(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don’t know if people realized how serious the current situation is, but the next couple of months will be very critical. The Pac is in the weakest position but its schools would want to look at all the options before making any move.

The proxy war between Fox and ESPN doesn’t stop at P2 level. What does Fox want for the other weaker power conferences? Fox is in the 30 day exclusive window with the Pac but it appeas that it’s not showing much interest. Instead the (Fox controlled) B12 aggressively pursues Pac schools. If the B12 is succsessful in getting the Pac schools and becomes the BigPac or B20, that move would definitely marginalize the ACC.

The ESPN has a different idea. I guess there are three scenarios for the ESPN:

1. Broker the ACC/Pac media partnership. The payment for Pac schools has to be at least comparable with what the Pac schools would receive in the B12.
2. Move B12 schools to the ACC. That would weaken the B12. Maybe Pac schools can add TTU or some other B12 schools especially if the Pac payment is bumped thanks to the media partership.
3. Move B12 schools and Pac schools to the ACC. The ACC will be the third Power.

Personally I prefer the second or the third outcome. It seems like the best defense here is offense (i.e. expansion).

Obviously, in the end what matters the most for this battle is who has a deeper pocket between Fox and ESPN. But in the situation like this where things can go either way, I think the leadership matters. Hopefully Phillips is working real hard behind the scene.

Good post.

Gotta think Cuse AD John Wildhack (ex high level espn exec) is working unofficial channels for the ACC. Private school has it's advantages here.

(07-18-2022 04:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-17-2022 11:26 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  I don’t know if people realized how serious the current situation is, but the next couple of months will be very critical. The Pac is in the weakest position but its schools would want to look at all the options before making any move.

The proxy war between Fox and ESPN doesn’t stop at P2 level. What does Fox want for the other weaker power conferences? Fox is in the 30 day exclusive window with the Pac but it appeas that it’s not showing much interest. Instead the (Fox controlled) B12 aggressively pursues Pac schools. If the B12 is succsessful in getting the Pac schools and becomes the BigPac or B20, that move would definitely marginalize the ACC.

The ESPN has a different idea. I guess there are three scenarios for the ESPN:

1. Broker the ACC/Pac media partnership. The payment for Pac schools has to be at least comparable with what the Pac schools would receive in the B12.
2. Move B12 schools to the ACC. That would weaken the B12. Maybe Pac schools can add TTU or some other B12 schools especially if the Pac payment is bumped thanks to the media partership.
3. Move B12 schools and Pac schools to the ACC. The ACC will be the third Power.

Personally I prefer the second or the third outcome. It seems like the best defense here is offense (i.e. expansion).

Obviously, in the end what matters the most for this battle is who has a deeper pocket between Fox and ESPN. But in the situation like this where things can go either way, I think the leadership matters. Hopefully Phillips is working real hard behind the scene.

Good post.

Gotta think Cuse AD John Wildhack (ex high level espn exec) is working unofficial channels for the ACC. Private school has it's advantages here.

The relationship always helps.

Does anyone in the ACC have a connection with Phil Knight?

If the Ducks and Huskies stayed, the conference would hold together. It appears neither university has a great option to flee right now. But Nike founder Phil Knight has apparently been busy trying to find one.

Per a source in Knight’s inner circle: “The good news is Phil is working hard to determine the correct path forward and hopefully to determine also one that is viable. My guess is, his aspirations aren’t practical or achievable. But try to tell that to the man that has won most battles in his life that seemed out of reach.”

https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pa...-as-things

How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

There are some Pac-12 teams which are worth more, tv-wise, than the average ACC team. Adding select (not all) Pac-12 teams would pull up the average value of the conference (essentially diluting the negative effect of the least-valuable teams).

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

WSU is not in discussion. We are talking about a targeted expansion here and I am quite sure adding Oregon and Washington would boost the ACC payout materially.

The travel is a valid concern but if only two West coast teams are added, I expect that the ACC would adopt the 1-7-7 football schedule as no East coast school want to have a West coast school as a permanent rival. This means an East coast ACC football team would travel to the West coast only every other year. Basketball teams would have to travel to the West Coast every year and maybe twice a year for certian years.

(07-23-2022 09:42 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

WSU is not in discussion. We are talking about a targeted expansion here and I am quite sure adding Oregon and Washington would boost the ACC payout materially.

