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
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 31,861
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 4741
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-05-2014 06:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think disparity in income is the new carrot with which to entice the final moves. We'll see.

Possibly, but since the ACC is owned by ESPN, the Mouse might feel inclined to keep the ACC within range of the SEC and B1G just on general principle. Its a move not without precedent as intervention from FOX and the WWL is the sole reason why the B12 still exists. I'm sure ESPN knows better than us any SEC---> ACC movement would bring into question the latter's stability and it is doubtful that ESPN could find a home for all 14 schools. And lets face it, an ACC addition only benefits to SEC in areas that are ancillary to play on the field.

If any conference is going away its definitely going to be the B12. Less members to disperse, the opportunity to do so is right around the corner, has the weaker brand and the logistics are easier for the rest of the P4 to swallow.

I certainly understand your point of view and consider that angle frequently. However if ESPN could lock down a long term T1 agreement with the Big 10 and gain scheduling concessions from the SEC, then those properties held in the ESPN repository of desirable realignment prospects would earn them a lot more money when paired with the two most viewed conferences.

And please don't misconstrue self interest with charity towards either the ACC or Big 12. The Big 12 was rescued by FOX and ESPN because both had a stake in those properties and neither owns any rights to the properties in the PAC. There was no way either of those networks were going to let the PAC acquire worthwhile targets in the Big 12 unless the PAC agreed to sell a % of its rights to one or both of them. It was simply a preemptive protection of property and leverage.

Ditto for the ACC. When did the ACC acquire Pitt and Syracuse? And when did they acquire Miami and Virginia Tech along with B.C.? After the trend of conversations and negotiations with Delany started turning sour and after Aresco thought he could milk more for the Big East. ESPN realized that the only way the BTN would hit big time numbers was with Eastern markets. They also realized that the football products of the Big East were the most profitable properties. So again a preemptive move of gross self interest took place. This time it was disguised as ACC expansion, but the B.C. president spilled the beans on who was really in control, and it wasn't the ACC. Since ESPN owned the ACC lock stock and barrel there was no safer place to park their newly acquired properties than in the ACC where ESPN has kept the payout low.

So over almost about a decade they land the most valuable first Miami, Boston College (which at the time was coming off the Flutie high) and Virginia Tech (which itself was riding a crest of football prominence). When Delany told them he could do a network on his own it was time to lock down Pitt and Syracuse (both at the time of the rift were AAU). So the gears started turning on that deal too.

So here we stand with both the SEC and Big 10 wanting North Carolina and Virginia markets and who holds the deeds in football monopoly? ESPN

The Big 10 wants a presence in New England and the Northeast and who holds the deeds? ESPN

The PAC still wants Texas and Oklahoma, and the Big 10 and SEC would like them as well, and maybe Kansas too and who holds the deeds? ESPN more so on Texas and Kansas and Fox more so on Oklahoma.

The PAC doesn't get any of them unless they sell a % of their network to the Corporate Networks. The Big 10 is over a barrel. They can have UConn, but nobody to go with them unless ESPN is appeased.

The SEC can't just take who they want because ESPN holds the purse strings and concessions on the number of conference games and the number of P5's played won't just happen unless ESPN leverages them with markets and brand names to which they hold the deeds.

It is about the networks and has been since day 1 of this round of realignment. 6 to the Big 10, 6 to the SEC, and 8 to the PAC are all that is needed to dissolve both the Big 12 and ACC and ESPN holds the keys to all but 1 of the major properties. You tell me who is in control?

We wait while we find out if the PAC will sell a %, if the Big 10 renews T1 rights with ESPN, and if the SEC agrees to 9 conference games and only P5 schools for competition, or at least a gradual annual move towards such along with the other conferences. Quid Pro Quo is to enhance the commercial value of every weekend so that the Mouse lives large.

And yes the moves would make them more even if the payouts are larger because the exposure to a higher percentage of the total market and the content will make it so, and in the process 4 duds for television might get trimmed. Which four depends on what gets accomplished and with which conference.

Oh well something to wait and watch and ponder.

