UConn doesn't do much at all for The Big Ten. For all that you talk about how Oklahoma State and West Virginia do little or nothing for the SEC, UConn does even less for The Big Ten.

(09-08-2014 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  UConn doesn't do much at all for The Big Ten. For all that you talk about how Oklahoma State and West Virginia do little or nothing for the SEC, UConn does even less for The Big Ten.

From a media right POV, I agree. But I figured that UConn, Cincy and USF have to be taken care of in a fashion similar to finding a home for the entire B12. Either there is some catch all conference or they are brought along for the ride. In effect, their inclusion helps grease the skids of whatever the final scenario is for CFB. So they are either going to the B1G or ACC and since IMO the B1G would want nothing to do with Cincy, UConn paired with KU would be the least bad resolution out there.

(09-08-2014 08:07 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-08-2014 05:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  UConn doesn't do much at all for The Big Ten. For all that you talk about how Oklahoma State and West Virginia do little or nothing for the SEC, UConn does even less for The Big Ten.

From a media right POV, I agree. But I figured that UConn, Cincy and USF have to be taken care of in a fashion similar to finding a home for the entire B12. Either there is some catch all conference or they are brought along for the ride. In effect, their inclusion helps grease the skids of whatever the final scenario is for CFB. So they are either going to the B1G or ACC and since IMO the B1G would want nothing to do with Cincy, UConn paired with KU would be the least bad resolution out there.

Yes, they must be taken care of. That is why I say the AAC will become the Gatekeeper conference. They will expand and then help cover the back of the Majors. In return they likely get a spot for their champ in the expanded National Playoff. They will also get paid for their own conference tournament when we have them. NBC Sports needs one to air after all.

Ah yes, the much spoken of additional conference workaround. Does it, or can it work? Let's see?

The Big 10: Wants into the Beltway in a bigger way and would like to tap the North Carolina market. Let's say for the sake of argument that we move to 72 schools in an upper tier. What might a Big 10 look like if limited to 64, and who might they take to get to 72?

At 64 you add Virginia and North Carolina optimally. You add Kansas and Oklahoma secondarily. You add Kansas and Iowa State if forced to.

But, at 18 their options complete their footprint. At 18 the Big 10 adds Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia and Notre Dame. I know the Irish hate them. But here's the issue. If the lacrosse playing juggernauts are in the Big 10, and Olympic sports stay among their former Big East mates with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers then where will they really land? There is nothing for them in the SEC. Without Maryland and Syracuse, and Virginia there's not much left but Duke and U.N.C. in the ACC. And maybe Virginia wants to stay with its core group. So now Pitt is the addition. Still that begs the question for N.D. New England enhanced by Maryland, or the ACC. I say travel dictates that common sense finally prevails and the N.D. bites it's knuckles hard and joins.

At 64 the SEC wants into North Carolina and Virginia. But they have already admitted that just to get into North Carolina they would take Duke along with the Tar Heels. So the SEC at 16 picks up one state. However at 18 they can add Virgnia, Duke, and North Carolina and pick up Virginia Tech as well for a lock down corner.

The PAC at 18 is easy to figure. Texas, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Kansas State to 18. How can this be with Texas Tech and Baylor left behind? The answer is the 4th conference.

Baylor, Brigham Young, Texas Tech, Texas Christian, Houston, Colorado State

Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, Tulane, Memphis

This might not satisfy everyone but it builds a fairly nice grouping of schools geographically and competitively.

So what do we have:
Big 18:
East: Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Penn State, Rutgers
Central: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC 18:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC 18:
North: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

New 18:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Memphis, Tulane
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

We've added the most schools with a gripe about getting in. We've left no present member of the P5 behind.

FOX and ESPN both agree to support the fourth conference and we move to a 4 conference champions model. Everyone's conference profiles are enhanced in the remaining P3. If further appeasement of the P3 is required then we move to 8 school playoff.

Now I still favor a 3 x 20 but this one solves many issues if you are a proponent of the 4th conference scenario.

72 is way too many schools. And even at 64, Notre Dame will remain independent in football. The ACC alignment will be 15-1. I can envision the ACC in three pods of 5, just as we might see the PAC in three pods of 6 (5-2-2, 9 game schedule). The smaller pod size for the ACC works out well because of the rotating games with Notre Dame which MIGHT go to 6 per year (2 games per pod per year). In that alignment I would still expect the ACC to keep a designated cross-over game.