The travel is a valid concern but if only two West coast teams are added, I expect that the ACC would adopt the 1-7-7 football schedule as no East coast school want to have a West coast school as a permanent rival. This means an East coast ACC football team would travel to the West coast only every other year. Basketball teams would have to travel to the West Coast every year and maybe twice a year for certian years.

Better yet, add 4 Pac-12 teams (Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona State) and let them be each other's permanent rivals - keeping it at 3-5-5. That would allow the ACC to absorb about 58% of the value of Pac-12 football while only adding 4 "mouths" to feed. Assuming media estimates of $300 million per year are true, 58% of that would be about $173 million. Add that to what the ACC is already getting (about $308 million) and divide the new pool by 18 gives you ($308+$173)/(14+4) = $481/18 = about $27 million = a $5 million per school bump.

None of that includes ACCN revenue, which would increase by est. $0.05/home across Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. That's a new $35.7 million/year for ESPN and an extra $1.9 million for each ACC school.

Total bump: nearly $7 million/year

(07-23-2022 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 09:42 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

WSU is not in discussion. We are talking about a targeted expansion here and I am quite sure adding Oregon and Washington would boost the ACC payout materially.

The travel is a valid concern but if only two West coast teams are added, I expect that the ACC would adopt the 1-7-7 football schedule as no East coast school want to have a West coast school as a permanent rival. This means an East coast ACC football team would travel to the West coast only every other year. Basketball teams would have to travel to the West Coast every year and maybe twice a year for certian years.

Better yet, add 4 Pac-12 teams (Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona State) and let them be each other's permanent rivals - keeping it at 3-5-5. That would allow the ACC to absorb about 58% of the value of Pac-12 football while only adding 4 "mouths" to feed. Assuming media estimates of $300 million per year are true, 58% of that would be about $173 million. Add that to what the ACC is already getting (about $308 million) and divide the new pool by 18 gives you ($308+$173)/(14+4) = $481/18 = about $27 million = a $5 million per school bump.

None of that includes ACCN revenue, which would increase by est. $0.05/home across Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. That's a new $35.7 million/year for ESPN and an extra $1.9 million for each ACC school.

Total bump: nearly $7 million/year

This has to be the play at this point. Maybe adding Stanford would get ND to bump up the commitment to 6 games instead of 5 if 1 was always Stanford?

(07-23-2022 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 09:42 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

WSU is not in discussion. We are talking about a targeted expansion here and I am quite sure adding Oregon and Washington would boost the ACC payout materially.

The travel is a valid concern but if only two West coast teams are added, I expect that the ACC would adopt the 1-7-7 football schedule as no East coast school want to have a West coast school as a permanent rival. This means an East coast ACC football team would travel to the West coast only every other year. Basketball teams would have to travel to the West Coast every year and maybe twice a year for certian years.

Better yet, add 4 Pac-12 teams (Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona State) and let them be each other's permanent rivals - keeping it at 3-5-5. That would allow the ACC to absorb about 58% of the value of Pac-12 football while only adding 4 "mouths" to feed. Assuming media estimates of $300 million per year are true, 58% of that would be about $173 million. Add that to what the ACC is already getting (about $308 million) and divide the new pool by 18 gives you ($308+$173)/(14+4) = $481/18 = about $27 million = a $5 million per school bump.

None of that includes ACCN revenue, which would increase by est. $0.05/home across Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. That's a new $35.7 million/year for ESPN and an extra $1.9 million for each ACC school.

Total bump: nearly $7 million/year

How did you get the 58% figure? What if UW and Oregon holds 35% of the Pac 12’s value and Stanford and ASU holds only 23%? Does it still make sense to add four schools?

The ESPN says the ACC is stanidng pat.

But many options -- especially as it relates to expansion -- were vetted and deemed either not enough to move the needle financially, or would take away money from a school's financial payout. As one athletic director said, "We already have too many mouths to feed."

Does that calculus change now, especially as two of the Power 5 conferences have expanded to 16 teams? Maybe. But the bottom line is the ACC is not going to make a move if it does not add significant revenue.

So I am not sure if the ACC wants to add four more “mouths”.

Having said that, I think the expansion is still possible. This is what Phillips said:

We're looking at our TV contract. We're in engagement daily -- almost daily with our partners at ESPN. I openly talk about ESPN because we are 50/50 partners on our network, and so they're motivated, we're motivated. We've come together to have some discussions about what would be the next iteration for the ACC. It doesn't mean we're going to make a move. It doesn't mean we're not going to make a move, but all options are on the table.