And PS there is some added complexity even beyond that as there could be some pieces still moved around within the existing P structure.
(This post was last modified: 09-05-2014 07:21 AM by JRsec.)
09-05-2014 07:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,199
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 154
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #62
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-05-2014 07:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I certainly understand your point of view and consider that angle frequently. However if ESPN could lock down a long term T1 agreement with the Big 10 and gain scheduling concessions from the SEC, then those properties held in the ESPN repository of desirable realignment prospects would earn them a lot more money when paired with the two most viewed conferences.

And please don't misconstrue self interest with charity towards either the ACC or Big 12. The Big 12 was rescued by FOX and ESPN because both had a stake in those properties and neither owns any rights to the properties in the PAC. There was no way either of those networks were going to let the PAC acquire worthwhile targets in the Big 12 unless the PAC agreed to sell a % of its rights to one or both of them. It was simply a preemptive protection of property and leverage.

Ditto for the ACC. When did the ACC acquire Pitt and Syracuse? And when did they acquire Miami and Virginia Tech along with B.C.? After the trend of conversations and negotiations with Delany started turning sour and after Aresco thought he could milk more for the Big East. ESPN realized that the only way the BTN would hit big time numbers was with Eastern markets. They also realized that the football products of the Big East were the most profitable properties. So again a preemptive move of gross self interest took place. This time it was disguised as ACC expansion, but the B.C. president spilled the beans on who was really in control, and it wasn't the ACC. Since ESPN owned the ACC lock stock and barrel there was no safer place to park their newly acquired properties than in the ACC where ESPN has kept the payout low.

So over almost about a decade they land the most valuable first Miami, Boston College (which at the time was coming off the Flutie high) and Virginia Tech (which itself was riding a crest of football prominence). When Delany told them he could do a network on his own it was time to lock down Pitt and Syracuse (both at the time of the rift were AAU). So the gears started turning on that deal too.

So here we stand with both the SEC and Big 10 wanting North Carolina and Virginia markets and who holds the deeds in football monopoly? ESPN

The Big 10 wants a presence in New England and the Northeast and who holds the deeds? ESPN

The PAC still wants Texas and Oklahoma, and the Big 10 and SEC would like them as well, and maybe Kansas too and who holds the deeds? ESPN more so on Texas and Kansas and Fox more so on Oklahoma.

The PAC doesn't get any of them unless they sell a % of their network to the Corporate Networks. The Big 10 is over a barrel. They can have UConn, but nobody to go with them unless ESPN is appeased.

The SEC can't just take who they want because ESPN holds the purse strings and concessions on the number of conference games and the number of P5's played won't just happen unless ESPN leverages them with markets and brand names to which they hold the deeds.

It is about the networks and has been since day 1 of this round of realignment. 6 to the Big 10, 6 to the SEC, and 8 to the PAC are all that is needed to dissolve both the Big 12 and ACC and ESPN holds the keys to all but 1 of the major properties. You tell me who is in control?

We wait while we find out if the PAC will sell a %, if the Big 10 renews T1 rights with ESPN, and if the SEC agrees to 9 conference games and only P5 schools for competition, or at least a gradual annual move towards such along with the other conferences. Quid Pro Quo is to enhance the commercial value of every weekend so that the Mouse lives large.

And yes the moves would make them more even if the payouts are larger because the exposure to a higher percentage of the total market and the content will make it so, and in the process 4 duds for television might get trimmed. Which four depends on what gets accomplished and with which conference.

Oh well something to wait and watch and ponder.

And PS there is some added complexity even beyond that as there could be some pieces still moved around within the existing P structure.

Fascinating read. Still, even if the scenario you've presented here comes to pass there are still some preferences that each of the presumed raiding conference would express to ESPiN. For example, the Big Ten has a thing for AAU state flagships. The SEC would not want to double up in states they already have a presence in if they can help themselves. Etcetera.

