(03-23-2024 04:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

When I imagine the ACC presidents meeting together, I imagine a bunch of people who are out of touch with the football landscape. They want to play golf and rub elbows with their buddies in their luxury boxes.

BC-SU-Pitt would have made a lot of sense. I suppose VT would get Pitt as an annual, BC get's Miami, I always thought SU vs Duke had potential, but Duke football seems to want to stay regional.

FSU-GT-Clem made too much sense, so the ACC naturally did not do it.

GT didn't really want FSU. Is that so difficult to comprehend. You wanted them, they did not want YOU. They already had Clemson, UGa, and UNC each and every year. GT gains nothing playing you that can't get from Miami, and are less beatable than Miami. Duh.

Who some of the fans want to play and who the Athletic Director knows you can play with differs at some schools. State still has people waxing sentimental about no longer playing Penn State - yes we beat the more regularly than MD but two of those less than 4 pt losses cost us the Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl back in the 1970's.

(03-23-2024 03:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 09:01 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I want to emphasis the word safest.

FSU and Clemson do not know how the courts will rule; they could get out at a bargain price, they could get taken to the cleaners, they could even be stuck. Not to mention the soured relationships with the people they have to deal with no matter the outcome. That could/will be used against them in the future when ADs, assistant ADs, etc. are looking for new jobs or trying to put together an OOC schedule, I think it's important to maintain a good relationship with these people, that has it's own value. We can see the blackballing that has taken place with UConn, people hold grudges for a long time.

The safest and quickest solution for FSU and Clemson would be to lead a charge to dissolve the ACC. It takes 8 to do that now, but in a few months with the arrivals of SMU, Stan and Cal, it will take 10, dissolving becomes even less likely to happen then.

Of course who would vote to do that with no (or a no better) landing spot? Unless FSU and Clemson were starting their own conference, then that could be a game changer. If UNC, NCSU, UM, Pitt, VT, GT, UL were guaranteed a spot, then that is a total of 9 right there that could vote in favor of dissolving the conference and we are done; no exit fees, no more ACC entity suing us.

What about the playoff money? If the ACC is gone, then there is a 13% of $1.3b hole waiting to be filled. The 9 most competitive and valuable schools of the new conference should get a bigger % of that $1.3b while the left behinds would get a smaller %. Worse case scenario it's the same and we try to renegotiate in the 2028 "look-in", but the 9 will definitely make a better argument to receive more.

Worse case scenario all 9 of us have a new home in an existing conference if we are not able to leverage this situation in our favor.

Out of the 1,000 threads that you have started, this might be the best of your lot.

The 17 member ACC should add 5. Two from the Big 12 (Cincinnati and West Virginia) plus Tulane and Rice and UConn and then divide into two conferences.

Group 1
Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Duke, Rice, SMU, Tulane, Stanford and Cal.

And Group 2
West Virginia, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Louisville.

The Big 12 becomes a 14 member conference (with the option to go to 16 with USF and Oregon State)
UCF, Houston, Baylor, TCU, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, BYU, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, ASU.

The B1G remains in play for any schools left behind, I doubt the B1G takes Duke alone, but perhaps the ACC takes on a 6 member western division:

ACC - Stan, Cal, SMU, SDSU, OSU, WSU, BC, SU, UConn, UL, Wake, Duke, (Gonz, St. Mary, Dayton, VCU)

Magnificent - FSU, Clem, UNC, UM, Pitt, VT, UVA, GT, NCSU, (ND)

The ACC meets the requirements to keep the ACCN and it's very profitable with most of the populous states covered. The divisions have tight geography and the basketball is very strong. CW is still the exclusive carrier on Saturdays, the ACC has found it's niche with ESPN on Thursdays and Fridays. Paid $30m per football member, the non football members agree to $12m per.

The Magnificent conference is in no hurry to add anybody at this point, one of the hidden strengths is the low operation cost of the tight geography and the ability to spread out their games from week 0-14 being without being hindered by a championship game.

