Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
cardshouse Offline
UofL 4 Playoff!
*

Posts: 2,048
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 133
I Root For: UofL Cardinals
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Post: #21
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.
08-27-2014 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #22
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
08-28-2014 11:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,865
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 165
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #23
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
I do not know many of the the school loyalties in ACC, but I will bet FSU will go where the money is. They do not like being second best at anything, including TV revenue.
08-28-2014 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,530
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #24
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-28-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do not know many of the the school loyalties in ACC, but I will bet FSU will go where the money is. They do not like being second best at anything, including TV revenue.

The 'Noles might not like it, but what motivation does ESPN have to allow FSU to switch from the ACC to the SEC? So a move would seriously damage the credibility and stability of the ACC. It would just be easier for the Mouse to simply plus up the ACC once the final vision of CFB is realized.
08-29-2014 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,088
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #25
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-28-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do not know many of the the school loyalties in ACC, but I will bet FSU will go where the money is. They do not like being second best at anything, including TV revenue.

One could only hope. Eventually you will tire of the constant whining too.
08-29-2014 07:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,530
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #26
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 07:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do not know many of the the school loyalties in ACC, but I will bet FSU will go where the money is. They do not like being second best at anything, including TV revenue.

One could only hope. Eventually you will tire of the constant whining too.

Trade you a bloviating 'Bama for FSU straight up? 04-cheers
08-29-2014 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,088
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #27
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 08:44 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 07:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do not know many of the the school loyalties in ACC, but I will bet FSU will go where the money is. They do not like being second best at anything, including TV revenue.

One could only hope. Eventually you will tire of the constant whining too.

Trade you a bloviating 'Bama for FSU straight up? 04-cheers

Tempting, but......sometimes...better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
Would you be interested in just making a small cash payment?
08-29-2014 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECUGrad07 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,486
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 1063
I Root For: ECU
Location: Lafayette, LA
Post: #28
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
Just sayin...... we're more like the SEC already than 90% of ACC teams.

[Image: f13ac3b3e04642c14d7d41dfe8d7f8f8.jpg]
[Image: 090113DowdyFicklen50-1.jpg]
[Image: 42397387_8bf14069f0_z.jpg?zz=1]



08-29-2014 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.
08-29-2014 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,865
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 165
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #30
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.
Just a thought here... at first Texas in the ACC sounded crazy, but they do have the longest Atlantic Ocean coastline next to Florida.
08-29-2014 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,088
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #31
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

IMO Texas moves to the ACC as a last resort (with Notre Dame).
Face it Texas would like to reassemble the SWC and play 80-90% of their games within the state of Texas.
Texas is now a prisoner of their own success. Too good to go anywhere else but not good enough (or generous enough) to share enough wealth to re-invite Nebraska or Missouri (or Arkansas).
So will this give hope to Rice, SMU and Houston (and BYU/New Mexico)? Texas has enough money to wait out the answer
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2014 05:09 PM by XLance.)
08-29-2014 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

When you look at all of the compromise solutions to the Big 12 conundrum Oklahoma and Baylor make the most sense for the SEC on many levels. Oklahoma is not AAU and really not that close to becoming AAU. So while a major academic outlier in the Big 10 they are actually right on the mean for the SEC. Baylor gives the SEC it's best option at a second Texas school without having to go to Lubbock to get it and while improving the academic standing of the SEC slightly. It leaves Texas to go either to the ACC as an independent with W.V.U. or to lead a contingent to the PAC. And, it frees Kansas for their more natural fit in the Big 10.

I have to also wonder whether the Big 10 would rather have Oklahoma or Kansas. Kansas has more viewers in state, is AAU, and really addresses what may be a more acute issue for the Big 10 than football. They have not won an NCAA basketball championship in over a decade. Their football is really just 3 or 4 schools and not much will improve that. Taking Oklahoma is not only a departure from the academic stance, but is also a major risk. If Oklahoma went to the Big 10 and declined as Nebraska has it would cement the impression that the Big 10 was not a football conference. However if the Big 10 doesn't gain some hoops standing (Kansas and Connecticut) the ACC will reduce them to an afterthought in that sport as well. The Big 10 needs to at least be in the conversation as being the best in either football or basketball and they have a much better chance of accomplishing that with Kansas and Connecticut for basketball as opposed to Virginia Tech and Oklahoma for football, or even splitting the difference with Oklahoma and Kansas.