So when it comes time to redistribute the pieces there may be some further complications. Let's take the example of Pitt. Now Pitt is a prestigious institution, AAU, is in a historical recruiting area, has a good football history. If taken in a vacuum, Pitt would be taken by a major conference. However, Pitt is in the ACC because, among other things, they didn't fit in the current paradigm of conference realignment. Otherwise, they would be in the Big Ten. In your scenario, we would stay north and maybe further into the mid-Atlantic. Therefore, the Big Mouse would have to present a compelling argument for the Big Ten to take in Pitt. We might, instead, look to Kansas if we go to 20. Or we could go with a Kansas/Virginia combo and stop at 16.

Does Kansas want to separate from Kansas State without knowing whether the latter would have a secure place in the future? I don't know the answer to that but it is a variable. If Kansas goes Big Ten does the PAC get West Virginia or do they go for someone more difficult like, say, Notre Dame?

KU, Va, NC, DU, SU, BC -> Big Ten

FSU, CU, NCSU, GT, VT, UL -> SEC

UT, TT, OU, OSU, KSU, ISU, ND, Pitt -> PAC

It would look awkward but might work. The PAC would get some valuable Eastern exposure with Pitt and, especially, the Domers. I don't know how to account for WVU, though. At this point, L'Ville would be more valuable as an athletics program and the SEC isn't too keen on accepting West by Gawd Virginia.

Perhaps the course of action is to wait for the Grants of Rights to expire and go for a more limited acquisition.

KU, UVa -> Big Ten
UNC, Duke -> SEC
UT, TT, OU, OSU -> PAC
TCU, BU, KSU, ISU, WVU -> ACC
ND remains quasi-independent
09-05-2014 03:17 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: #63
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-05-2014 03:17 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 07:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I certainly understand your point of view and consider that angle frequently. However if ESPN could lock down a long term T1 agreement with the Big 10 and gain scheduling concessions from the SEC, then those properties held in the ESPN repository of desirable realignment prospects would earn them a lot more money when paired with the two most viewed conferences.

And please don't misconstrue self interest with charity towards either the ACC or Big 12. The Big 12 was rescued by FOX and ESPN because both had a stake in those properties and neither owns any rights to the properties in the PAC. There was no way either of those networks were going to let the PAC acquire worthwhile targets in the Big 12 unless the PAC agreed to sell a % of its rights to one or both of them. It was simply a preemptive protection of property and leverage.

Ditto for the ACC. When did the ACC acquire Pitt and Syracuse? And when did they acquire Miami and Virginia Tech along with B.C.? After the trend of conversations and negotiations with Delany started turning sour and after Aresco thought he could milk more for the Big East. ESPN realized that the only way the BTN would hit big time numbers was with Eastern markets. They also realized that the football products of the Big East were the most profitable properties. So again a preemptive move of gross self interest took place. This time it was disguised as ACC expansion, but the B.C. president spilled the beans on who was really in control, and it wasn't the ACC. Since ESPN owned the ACC lock stock and barrel there was no safer place to park their newly acquired properties than in the ACC where ESPN has kept the payout low.

So over almost about a decade they land the most valuable first Miami, Boston College (which at the time was coming off the Flutie high) and Virginia Tech (which itself was riding a crest of football prominence). When Delany told them he could do a network on his own it was time to lock down Pitt and Syracuse (both at the time of the rift were AAU). So the gears started turning on that deal too.

So here we stand with both the SEC and Big 10 wanting North Carolina and Virginia markets and who holds the deeds in football monopoly? ESPN

The Big 10 wants a presence in New England and the Northeast and who holds the deeds? ESPN

The PAC still wants Texas and Oklahoma, and the Big 10 and SEC would like them as well, and maybe Kansas too and who holds the deeds? ESPN more so on Texas and Kansas and Fox more so on Oklahoma.

The PAC doesn't get any of them unless they sell a % of their network to the Corporate Networks. The Big 10 is over a barrel. They can have UConn, but nobody to go with them unless ESPN is appeased.

The SEC can't just take who they want because ESPN holds the purse strings and concessions on the number of conference games and the number of P5's played won't just happen unless ESPN leverages them with markets and brand names to which they hold the deeds.