Later on, the network the Magnificent is attached to wants to make the Magnificent it's exclusive carrier, we'll call it CBS and CBS Sports. They need a little more inventory and they want a championship game. WVU, Cinci, UL are added.

The Big12 backfills with Memphis and USF, the ACC backfills with Temple. This causes the least amount of disturbance and we continue on.

FSU - UM
Clem- VT
UNC - UVA
NCSU- WVU
UL - Cinci
GT - Pitt

ND annual games vs Pitt and UM.

(03-23-2024 04:47 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 04:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

When I imagine the ACC presidents meeting together, I imagine a bunch of people who are out of touch with the football landscape. They want to play golf and rub elbows with their buddies in their luxury boxes.

BC-SU-Pitt would have made a lot of sense. I suppose VT would get Pitt as an annual, BC get's Miami, I always thought SU vs Duke had potential, but Duke football seems to want to stay regional.

FSU-GT-Clem made too much sense, so the ACC naturally did not do it.

GT didn't really want FSU. Is that so difficult to comprehend. You wanted them, they did not want YOU. They already had Clemson, UGa, and UNC each and every year. GT gains nothing playing you that can't get from Miami, and are less beatable than Miami. Duh.

Who some of the fans want to play and who the Athletic Director knows you can play with differs at some schools. State still has people waxing sentimental about no longer playing Penn State - yes we beat the more regularly than MD but two of those less than 4 pt losses cost us the Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl back in the 1970's.

Did FSU want Wake? Yet we were stuck with them for nearly 20 years in a division. It helped lead to FSUs dissatisfaction and took away a big ratings game that could have helped the ACC's media deal. GT has beaten FSU a fair amount of times since the division split; FSU, Clem and UGA were not very dominant during that time, so I doubt they were skeered.

(03-23-2024 07:08 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 04:47 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 04:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

When I imagine the ACC presidents meeting together, I imagine a bunch of people who are out of touch with the football landscape. They want to play golf and rub elbows with their buddies in their luxury boxes.

BC-SU-Pitt would have made a lot of sense. I suppose VT would get Pitt as an annual, BC get's Miami, I always thought SU vs Duke had potential, but Duke football seems to want to stay regional.

FSU-GT-Clem made too much sense, so the ACC naturally did not do it.

GT didn't really want FSU. Is that so difficult to comprehend. You wanted them, they did not want YOU. They already had Clemson, UGa, and UNC each and every year. GT gains nothing playing you that can't get from Miami, and are less beatable than Miami. Duh.

Who some of the fans want to play and who the Athletic Director knows you can play with differs at some schools. State still has people waxing sentimental about no longer playing Penn State - yes we beat the more regularly than MD but two of those less than 4 pt losses cost us the Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl back in the 1970's.

Did FSU want Wake? Yet we were stuck with them for nearly 20 years in a division. It helped lead to FSUs dissatisfaction and took away a big ratings game that could have helped the ACC's media deal. GT has beaten FSU a fair amount of times since the division split; FSU, Clem and UGA were not very dominant during that time, so I doubt they were skeered.

Quit dissembling about the past. You got Wake because they were better for you than Duke and Duke did not want you. FSU's problem is not who you play, it's who you have trouble beating.

(03-23-2024 07:08 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 04:47 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 04:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  ...I feel bad for BC because their brand could never really gain traction. I think that if the OBE schools had it's own division that BC would have done better and not have been stuck in neutral...

The ironic thing is that the new, divisionless schedule effectively does this starting this Fall. Consider that BC-Syracuse, BC-Pitt, and Pitt-Syracuse are all annual protected matchups ensures that each of the 3 Old Big East teams in the Northeast play the other two annually... well, as long as the ACC stays together and in this format.

It's sad that the ACC took so long to do what should've been done from the start. Even the 2023 annual matchups were just... wrong (remember annual games between FSU and Syracuse? GT vs Louisville?).