You might see an alignment like:
West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech
Miami, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

(09-09-2014 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  72 is way too many schools. And even at 64, Notre Dame will remain independent in football. The ACC alignment will be 15-1. I can envision the ACC in three pods of 5, just as we might see the PAC in three pods of 6 (5-2-2, 9 game schedule). The smaller pod size for the ACC works out well because of the rotating games with Notre Dame which MIGHT go to 6 per year (2 games per pod per year). In that alignment I would still expect the ACC to keep a designated cross-over game.

You might see an alignment like:
West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech
Miami, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

If you don't expand again that works a lot better than what you have.

(09-09-2014 07:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  72 is way too many schools. And even at 64, Notre Dame will remain independent in football. The ACC alignment will be 15-1. I can envision the ACC in three pods of 5, just as we might see the PAC in three pods of 6 (5-2-2, 9 game schedule). The smaller pod size for the ACC works out well because of the rotating games with Notre Dame which MIGHT go to 6 per year (2 games per pod per year). In that alignment I would still expect the ACC to keep a designated cross-over game.

You might see an alignment like:
West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech
Miami, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

If you don't expand again that works a lot better than what you have.

The legislative change to allow different conference formats and still maintain some sort of conference championship game is the "key" to any future expansion.
It was necessary to get the separation before the vote on the format change. There doesn't appear to be any opposition at this point in the P5.
Things are progressing very methodically.

(09-09-2014 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  72 is way too many schools. And even at 64, Notre Dame will remain independent in football. The ACC alignment will be 15-1. I can envision the ACC in three pods of 5, just as we might see the PAC in three pods of 6 (5-2-2, 9 game schedule). The smaller pod size for the ACC works out well because of the rotating games with Notre Dame which MIGHT go to 6 per year (2 games per pod per year). In that alignment I would still expect the ACC to keep a designated cross-over game.

You might see an alignment like:
West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech
Miami, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

If you don't expand again that works a lot better than what you have.

The legislative change to allow different conference formats and still maintain some sort of conference championship game is the "key" to any future expansion.
It was necessary to get the separation before the vote on the format change. There doesn't appear to be any opposition at this point in the P5.
Things are progressing very methodically.

I do agree the right to decide your own structure is a key to future expansion. 3 or 4 divisions solves a lot of scheduling issues, just as assuredly as no divisions might in your case. But the 3 x 5 sets up nicely for the ACC, I think. And there will not be expansion to 8 playoff schools. The reason I say that is the conference doesn't have to split the revenue if the expansion of playoffs is within the conference championship level instead of extraneous to it.

(09-09-2014 03:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 12:12 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  72 is way too many schools. And even at 64, Notre Dame will remain independent in football. The ACC alignment will be 15-1. I can envision the ACC in three pods of 5, just as we might see the PAC in three pods of 6 (5-2-2, 9 game schedule). The smaller pod size for the ACC works out well because of the rotating games with Notre Dame which MIGHT go to 6 per year (2 games per pod per year). In that alignment I would still expect the ACC to keep a designated cross-over game.

You might see an alignment like:
West Virginia, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech
Miami, Duke, Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia
Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville

If you don't expand again that works a lot better than what you have.

The legislative change to allow different conference formats and still maintain some sort of conference championship game is the "key" to any future expansion.
It was necessary to get the separation before the vote on the format change. There doesn't appear to be any opposition at this point in the P5.
Things are progressing very methodically.

I do agree the right to decide your own structure is a key to future expansion. 3 or 4 divisions solves a lot of scheduling issues, just as assuredly as no divisions might in your case. But the 3 x 5 sets up nicely for the ACC, I think. And there will not be expansion to 8 playoff schools. The reason I say that is the conference doesn't have to split the revenue if the expansion of playoffs is within the conference championship level instead of extraneous to it.

CFB Playoff expansion happens regardless of future realignment if for no other reason than general dissatisfaction with the selection process will lead to a champions' only format. But I've to H1 POV in that the number will go to 6 vice 8. Guaranteed spots for the P5 and one spot for the G5 to play for.

[quote='JRsec' pid='11094064' dateline='1410240798']


This might not satisfy everyone but it builds a fairly nice grouping of schools geographically and competitively.