I am a foreigner but I don’t know why he used the word “iteration”? And what does he mean by “‘making a move”?

(07-23-2022 04:27 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  ...I think the expansion is still possible. This is what Phillips said:

We're looking at our TV contract. We're in engagement daily -- almost daily with our partners at ESPN. I openly talk about ESPN because we are 50/50 partners on our network, and so they're motivated, we're motivated. We've come together to have some discussions about what would be the next iteration for the ACC. It doesn't mean we're going to make a move. It doesn't mean we're not going to make a move, but all options are on the table.

I am a foreigner but I don’t know why he used the word “iteration”? And what does he mean by “‘making a move”?

ITERATION can mean (a) another attempt to solve a problem, or (b) a new version of something.

(07-23-2022 04:27 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2022 09:42 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 01:43 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How would this add value? Nobody has been dying for an Oregon-Clemson football matchup much less a Ga.Tech-Washington State or a WFU-Cal matchup and the basketball matchups would be even worse. This would just increase travel costs without creating valuable new TV properties.

No matter how desperate you think things are, this doesn't make sense. Crackpot schemes aren't going to help.

WSU is not in discussion. We are talking about a targeted expansion here and I am quite sure adding Oregon and Washington would boost the ACC payout materially.

The travel is a valid concern but if only two West coast teams are added, I expect that the ACC would adopt the 1-7-7 football schedule as no East coast school want to have a West coast school as a permanent rival. This means an East coast ACC football team would travel to the West coast only every other year. Basketball teams would have to travel to the West Coast every year and maybe twice a year for certian years.

Better yet, add 4 Pac-12 teams (Washington, Oregon, Stanford, and Arizona State) and let them be each other's permanent rivals - keeping it at 3-5-5. That would allow the ACC to absorb about 58% of the value of Pac-12 football while only adding 4 "mouths" to feed. Assuming media estimates of $300 million per year are true, 58% of that would be about $173 million. Add that to what the ACC is already getting (about $308 million) and divide the new pool by 18 gives you ($308+$173)/(14+4) = $481/18 = about $27 million = a $5 million per school bump.

None of that includes ACCN revenue, which would increase by est. $0.05/home across Washington, Oregon, California and Arizona. That's a new $35.7 million/year for ESPN and an extra $1.9 million for each ACC school.

Total bump: nearly $7 million/year

How did you get the 58% figure? What if UW and Oregon holds 35% of the Pac 12’s value and Stanford and ASU holds only 23%? Does it still make sense to add four schools?

The ESPN says the ACC is stanidng pat.

But many options -- especially as it relates to expansion -- were vetted and deemed either not enough to move the needle financially, or would take away money from a school's financial payout. As one athletic director said, "We already have too many mouths to feed."

Does that calculus change now, especially as two of the Power 5 conferences have expanded to 16 teams? Maybe. But the bottom line is the ACC is not going to make a move if it does not add significant revenue.

So I am not sure if the ACC wants to add four more “mouths”.

Having said that, I think the expansion is still possible. This is what Phillips said:

We're looking at our TV contract. We're in engagement daily -- almost daily with our partners at ESPN. I openly talk about ESPN because we are 50/50 partners on our network, and so they're motivated, we're motivated. We've come together to have some discussions about what would be the next iteration for the ACC. It doesn't mean we're going to make a move. It doesn't mean we're not going to make a move, but all options are on the table.

I am a foreigner but I don’t know why he used the word “iteration”? And what does he mean by “‘making a move”?

We are ESPN's side piece...their wife is the SEC. Any talk of 50/50 is crap...if it means bigger profits for DIS to oversee the wrecking of the ACC. Phillips got played by the B1G and he'll get played again.

Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

The ACC is not going to meaningfully expand. ESPN has no incentive to help expand the ACC with by a few teams at this time. Unless the ACC is talking to different media partners (A FAANG plus CBS/NBC) who are willing to pony up the money to break the ESPN/ACC media contract (not the GoR). Unless the ACC has that kind of leverage, ESPN won't do anything to help the ACC unless it serves a different goal.