And it's not like there weren't plenty of people who saw it - fans on this board certainly did, and I don't think we were the only ones. ACC leadership simply dragged their feet until they were forced to act last year - possibly too late.

When I imagine the ACC presidents meeting together, I imagine a bunch of people who are out of touch with the football landscape. They want to play golf and rub elbows with their buddies in their luxury boxes.

BC-SU-Pitt would have made a lot of sense. I suppose VT would get Pitt as an annual, BC get's Miami, I always thought SU vs Duke had potential, but Duke football seems to want to stay regional.

FSU-GT-Clem made too much sense, so the ACC naturally did not do it.

GT didn't really want FSU. Is that so difficult to comprehend. You wanted them, they did not want YOU. They already had Clemson, UGa, and UNC each and every year. GT gains nothing playing you that can't get from Miami, and are less beatable than Miami. Duh.

Who some of the fans want to play and who the Athletic Director knows you can play with differs at some schools. State still has people waxing sentimental about no longer playing Penn State - yes we beat the more regularly than MD but two of those less than 4 pt losses cost us the Orange Bowl and Cotton Bowl back in the 1970's.

Did FSU want Wake? Yet we were stuck with them for nearly 20 years in a division. It helped lead to FSUs dissatisfaction and took away a big ratings game that could have helped the ACC's media deal. GT has beaten FSU a fair amount of times since the division split; FSU, Clem and UGA were not very dominant during that time, so I doubt they were skeered.

I think you can actually blame the BIG 10 for that. I believe the ACC tried to get the the NCAA to allow a division less conference in football with top two teams playing in championship around the time pitt and Syracuse were added. The BIG influenced the NCAA to prevent that. But then the BiG XII fell below 12 members and all of and the BIG backed off their opposition for the BIG XII to be divisionless and have a championship game.

All most none of this is quite so different from 70 years ago when the ACC schools kicked out the small SoCon schools by leaving the SoCon and forming another conference FOCUSED ON FOOTBALL. The big problem today though is that the weakest football schools are located in markets that are key to the ACCN. BC, Syracuse, and GT have been demonstrably poor on an annual basis with regard to the conference mean. In most any matrix you devise to dole out money for the last decade's worth of performance, Clemson is going to get almost all the money. FSU, NC State, UNC, Duke (yep Duke), and UVa will get some money. GT, Syracuse, and BC will be heavily penalized.

Why is the decade long lack of performance at GT okay if the same lack of performance at BC and Syracuse is not?

This is a lot like the notion to blame all ACC problem on Carolina because most folks are not educated enough about the system to realize that Duke is who generally runs the ACC, doing with UVa and UNC.

(03-23-2024 08:53 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  All most none of this is quite so different from 70 years ago when the ACC schools kicked out the small SoCon schools by leaving the SoCon and forming another conference FOCUSED ON FOOTBALL. The big problem today though is that the weakest football schools are located in markets that are key to the ACCN. BC, Syracuse, and GT have been demonstrably poor on an annual basis with regard to the conference mean. In most any matrix you devise to dole out money for the last decade's worth of performance, Clemson is going to get almost all the money. FSU, NC State, UNC, Duke (yep Duke), and UVa will get some money. GT, Syracuse, and BC will be heavily penalized.

Why is the decade long lack of performance at GT okay if the same lack of performance at BC and Syracuse is not?

This is a lot like the notion to blame all ACC problem on Carolina because most folks are not educated enough about the system to realize that Duke is who generally runs the ACC, doing with UVa and UNC.

The big differences for GT is that they lay right between Clemson and FSU and both are important games for them. They are also in a great area for talent.

BC and SU have their own value, like recruiting kids from that area to come down south to be students. In a pre-realignment maddened world, they'd fit just fine. They were kinda screwed over by not being utilized in the best possible way with proper annual matchups.

The best modern example is the B1G East division which had OSU-Mich-PSU, you could have moved Michigan or Ohio State over to the West division for balance, but by doing so you would not have have had the 3 annual mega games with OSU-Mich-PSU.

