(01-15-2020 10:00 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 07:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 06:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G will end up taking Kansas and Oklahoma.
The B1G needs another premier football matchup in the west (Oklahoma/Nebraska).

West Virginia has no chance to join the ACC for two reasons. With Oklahoma and Kansas off the board, ESPN's focus will be on Texas (the state) and Notre Dame.

Notre Dame already vowed never to return to Morgantown because of fan behavior. Notre Dame also refused to live up to their 3 game Big East deal (which was the last nail in the Big East football coffin) because Rutgers rescheduled a game with the Irish into their newly remodeled stadium and out of the Meadowlands. Regardless of how you feel about the Domers, they tend to have very long memories about schools that have wronged them, and ESPN has plans for Notre Dame which means West Virginia is out and destined for the AAC.

As to Texas (the state).
The SEC will ***** and moan and claim that Texas Tech and TCU don't meet their metrics, but they will add them for 15 and 16.
Texas will join the ACC as a partial member with Baylor. I do expect that Texas and Notre Dame will increase their annual football game requirement to 6 games with the ACC, or perhaps, 5 ACC games and one SEC game annually.

If Baylor is #15 then... who is #16, if not WVU?

The combination of Texas and Notre Dame ACC games will count as ACC contests for standing purposes. Two partials make a whole.

You wouldn't need Baylor. In fact, adding anyone screws things up. Because you would have 17 schools playing hoops.

Having Texas join the ACC like Notre Dame, gives you 16 hoops playing schools (and other sports), plus your well stated "2 partials" in football scheduling, "making a whole".

(01-15-2020 08:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  I thought Notre Dame and UConn had the scheduling conflict. The Huskies didn’t want to play their home games at a neutral site or something.

Why would the SEC add Texas teams that aren’t Texas? Why one way out in no man’s land??

Why would the ACC need or want for that matter, Baylor, if Texas were to be a partial member?

Kansas would love to join the Big Ten perhaps. They probably won’t win 12 straight titles or whatever there. Oklahoma football would take a hit and slouch in recruiting.

I don’t see anything happening for a while. Then the Big XII, after waiting a few years, should invite Liberty bibberty and BYU.

It was both UConn and Rutgers, but XLance has the details wrong.

There was a verbal commitment by ND to play up to three Big East games per year.

There was no agreement on which teams or where.

The Big East thought it meant a rotation of all football schools.

ND did not mean that, but rather some of the Big East schools and hopefully in big NFL stadiums.

ND was already playing Pitt every year and wanted that game to always be one of the three Big East games.

ND played a game or two with Syracuse. It didn't want to play WVU in Morgantown.

ND and UConn discussed a ten game deal, with all of UConn's "home games" at either Gillette Stadium or the Meadowlands.

That proposed deal got nixed when Connecticut politicians got involved and wanted all UConn home games at the Rent. Understandable.

So, no deal on venues meant no deal with that series.

A similar situation took place with Rutgers. ND wanted to play Rutgers home games at the Meadowlands. Rutgers wanted them at Rutgers Stadium (now SHI Stadium). The parties could not agree.

No meeting of the minds meant no deal. No hard feelings, but no games.

XLance is correct about two things:

1) ND vowed never to play in Morgantown after the 2000 game because of WVU's $hitty fan behavior. ND football has not played WVU since then.

2) The Irish have very long memories.

(01-15-2020 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:15 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 09:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  ...and that coach is now at Notre Dame.

Look, I know UC is never getting an ACC invite. That being said, we have a pretty damn good coach right now and have a deeper roster than we did when Kelly was here. UC has won 11 games two years in a row. UC is loaded on both sides of the ball and will be good again next year. Whether it be Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Luke, it has been proven coaches can be successful here over the long haul.

I realize UC was not very well thought of when you lived in Ohio (particularly in your corner of the state), but times have changed. There have been a lot of kids enrolling here in the past 12-15 years from corners that never would have considered here in the past. The brand is stronger than ever, both athletically and academically.

UC will continue to win, regardless of what conference we ultimately wind up in (whether it stays in the AAC or goes elsewhere) or who coaches here.

I wouldn’t say they weren’t well thought of, they just weren’t thought of. They weren’t covered locally, and I saw probably saw more Michigan gear. I’m not knocking Cincinnati, I’m just passing along my impression.

It is changing. Cincy has really exploded brand wise over the last 20 years.

Just like UCF and to a smaller count, USF

Okay, fine. I don’t see either of those schools attracting t-shirt fans. That’s my point. They may have support within their city and their alumni base, but they aren’t going to be attracting people from the remote corners of the state like State U can, and has done for over a century.

Doomsday: If Clemson and FSU left, I’m sorry, but WVU and Cincinnati are not going to help. At that stage the payout would drop, and they wouldn’t be worth their weight. I’d rather have UNC split off with our old friends and take the ACC name like the Big East than be part of some sort of weird hodgepodge league.

