "burden" of having to protect NC State's interest without risking the possibility of losing the Walmart fans in that state. State gets to have their own TAMU moment but through going north, instead.

One drawback is I don't think ND would do a full membership. ND might continue their association with the ACC that would be more tight than they had with the Big East with some changes. Louisville would be an interesting case, as I am not sure whether they would pick being in an expanded SEC with Texas and Oklahoma over the basketball prestige of the ACC. In that hypothetical, they may end up letting the SEC make the decision for them. I doubt a basketball-focused ACC would pick WVU over UCONN due to academic consideration. Maybe Cincinnati over the other two to smooth any tensions.

Louisville, UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Cincinnati/Connecticut

Also interesting that State lists several Big Ten universities (including the two newbies) as peers. Both State and VPI have been close or knocking on the door of AAU. Doesn't mean they get in but would not be surprised if they do within thirty years.

I think that's right. In that scenario I think the SEC takes West Virginia. I also think it would be an extremely smart move by Oklahoma and Texas and here's why. In the 60's the Longhorns dominated Texas football. In the 60's every kid in the state played. That's not so anymore and things really began to shift in the 80's reaching a peak in the 2000's. There are simply too many P5 Texas programs right now and adding Houston would be make it only worse. The pool of talent is shrinking along with the popularity for playing the game in High School. The days of including T.C.U., Baylor, Houston, and Rice as in the old SWC days are over. The result has been the diminishing talent of Texas, A&M, and Oklahoma all three of which are historically strong programs who have suffered enormously under the demographic and cultural shifts in the availability of talent.

Does that mean that the state of Texas is no longer a top talent producer? In no way do I mean that. But it does mean that the state of Texas can no longer support 6 large programs in the state, and endure the cherry-picking of everyone else, and maintain any kind of dominance in the sport.

By moving Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC not only do they reunite with historic rivals A&M and Arkansas, but they distance themselves brand wise from the rest. Let Kansas head to the Big 10. In an SEC Western division minus Alabama who would move East the Horns and Sooners could rise again with A&M to be the three who would challenge for football prominence. They also would be there with L.S.U. and Arkansas for content games that their fans would look forward to each year.

If Texas wants to keep its fiefdom in state they are not only cutting their own throats but those of long time rival Oklahoma and hindering their in state rival A&M.

By letting Virginia Tech and N.C. State go to the Big 10 North Carolina and Virginia increase their in state presence and prominence, while giving the Big 10 some much needed recruiting grounds.

Moving forward the BTN is going to be more married to markets than the SECN which will likely be able to morph to streaming a bit more through their content. Adding Texas, Oklahoma and Florida State to that content value would be a huge and very popular regional move. I do think that this is a workable solution in that N.D. gets more of what it would want.

As usual the rub will be the Horns. With the ACC grouping the pressure would be on Clemson to make the jump to the SEC as well. I think it is the only school that would be left in the ACC that would suffer a fairly severe internal conflict on that matter.

JR Texas Tech was not included. They are too far west to effect the overall Texas market and the bulk of the Texas population which would be completely blanketed by Tejas and A&M.
If you think them necessary they could be substituted for West Virginia/Louisville BUT I still contend that Kentucky is the weak link for the SEC (because of location) and something must be done to shore up the northern flank of the conference (hence West Virginia or Louisville).

(01-02-2016 08:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

This has possibilities.
I would shift Vanderbilt to the East and Tennessee to the Central. I think that unless Kentucky truly wanted Louisville in that we would take West Virginia here.

I do think that Clemson would have some pretty big internal conflicts over remaining with the better academic schools or going for the football move. Historically two of their bigger rivals would now be in the SEC East (South Carolina and Georgia) and Auburn would be another favorite of theirs for football. And they love their baseball and their basketball is usually sub ACC standards.

You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).
In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 08:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

This has possibilities.
I would shift Vanderbilt to the East and Tennessee to the Central. I think that unless Kentucky truly wanted Louisville in that we would take West Virginia here.