Plus you have to ask if the Big 10 is really trying to get into the New England area and into the D.C. market what is going to move the needle more for that demographic? I think it's basketball (outside of Penn State). We'll see.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2014 05:19 PM by JRsec.)
08-29-2014 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #33
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

IMO Texas moves to the ACC as a last resort (with Notre Dame).
Face it Texas would like to reassemble the SWC and play 80-90% of their games within the state of Texas.
Texas is now a prisoner of their own success. Too good to go anywhere else but not good enough (or generous enough) to share enough wealth to re-invite Nebraska or Missouri (or Arkansas).
So will this give hope to Rice, SMU and Houston (and BYU/New Mexico)? Texas has enough money to wait out the answer

I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.
08-29-2014 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,088
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 500
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #34
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(08-27-2014 05:01 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  The only conference the SEC will destroy is the Big 12. They could have a nice western division via the Big 12. The SEC really doesn't need anyone else because they own the football market.

The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

IMO Texas moves to the ACC as a last resort (with Notre Dame).
Face it Texas would like to reassemble the SWC and play 80-90% of their games within the state of Texas.
Texas is now a prisoner of their own success. Too good to go anywhere else but not good enough (or generous enough) to share enough wealth to re-invite Nebraska or Missouri (or Arkansas).
So will this give hope to Rice, SMU and Houston (and BYU/New Mexico)? Texas has enough money to wait out the answer

I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

H1, I don't think that the ACC would take Texas as a partial member.....one is enough. What I would look for is Texas going to the PAC if they want to go anywhere as a partial.
08-29-2014 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,530
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #35
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

A Texas addition should enable the ACC to achieve financial parity with the B1G and SEC, thus making the move a win for everyone involved.

But the the sticky wicket IMO is if ESPN could decide to go sideways and sticks with a P5 model and just expand the CFB to 6 or 8 teams. They can throw in a little money to get the B12 back to 12 and buy part of the PTN. Those are moves that probably don't cost the Mouse as much as trying to dissolve the B12.
(This post was last modified: 08-29-2014 09:45 PM by vandiver49.)
08-29-2014 09:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #36
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-28-2014 11:14 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  The SEC could also have a nice eastern division via the ACC. It goes both ways. It's correct the SEC does not need to add anyone, but they will add at least 2 schools, eventually, because 16 (or 20) is much easier and fairer to schedule and there are more options to make extra conference money at 16 (or 20) schools. Same for the B1G. Both will have extra leverage because the SECN and new B1G T1 will put them financially well ahead of the B12, and especially the ACC.
I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

IMO Texas moves to the ACC as a last resort (with Notre Dame).
Face it Texas would like to reassemble the SWC and play 80-90% of their games within the state of Texas.
Texas is now a prisoner of their own success. Too good to go anywhere else but not good enough (or generous enough) to share enough wealth to re-invite Nebraska or Missouri (or Arkansas).
So will this give hope to Rice, SMU and Houston (and BYU/New Mexico)? Texas has enough money to wait out the answer

I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

H1, I don't think that the ACC would take Texas as a partial member.....one is enough. What I would look for is Texas going to the PAC if they want to go anywhere as a partial.

Actually zero is enough, you guys caved in order to get Notre Dame. You really think Swofford and crew wouldn't cave to get a similar brand? It IS the most well funded Athletic Department in the country. They may be Texas but the Austin culture would actually fit quite nicely on the East Coast.