(01-15-2020 01:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  I thought Notre Dame and UConn had the scheduling conflict. The Huskies didn’t want to play their home games at a neutral site or something.

Why would the SEC add Texas teams that aren’t Texas? Why one way out in no man’s land??

Why would the ACC need or want for that matter, Baylor, if Texas were to be a partial member?

Kansas would love to join the Big Ten perhaps. They probably won’t win 12 straight titles or whatever there. Oklahoma football would take a hit and slouch in recruiting.

I don’t see anything happening for a while. Then the Big XII, after waiting a few years, should invite Liberty bibberty and BYU.

It was both UConn and Rutgers, but XLance has the details wrong.

There was a verbal commitment by ND to play up to three Big East games per year.

There was no agreement on which teams or where.

The Big East thought it meant a rotation of all football schools.

ND did not mean that, but rather some of the Big East schools and hopefully in big NFL stadiums.

ND was already playing Pitt every year and wanted that game to always be one of the three Big East games.

ND played a game or two with Syracuse. It didn't want to play WVU in Morgantown.

ND and UConn discussed a ten game deal, with all of UConn's "home games" at either Gillette Stadium or the Meadowlands.

That proposed deal got nixed when Connecticut politicians got involved and wanted all UConn home games at the Rent. Understandable.

So, no deal on venues meant no deal with that series.

A similar situation took place with Rutgers. ND wanted to play Rutgers home games at the Meadowlands. Rutgers wanted them at Rutgers Stadium (now SHI Stadium). The parties could not agree.

No meeting of the minds meant no deal. No hard feelings, but no games.

XLance is correct about two things:

1) ND vowed never to play in Morgantown after the 2000 game because of WVU's $hitty fan behavior. ND football has not played WVU since then.

2) The Irish have very long memories.

Two out of three ............. good memory for an OF

I think it's difficult for folks to tease out how structure influences and drives the schools.

The current schemes and plans are all based on following archaic NCAA rules on a round robin in a discrete division.

Divisions of 8 for a 16 school conference will NOT work, because there are too many examples of key schools that have friends and enemies that need to see more than one or twice a decade.

The fall in attendance is due in part to technology but also nothing to play for for many teams at the end of the year.

3 divisions containing 5 or 6 schools solves most of the issues. 3 divisions mean a school in a division is going to see 4 or 5 schools every year, a rival can be added, and a rotation can be added and 8 or 9 conference games can be generated. 3 divisional champs makes more people feel good about their season even if they get killed in the title game. Adding one "wild card" deals with the issues that arise from a division that is very powerful versus a division that is nearly a dud.

This structural issue has to be addressed and once addressed allows the ACC, SEC, and B10 to grow to 15 or 18 as best fits their needs. The SEC can not exist in a vacuum and be healthy. They need the rivalry with a healthy Big 10 and they need their games with the ACC to matter.

Do this, and free the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, AAC, MW, CUSA, MAC, and the Sunbelt regarding basketball money and everything will be fine.

Here is a potential 18 school ACC and 15 school SEC:

ACC West: Texas, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ND, Pitt
ACC East: Syracuse, NCSU, UVa, UNC, Duke, Miami
ACC South: Clemson, FSU, WF, Louisville, BC, VT

SEC West: Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, MSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East: Kentucky, SC, UGa, Florida, West Va (or Maryland)

Using this years records ND and Clemson would have hosted VT and UVa and then ND and Clemson would meet for the ACC title

Likewise LSU and Georgia would have hosted Bama and Oklahoma and LSU and Bama would likely have meet for the SEC title.

From an ESPN standpoint, they leave the Big 10 with Iowa State, Cincy, or UConn as a 15th school.

You can mix and match within the SEC and ACC. Potential (I SAY POTENTIAL DAMNIT) SEC movers are Mizzou, Vandy, and Kentucky. Potential ACC movers are VT, NC State, and perhaps Pitt. Any such moves are made for Disney to be able to place Texas, OU, Kansas and perhaps one of TT, TCU, Ok State, or West Va as the case may be.

Any way you slice it three divisions of 5 or 6 provide the schools with the highest degree of potential happiness and variety for the fans.

(01-15-2020 01:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:15 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 09:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  ...and that coach is now at Notre Dame.

Look, I know UC is never getting an ACC invite. That being said, we have a pretty damn good coach right now and have a deeper roster than we did when Kelly was here. UC has won 11 games two years in a row. UC is loaded on both sides of the ball and will be good again next year. Whether it be Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Luke, it has been proven coaches can be successful here over the long haul.

I realize UC was not very well thought of when you lived in Ohio (particularly in your corner of the state), but times have changed. There have been a lot of kids enrolling here in the past 12-15 years from corners that never would have considered here in the past. The brand is stronger than ever, both athletically and academically.