I feel Pitt-SU-BC made each other more interesting. There are several other examples of the ACC (blame who you will) botching a grouping that made a lot of sense: FSU-GT-Clem, UNC-UVA-UMd.

I realize that you can't always get what you want, but there were better divisional alignments that would have enhanced the ACC's media value, so here we are stuck in a relegated position being lapped by our former P2 peers who are dictating all the football playoff rules and now gunning for the NCAA basketball tournament.

(03-23-2024 06:56 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 03:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 09:01 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I want to emphasis the word safest.

FSU and Clemson do not know how the courts will rule; they could get out at a bargain price, they could get taken to the cleaners, they could even be stuck. Not to mention the soured relationships with the people they have to deal with no matter the outcome. That could/will be used against them in the future when ADs, assistant ADs, etc. are looking for new jobs or trying to put together an OOC schedule, I think it's important to maintain a good relationship with these people, that has it's own value. We can see the blackballing that has taken place with UConn, people hold grudges for a long time.

The safest and quickest solution for FSU and Clemson would be to lead a charge to dissolve the ACC. It takes 8 to do that now, but in a few months with the arrivals of SMU, Stan and Cal, it will take 10, dissolving becomes even less likely to happen then.

Of course who would vote to do that with no (or a no better) landing spot? Unless FSU and Clemson were starting their own conference, then that could be a game changer. If UNC, NCSU, UM, Pitt, VT, GT, UL were guaranteed a spot, then that is a total of 9 right there that could vote in favor of dissolving the conference and we are done; no exit fees, no more ACC entity suing us.

What about the playoff money? If the ACC is gone, then there is a 13% of $1.3b hole waiting to be filled. The 9 most competitive and valuable schools of the new conference should get a bigger % of that $1.3b while the left behinds would get a smaller %. Worse case scenario it's the same and we try to renegotiate in the 2028 "look-in", but the 9 will definitely make a better argument to receive more.

Worse case scenario all 9 of us have a new home in an existing conference if we are not able to leverage this situation in our favor.

Out of the 1,000 threads that you have started, this might be the best of your lot.

The 17 member ACC should add 5. Two from the Big 12 (Cincinnati and West Virginia) plus Tulane and Rice and UConn and then divide into two conferences.

Group 1
Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Wake Forest, Duke, Rice, SMU, Tulane, Stanford and Cal.

And Group 2
West Virginia, UVa, Virginia Tech, Carolina, NC State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, Louisville.

The Big 12 becomes a 14 member conference (with the option to go to 16 with USF and Oregon State)
UCF, Houston, Baylor, TCU, TT, Oklahoma State, Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, BYU, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, ASU.

The B1G remains in play for any schools left behind, I doubt the B1G takes Duke alone, but perhaps the ACC takes on a 6 member western division:

ACC - Stan, Cal, SMU, SDSU, OSU, WSU, BC, SU, UConn, UL, Wake, Duke, (Gonz, St. Mary, Dayton, VCU)

Magnificent - FSU, Clem, UNC, UM, Pitt, VT, UVA, GT, NCSU, (ND)

The ACC meets the requirements to keep the ACCN and it's very profitable with most of the populous states covered. The divisions have tight geography and the basketball is very strong. CW is still the exclusive carrier on Saturdays, the ACC has found it's niche with ESPN on Thursdays and Fridays. Paid $30m per football member, the non football members agree to $12m per.

The Magnificent conference is in no hurry to add anybody at this point, one of the hidden strengths is the low operation cost of the tight geography and the ability to spread out their games from week 0-14 being without being hindered by a championship game.

Later on, the network the Magnificent is attached to wants to make the Magnificent it's exclusive carrier, we'll call it CBS and CBS Sports. They need a little more inventory and they want a championship game. WVU, Cinci, UL are added.

The Big12 backfills with Memphis and USF, the ACC backfills with Temple. This causes the least amount of disturbance and we continue on.