I do think that Clemson would have some pretty big internal conflicts over remaining with the better academic schools or going for the football move. Historically two of their bigger rivals would now be in the SEC East (South Carolina and Georgia) and Auburn would be another favorite of theirs for football. And they love their baseball and their basketball is usually sub ACC standards.

You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).
In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

My mistake on including Texas Tech. And, yes I get the Clemson issue, I'm just saying there would be some division there over that trajectory. But overall I think it is a workable way of solving a good many problems.

A battle between Louisville & West Virginia for a spot in the SEC? Never thought that I would see that. Louisville would definitely want it & I could see them using Frankfort to get Kentucky to support them. 1/3 of the state population/voters are in the Louisville area. I would pop open a cold one & get me a jug of popcorn for the show.

(01-02-2016 03:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  A battle between Louisville & West Virginia for a spot in the SEC? Never thought that I would see that. Louisville would definitely want it & I could see them using Frankfort to get Kentucky to support them. 1/3 of the state population/voters are in the Louisville area. I would pop open a cold one & get me a jug of popcorn for the show.

There is a better than average chance that Kentucky would sponsor you under those circumstances. The rivalry game would need to be protected and with expanded conferences the best way to do that is to share the same division in the SEC. It would get interesting for sure. There are more than a few of the presidents that don't want West Virginia, not so much for the travel as that is an issue, but because of bad behavior when we have scheduled home and home with them before. Either way you would stay in P conference.

(01-02-2016 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 08:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

This has possibilities.
I would shift Vanderbilt to the East and Tennessee to the Central. I think that unless Kentucky truly wanted Louisville in that we would take West Virginia here.

I do think that Clemson would have some pretty big internal conflicts over remaining with the better academic schools or going for the football move. Historically two of their bigger rivals would now be in the SEC East (South Carolina and Georgia) and Auburn would be another favorite of theirs for football. And they love their baseball and their basketball is usually sub ACC standards.

You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).
In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

My mistake on including Texas Tech. And, yes I get the Clemson issue, I'm just saying there would be some division there over that trajectory. But overall I think it is a workable way of solving a good many problems.

Don't forget when Florida State goes all fickle on you and wants you to take Louisville AND West Virginia so that they can still have a clear path to the playoffs. Or you could keep the pair and just send Vanderbilt our way....the academic "fit" is obvious.

You might see:
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Ole Miss, Miss. State, Alabama, Louisville, Tennessee and Vandy.

I like the idea of Alabama/Tennessee and Auburn /Georgia being in the same divisions.

If you're not in the P5 already, the chance to jump an existing member for a 'spot" would be very small

(01-02-2016 06:53 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 10:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

It's a clever way of shedding the "burden" of having to protect NC State's interest without risking the possibility of losing the Walmart fans in that state. State gets to have their own TAMU moment but through going north, instead.

One drawback is I don't think ND would do a full membership. ND might continue their association with the ACC that would be more tight than they had with the Big East with some changes. Louisville would be an interesting case, as I am not sure whether they would pick being in an expanded SEC with Texas and Oklahoma over the basketball prestige of the ACC. In that hypothetical, they may end up letting the SEC make the decision for them. I doubt a basketball-focused ACC would pick WVU over UCONN due to academic consideration. Maybe Cincinnati over the other two to smooth any tensions.

Louisville, UNC, Duke, UVA, GT, Miami, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, BC, Wake, Cincinnati/Connecticut

Also interesting that State lists several Big Ten universities (including the two newbies) as peers. Both State and VPI have been close or knocking on the door of AAU. Doesn't mean they get in but would not be surprised if they do within thirty years.