ESPN does have an incentive to keep the PAC relatively whole, and bring them under the ESPN banner. This is where the ACC has some leverage regarding willingness to share ACCN channel. (Note: I believe it is in the ACC's best interest to take this deal at a $50M/team both PAC and ACC) price tag. The PAC's hesitancy on this deal, will probably be ESPN requiring a PAC GoR at least as long as the ACC, and ESPN may try to get the PAC to reach out to Kansas, SD/Fresno State (If CA Gov does not effectively block UCLA BIG move ),or basically schools whichever schools they think are worth the cost. The whole point of this goal is for ESPN to have effective control of college sports. ESPN will have enough schools to have the upper hand over FOX regarding media contracts influence. But they also want enough Schools to temper SEC and BIG influence within college sports governance structure.

Personally I think letting Disney take control is the course of action to take for the ACC at this time. It would be best if the NCAA could get an NFL like anti-trust exemption, but I am not sure that is possible.

There are 2 worst case scenarios. The PAC adds some B12 schools or the B12 adds some PAC schools. In either case, that conference would be a formidable competitor for the #3 conference title and corresponding media money. The worst thing the ACC could do is nothing.

(07-24-2022 07:19 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  The ACC is not going to meaningfully expand. ESPN has no incentive to help expand the ACC with by a few teams at this time. Unless the ACC is talking to different media partners (A FAANG plus CBS/NBC) who are willing to pony up the money to break the ESPN/ACC media contract (not the GoR). Unless the ACC has that kind of leverage, ESPN won't do anything to help the ACC unless it serves a different goal.

ESPN does have an incentive to keep the PAC relatively whole, and bring them under the ESPN banner. This is where the ACC has some leverage regarding willingness to share ACCN channel. (Note: I believe it is in the ACC's best interest to take this deal at a $50M/team both PAC and ACC) price tag. The PAC's hesitancy on this deal, will probably be ESPN requiring a PAC GoR at least as long as the ACC, and ESPN may try to get the PAC to reach out to Kansas, SD/Fresno State (If CA Gov does not effectively block UCLA BIG move ),or basically schools whichever schools they think are worth the cost. The whole point of this goal is for ESPN to have effective control of college sports. ESPN will have enough schools to have the upper hand over FOX regarding media contracts influence. But they also want enough Schools to temper SEC and BIG influence within college sports governance structure.

Personally I think letting Disney take control is the course of action to take for the ACC at this time. It would be best if the NCAA could get an NFL like anti-trust exemption, but I am not sure that is possible.

Disagree. ESPN has a XII and a PAC problem (mostly XII). The wisest move for ESPN is move around XII entities to better neighborhoods. They've already completed step 1 by moving OU and Tex to the SEC.

Step 2 is moving the 2nd tier of the XII to the ACC and PAC. Those would include Kansas, Okie State, WVU, TCU, Cincy and Baylor. It makes business sense for the ACCN (of which ESPN owns 50%) because the network earns a higher rate in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Ohio and WVa. All of these teams, save Kansas, have good to solid football ratings even when NOT playing OU and Texas.

Kansas will strengthen hoops. WVU has a LARGE fan base that will travel and help all streaming activities going forward not to mention they have existing rivalries with Pitt, Cuse and VT. Gameday wil be at the Backyard Brawl this year. ESPN values WVU because of their fan base.

Step 3 for ESPN is to move Texas Tech to the PAC and take over the PACN. This move puts the SECN, ACCN and PACN in the great state of Texas. $$ for ESPN.


So where does this leave Iowa State and K-State? Probably in the Mountain West.

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

(07-24-2022 10:11 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:19 AM)AeroWolf Wrote:  The ACC is not going to meaningfully expand. ESPN has no incentive to help expand the ACC with by a few teams at this time. Unless the ACC is talking to different media partners (A FAANG plus CBS/NBC) who are willing to pony up the money to break the ESPN/ACC media contract (not the GoR). Unless the ACC has that kind of leverage, ESPN won't do anything to help the ACC unless it serves a different goal.

ESPN does have an incentive to keep the PAC relatively whole, and bring them under the ESPN banner. This is where the ACC has some leverage regarding willingness to share ACCN channel. (Note: I believe it is in the ACC's best interest to take this deal at a $50M/team both PAC and ACC) price tag. The PAC's hesitancy on this deal, will probably be ESPN requiring a PAC GoR at least as long as the ACC, and ESPN may try to get the PAC to reach out to Kansas, SD/Fresno State (If CA Gov does not effectively block UCLA BIG move ),or basically schools whichever schools they think are worth the cost. The whole point of this goal is for ESPN to have effective control of college sports. ESPN will have enough schools to have the upper hand over FOX regarding media contracts influence. But they also want enough Schools to temper SEC and BIG influence within college sports governance structure.