FSU - UM
Clem- VT
UNC - UVA
NCSU- WVU
UL - Cinci
GT - Pitt

ND annual games vs Pitt and UM.

The big thing that jumps out by the nACC and the Mag is one might have too tough of a conference schedule and the other seems to have too weak of a conference schedule. The Mag can fix the "too tough" part by dropping to 7 conference games and the ACC can fix the "too weak" part by also dropping to 7 conference games. Both conferences have 12 teams in the final stage and they can do an annual ACC-Mag challenge.

The ACC screwed up with expansion from the get-go.

When FSU was added, the school was too far away to be normalized into the conference.
If Virginia Tech had been ready, they would have been the perfect choice along with re-admitting South Carolina.

That would have given the ACC a 10 team league all within a drivable footprint.

How much money would this new conference be worth? Assuming at least 4 of these teams are continually brought up in realignment scenarios in which they go to the B1G and SEC, have to be additive to the bottom line, I think it's a safe assumption that the 4: FSU, UNC, Clemson and Miami are worth at least $65m per. The other 8: GT, NCSU, UL, Pitt, VT, Cinci, WVU, UVA would at minimum be worth a Big12 share (WVU and Cinci) and a ACC share (VT, GT, NCSU, UL, Pitt, UVA).

Let's average this out:
B1G/SEC = $65m x 4 = $260 (FSU, UM, Clem, UNC)
ACC = $33m x 6 = $198 (GT, UVA, VT, Pitt, UL, NCSU)
B12 = $30m x 2 = $60 (WVU, Cinci)

Total = $518/12 = $43.17m per member.

I think it's on the conservative side. A network might run the numbers and come up with these figures, but networks are buying games, not teams. Many game possibilities have high end potential, we already know that FSU vs Clemson and FSU vs UM is normally going to have 5m viewers or more. WVU adds a new dynamic, they were one of the most watched teams in the B12 in 2023 and will add a lot of intrigue being reunited with old BE foes.

I believe $50m per member is a good possibility, with ND it might add a few more million per member.

It will take more than 8

(03-24-2024 09:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC screwed up with expansion from the get-go.

When FSU was added, the school was too far away to be normalized into the conference.
If Virginia Tech had been ready, they would have been the perfect choice along with re-admitting South Carolina.

That would have given the ACC a 10 team league all within a drivable footprint.

In retrospect it was not worth the money.

Remove FSU from the equation and in

92 - NC State 10-2-1 ACC Title, UNC 10-2 ACC runner up both ranked top 12
93 UNC 11-2 ACC Title, ranked 10th or so. Clemson 10-2 top 12 ranked
94 NC State 10-2 ACC Title, ranked in top 15 with UVa also 10-2
95 UVa ranked 10-3 ACC Title
96 UNC 11-1 ACC title, Orange Bowl
97 UNC 12-0 ACC title National Title Game in Orange Bowl Mack might even have stayed
98 GT 11-1 ACC Title top 5, UVa 10-2
2001 MD 11-1 ACC Title, Orange Bowl

The ACC pissed away it's most nationally competitive football years by inviting FSU. MD, NC State, UNC, Clemson, GT, and UVa all flirted with the top 10, kept out by prescribed losses to FSU. FSU crushed the life out of those programs such that by the time FSU's program collapsed we had to rely on BC and Wake Forest - scary proposition to the TV producers and bowls.

But USC is not going to come once they are in the SEC and away from Duke so the next two football programs - 9 and 10 can only be Miami and VT. And that means another fight for 11 and 12 unless ND can be cajoled with just Pitt.

If ND had a division with Pitt, Miami, VT, Wake Forest, GT I feel confident they would have agreed to 6 to 7 games. Then MD is left with UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, and Clemson. I don't know if that 12 ever votes in BC or Syracuse.

Without FSU, the ACC would have had a butterfly effect and it would not have necessarily made the ACC better. The ACC would have had to enter the 21st century eventually, FSU would have found a conference. If the ACC was forward thinking, they'd have went from 8 to 12 and had a conference championship game from the very start. Those great UNC teams would have not met FSU in the regular season and may have upset FSU the week after FSU played an emotional game vs UF.