UC will continue to win, regardless of what conference we ultimately wind up in (whether it stays in the AAC or goes elsewhere) or who coaches here.

I wouldn’t say they weren’t well thought of, they just weren’t thought of. They weren’t covered locally, and I saw probably saw more Michigan gear. I’m not knocking Cincinnati, I’m just passing along my impression.

It is changing. Cincy has really exploded brand wise over the last 20 years.

Just like UCF and to a smaller count, USF

Okay, fine. I don’t see either of those schools attracting t-shirt fans. That’s my point. They may have support within their city and their alumni base, but they aren’t going to be attracting people from the remote corners of the state like State U can, and has done for over a century.

Doomsday: If Clemson and FSU left, I’m sorry, but WVU and Cincinnati are not going to help. At that stage the payout would drop, and they wouldn’t be worth their weight. I’d rather have UNC split off with our old friends and take the ACC name like the Big East than be part of some sort of weird hodgepodge league.

But you have repeatedly claimed Tulane would be worth their weight with an ACC invite. This is a school that currently puts 5,000 butts in the seat for football and 500 for basketball... trust me, I have been down there. The level of support for Tulane is non-existent in New Orleans and across Louisiana. This is a school with 13,000 students and about 100,000 alumni, most of whom do not even live there anymore.

If its just about destination for a game tell your AD to schedule the Green Wave out of conference in multiple sports.

Unless there is a structural change to CFB and TV revenue the only realistic additions that would add value are: Notre Dame and Texas or OU from the Big 12 (assuming the Big 12 implodes).

CFB is going to either evolve into a 30 team minor league for the NFL or turn into something more like the revenue sharing model of basketball. Personally I hope for 80-90 Big Time FB Programs (with self-imposed restraints on spending) and another 120 or so BB only schools. We don't need lazy rivers, mini golf courses, luxury housing and $100M palaces for football staffs and recruits. Such waste.

(01-15-2020 02:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think it's difficult for folks to tease out how structure influences and drives the schools.

The current schemes and plans are all based on following archaic NCAA rules on a round robin in a discrete division.

Divisions of 8 for a 16 school conference will NOT work, because there are too many examples of key schools that have friends and enemies that need to see more than one or twice a decade.

The fall in attendance is due in part to technology but also nothing to play for for many teams at the end of the year.

3 divisions containing 5 or 6 schools solves most of the issues. 3 divisions mean a school in a division is going to see 4 or 5 schools every year, a rival can be added, and a rotation can be added and 8 or 9 conference games can be generated. 3 divisional champs makes more people feel good about their season even if they get killed in the title game. Adding one "wild card" deals with the issues that arise from a division that is very powerful versus a division that is nearly a dud.

This structural issue has to be addressed and once addressed allows the ACC, SEC, and B10 to grow to 15 or 18 as best fits their needs. The SEC can not exist in a vacuum and be healthy. They need the rivalry with a healthy Big 10 and they need their games with the ACC to matter.

Do this, and free the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, AAC, MW, CUSA, MAC, and the Sunbelt regarding basketball money and everything will be fine.

Here is a potential 18 school ACC and 15 school SEC:

ACC West: Texas, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ND, Pitt
ACC East: Syracuse, NCSU, UVa, UNC, Duke, Miami
ACC South: Clemson, FSU, WF, Louisville, BC, VT

SEC West: Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, MSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East: Kentucky, SC, UGa, Florida, West Va (or Maryland)

Using this years records ND and Clemson would have hosted VT and UVa and then ND and Clemson would meet for the ACC title

Likewise LSU and Georgia would have hosted Bama and Oklahoma and LSU and Bama would likely have meet for the SEC title.

From an ESPN standpoint, they leave the Big 10 with Iowa State, Cincy, or UConn as a 15th school.

You can mix and match within the SEC and ACC. Potential (I SAY POTENTIAL DAMNIT) SEC movers are Mizzou, Vandy, and Kentucky. Potential ACC movers are VT, NC State, and perhaps Pitt. Any such moves are made for Disney to be able to place Texas, OU, Kansas and perhaps one of TT, TCU, Ok State, or West Va as the case may be.

Any way you slice it three divisions of 5 or 6 provide the schools with the highest degree of potential happiness and variety for the fans.

Whiz on that. The SEC gives up an AAU school which represents the only P school in a state of 6 million in exchange for a school from a state with less than 2 million. The ACC moves to 18 expands their markets by 36 million and the SEC gets 1 brand from a population of 4 million.

It was talked today that the new SEC contract may be in effect in 2 years as Ourand reported that there's a 95% chance that ESPN is going to buy out the last two years of the SEC existing contract, and CBS will retain it just for the 2020 season.