SEC
UT, TAMU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, LSU
Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Florida State, Kentucky, Louisville, Alabama
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

ACC replaces Louisville with Cincinnati. Then it comes down to WVU vs UCONN for that 12th full spot, while ND gets an association deal

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Cincinnati, West Virginia/Connecticut, Miami
UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake, Clemson, Georgia Tech

Whoever gets left out of the 12th spot would head whatever remains out of the AAC and B12

(01-02-2016 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 03:21 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  A battle between Louisville & West Virginia for a spot in the SEC? Never thought that I would see that. Louisville would definitely want it & I could see them using Frankfort to get Kentucky to support them. 1/3 of the state population/voters are in the Louisville area. I would pop open a cold one & get me a jug of popcorn for the show.

There is a better than average chance that Kentucky would sponsor you under those circumstances. The rivalry game would need to be protected and with expanded conferences the best way to do that is to share the same division in the SEC. It would get interesting for sure. There are more than a few of the presidents that don't want West Virginia, not so much for the travel as that is an issue, but because of bad behavior when we have scheduled home and home with them before. Either way you would stay in P conference.

I'm in enemy territory tonight, Lexington is doomed.

ESPN can protect their interests in a variety of ways by storing current ACC products in the SEC.

FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake, UVA, VT, and Louisville could be moved to the SEC.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Louisville
East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson
North: Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest

ESPN maintains regional supremacy in every market it currently owns.

Texas can take themselves and a few more to the PAC after a deal for ESPN to purchase the PAC networks. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Iowa State

A leftover conference can still form with cross regional appeal...Kansas State, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Temple, UConn, Miami, and UCF.

I see ESPN being less interested in aiding the B1G as they have no ownership in the BTN. They could still nail down 1st Tier rights for the league and have access to most of the games that are worth having. I could see the league maybe taking Syracuse and Boston College for market additions. Other than that, the league is still facing demographic issues and for the most part has been on a downward trajectory for the last 10 years or so. Obviously, that's why the league is interested in moving South, but the question should be how wise is it for schools in growth markets to move North right now? Should ESPN look at the B1G as a ticking time bomb? A good fan base, yes, but where will the league be in 20 years or more? Worth having now? Absolutely. Worth bolstering in hopes of a demographic upheaval in the next generation? I think it's a fair question.

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).

In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

People like you keep underestimating the SEC as an academic league. Clemson would be right in line with the academic rankings of most SEC schools. SEC schools don't suck academically. They just haven't benefited from generations of large economic bases like schools in some other parts of the country have...or from elite associations like the AAU for that matter.

Clemson's football worth would diminish precipitously in a league totally absent of every other serious football program in the region. They would be the kings of a castle of sand. Before long, they would be easily overtaken. Remaining in the ACC just to associate with UNC and company when the ship is sinking? I highly doubt that is an option.

(01-02-2016 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).

In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

People like you keep underestimating the SEC as an academic league. Clemson would be right in line with the academic rankings of most SEC schools. SEC schools don't suck academically. They just haven't benefited from generations of large economic bases like schools in some other parts of the country have...or from elite associations like the AAU for that matter.

Clemson's football worth would diminish precipitously in a league totally absent of every other serious football program in the region. They would be the kings of a castle of sand. Before long, they would be easily overtaken. Remaining in the ACC just to associate with UNC and company when the ship is sinking? I highly doubt that is an option.

I didn't mean to disparage the SEC in any way.
You do realize that Clemson won a national championship playing in the ACC. And that was before Florida State joined the league, so I don't believe your sand castle story for one minute. Sinking ship? What the heck are you talking about?

(01-02-2016 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).

In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

People like you keep underestimating the SEC as an academic league. Clemson would be right in line with the academic rankings of most SEC schools. SEC schools don't suck academically. They just haven't benefited from generations of large economic bases like schools in some other parts of the country have...or from elite associations like the AAU for that matter.

Clemson's football worth would diminish precipitously in a league totally absent of every other serious football program in the region. They would be the kings of a castle of sand. Before long, they would be easily overtaken. Remaining in the ACC just to associate with UNC and company when the ship is sinking? I highly doubt that is an option.