(03-24-2024 08:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Without FSU, the ACC would have had a butterfly effect and it would not have necessarily made the ACC better. The ACC would have had to enter the 21st century eventually, FSU would have found a conference. If the ACC was forward thinking, they'd have went from 8 to 12 and had a conference championship game from the very start. Those great UNC teams would have not met FSU in the regular season and may have upset FSU the week after FSU played an emotional game vs UF.

^^^ THIS ^^^
If you're looking for how to make ACC football better, this is more likely to benefit the league than not adding FSU at all.

(03-24-2024 09:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-24-2024 08:42 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Without FSU, the ACC would have had a butterfly effect and it would not have necessarily made the ACC better. The ACC would have had to enter the 21st century eventually, FSU would have found a conference. If the ACC was forward thinking, they'd have went from 8 to 12 and had a conference championship game from the very start. Those great UNC teams would have not met FSU in the regular season and may have upset FSU the week after FSU played an emotional game vs UF.

^^^ THIS ^^^
If you're looking for how to make ACC football better, this is more likely to benefit the league than not adding FSU at all.

If the ACC added Penn State, Pitt and Cuse in the late 80s...that might have really changed history

(03-23-2024 02:13 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(03-23-2024 01:53 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  

(03-22-2024 09:13 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  I went through this exercise dozens of times before, but if you are new around here I will do it once more for your benefit:

A new conference with FSU and Clemson is not a bad start, the new wrinkle is that UNC is starting to get louder in their camp, could they be swayed? For fun, lets include them.

FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, - I think these 7 are the easy choices. I feel like UNC will insist on UVA and VT is politically attached to them. I feel 9 is a good stopping point until you can reassess how to proceed, Pitt get's in on history with VT and Miami and UNC and UVA likes their academics. The charter members are FSU, Clem, UNC, NCSU, UM, VT, GT, UVA and Pitt.

UL joins the B12. Duke, Wake, BC, SU joins the BE and goes Indy in football.

Independent in football is a tough place to be.

Assuming they have a landing spot in another conference for all other sports, they’ll each have each other plus UConn and ND for scheduling. I see this as very manageable.

Scheduling is just one issue for independents. The other challenges are that football runs at a loss due to lack of revenue from a conference/low payments from media partners, and it is hard to recruit players. If the Big East could start an optional football conference with these teams and some others, such as Tulane, USF. Wash State, Ore State, that may be a better option but far from perfect.

(03-24-2024 07:53 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-24-2024 09:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC screwed up with expansion from the get-go.

When FSU was added, the school was too far away to be normalized into the conference.
If Virginia Tech had been ready, they would have been the perfect choice along with re-admitting South Carolina.

That would have given the ACC a 10 team league all within a drivable footprint.

In retrospect it was not worth the money.

Remove FSU from the equation and in

92 - NC State 10-2-1 ACC Title, UNC 10-2 ACC runner up both ranked top 12
93 UNC 11-2 ACC Title, ranked 10th or so. Clemson 10-2 top 12 ranked
94 NC State 10-2 ACC Title, ranked in top 15 with UVa also 10-2
95 UVa ranked 10-3 ACC Title
96 UNC 11-1 ACC title, Orange Bowl
97 UNC 12-0 ACC title National Title Game in Orange Bowl Mack might even have stayed
98 GT 11-1 ACC Title top 5, UVa 10-2
2001 MD 11-1 ACC Title, Orange Bowl

The ACC pissed away it's most nationally competitive football years by inviting FSU. MD, NC State, UNC, Clemson, GT, and UVa all flirted with the top 10, kept out by prescribed losses to FSU. FSU crushed the life out of those programs such that by the time FSU's program collapsed we had to rely on BC and Wake Forest - scary proposition to the TV producers and bowls.