If true Missouri would be giving up a guaranteed 66 million at the lowest existing estimates by 2021 to move to a conference that with Texas will be fortunate to make it into the mid 40's? Texas will add 5 to 6 million tops to the ACC and ACCN combined. You had 29.5 million in Media revenue last year. You have a partial year for the ACCN so for this year you'll likely be around 32.5 plus an escalator for maybe 35 million. Add Texas and it takes you 41. N.D. isn't coming all in and Missouri might add a million. Kansas might add 1.5 million as a content multiplier for hoops which is still only 20% of total revenue.

It's a nice theory for the ACC but fairly impractical and unlikely to happen.

The SEC might be enticed at 15 if we can go division-less. But if you get Mizzou we would have to have one of your duplicated markets to make it pay for you and pay for us. So think more in terms of Virginia Tech in exchange for Missouri. That's a 9 million population duplicate in exchange for a 6 million stand alone. You NET 8 million and we Net 3 million.

I would suggest N.C. State but the Baby Blue mafia would never permit N.C. State to move to a conference that paid them nearly 20 million more than UNC made. Miami is a better fit for the ACC than SEC because of their ties to the OBE and Florida really does give the SEC a big enough slice of the Sunshine State.

Think along those lines and it becomes workable because both sides gain. I have nothing against WVU but they simply reduce SEC profits in the straight trade off of 1.7 million for 6 million.

And the Texas problem politically is more intricate than what you are recognizing. Baylor is an issue, as is Tech, as is T.C.U. but all for different reasons. Baylor is the oldest university in the State of Texas and the Texas legislature is aware of their historical significance to the state. They also have much stronger donors than many may realize. Tech is the state school that everyone is afraid would suffer in realignment so the state has an even more direct interest in protecting the future of Tech. T.C.U. is a smaller, but more personal obligation to the Texas A.D. and has long cooperated with UT.

If Texas is going to consider the ACC all in they are going to want buddies, just like North Carolina likes in state buddies.

Offer Texas, Baylor, T.C.U., and Tech and they'll go all in. Yes they are selfish and yes they like having their brethren for political reasons both in state and in conference. But it would be a clincher for Texas in spite of the financial differences and it wouldn't cost ESPN much at all because of what they already pay for half of the Big 12.

That move allows Texas to keep its business model where they play at least 7 and prefer 8 games in their home state annually. With 4 home conference games and 3 divisional games in the state and if they keep the RRR you've won them. Since the ACC is starting from a monetary disadvantage that's your potential winning hand. I seriously doubt they come for less than that! Remember UT has the upper hand not ESPN who bribed them not to head to the PAC with a 15 million dollar a year gift called the LHN.

Get Texas all in and even with their buddies your football profile goes up. Then you put the question to N.D.. Go all in, or 2037 ends your ACC options. At least that forces their hand and you'll know where you stand. If they go all in now we are talking about really starting to close that gap. If you trim 2 of your duplicated markets if N.D. goes all in and get WF to move to the partial who plays 5 conference games listed as OOC but all in for all other sports you are down to 16 and have geographical half divisions that allow you to rotate through the schedule every 3 years so everyone has home draw from Texas, N.D., Clemson, and F.S.U.. Now you're adding significant value to your T1 and T2 contracts.

Something along those lines fixes some of your ills.

The SEC probably has to solve Oklahoma's problem to land them so OU and OSU takes us to 16. Mizzou gains two more old Big 8 foes and that helps them, especially if they are moved to that half division. In that case perhaps your two duplicates move to the Big 10 and they have their 16.

Set up year end ACC/B1G rivalry games to go along with the SEC/ACC games and you add even more content value to your T1 and T2 as those will be season ending must see games that tie in the two largest viewing audiences so when they are played in your home venues it increases your ad rates.

Don't do this and Texas pushes to keep the Big 12 together, Oklahoma leaves, Kansas leaves, and then Texas looks to move close to home and take at least 1 buddy and the gap with the SEC and Big 10 with regard to the ACC grows. There are a few academics within the Big 10 that I have conversed with who say they are weighing taking Tech to get Texas since both get PUF money for research. What happens with them will probably boil down to who best preserves their business model. The ACC is in a unique position to do that. The Big 10 can't and the SEC won't. But the SEC if it took Texas and Tech instead of the Oklahoma schools would stand to profit nicely and could still guarantee Texas at least 7 games annually in the state of Texas plus 8 if the RRR is maintained. And in that scenario I would think that OU and Kansas wind up in the Big 10.

Clifton, if Tulane regularly played an ACC slate, their attendance would rise. Their located on the Gulf Coast represents opportunities for the ACC as a whole relative to Mississippi and Alabama Shore, as well as New Orleans. They represent a physical link to Texas for us. Now, are the worth anything to the SEC? No.

There is more to the league than up front cash money.

All that said, Cincinnati is a much better program. Academically Tulane and Cincy are nearly equals. However Cincy does not make a bridge to anywhere for the ACC

(01-15-2020 02:51 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 01:48 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 11:25 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:22 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:15 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Look, I know UC is never getting an ACC invite. That being said, we have a pretty damn good coach right now and have a deeper roster than we did when Kelly was here. UC has won 11 games two years in a row. UC is loaded on both sides of the ball and will be good again next year. Whether it be Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Luke, it has been proven coaches can be successful here over the long haul.