It is about the networks and has been since day 1 of this round of realignment. 6 to the Big 10, 6 to the SEC, and 8 to the PAC are all that is needed to dissolve both the Big 12 and ACC and ESPN holds the keys to all but 1 of the major properties. You tell me who is in control?

We wait while we find out if the PAC will sell a %, if the Big 10 renews T1 rights with ESPN, and if the SEC agrees to 9 conference games and only P5 schools for competition, or at least a gradual annual move towards such along with the other conferences. Quid Pro Quo is to enhance the commercial value of every weekend so that the Mouse lives large.

And yes the moves would make them more even if the payouts are larger because the exposure to a higher percentage of the total market and the content will make it so, and in the process 4 duds for television might get trimmed. Which four depends on what gets accomplished and with which conference.

Oh well something to wait and watch and ponder.

And PS there is some added complexity even beyond that as there could be some pieces still moved around within the existing P structure.

Fascinating read. Still, even if the scenario you've presented here comes to pass there are still some preferences that each of the presumed raiding conference would express to ESPiN. For example, the Big Ten has a thing for AAU state flagships. The SEC would not want to double up in states they already have a presence in if they can help themselves. Etcetera.

So when it comes time to redistribute the pieces there may be some further complications. Let's take the example of Pitt. Now Pitt is a prestigious institution, AAU, is in a historical recruiting area, has a good football history. If taken in a vacuum, Pitt would be taken by a major conference. However, Pitt is in the ACC because, among other things, they didn't fit in the current paradigm of conference realignment. Otherwise, they would be in the Big Ten. In your scenario, we would stay north and maybe further into the mid-Atlantic. Therefore, the Big Mouse would have to present a compelling argument for the Big Ten to take in Pitt. We might, instead, look to Kansas if we go to 20. Or we could go with a Kansas/Virginia combo and stop at 16.

Does Kansas want to separate from Kansas State without knowing whether the latter would have a secure place in the future? I don't know the answer to that but it is a variable. If Kansas goes Big Ten does the PAC get West Virginia or do they go for someone more difficult like, say, Notre Dame?

KU, Va, NC, DU, SU, BC -> Big Ten

FSU, CU, NCSU, GT, VT, UL -> SEC

UT, TT, OU, OSU, KSU, ISU, ND, Pitt -> PAC

It would look awkward but might work. The PAC would get some valuable Eastern exposure with Pitt and, especially, the Domers. I don't know how to account for WVU, though. At this point, L'Ville would be more valuable as an athletics program and the SEC isn't too keen on accepting West by Gawd Virginia.

Perhaps the course of action is to wait for the Grants of Rights to expire and go for a more limited acquisition.

KU, UVa -> Big Ten
UNC, Duke -> SEC
UT, TT, OU, OSU -> PAC
TCU, BU, KSU, ISU, WVU -> ACC
ND remains quasi-independent

Indeed. There are advantages to the networks at 3x20. But there are significant advantages to do as you suggest and wait until the GOR's expire and go for a more limited consolidation. It is in such a scenario that a 4th heretofore unknown conference could emerge. The variables are what make speculation fun. It is a lot like preparing a presentation model for the Conference meetings. And it is fun to hear other well thought out perspectives. As with all of it we'll see sooner, or later.

The only part of the last scenario you present that I don't see flying is the group to the ACC. I don't think they would take anyone on that list other than W.V.U. and even then there would be debate. Fix that part and you might well solve this puzzle. The 3 x 20 avoids the division into 4 parts with too few brands to get it done. That's its strongest point of appeal beside the market reach of the models for the three conference networks. But it would require an inordinate amount of cooperation among the networks and conferences which is it's Achilles heel.
09-05-2014 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Guardian Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 321
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Alabama, SBC
Location: VA
Post: #64
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
I'm usually a loner on the issue, but I would like to see North Carolina and Virginia join up to bring us to 16. Expanding markets, with the Tarheel's hoops resume to help that sport.

