(02-22-2019 08:41 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  These are all very far flung suggestions. None of these things are going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I think the American has a chance to develop into a nice conference. I think they certainly over-expanded when they were forming, but they have a pretty nice nucleus there.

There are a lot of schools with lots of potential and who all seemingly have a legitimate commitment from their respective universities.

If you are a fan of UConn or Cincinnati or Houston or UCF or USF or whomever, that should probably be your focus because that’s probably your most realistic scenario for being in a major conference – to develop the one you’re currently in.

Here's what you're not getting with that statement.

The "power" conference stuff... is not about merit. You can't "develop" yourself into a "power" conference.

The "power" conferences are "power" conferences because ESPN says so.

The old BE is dead because ESPN said so.

Wake Forest, Rutgers and Vanderbildt are "power" teams because ESPN says so.

So when ESPN is paying one conference $30M and one conference $3M, it's a little hard for the $3M guy to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and "develop" into a major conference.

(02-24-2019 09:00 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  

(02-22-2019 08:41 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  These are all very far flung suggestions. None of these things are going to happen in the foreseeable future.

I think the American has a chance to develop into a nice conference. I think they certainly over-expanded when they were forming, but they have a pretty nice nucleus there.

There are a lot of schools with lots of potential and who all seemingly have a legitimate commitment from their respective universities.

If you are a fan of UConn or Cincinnati or Houston or UCF or USF or whomever, that should probably be your focus because that’s probably your most realistic scenario for being in a major conference – to develop the one you’re currently in.

Here's what you're not getting with that statement.

The "power" conference stuff... is not about merit. You can't "develop" yourself into a "power" conference.

The "power" conferences are "power" conferences because ESPN says so.

The old BE is dead because ESPN said so.

Wake Forest, Rutgers and Vanderbildt are "power" teams because ESPN says so.

So when ESPN is paying one conference $30M and one conference $3M, it's a little hard for the $3M guy to pull yourself up by the bootstraps and "develop" into a major conference.

I agree with you that you can't develop into a "power" conference. But I think it's simplistic to assert that ESPN is some all powerful, god-like entity manipulating college sports to its will. They are a player, and a powerful one. But all media, and the PTB in the bowl structure, reflect popular opinion on the matter. ESPN is capitalizing on the strength the A5 had developed in the marketplace long before ESPN came on the scene. But let's not give them too much credit (or blame, depending on your point of view) for the current status of FBS football.

I think everyone thinks too small about expansion.

Bolting on Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be as good in the long term as merging with the Big12. It would be even better if you could get the B12 minus Baylor.

The value to the ACC would be through the Sugar bowl tie in and other bowls. The television negotiations should favor the combined conference. The ability to schedule the marquee games so they don't cannibalize each other would be worth a lot in itself. The combined basketball tournament would be insane. There should be a lot of overpaid executives and expensive headquarters to cut once you combine. It should cost less to hold championship events for the non revenue sports on a per team basis.

(02-24-2019 10:58 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think everyone thinks too small about expansion.

Bolting on Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be as good in the long term as merging with the Big12. It would be even better if you could get the B12 minus Baylor.

The value to the ACC would be through the Sugar bowl tie in and other bowls. The television negotiations should favor the combined conference. The ability to schedule the marquee games so they don't cannibalize each other would be worth a lot in itself. The combined basketball tournament would be insane. There should be a lot of overpaid executives and expensive headquarters to cut once you combine. It should cost less to hold championship events for the non revenue sports on a per team basis.

TBH, it wouldn't be necessary to do a full-on merge. I could envision a combined TV contract (ACC+Big XII) which would include a non-conference scheduling agreement component. I could even see a deal that might include showing some of those games on the ACC Network - while getting (a) a higher rate in-footprint, and (b) in-footprint rates in the Big XII footprint states, too.

There could also be a bowl alliance between the two conferences, if desired.

(02-24-2019 10:58 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think everyone thinks too small about expansion.

Bolting on Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be as good in the long term as merging with the Big12. It would be even better if you could get the B12 minus Baylor.

The value to the ACC would be through the Sugar bowl tie in and other bowls. The television negotiations should favor the combined conference. The ability to schedule the marquee games so they don't cannibalize each other would be worth a lot in itself. The combined basketball tournament would be insane. There should be a lot of overpaid executives and expensive headquarters to cut once you combine. It should cost less to hold championship events for the non revenue sports on a per team basis.