Personally I think letting Disney take control is the course of action to take for the ACC at this time. It would be best if the NCAA could get an NFL like anti-trust exemption, but I am not sure that is possible.

Disagree. ESPN has a XII and a PAC problem (mostly XII). The wisest move for ESPN is move around XII entities to better neighborhoods. They've already completed step 1 by moving OU and Tex to the SEC.

Step 2 is moving the 2nd tier of the XII to the ACC and PAC. Those would include Kansas, Okie State, WVU, TCU, Cincy and Baylor. It makes business sense for the ACCN (of which ESPN owns 50%) because the network earns a higher rate in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Ohio and WVa. All of these teams, save Kansas, have good to solid football ratings even when NOT playing OU and Texas.

Kansas will strengthen hoops. WVU has a LARGE fan base that will travel and help all streaming activities going forward not to mention they have existing rivalries with Pitt, Cuse and VT. Gameday wil be at the Backyard Brawl this year. ESPN values WVU because of their fan base.

Step 3 for ESPN is to move Texas Tech to the PAC and take over the PACN. This move puts the SECN, ACCN and PACN in the great state of Texas. $$ for ESPN.


So where does this leave Iowa State and K-State? Probably in the Mountain West.

+1

(07-24-2022 11:45 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

The problem is that it doesn't give ESPN anything that they don't already have. ESPN already has a strangle hold on Texas and Oklahoma. Oregon, Washington, and a California school gives ESPN the west coast.

(07-24-2022 12:59 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 11:45 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

The problem is that it doesn't give ESPN anything that they don't already have. ESPN already has a strangle hold on Texas and Oklahoma. Oregon, Washington, and a California school gives ESPN the west coast.

ESPN already owned Texas (LHN) and to a lesser extent OU but still moved them to the SEC. FOX abandoned the XII champ games a year or so ago. FOX understood what ESPN also understands.....the XII TV footprint is BY FAR the weakest in terms of households. Now that UT and OU are leaving.....it leaves a GAPING hole in the XII's value. I've read 50% of the XII's value lies with those two schools.

But....you put the 6 I just mentioned into the ACC, things change. The ACC has the LARGEST footprint in terms of potential viewers. Adding the aforementioned states to the existing footprint makes that even stronger.

The point made above about the NCAA losing its grip on the postseason basketball tourney is an important one. If that happens, and I think it is inevitable, the ACC will make a larger sum of money than it currently does via hoops. Having Kansas, UNC, Dook, Lville, Cuse, Baylor , etc etc....that is STRONG.

Make no mistake...this is all about Football but that will be a strong "side hustle" for the ACC too.

(07-24-2022 11:45 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

TTech has a greater reach in Texas but a combo of TCU/Baylor helps in C/N TX. TCU and Baylor also are more similar instutionally with many of the ACC private schools. In addition, Ft Worth and Waco are far preferable for visiting fans.

Texas Tech does have it's merit...bigger FB stadium, 3rd brand wise. The privates have better academic profiles.

(07-24-2022 09:43 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 11:45 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 07:12 AM)GoWulfPak Wrote:  Forget Oregon and Washington.

Add Okie State, Baylor, Kansas, WVU, TCU and Cincy.

That adds 5 quality football programs and arguably the best basketball available.

Travel is significantly better.

No brainer

There's definitely merit to this.

It effectively KILLS the Big XII while the PAC10 is on shaky ground.

It positions the ACC to be the 3rd best conference, and fairly safe with regard to playoff access -- which is what we should be fighting for. (The inclusion of Kansas positions the league for hoops dominance, and eventual pay days as ripping March Madness from the NCAA will happen.)


Rather than TCU I'd take Texas Tech. But the other 5 are solid.

TTech has a greater reach in Texas but a combo of TCU/Baylor helps in C/N TX. TCU and Baylor also are more similar instutionally with many of the ACC private schools. In addition, Ft Worth and Waco are far preferable for visiting fans.

Texas Tech does have it's merit...bigger FB stadium, 3rd brand wise. The privates have better academic profiles.

How many private schools to the SEC and B1G have? How many do we have? Coincidence?