Never really liked Virginia Tech myself. I think NC State is low-hanging fruit, and Duke wouldn't fit right.
09-06-2014 04:53 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #65
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-06-2014 04:53 PM)Guardian Wrote:  I'm usually a loner on the issue, but I would like to see North Carolina and Virginia join up to bring us to 16. Expanding markets, with the Tarheel's hoops resume to help that sport.

Never really liked Virginia Tech myself. I think NC State is low-hanging fruit, and Duke wouldn't fit right.

That would be very nice if it were that simple.04-cheers
09-07-2014 01:53 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: #66
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.
09-07-2014 05:27 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: #67
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2014 06:07 PM by JRsec.)
09-07-2014 05:59 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: #68
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

Just because you ACC clowns hate the Big Ten, that doesn't mean ESPN does. Too funny. You think being their "slaves" means they have all that much more respect or love for your conference?

What a joke.

This whole post doesn't even make sense. ESPN's goal is to hem in The Big Ten? Why? To make ACC fans like you happy? How very simple...in terms of thinking.
09-07-2014 06:12 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: #69
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.

The ACC doesn't want West Virginia, but ESPN wants WVU in the ACC to help shore up the old Eastern Independent/Big East connection. In the east, Penn State is the 600 LB gorilla and the combo of Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers is a formidable challenge. ESPN feels that Syracuse, Boston College and Pitt could use some help.
09-07-2014 07:41 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: #70
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 07:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.

The ACC doesn't want West Virginia, but ESPN wants WVU in the ACC to help shore up the old Eastern Independent/Big East connection. In the east, Penn State is the 600 LB gorilla and the combo of Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers is a formidable challenge. ESPN feels that Syracuse, Boston College and Pitt could use some help.

You are delusional. ESPN has and will continue to have the Tier 1 deal with the Big Ten and they have the same with Big Ten basketball. They also love the ACC vs Big Ten challenge.

Your overwhelming desire to see the Big Ten harmed absolutely overrides your ability to rationally look at the situation.

You guys and all this hate are only setting yourselves up for disappointment.
09-07-2014 07:46 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: #71
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 06:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

Just because you ACC clowns hate the Big Ten, that doesn't mean ESPN does. Too funny. You think being their "slaves" means they have all that much more respect or love for your conference?

What a joke.

This whole post doesn't even make sense. ESPN's goal is to hem in The Big Ten? Why? To make ACC fans like you happy? How very simple...in terms of thinking.

You're really "right" tonight H1.
1-I am not a clown
2-I do not hate the Big Ten....never have
3-this is no joke
4-most Visions are pretty simple. It's only when you get to strategies and tactics that things get complicated.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2014 09:08 PM by XLance.)
09-07-2014 07:48 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: #72
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.

My own opinion is that Oklahoma and Baylor will end up in the SEC.
09-07-2014 07:51 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: #73
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 07:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.

The ACC doesn't want West Virginia, but ESPN wants WVU in the ACC to help shore up the old Eastern Independent/Big East connection. In the east, Penn State is the 600 LB gorilla and the combo of Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers is a formidable challenge. ESPN feels that Syracuse, Boston College and Pitt could use some help.

I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2014 09:19 PM by JRsec.)
09-07-2014 08:40 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: #74
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 07:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 06:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

Just because you ACC clowns hate the Big Ten, that doesn't mean ESPN does. Too funny. You think being their "slaves" means they have all that much more respect or love for your conference?

What a joke.

This whole post doesn't even make sense. ESPN's goal is to hem in The Big Ten? Why? To make ACC fans like you happy? How very simple...in terms of thinking.

You're really "right" tonight H1.
1-I am not a clown
2-I do not hate the Big Ten....never have
3-this is no joke
4-most Visions are pretty simple. It's only when you get to strategies and tactics that things get complicated.