New 18:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Memphis, Tulane
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

Not no but hell no!! To say that this would not satisfy everyone is an understatement. Even with the 3 pods, this 4th made-up conference is a hodgepodge. My personal opinion would be that if something like this came to pass, that I would lobby Clemson as hard as I could to either drop football altogether or drop down to FCS. Recruiting would die - we could probably get all of the 2 and low three stars we could ever want!! As bad as Clemson fan interest is in most ACC schools, there would be even less for most of the schools in this made-up conference.

SEC should add Memphis. Great natural rivalries would happen, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama to name a few. Memphis has had great basketball heritage. And, their football program has jumped into a respectable program the last few years. The other programs win national titles all the time. Spread the word in the SEC, and let's make a great start of a relationship between Memphis and the SEC.

Go Memphis!!!

(09-09-2014 08:49 PM)rc0213 Wrote:  SEC should add Memphis. Great natural rivalries would happen, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama to name a few. Memphis has had great basketball heritage. And, their football program has jumped into a respectable program the last few years. The other programs win national titles all the time. Spread the word in the SEC, and let's make a great start of a relationship between Memphis and the SEC.

Go Memphis!!!

GTFO!

(09-09-2014 08:25 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='11094064' dateline='1410240798']


This might not satisfy everyone but it builds a fairly nice grouping of schools geographically and competitively.

New 18:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Memphis, Tulane
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

Not no but hell no!! To say that this would not satisfy everyone is an understatement. Even with the 3 pods, this 4th made-up conference is a hodgepodge. My personal opinion would be that if something like this came to pass, that I would lobby Clemson as hard as I could to either drop football altogether or drop down to FCS. Recruiting would die - we could probably get all of the 2 and low three stars we could ever want!! As bad as Clemson fan interest is in most ACC schools, there would be even less for most of the schools in this made-up conference.

Don't get worked up. I was just having some sport with the idea that a fourth conference would get made up.

I still see way more profit and overhead reduction by eliminating duplicated governing systems by moving to a 3 x 20. In that scenario both F.S.U. and Clemson are safely at home with neighbors in the SEC:
SEC East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
SEC South: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Big 10 East: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Big 10 North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 20 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC 20 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech
PAC 20 West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, Utah
PAC 20 North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

(09-10-2014 05:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 08:25 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='11094064' dateline='1410240798']


This might not satisfy everyone but it builds a fairly nice grouping of schools geographically and competitively.

New 18:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Memphis, Tulane
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

Not no but hell no!! To say that this would not satisfy everyone is an understatement. Even with the 3 pods, this 4th made-up conference is a hodgepodge. My personal opinion would be that if something like this came to pass, that I would lobby Clemson as hard as I could to either drop football altogether or drop down to FCS. Recruiting would die - we could probably get all of the 2 and low three stars we could ever want!! As bad as Clemson fan interest is in most ACC schools, there would be even less for most of the schools in this made-up conference.

Don't get worked up. I was just having some sport with the idea that a fourth conference would get made up.

I still see way more profit and overhead reduction by eliminating duplicated governing systems by moving to a 3 x 20. In that scenario both F.S.U. and Clemson are safely at home with neighbors in the SEC:
SEC East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
SEC South: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Big 10 East: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Big 10 North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 20 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC 20 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech
PAC 20 West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, Utah
PAC 20 North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

This is much more likely than 4x18. The sweet spots after 10 are 12, 16, and 20. It is harder to schedule fairly each season with 14 or 18.

I can't see Clemson and FSU in some catch all conference in a 4x18. They would dominate it sure, but the networks would be better off moving them to conferences where they would have more match ups to drive ratings. FSU has been a perennial top TV draw for the last 25 years or so. That would be wasted in that conference.

(09-11-2014 01:48 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-09-2014 08:25 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='11094064' dateline='1410240798']


This might not satisfy everyone but it builds a fairly nice grouping of schools geographically and competitively.

New 18:
North: Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Memphis, Tulane
West: Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas Tech, Texas Christian

Not no but hell no!! To say that this would not satisfy everyone is an understatement. Even with the 3 pods, this 4th made-up conference is a hodgepodge. My personal opinion would be that if something like this came to pass, that I would lobby Clemson as hard as I could to either drop football altogether or drop down to FCS. Recruiting would die - we could probably get all of the 2 and low three stars we could ever want!! As bad as Clemson fan interest is in most ACC schools, there would be even less for most of the schools in this made-up conference.