I didn't mean to disparage the SEC in any way.
You do realize that Clemson won a national championship playing in the ACC. And that was before Florida State joined the league, so I don't believe your sand castle story for one minute. Sinking ship? What the heck are you talking about?

No offense taken. I just think the argument behind academic associations for the purpose of athletics is a very flawed one.

The era that Clemson won a national championship in was a very different one. The Big 8 and SWC still existed. The SEC, Big 10, and PAC only had 10 members each and there were numerous independents in those days. The ACC had yet to go North of Maryland. That was the era of small regional conferences that you've been wishing we return to, but that ship has sailed.

Football powers have been consolidating ever since the mid-80s. If Clemson is left behind in an ACC that loses the likes of FSU, VT, NC State, Louisville, and others then, sure, they'll have the best program on the block, but their revenue will be cut dramatically. That's especially true when compared to the other powers regionally and nationally as the revenues of the other leagues will increase. The days of Clemson competing for national titles will be over. The ACC already lags behind the other leagues in revenue and that gap will only increase if some of the league's best draws leave.

(01-03-2016 05:31 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:33 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 08:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 11:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  You and others continue to underestimate Clemson as an academic institution. Clemson functions more like a private institution like Carolina and UVa than a public University like Virginia Tech and NC State (or Georgia/Auburn).

In the SEC, Clemson would be another South Carolina, while in the "new" ACC they could continue to be THE football school in the south while Notre Dame could wear that crown in the north.

People like you keep underestimating the SEC as an academic league. Clemson would be right in line with the academic rankings of most SEC schools. SEC schools don't suck academically. They just haven't benefited from generations of large economic bases like schools in some other parts of the country have...or from elite associations like the AAU for that matter.

Clemson's football worth would diminish precipitously in a league totally absent of every other serious football program in the region. They would be the kings of a castle of sand. Before long, they would be easily overtaken. Remaining in the ACC just to associate with UNC and company when the ship is sinking? I highly doubt that is an option.

I didn't mean to disparage the SEC in any way.
You do realize that Clemson won a national championship playing in the ACC. And that was before Florida State joined the league, so I don't believe your sand castle story for one minute. Sinking ship? What the heck are you talking about?

No offense taken. I just think the argument behind academic associations for the purpose of athletics is a very flawed one.

The era that Clemson won a national championship in was a very different one. The Big 8 and SWC still existed. The SEC, Big 10, and PAC only had 10 members each and there were numerous independents in those days. The ACC had yet to go North of Maryland. That was the era of small regional conferences that you've been wishing we return to, but that ship has sailed.

Football powers have been consolidating ever since the mid-80s. If Clemson is left behind in an ACC that loses the likes of FSU, VT, NC State, Louisville, and others then, sure, they'll have the best program on the block, but their revenue will be cut dramatically. That's especially true when compared to the other powers regionally and nationally as the revenues of the other leagues will increase. The days of Clemson competing for national titles will be over. The ACC already lags behind the other leagues in revenue and that gap will only increase if some of the league's best draws leave.

All very true. But from U.N.C.'s point of view they don't care. They have their basketball and a Clemson left as the only football power in the proposed ACC he offers would be emasculated to the point of constant subservience to "their betters". And therein lies the motivation for such a desire.

In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

(01-14-2016 11:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In light of the recent vote on deregulation and yet another kind of ultimatum from Boren I think it's time to revisit the question.

My preference is still for the Sooners as a brand, a state, and the DFW area. Whose #2? Texas would be wonderful, but a long long shot. I think the only reason that Oklahoma would choose the SEC is to preserve Bedlam and save an OOC game for the RRR. So Oklahoma State still looks likely to me should the SEC take two from the Big 12, but only if the Big 12 is the only conference poached.

I thought this was interesting. Boren basically said he would rather remain in the Big 12 if that league could accomplish the goals he outlined the other day.

Boren expounds on his Big 12 vision

I don't expect that to happen at this point, but it does give insight into Boren's mindset.