I am always right, but you are correct that I am in rare form tonight. 04-cheers

I do agree though that Most visions are pretty simple.
09-07-2014 09:11 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: #75
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 07:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 05:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  What is ESPN's goal?
How do you control the entirety of college football without complete control of the B1G and all of those mid-western TV sets?
1) you take care of your premier football product (TV, money, what ever it takes)

How does ESPN capture the eastern US without a legitimate conference in the area?
2) you merge enough eastern teams into a mid-atlantic conference where most of the schools can look either north or south with equal ease. This allows ESPN to secure access to the entire eastern part of the country to go along with complete dominance of the southeast.

The last piece of ESPN's puzzle is to gain access and control the west coast
3) you move your prized individually owned holding (texas) into the west for a share of the west coast action. This is what is being worked out now. Texas and what? will be acceptable to the PAC for a share. This is so big and have such long term ramifications it might stretch all the way to the end of the GOR's. AT the same time what schools will ESPN try to keep away from the B1G. Will they attempt to add Kansas or Oklahoma to the Texas package? Iowa State? That would leave the B1G with nowhere to go and hemmed in. Carolina and Virginia? Neither school wants to play in the SEC OR the B1G. Win-win plan for everyone.

End game......ESPN has one.

That's nice, but it really isn't that simple. I agree that ESPN wants a share of the PACN. I agree that Texas would be the ideal bait with which to obtain it. But I don't think the resulting division of properties could work unless, it is not a win-win plan for everyone. Now that said, if the secondary objective is to hem in a recalcitrant (where ESPN is concerned) Big 10 then it is doable. But even then acceptable variations are tricky.

That's when Oklahoma and Baylor become acceptable to the SEC, or Oklahoma State and Kansas might become acceptable to the SEC.
Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa State and Kansas State might be a package the PAC would accept but then you leave out TTU.
I just assume WVU would head to the ACC.

My own opinion is that Oklahoma and Baylor will end up in the SEC.

So you must think everyone is going to wait for 10+ years. Nice vision.
09-07-2014 09:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,199
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 154
I Root For: RU/Big Ten
Location:
Post: #76
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-07-2014 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.

The interesting part of that scenario is it opens the possibility of a six-school move by the PAC.

1) Possibly adding 3 more AAU schools plus their regional and state rivals
2) Keeps Kansas "in the fold" meaning they wouldn't feel the need to separate from Kansas State
3) Solves the "Iowa State" problem for Iowa
4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH
5) 3 divisions of six means one division anchored by a major school: Texas, Stanford and USC
6) Solves the "Baylor lawsuit" issue by having another conference take them
7) Solves the "WVU issue" assuming the ACC takes them
8) Relieves OU from any guilt separating from oSu
9) Texas can still schedule the RRR w/o having to end their games vs TT

Washington, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St
09-08-2014 05:24 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: #77
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-08-2014 05:24 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.

The interesting part of that scenario is it opens the possibility of a six-school move by the PAC.

1) Possibly adding 3 more AAU schools plus their regional and state rivals
2) Keeps Kansas "in the fold" meaning they wouldn't feel the need to separate from Kansas State
3) Solves the "Iowa State" problem for Iowa
4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH
5) 3 divisions of six means one division anchored by a major school: Texas, Stanford and USC
6) Solves the "Baylor lawsuit" issue by having another conference take them
7) Solves the "WVU issue" assuming the ACC takes them
8) Relieves OU from any guilt separating from oSu
9) Texas can still schedule the RRR w/o having to end their games vs TT

Washington, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St

It would also add 34 million viewers for the newly partnered PACN/ESPN venture.
The ACC redefines its border and reconnects its footprint. The SEC adds a whopper of a content school and gets a bigger slice of Texas including DFW.
09-08-2014 07:47 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: #78
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-08-2014 05:24 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.

The interesting part of that scenario is it opens the possibility of a six-school move by the PAC.