But USC is not going to come once they are in the SEC and away from Duke so the next two football programs - 9 and 10 can only be Miami and VT. And that means another fight for 11 and 12 unless ND can be cajoled with just Pitt.

If ND had a division with Pitt, Miami, VT, Wake Forest, GT I feel confident they would have agreed to 6 to 7 games. Then MD is left with UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, and Clemson. I don't know if that 12 ever votes in BC or Syracuse.

Right as rain SCB.
It's sometimes painful to look back and see where you've taken the wrong fork in the road, but the ACC would have been a much better conference if had they never invited Florida State.

(03-25-2024 11:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-24-2024 07:53 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(03-24-2024 09:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  The ACC screwed up with expansion from the get-go.

When FSU was added, the school was too far away to be normalized into the conference.
If Virginia Tech had been ready, they would have been the perfect choice along with re-admitting South Carolina.

That would have given the ACC a 10 team league all within a drivable footprint.

In retrospect it was not worth the money.

Remove FSU from the equation and in

92 - NC State 10-2-1 ACC Title, UNC 10-2 ACC runner up both ranked top 12
93 UNC 11-2 ACC Title, ranked 10th or so. Clemson 10-2 top 12 ranked
94 NC State 10-2 ACC Title, ranked in top 15 with UVa also 10-2
95 UVa ranked 10-3 ACC Title
96 UNC 11-1 ACC title, Orange Bowl
97 UNC 12-0 ACC title National Title Game in Orange Bowl Mack might even have stayed
98 GT 11-1 ACC Title top 5, UVa 10-2
2001 MD 11-1 ACC Title, Orange Bowl

The ACC pissed away it's most nationally competitive football years by inviting FSU. MD, NC State, UNC, Clemson, GT, and UVa all flirted with the top 10, kept out by prescribed losses to FSU. FSU crushed the life out of those programs such that by the time FSU's program collapsed we had to rely on BC and Wake Forest - scary proposition to the TV producers and bowls.

But USC is not going to come once they are in the SEC and away from Duke so the next two football programs - 9 and 10 can only be Miami and VT. And that means another fight for 11 and 12 unless ND can be cajoled with just Pitt.

If ND had a division with Pitt, Miami, VT, Wake Forest, GT I feel confident they would have agreed to 6 to 7 games. Then MD is left with UVa, UNC, Duke, NC State, and Clemson. I don't know if that 12 ever votes in BC or Syracuse.

Right as rain SCB.
It's sometimes painful to look back and see where you've taken the wrong fork in the road, but the ACC would have been a much better conference if had they never invited Florida State.

The Board of Governors also allowed too many Division 1 football programs to thrive in NC. The presence of Duke and WF is bad enough considering the close proximity of Tennessee, Georgia, Clemson, and VT, but allowing ECU to develop a good program from the 70's to 2000's and App State from the 2000's forward has made it worse.

A lot of folks aren't aware that once you get west of I-77 you are in "another State" that is closer to Knoxville, Athens, Greenville, and Blacksburg than to Raleigh or Chapel Hill. That's 30% of the State's population. The difference is not quite as stark as that between "the City" and Upstate NY, but it's close.

But I remember one ACC Tournament Ticket Book for 7 games selling for 2K cash in the parking lot of Greensboro back in mid 1980's. Gold was only about $400 an ounce back then.

The time line for a breakaway conference may not work for those who are looking for immediate changes, because a large part of having a breakaway conference is having a large media deal. CBS and NBC do not seem to be in a spot where they can negotiate because of their ties to ND and the B1G until 2029-2030. Coincidently, it's also when the Big12 deal is up with ESPN and Fox, that would be the ideal time to have 3-4 networks bidding for your services.

What could possibly happen is to keep the breakaway conference small at first and have deals with multiple networks just fitting games around their current contracts. An 8 team breakaway conference would be the Mag7+1: FSU, Clem, UNC, UM, UVA, VT, NCSU and UL. Around 2027-28 you are already negotiating your next deal and talking to potential future members. By 2030 the conference is complete with 12-14.