I think you don't like the idea of seeing the ACC do it again. I also think you don't like the idea of the ACC allowing Texas to bring friends. Opening up a large pipeline to the State of Texas though would be huge for much of the ACC that does not reside in the States of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

I do appreciate your opinion as a long time ACC and North Carolina guy but on this one I am chalking it up to ESPN being able to leverage this more so than ACC desire.
08-29-2014 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #37
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 09:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

A Texas addition should enable the ACC to achieve financial parity with the B1G and SEC, thus making the move a win for everyone involved.

But the the sticky wicket IMO is if ESPN could decide to go sideways and sticks with a P5 model and just expand the CFB to 6 or 8 teams. They can throw in a little money to get the B12 back to 12 and buy part of the PTN. Those are moves that probably don't cost the Mouse as much as trying to dissolve the B12.

Not a bad perspective, perhaps you are right but there is a maximized equation for tournaments.

You want strong National appeal across the country first and foremost. If one of the Major conferences ends up not being represented then that brings forth the possibility of lower ratings. Yes they could just move to a six game tournament and have all five conferences represented and then have a sixth spot for a Cinderella OR the likes of Notre Dame. I capitalized or for a reason because that could end up being very costly. If a strong Cinderella team doesn't get a chance to bring an upset to the table or if a strong Notre Dame team gets cut out of the picture by a Cinderella with an impressive record then either way it is a loss for ESPN which has gone all in on buying into the College Football Playoff.

Having a six game tournament with four major champions in it, a Notre Dame/Texas and one Cinderella is one hell of a line up. That is broad, across the board enticement for football fans of all types.

The big money is in advertising and these playoff games are going to outdo the regular Bowl games by quite a bit.

The same can be said of Conference Tournament games WHEN those tournaments become more valuable due to insuring that the winner of such goes into the National playoff. I know some folks will cite how that could lead to a team getting in with a wacky record BUT that is more so the case with a simple one game tournament championship than it is with a team having to win two games during a conference championship.

Now how about a conference tournament that is guaranteed to provide a Cinderella team to the tournament every year. Would that tournament suddenly be a much bigger draw than that conference could ever have drawn in previous seasons for its games? That would add massive value for a conference like the AAC if it could expand to 20 and basically become the premier mid major conference.


The money is there for all this. A massive boost of post season tournament games. They are where the future value is. They have to be created.
08-29-2014 11:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #38
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
Having been raised a Texas fan and loving the old SWC, I would hate to see them move to the ACC. My preference for them would be true independence like Notre Dame. That way, they could keep traditional rivalries they want to continue and schedule OOC nationally without restrictions.

That said, JR's SEC/ACC expansion scenarios make sense. But my personal preference -- without taking ESPN's desires into consideration -- would be a combination of schools that includes Kansas, Florida State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Duke to the SEC. Ideally, I would like to see them add four schools for three divisions of six teams. I assume Notre Dame would not be interested in joining the SEC and I also eliminate my preferred Florida State, North Carolina and Duke from the equation, since demographics, markets and footprint are more important in this discussion, as well as ESPN's interests and preserving a strong ACC. Therefore, I'd be willing to take Kansas, Oklahoma, NC State and Virginia Tech to form an 18-school SEC, leaving the ACC with 12 schools. If Texas were willing to forego independence to join the ACC, the conference could invite five other Big XII members to tag along. A western division of Texas, Baylor (or TCU or Texas Tech), Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Iowa State would have to make the stronger ACC football programs happy. I'd rather Baylor go east and have Texas Tech apply for PAC membership, since they were fired up about going there a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, that would likely leave the alma mater of several of my family members without a home - TCU.

TCU could reunite with Houston and SMU to reform the old SWC, which I would much prefer to a return to the Mountain West, CUSA or AAC membership.
08-30-2014 02:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 09:42 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

A Texas addition should enable the ACC to achieve financial parity with the B1G and SEC, thus making the move a win for everyone involved.