1) Possibly adding 3 more AAU schools plus their regional and state rivals
2) Keeps Kansas "in the fold" meaning they wouldn't feel the need to separate from Kansas State
3) Solves the "Iowa State" problem for Iowa
4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH
5) 3 divisions of six means one division anchored by a major school: Texas, Stanford and USC
6) Solves the "Baylor lawsuit" issue by having another conference take them
7) Solves the "WVU issue" assuming the ACC takes them
8) Relieves OU from any guilt separating from oSu
9) Texas can still schedule the RRR w/o having to end their games vs TT

Washington, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St

4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH

I think you might find that Texas would be open to schedule TCU on a home and home basis (as well as a SEC bound Baylor) as some sort of compensation for being left out.
09-08-2014 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,825
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 125
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #79
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-08-2014 10:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:24 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.

The interesting part of that scenario is it opens the possibility of a six-school move by the PAC.

1) Possibly adding 3 more AAU schools plus their regional and state rivals
2) Keeps Kansas "in the fold" meaning they wouldn't feel the need to separate from Kansas State
3) Solves the "Iowa State" problem for Iowa
4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH
5) 3 divisions of six means one division anchored by a major school: Texas, Stanford and USC
6) Solves the "Baylor lawsuit" issue by having another conference take them
7) Solves the "WVU issue" assuming the ACC takes them
8) Relieves OU from any guilt separating from oSu
9) Texas can still schedule the RRR w/o having to end their games vs TT

Washington, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St

4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH

I think you might find that Texas would be open to schedule TCU on a home and home basis (as well as a SEC bound Baylor) as some sort of compensation for being left out.
I'm skeptical that this would happen, but the 3x18 scenario is the most feasible one I see for the PAC to grab from the Big 12. As you note, Texas can then schedule the likes of TCU, Baylor, SMU, Houston, etc as OOC in-state games, add an ongoing Notre Dame rivalry plus one other game of their choice and have an attractive schedule that has limited late west-coast play.
09-08-2014 02:23 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: #80
RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the ACC who should we take and why?
(09-08-2014 02:23 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 10:27 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:24 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-07-2014 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can see how that would be a tighter grouping and the traditional rivalry would lend to a tenor of security for that border of the ACC. On that level it makes sense. From a purist's point of view such an addition could be viewed as a diminishing of academic values.

If a move to a P4 occurs I'd settle for Oklahoma and Baylor to the West.

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

That solves a ton of rivalry issues and balances out fairly nicely. It leaves Arky some room to breathe and gives L.S.U. and Oklahoma a natural rivalry three way with A&M. Of course there is still more value to be had to the East.

The interesting part of that scenario is it opens the possibility of a six-school move by the PAC.

1) Possibly adding 3 more AAU schools plus their regional and state rivals
2) Keeps Kansas "in the fold" meaning they wouldn't feel the need to separate from Kansas State
3) Solves the "Iowa State" problem for Iowa
4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH
5) 3 divisions of six means one division anchored by a major school: Texas, Stanford and USC
6) Solves the "Baylor lawsuit" issue by having another conference take them
7) Solves the "WVU issue" assuming the ACC takes them
8) Relieves OU from any guilt separating from oSu
9) Texas can still schedule the RRR w/o having to end their games vs TT

Washington, Wazzou, Oregon, Oregon St., Cal, Stanford

USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah, Colorado

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St

4) Going to 18 means that the PAC can avoid having to play G5 teams HaH

I think you might find that Texas would be open to schedule TCU on a home and home basis (as well as a SEC bound Baylor) as some sort of compensation for being left out.
I'm skeptical that this would happen, but the 3x18 scenario is the most feasible one I see for the PAC to grab from the Big 12. As you note, Texas can then schedule the likes of TCU, Baylor, SMU, Houston, etc as OOC in-state games, add an ongoing Notre Dame rivalry plus one other game of their choice and have an attractive schedule that has limited late west-coast play.

If we move to 4 conferences and any of them have more than 16 schools the one conference that could pull that off without destabilizing the others would be the PAC because of the geography. Eighteen for them actually makes good sense and does so without damaging the SEC or Big 10.

Should the Big 10 ever truly consider expansion again and Connecticut was attractive to them then 15 could work quite nicely for them.

Big 10 East: Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Ohio State
Big 10 Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The 4th spot for a playoff would compensate the strongest division and keep more programs viable late into the season.
09-08-2014 04:28 PM
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.