I realize UC was not very well thought of when you lived in Ohio (particularly in your corner of the state), but times have changed. There have been a lot of kids enrolling here in the past 12-15 years from corners that never would have considered here in the past. The brand is stronger than ever, both athletically and academically.

UC will continue to win, regardless of what conference we ultimately wind up in (whether it stays in the AAC or goes elsewhere) or who coaches here.

I wouldn’t say they weren’t well thought of, they just weren’t thought of. They weren’t covered locally, and I saw probably saw more Michigan gear. I’m not knocking Cincinnati, I’m just passing along my impression.

It is changing. Cincy has really exploded brand wise over the last 20 years.

Just like UCF and to a smaller count, USF

Okay, fine. I don’t see either of those schools attracting t-shirt fans. That’s my point. They may have support within their city and their alumni base, but they aren’t going to be attracting people from the remote corners of the state like State U can, and has done for over a century.

Doomsday: If Clemson and FSU left, I’m sorry, but WVU and Cincinnati are not going to help. At that stage the payout would drop, and they wouldn’t be worth their weight. I’d rather have UNC split off with our old friends and take the ACC name like the Big East than be part of some sort of weird hodgepodge league.

But you have repeatedly claimed Tulane would be worth their weight with an ACC invite. This is a school that currently puts 5,000 butts in the seat for football and 500 for basketball... trust me, I have been down there. The level of support for Tulane is non-existent in New Orleans and across Louisiana. This is a school with 13,000 students and about 100,000 alumni, most of whom do not even live there anymore.

If its just about destination for a game tell your AD to schedule the Green Wave out of conference in multiple sports.

I don’t think I ever seriously talked about what Tulane would bring to the table financially. The LSU comment was tongue in cheek. I merely prefer them. It’s my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

(01-15-2020 02:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think it's difficult for folks to tease out how structure influences and drives the schools.

The current schemes and plans are all based on following archaic NCAA rules on a round robin in a discrete division.

Divisions of 8 for a 16 school conference will NOT work, because there are too many examples of key schools that have friends and enemies that need to see more than one or twice a decade.

The fall in attendance is due in part to technology but also nothing to play for for many teams at the end of the year.

3 divisions containing 5 or 6 schools solves most of the issues. 3 divisions mean a school in a division is going to see 4 or 5 schools every year, a rival can be added, and a rotation can be added and 8 or 9 conference games can be generated. 3 divisional champs makes more people feel good about their season even if they get killed in the title game. Adding one "wild card" deals with the issues that arise from a division that is very powerful versus a division that is nearly a dud.

This structural issue has to be addressed and once addressed allows the ACC, SEC, and B10 to grow to 15 or 18 as best fits their needs. The SEC can not exist in a vacuum and be healthy. They need the rivalry with a healthy Big 10 and they need their games with the ACC to matter.

Do this, and free the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, AAC, MW, CUSA, MAC, and the Sunbelt regarding basketball money and everything will be fine.

Here is a potential 18 school ACC and 15 school SEC:

ACC West: Texas, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ND, Pitt
ACC East: Syracuse, NCSU, UVa, UNC, Duke, Miami
ACC South: Clemson, FSU, WF, Louisville, BC, VT

SEC West: Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, MSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East: Kentucky, SC, UGa, Florida, West Va (or Maryland)

Using this years records ND and Clemson would have hosted VT and UVa and then ND and Clemson would meet for the ACC title

Likewise LSU and Georgia would have hosted Bama and Oklahoma and LSU and Bama would likely have meet for the SEC title.

From an ESPN standpoint, they leave the Big 10 with Iowa State, Cincy, or UConn as a 15th school.

You can mix and match within the SEC and ACC. Potential (I SAY POTENTIAL DAMNIT) SEC movers are Mizzou, Vandy, and Kentucky. Potential ACC movers are VT, NC State, and perhaps Pitt. Any such moves are made for Disney to be able to place Texas, OU, Kansas and perhaps one of TT, TCU, Ok State, or West Va as the case may be.

Any way you slice it three divisions of 5 or 6 provide the schools with the highest degree of potential happiness and variety for the fans.

I agree with most of the top and little of the bottom.

So let's assume for a moment the media powers that be decide it is in the best interests of the health and revenue of the sport to fix the attendance bleeding. To do that schedules must go back to being local while still maintaining a structure that is vast in media markets to demand higher (in state) rates in areas where tons of people (potential customers) live.