But the the sticky wicket IMO is if ESPN could decide to go sideways and sticks with a P5 model and just expand the CFB to 6 or 8 teams. They can throw in a little money to get the B12 back to 12 and buy part of the PTN. Those are moves that probably don't cost the Mouse as much as trying to dissolve the B12.
It doesn't cost anything if they just wait 10 years.
08-30-2014 04:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #40
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(08-29-2014 10:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 09:14 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 06:50 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(08-29-2014 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I do think realignment could come from either the East or West, but if, and when it does the moves will be in order to secure more overt property for ESPN. Should the SEC receive Virginia Tech and N.C. State it will do so only in order to make room for revenue enhancing brands for the ACC and to assimilate duplicated properties in the ACC into a conference that profits ESPN more in the SEC.

If the SEC expands to the West it will be in a bigger move that will also involve the ACC in order to acquire fuller rights to properties in the Big 12. These will be network moves more so than conference moves.

If Texas and Oklahoma both move to the ACC it would be huge to boost their credibility in football. But if the two top brands both go ACC look for the SEC to be compensated to the East and for Texas to come with Tech and Oklahoma to come with OSU to the ACC.

If the SEC expands with two Big 12 schools I look for Oklahoma to be one of them. The other could then be one of 4 or 5 schools, but not Texas.

My money has always been on Oklahoma and Baylor.

IMO Texas moves to the ACC as a last resort (with Notre Dame).
Face it Texas would like to reassemble the SWC and play 80-90% of their games within the state of Texas.
Texas is now a prisoner of their own success. Too good to go anywhere else but not good enough (or generous enough) to share enough wealth to re-invite Nebraska or Missouri (or Arkansas).
So will this give hope to Rice, SMU and Houston (and BYU/New Mexico)? Texas has enough money to wait out the answer

I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment about Texas wanting to go back in time. Just the opposite, they show with their conference move and with their OOC scheduling that they are thinking National more than ever.

They definitely will want to maintain their presence within the State of Texas.

That is what is so perfect about a partial membership for Texas with the ACC. They can go to having 6 OOC games and 6 games with the ACC. If they get two other Texas teams into the ACC and are able to get a similar agreement with the ACC that Notre Dame passed on then that means two of those six ACC games would likely be against the two Texas teams that joined the ACC.

One OOC game against Oklahoma, which I count as a Texas game due to the RRR being at the Fairgrounds. One OOC game against Texas Tech. One OOC game against a California team every year. One OOC game against Notre Dame. That leaves two slots which potentially could both be from Texas.

That means six Texas games a year and likely Notre Dame in Texas on some years for a seventh.

They can have the best of both worlds. They can have an extremely strong presence in Texas while at the same time nationalizing themselves into the areas they want to be in.

H1, I don't think that the ACC would take Texas as a partial member.....one is enough. What I would look for is Texas going to the PAC if they want to go anywhere as a partial.

Actually zero is enough, you guys caved in order to get Notre Dame. You really think Swofford and crew wouldn't cave to get a similar brand? It IS the most well funded Athletic Department in the country. They may be Texas but the Austin culture would actually fit quite nicely on the East Coast.

I think you don't like the idea of seeing the ACC do it again. I also think you don't like the idea of the ACC allowing Texas to bring friends. Opening up a large pipeline to the State of Texas though would be huge for much of the ACC that does not reside in the States of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.

I do appreciate your opinion as a long time ACC and North Carolina guy but on this one I am chalking it up to ESPN being able to leverage this more so than ACC desire.

Swofford would take Texas so fast Bevo wouldn't have time to even moo! The prospect of bolstering a basketball conference with Texas and Notre Dame would be too enticing to pass on. Plus the prospect of 26 million viewers and a ready made network is just too tempting.

If U.N.C./Duke/ or UVa tried to stop it all it would accomplish is to drive Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, and Miami into agreement on the dissolution of the ACC. To reject such an opportunity would end the truce between the basketball and football schools in the ACC. The Big 12 could stand to pick up as many as 6 while the SEC and Big 10 picked up the rest.

Nobody in the ACC claims to want that kind of rift. The result is H1 is right and it's "Yippie ki yay Cow Pattie!"
(This post was last modified: 08-30-2014 07:13 AM by JRsec.)
08-30-2014 07:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2023 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2023 MyBB Group.