gosports1 Wrote:Team up with the SEC and go after the ACC and go after them hard. What does the BE have to lose? The ACC and swofford tried to destroy the BE 5 years ago and failed. its time to return the favor.

Why does the SEC care? The ACC can only be second to the SEC in football due to the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Miss, Georgia and all the flagships they have in big time football country.

Think about this: LSU is the only BCS school in the football crazy state of Louisiana. Something is wrong here. The SEC has a monopoly over the football hotbed, all the ACC wanted was another spot in Florida.

The Big East is getting what it deserves for shunning Penn State.

esayem Wrote:

gosports1 Wrote:Team up with the SEC and go after the ACC and go after them hard. What does the BE have to lose? The ACC and swofford tried to destroy the BE 5 years ago and failed. its time to return the favor.

Why does the SEC care? The ACC can only be second to the SEC in football due to the states of Louisiana, Alabama, Miss, Georgia and all the flagships they have in big time football country.

The Big East is getting what it deserves for shunning Penn State.

The SEC should care in the UNLIKELY scenario(but hopeful) where they need to replace Arkansas who bolted to the B12 to replace MISSOURI or Nebraska who went to the B10. (I know its dreaming but still)If they were able to convince Clemson, FSU or Miami to bite it would be interesting. The BE then makes aplay for BC and the ACC is down to 10. I dont think any of the no. carolina teams would ever leave. A simultaneous raid of the ACC from the West by the SEC and from the North by the BE would cause stress for the remaing ACC members. Would it be enough for UMD or one of the Virginias to bolt? Is there a desire/benefit for the SEC to go to 14? It would all depend on the $$$$. Then the ACC would get what it deserved for trying to destroy the BE.
The Penn st situation was a mistake but back then the BE was focused on BB and Penn St was, an for most part still is, not a major player in BB.

The ACC wanted Miami (better fit in ACC anyway) and a conference championship. The main goal was not: "let's destroy the Big East, bwaaahaahaa!"

The Big East started the football race behind everyone else and also doesn't even have the juggernaught (Penn State) of their own region in the league. If anything, the Big East was killing itself. I mean they were relying on a school in the southern most tip of the continental states, c'mon.

If the SEC lost Arkansas, which they won't because SEC>Big XII, they would add another school to the west division.

Arkansas will never leave the SEC. The UofA like LSU is the Flagship of the state, and a good fit in the conference. we've built a solid rivalry with LSU and most fans like it better than the rivalry with Texas.

Interesting rumor

Apparently, Jim Tressel expects the Big 10 to add a 12th team, complete with conference championship game, within the next five years.

esayem Wrote:The ACC wanted Miami (better fit in ACC anyway) and a conference championship. The main goal was not: "let's destroy the Big East, bwaaahaahaa!"

And yet no matter how many times it is said, it doesn't ring true. The ACC did WANT to destroy the BE. Do you not know why tried to add the teams at the June 30 deadline? By doing so, they would have left the BE at 5 teams (when you need 6 teams to be a 1A conference as mandated by the NCAA). Also, they would have hit the BE right before they would have started negotiations for a new TV contract - right when the BE just had tremendous success in FB and BB after a down period when the previous TV contract was negotiated.

The ACC wanted to be viewed as THE East Coast Conference. In order to be successful - by definition - required the BE to be destroyed or at a minimum severely weakened.

esayem Wrote:The Big East started the football race behind everyone else and also doesn't even have the juggernaught (Penn State) of their own region in the league.

Agreed. You could also include ND in there as well. Time and circumstance are the reason for conference makeups - including the ACC.

esayem Wrote:If anything, the Big East was killing itself. I mean they were relying on a school in the southern most tip of the continental states, c'mon.

Why? Because they did what they had to do to make it work? It's not Miami's fault that the rest of the BE didn't have the success they did. Once PSU went to the Big 10, the FB indy schools had to find a solution (Pitt, BC, and SU). It's not like it was totally a bad thing so to speak. The BE had a TV contract for FB and BB on CBS and is the reason why the BE expanded with FB.

BullsFanatic Wrote:Interesting rumor

Apparently, Jim Tressel expects the Big 10 to add a 12th team, complete with conference championship game, within the next five years.

Hoping for Missouri!

I believe that Delany had this contract extended for 5 more years and he's also said in the past that he wants to make sure that the BTN is fully funded in the BT footprint with deals with all the major and minor carriers there. I think they're almost there? Once that's completed, they will then look into expansion again.