This is madness. Take in the whole B12 to get the Sugar Bowl? Apart from Texas, Oklahoma and maybe Kansas the B12 is worthless. Nobody wants them. Who wants conference games st Iowa State and Kansas State? Certainly not ESPN. Get a grip

Heard UNC-Charlotte is open to offers. Great travel partner for Wake Forest.

(02-24-2019 11:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 10:58 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think everyone thinks too small about expansion.

Bolting on Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be as good in the long term as merging with the Big12. It would be even better if you could get the B12 minus Baylor.

The value to the ACC would be through the Sugar bowl tie in and other bowls. The television negotiations should favor the combined conference. The ability to schedule the marquee games so they don't cannibalize each other would be worth a lot in itself. The combined basketball tournament would be insane. There should be a lot of overpaid executives and expensive headquarters to cut once you combine. It should cost less to hold championship events for the non revenue sports on a per team basis.

TBH, it wouldn't be necessary to do a full-on merge. I could envision a combined TV contract (ACC+Big XII) which would include a non-conference scheduling agreement component. I could even see a deal that might include showing some of those games on the ACC Network - while getting (a) a higher rate in-footprint, and (b) in-footprint rates in the Big XII footprint states, too.

There could also be a bowl alliance between the two conferences, if desired.

That doesn't really solve anything though. There would still be 5 conferences working with short term goals against each other. There is no reason that conferences should be poaching one school at a time.

When a bank wants to expand, they don't buy one branch. They find a similar bank with different geographic footprint and buy the entire chain.

Shuffling a team here or there and paying 10s of millions in entry and exit fees is foolish. It is obvious that the successful conferences thrive on rivalries. Pulling Oklahoma away from OSU, Kansas, or Texas would be worse for college sports as a whole.

You don't need 5 headquarters, 5 commissioners, 5 sets of spring meetings, 5 women's basketball tournaments etc.

(02-24-2019 01:33 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 11:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 10:58 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think everyone thinks too small about expansion.

Bolting on Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be as good in the long term as merging with the Big12. It would be even better if you could get the B12 minus Baylor.

The value to the ACC would be through the Sugar bowl tie in and other bowls. The television negotiations should favor the combined conference. The ability to schedule the marquee games so they don't cannibalize each other would be worth a lot in itself. The combined basketball tournament would be insane. There should be a lot of overpaid executives and expensive headquarters to cut once you combine. It should cost less to hold championship events for the non revenue sports on a per team basis.

TBH, it wouldn't be necessary to do a full-on merge. I could envision a combined TV contract (ACC+Big XII) which would include a non-conference scheduling agreement component. I could even see a deal that might include showing some of those games on the ACC Network - while getting (a) a higher rate in-footprint, and (b) in-footprint rates in the Big XII footprint states, too.

There could also be a bowl alliance between the two conferences, if desired.

That doesn't really solve anything though. There would still be 5 conferences working with short term goals against each other. There is no reason that conferences should be poaching one school at a time.

When a bank wants to expand, they don't buy one branch. They find a similar bank with different geographic footprint and buy the entire chain.

Shuffling a team here or there and paying 10s of millions in entry and exit fees is foolish. It is obvious that the successful conferences thrive on rivalries. Pulling Oklahoma away from OSU, Kansas, or Texas would be worse for college sports as a whole.

You don't need 5 headquarters, 5 commissioners, 5 sets of spring meetings, 5 women's basketball tournaments etc.

That's Commie talk.

(02-23-2019 09:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 06:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

I don't think I can stomach Tulane.

I could live with Houston.

It is far easier to jump start Tulane's athletic side than it is to jump start Houston's academic side.

(02-24-2019 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 09:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 06:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

I don't think I can stomach Tulane.

I could live with Houston.

It is far easier to jump start Tulane's athletic side than it is to jump start Houston's academic side.

(02-24-2019 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 09:17 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-23-2019 06:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I am still against further destroying what little geographic cohesiveness there is. But if we, in this hypothetical, HAVE TO accept that Texas is a member ... this is a way to attempt to bridge that gap:
- West Virginia (with an academic and behavioral mandate)
- Tulane (with an athletic mandate)
- Texas (with an equal share)
- TCU (not a problem child like the others)

I don't think I can stomach Tulane.

I could live with Houston.

It is far easier to jump start Tulane's athletic side than it is to jump start Houston's academic side.

Setting aside whether or not you're right, who cares about academic - the ACC is an athletic conference.

Houston wouldn’t be a bottom dweller from the start in any sport and would be competitive in football, basketball, and baseball. Tulane would possibly be the worst in all 3 of those sports except perhaps baseball. Terrific academics and market but nothing else. If academics are what’s important then why expand with Louisville? Why not go to 16 with Tulane and Rice?