You will invariably end up pushing the following areas together which are currently segregated by conference:

Big 12 South + SEC West (Texarkana area)
SEC East South + ACC South (All the FB in state rivals + Miami + possibly VT)
SEC East Appalachia + ACC Appalachia + WVU
ACC North + ND + B1G

I think in this scenario it would make sense for the PAC-12 for the long term to take the best parts of the MWC. UNLV, Nevada, Wyoming, SDSU, Boise State, Colorado State. All of those other than Wyoming have enrollments beyond 20,000. All of them other than SDSU are in growing population areas. All of them other than SDSU are major or flagship publics in their state.

The TL;DR argument here is the money you lose in TV you make up and then some at on the various revenue streams from higher attendance (tickets, donations, parking, concessions, merch, etc).

Let's come up with a few sample schedules that demonstrate the benefits:

Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Virginia Tech: Virginia, Wake Forest, North Carolina, NC State, Tennessee, Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia

Texas: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, TCU, LSU, Arkansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, Baylor

Florida State: Florida, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Alabama, LSU


And in basketball you do a home and home with your football schedule.

Those sorts of schedules will sell out even in baseball. They'll even sell out in football for bad teams because beating a big rival even as a bad team adds some sugar to the season.

(01-15-2020 03:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Clifton, if Tulane regularly played an ACC slate, their attendance would rise. Their located on the Gulf Coast represents opportunities for the ACC as a whole relative to Mississippi and Alabama Shore, as well as New Orleans. They represent a physical link to Texas for us. Now, are the worth anything to the SEC? No.

There is more to the league than up front cash money.

All that said, Cincinnati is a much better program. Academically Tulane and Cincy are nearly equals. However Cincy does not make a bridge to anywhere for the ACC

Tulane has to want it and nearly everything their athletic department has done has shown they in fact do not want it. If Tulane had the drive for success that even the Cincinnati program has, then yes we've got some potential there.

(01-15-2020 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 02:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think it's difficult for folks to tease out how structure influences and drives the schools.

The current schemes and plans are all based on following archaic NCAA rules on a round robin in a discrete division.

Divisions of 8 for a 16 school conference will NOT work, because there are too many examples of key schools that have friends and enemies that need to see more than one or twice a decade.

The fall in attendance is due in part to technology but also nothing to play for for many teams at the end of the year.

3 divisions containing 5 or 6 schools solves most of the issues. 3 divisions mean a school in a division is going to see 4 or 5 schools every year, a rival can be added, and a rotation can be added and 8 or 9 conference games can be generated. 3 divisional champs makes more people feel good about their season even if they get killed in the title game. Adding one "wild card" deals with the issues that arise from a division that is very powerful versus a division that is nearly a dud.

This structural issue has to be addressed and once addressed allows the ACC, SEC, and B10 to grow to 15 or 18 as best fits their needs. The SEC can not exist in a vacuum and be healthy. They need the rivalry with a healthy Big 10 and they need their games with the ACC to matter.

Do this, and free the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, AAC, MW, CUSA, MAC, and the Sunbelt regarding basketball money and everything will be fine.

Here is a potential 18 school ACC and 15 school SEC:

ACC West: Texas, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ND, Pitt
ACC East: Syracuse, NCSU, UVa, UNC, Duke, Miami
ACC South: Clemson, FSU, WF, Louisville, BC, VT

SEC West: Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, MSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East: Kentucky, SC, UGa, Florida, West Va (or Maryland)

Using this years records ND and Clemson would have hosted VT and UVa and then ND and Clemson would meet for the ACC title

Likewise LSU and Georgia would have hosted Bama and Oklahoma and LSU and Bama would likely have meet for the SEC title.

From an ESPN standpoint, they leave the Big 10 with Iowa State, Cincy, or UConn as a 15th school.

You can mix and match within the SEC and ACC. Potential (I SAY POTENTIAL DAMNIT) SEC movers are Mizzou, Vandy, and Kentucky. Potential ACC movers are VT, NC State, and perhaps Pitt. Any such moves are made for Disney to be able to place Texas, OU, Kansas and perhaps one of TT, TCU, Ok State, or West Va as the case may be.

Any way you slice it three divisions of 5 or 6 provide the schools with the highest degree of potential happiness and variety for the fans.

Whiz on that. The SEC gives up an AAU school which represents the only P school in a state of 6 million in exchange for a school from a state with less than 2 million. The ACC moves to 18 expands their markets by 36 million and the SEC gets 1 brand from a population of 4 million.

It was talked today that the new SEC contract may be in effect in 2 years as Ourand reported that there's a 95% chance that ESPN is going to buy out the last two years of the SEC existing contract, and CBS will retain it just for the 2020 season.

If true Missouri would be giving up a guaranteed 66 million at the lowest existing estimates by 2021 to move to a conference that with Texas will be fortunate to make it into the mid 40's? Texas will add 5 to 6 million tops to the ACC and ACCN combined. You had 29.5 million in Media revenue last year. You have a partial year for the ACCN so for this year you'll likely be around 32.5 plus an escalator for maybe 35 million. Add Texas and it takes you 41. N.D. isn't coming all in and Missouri might add a million. Kansas might add 1.5 million as a content multiplier for hoops which is still only 20% of total revenue.