Don't get worked up. I was just having some sport with the idea that a fourth conference would get made up.

I still see way more profit and overhead reduction by eliminating duplicated governing systems by moving to a 3 x 20. In that scenario both F.S.U. and Clemson are safely at home with neighbors in the SEC:
SEC East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
SEC South: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Big 10 East: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Big 10 North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 20 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC 20 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech
PAC 20 West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, Utah
PAC 20 North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

This is much more likely than 4x18. The sweet spots after 10 are 12, 16, and 20. It is harder to schedule fairly each season with 14 or 18.

I can't see Clemson and FSU in some catch all conference in a 4x18. They would dominate it sure, but the networks would be better off moving them to conferences where they would have more match ups to drive ratings. FSU has been a perennial top TV draw for the last 25 years or so. That would be wasted in that conference.

I might get skewered for saying this, but why would anyone want to double down in North Carolina and Virginia? Maybe Va Tech is for real this year, or maybe Ohio State just stinks without Miller, but for most of the last decade two schools from either of those states (you pick em in N.C.) would have stunk in the SEC. Should a move ever occur in which a Virginia and North Carolina school move to the SEC then those schools are going to dominate their state in recruiting and should improve.

The Big 10 is welcome to UVa and U.N.C. and/or Duke. That gives them their AAU school, more basketball which is the only notoriety left for the Big 10 now, and the markets they desire. Let the SEC worry about building the brands of N.C. State and Virginia Tech for football. IMO those states aren't worth a pair in either of them for the gridiron. I could see the SEC taking Duke and U.N.C. to build its hoops image. I just can't see two hoops first schools wanting the SEC.

Makes sense. Current conferences are a relic of the past when travel was much more difficult. Conference exposure and network revenue would be maximized by 1 school per state, except for maybe in TX, CA, and FL where the population, large state size, and recruiting territory would be worth a second or a third school.

(09-10-2014 05:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't get worked up. I was just having some sport with the idea that a fourth conference would get made up.

I still see way more profit and overhead reduction by eliminating duplicated governing systems by moving to a 3 x 20. In that scenario both F.S.U. and Clemson are safely at home with neighbors in the SEC:
SEC East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
SEC South: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Big 10 East: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Big 10 North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 20 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC 20 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech
PAC 20 West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, Utah
PAC 20 North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

The only caveat is Northwestern. They would fit right in with ND and BC. But that would make it 21 teams. I might go with 3 divisions of 7. Go to a 10-game schedule.

Duke, UNC, UVA, UMD, PSU, RU, SU
ND, Pitt, Northwestern, BC, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana
Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

(09-12-2014 02:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-10-2014 05:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't get worked up. I was just having some sport with the idea that a fourth conference would get made up.

I still see way more profit and overhead reduction by eliminating duplicated governing systems by moving to a 3 x 20. In that scenario both F.S.U. and Clemson are safely at home with neighbors in the SEC:
SEC East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech
SEC North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
SEC South: Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
SEC West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Louisville, Missouri, Texas A&M

Big 10 South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia
Big 10 East: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
Big 10 North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Big 10 West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

PAC 20 East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
PAC 20 South: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech
PAC 20 West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern California, Utah
PAC 20 North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

The only caveat is Northwestern. They would fit right in with ND and BC. But that would make it 21 teams. I might go with 3 divisions of 7. Go to a 10-game schedule.

Duke, UNC, UVA, UMD, PSU, RU, SU
ND, Pitt, Northwestern, BC, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana
Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

I've never considered 21. It could have some applications. I'll have to think about this. But the divisions you list would be sweet for the Big 10.

How much truth do yall think there is to that vtech report?

(09-12-2014 09:15 AM)john01992 Wrote:  How much truth do yall think there is to that vtech report?

The ACC has been under attack for years. We have lost the only sickly and diseased member of our herd and replaced him with new and younger stock. Whether the report is true of not, Va. Tech is still in the ACC and not the SEC, UVa is still in the ACC and not the B1G, Carolina is still in the ACC and not the SEC or the B1G, Dook is still in the ACC and not in the B1G, Clemson is still in the ACC and not in the Big 12, FSU is still in the ACC and not in the Big 12, NCSU is still in the ACC and isn't going to the SEC.........are you starting to see a pattern here?