The Tulane stuff is patently hilarious. They are an absolute disaster in the AAC.

(02-24-2019 05:49 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  The Tulane stuff is patently hilarious. They are an absolute disaster in the AAC.

Yep. I read it on this board and over on the CR alignment forum. Tulane is a joke. They get 10k people in the seats for football and 1500 for hoops (both number might be inflated). Nobody in New Orleans give a rat’s behind. Would there be a bump when Clemson comes to town or Duke for basketball? Maybe, but probably not much and not on a nightly basis. It is a small school and most of the alums don’t stay in town after they graduate.

There are several other schools with would add a lot more

(02-24-2019 04:43 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Houston wouldn’t be a bottom dweller from the start in any sport and would be competitive in football, basketball, and baseball. Tulane would possibly be the worst in all 3 of those sports except perhaps baseball. Terrific academics and market but nothing else. If academics are what’s important then why expand with Louisville? Why not go to 16 with Tulane and Rice?

That question has been asked more than once.

(02-24-2019 04:43 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Houston wouldn’t be a bottom dweller from the start in any sport and would be competitive in football, basketball, and baseball. Tulane would possibly be the worst in all 3 of those sports except perhaps baseball. Terrific academics and market but nothing else. If academics are what’s important then why expand with Louisville? Why not go to 16 with Tulane and Rice?

The ACC really didnt expand with Louisville. The league simply replaced Maryland with Louisville. But according to US News, the ACC was so much more academically superior to the other P5 leagues that it is still ahead of everyone, including the BIG, which is second after the ACC. With Louisville on board, the BIG is a little closer to the ACC academically, but the ACC did not lose its spot as first among P5 conferences, academically. Louisville will slowly come in line with the rest of the ACC, similarly to the trajectory that FSU has enjoyed since joining the ACC.

(02-24-2019 05:49 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  The Tulane stuff is patently hilarious. They are an absolute disaster in the AAC.

And would be more so in the ACC. If we care so much about academics, why not expand within our footprint by targeting Harvard?

Academics may or may not be a reason to decline to invite a school to an athletic conference. But it absolutely is NOT a reason to invite one.

According to ARWU Houston is embedded in the academic band that includes FSU, VT, UM, and ND. This means 70-95 in the US and 201-300 world wide.

NC State and UVa are in the 59-69 band. Pitt is 42, GT is 38, UNC 22, and Duke 19.

Clemson, Syracuse, and Louisville are all sub 500 world wide and in the band between 118 and about 145. Baylor is in this band as well.

Ginning up applications is how you are able to reduce your admissions rate and raise the undergraduate matriculation profile. NC State and UNC-Ch look to fill about the same number of spots each year, but Carolina gets 40K applications, while NC State gets 27K. The average Carolina SAT is 1347, while the average NC SAT is 1309. Harvard gets 40K applications for just 2K spots. The quality of the application is irrelevant to the compiled statistics. The quality of the accepted and matriculated applicant matters.

The point though is Houston would not be an academic outlier in the ACC. Bottom 20% yes, but not the bottom.

Lance you mentioned the 6 year graduation rate but that's just a measure of how easy it is to graduate, how wealthy or well funded the student is, and how few classes you actually need to get a degree. I can tell you it's more difficult to graduate on time at State or VT than it is at Duke or UNC. The STEM nature of VT and NC State means that a great number of C and C+ walls exist and the price of changing a major is high.

(02-24-2019 07:02 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-24-2019 05:49 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  The Tulane stuff is patently hilarious. They are an absolute disaster in the AAC.

Yep. I read it on this board and over on the CR alignment forum. Tulane is a joke. They get 10k people in the seats for football and 1500 for hoops (both number might be inflated). Nobody in New Orleans give a rat’s behind. Would there be a bump when Clemson comes to town or Duke for basketball? Maybe, but probably not much and not on a nightly basis. It is a small school and most of the alums don’t stay in town after they graduate.

There are several other schools with would add a lot more

Other ACC schools and travelers don't give a rats ass about what people in New Orleans think about Tulane. We think about a trip TO New Orleans. That is the attraction.

Cincinnati is not in the heart of Big 10 country, it’s on the fringe. Adding a school in the outskirts of Ohio does nothing in itself. I don’t understand why this concept is so hard for people to understand.

To answer the original question of the thread, no, the ACC will not expand soon. Not with a bunch of Big XII rejects.

On a side note, I’m surprised at the lack of progress in Tulane basketball. They were tough throughout the 90’s, and I thought they’d get it going with Dunleavy.