It's a nice theory for the ACC but fairly impractical and unlikely to happen.

The SEC might be enticed at 15 if we can go division-less. But if you get Mizzou we would have to have one of your duplicated markets to make it pay for you and pay for us. So think more in terms of Virginia Tech in exchange for Missouri. That's a 9 million population duplicate in exchange for a 6 million stand alone. You NET 8 million and we Net 3 million.

I would suggest N.C. State but the Baby Blue mafia would never permit N.C. State to move to a conference that paid them nearly 20 million more than UNC made. Miami is a better fit for the ACC than SEC because of their ties to the OBE and Florida really does give the SEC a big enough slice of the Sunshine State.

Think along those lines and it becomes workable because both sides gain. I have nothing against WVU but they simply reduce SEC profits in the straight trade off of 1.7 million for 6 million.

And the Texas problem politically is more intricate than what you are recognizing. Baylor is an issue, as is Tech, as is T.C.U. but all for different reasons. Baylor is the oldest university in the State of Texas and the Texas legislature is aware of their historical significance to the state. They also have much stronger donors than many may realize. Tech is the state school that everyone is afraid would suffer in realignment so the state has an even more direct interest in protecting the future of Tech. T.C.U. is a smaller, but more personal obligation t the Texas A.D. and has long cooperated with UT.

If Texas is going to consider the ACC all in they are going to want buddies, just like North Carolina likes in state buddies.

Offer Texas, Baylor, T.C.U., and Tech and they'll go all in. Yes they are selfish and yes they like having their brethren for political reasons both in state and in conference. But it would be a clincher for Texas in spite of the financial differences and it wouldn't cost ESPN much at all because of what they already pay for half of the Big 12.

That move allows Texas to keep its business model where they play at least 7 and prefer 8 games in their home state annually. With 4 home conference games and 3 divisional games in the state and if they keep the RRR you've won them. Since the ACC is starting from a monetary disadvantage that's your potential winning hand. I seriously doubt they come for less than that! Remember UT has the upper hand not ESPN who bribed them not to head to the PAC with a 15 million dollar a year gift called the LHN.

Get Texas all in and even with their buddies your football profile goes up. Then you put the question to N.D.. Go all in, or 2037 ends your ACC options. At least that forces their hand and you'll know where you stand. If they go all in now we are talking about really starting to close that gap. If you trim 2 of your duplicated markets if N.D. goes all in and get WF to move to the partial who plays 5 conference games listed as OOC but all in for all other sports you are down to 16 and have geographical half divisions that allow you to rotate through the schedule every 3 years so everyone has home draw from Texas, N.D., Clemson, and F.S.U.. Now your adding significant value to your T1 and T2 contracts.

Something along those lines fixes some of your ills.

The SEC probably has to solve Oklahoma's problem to hand them so OU and OSU takes us to 16. Mizzou gains two more old Big 8 foes and that helps them, especially if they are moved to that half division. In that case perhaps your two duplicates move to the Big 10 and they have their 16.

Set up year end ACC/B1G rivalry games to go along with the SEC/ACC games and you add even more content value to your T1 and T2 as those will be season ending must see games that tie in the two largest viewing audiences so when they are played in your home venues it increases your ad rates.

Don't do this and Texas pushes to keep the Big 12 together, Oklahoma leaves, Kansas leaves, and then Texas looks to move close to home and take at least 1 buddy and the gap with the SEC and Big 10 with regard to the ACC grows. There are a few academics within the Big 10 that I have conversed with who say they are weighing taking Tech to get Texas since both get PUF money for research. What happens with them will probably boil down to who best preserves their business model. The ACC is in a unique position to do that. The Big 10 can't and the SEC won't. But the SEC if it took Texas and Tech instead of the Oklahoma schools would stand to profit nicely and could still guarantee Texas at least 7 games annually in the state of Texas plus 8 if the RRR is maintained. And in that scenario I would think that OU and Kansas wind up in the Big 10.

Interesting.

I just hope the ACC is proactive, creative, and aggressive.

(01-15-2020 03:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 03:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Clifton, if Tulane regularly played an ACC slate, their attendance would rise. Their located on the Gulf Coast represents opportunities for the ACC as a whole relative to Mississippi and Alabama Shore, as well as New Orleans. They represent a physical link to Texas for us. Now, are the worth anything to the SEC? No.

There is more to the league than up front cash money.

All that said, Cincinnati is a much better program. Academically Tulane and Cincy are nearly equals. However Cincy does not make a bridge to anywhere for the ACC

Tulane has to want it and nearly everything their athletic department has done has shown they in fact do not want it. If Tulane had the drive for success that even the Cincinnati program has, then yes we've got some potential there.

Tulane de-emphasized college sports three times in the last 80 years. They are a bad risk

JR, I just tossed out an alighment. My point is that some combination of 15 and 18 with three divisions each is optimal because I can't see two divisions of 8 working.

(01-15-2020 10:15 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 09:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  ...and that coach is now at Notre Dame.

Look, I know UC is never getting an ACC invite. That being said, we have a pretty damn good coach right now and have a deeper roster than we did when Kelly was here. UC has won 11 games two years in a row. UC is loaded on both sides of the ball and will be good again next year. Whether it be Dantonio, Kelly, Butch Jones, and now Luke, it has been proven coaches can be successful here over the long haul.

I realize UC was not very well thought of when you lived in Ohio (particularly in your corner of the state), but times have changed. There have been a lot of kids enrolling here in the past 12-15 years from corners that never would have considered here in the past. The brand is stronger than ever, both athletically and academically.

UC will continue to win, regardless of what conference we ultimately wind up in (whether it stays in the AAC or goes elsewhere) or who coaches here.

I would be up for adding Cincinnati and Houston

(01-15-2020 03:55 PM)Statefan Wrote:  JR, I just tossed out an alighment. My point is that some combination of 15 and 18 with three divisions each is optimal because I can't see two divisions of 8 working.

I didn't take it personally and thought it a credible concept other than the distinctions I noted.

But it can work with 8 if it had to do so.

You move to 9 conference games, 1 OOC P game, and two buy games. That guarantees each school 7 home games if the OOC P game is a home game on the year you only have 4 conference home games.

To play everyone within 4 years you have no cross over rivals and you rotate two schools from the other division per year 1 home and 1 away and do not rotate the home and away until the turn of the cycle in 4 years. That way your school plays every conference member within 4 years, but will not face 4 of them at home until the next 4 year cycle.

That's about as good as you can make it, but it is workable.

Now the WAC system works best in that your half division of 4 geographically and rivalry based schools rotate the other half of your division annually with another 1/2 division. Technically you keep 2 divisions its just that 4 of the schools in it change every year and in 3 years you've played everyone.

The ability to do this is still on the books.

(01-15-2020 03:45 PM)nole Wrote:  I just hope the ACC is proactive, creative, and aggressive.

(01-15-2020 02:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think it's difficult for folks to tease out how structure influences and drives the schools.

The current schemes and plans are all based on following archaic NCAA rules on a round robin in a discrete division.

Divisions of 8 for a 16 school conference will NOT work, because there are too many examples of key schools that have friends and enemies that need to see more than one or twice a decade.

The fall in attendance is due in part to technology but also nothing to play for for many teams at the end of the year.

3 divisions containing 5 or 6 schools solves most of the issues. 3 divisions mean a school in a division is going to see 4 or 5 schools every year, a rival can be added, and a rotation can be added and 8 or 9 conference games can be generated. 3 divisional champs makes more people feel good about their season even if they get killed in the title game. Adding one "wild card" deals with the issues that arise from a division that is very powerful versus a division that is nearly a dud.

This structural issue has to be addressed and once addressed allows the ACC, SEC, and B10 to grow to 15 or 18 as best fits their needs. The SEC can not exist in a vacuum and be healthy. They need the rivalry with a healthy Big 10 and they need their games with the ACC to matter.

Do this, and free the ACC, SEC, B10, B12, P12, Big East, AAC, MW, CUSA, MAC, and the Sunbelt regarding basketball money and everything will be fine.

Here is a potential 18 school ACC and 15 school SEC:

ACC West: Texas, TCU, Kansas, Mizzou, ND, Pitt
ACC East: Syracuse, NCSU, UVa, UNC, Duke, Miami
ACC South: Clemson, FSU, WF, Louisville, BC, VT

SEC West: Oklahoma, TAMU, Arkansas, LSU, MSU
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Vandy, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn
SEC East: Kentucky, SC, UGa, Florida, West Va (or Maryland)

Using this years records ND and Clemson would have hosted VT and UVa and then ND and Clemson would meet for the ACC title

Likewise LSU and Georgia would have hosted Bama and Oklahoma and LSU and Bama would likely have meet for the SEC title.

From an ESPN standpoint, they leave the Big 10 with Iowa State, Cincy, or UConn as a 15th school.

You can mix and match within the SEC and ACC. Potential (I SAY POTENTIAL DAMNIT) SEC movers are Mizzou, Vandy, and Kentucky. Potential ACC movers are VT, NC State, and perhaps Pitt. Any such moves are made for Disney to be able to place Texas, OU, Kansas and perhaps one of TT, TCU, Ok State, or West Va as the case may be.

Any way you slice it three divisions of 5 or 6 provide the schools with the highest degree of potential happiness and variety for the fans.

You're on the right track, but you didn't leave enough value to have a healthy B1G

I didn't think we owed the B10 a damn thing