Every time I see a coverage map for ABC game with B-10 being showed in the NE. ACC to increase revenue needs NE corridor. When ACC decides to make thier move, B-10 will counter. Syc ends up in B-10, Rutgers & Conn end up in ACC.

BullsFanatic Wrote:Interesting rumor

Apparently, Jim Tressel expects the Big 10 to add a 12th team, complete with conference championship game, within the next five years.

I can't wait!

Hoquista Wrote:The ACC did WANT to destroy the BE.
The ACC wanted to be viewed as THE East Coast Conference.

The ACC implies all 9 schools.

Hoquista Wrote:Why? Because they did what they had to do to make it work? It's not Miami's fault that the rest of the BE didn't have the success they did. Once PSU went to the Big 10, the FB indy schools had to find a solution (Pitt, BC, and SU). It's not like it was totally a bad thing so to speak. The BE had a TV contract for FB and BB on CBS and is the reason why the BE expanded with FB.

That's not really how I meant it. I know they had to do what they could, I was saying one shouldn't be mad at the Miami situation because they fit in a league with FSU and GaTech better. The killing themselves was to refer to the PSU rejection.

As for the Tressel rumor. I think whoever they invite should allready have a rivalry with another school.
PSU-RU, PSU-Syr, PSU-Pitt, Ill-Mizzou, Iowa-ISU

esayem Wrote:

Hoquista Wrote:The ACC did WANT to destroy the BE.
The ACC wanted to be viewed as THE East Coast Conference.

The ACC implies all 9 schools.

If you mean that that the ACC 7 - who voted yes to expansion - then I can understand why you say this remark above meaning that Duke and UNC should not be part of that group because they voted no to expansion to 12.

esayem Wrote:

Hoquista Wrote:Why? Because they did what they had to do to make it work? It's not Miami's fault that the rest of the BE didn't have the success they did. Once PSU went to the Big 10, the FB indy schools had to find a solution (Pitt, BC, and SU). It's not like it was totally a bad thing so to speak. The BE had a TV contract for FB and BB on CBS and is the reason why the BE expanded with FB.

That's not really how I meant it. I know they had to do what they could, I was saying one shouldn't be mad at the Miami situation because they fit in a league with FSU and GaTech better. The killing themselves was to refer to the PSU rejection.

I understand why those teams left. That doesn't mean I am happy about it though.....I mean would you have liked it if Clemson, Maryland, GT, FSU left the ACC to join the BE FB in 2003?

esayem Wrote:As for the Tressel rumor. I think whoever they invite should allready have a rivalry with another school.
PSU-RU, PSU-Syr, PSU-Pitt, Ill-Mizzou, Iowa-ISU

Definetely no on ISu and Pitt going to the Big 10.

esayem Wrote:The ACC wanted Miami (better fit in ACC anyway) and a conference championship. The main goal was not: "let's destroy the Big East, bwaaahaahaa!"

The Big East started the football race behind everyone else and also doesn't even have the juggernaught (Penn State) of their own region in the league. If anything, the Big East was killing itself. I mean they were relying on a school in the southern most tip of the continental states, c'mon.

If the SEC lost Arkansas, which they won't because SEC>Big XII, they would add another school to the west division.

It was one of the ACC'S (or at the very least swoffords)goals to destroy the BE. They wanted to be THE eastern conference. If they were truly concerned about about creating a 12 member FB conference to hold a playoff game WHY wouldnt they have gone after someone like VANDERBILT? Vandy is a great fit academically and geographically. Miami and VTECH I understand, but BC (the northeastern most school on the eastern tip)and Syracuse? Really? Did they even send out feelers to other southern schools? No one can honestly say that during the discussion of adding syracuse and/or BC that the idea wasnt brought up about how this could bring down the BE. I'm sure that was considered and encouraged
As far as the SEC and Arkansas, adding a team to the west division is a minor concern. Existing teams can be moved(tenn or vandy perhaps)I've read that arkansas would consider a move to the b12 to get back with Texas. Clemson fancies itself more as a Fb school and i think would consider the SEC, since that conference does have a better rep in FB than the ACC.

Yeah, i also think the big 10 is going to 12 pretty soon, ie less than 5 years...My guess is one more run at ND, if no, than its going to be from the pool of Syracuse ,Rutgers and Missouri. I would lean strongly towards the first two to pick from + i'm not even sure Missouri would want to leave the big 12 to join the Big 10 but eastern expansion makes sense for the big 10 with its network and getting penn state a partner. As for any future ACC expansion, i think they are the only league where going past 12 might work, 2 from the pool of Syracuse, Uconn, and Rutgers than start a ACC network...i would favor the two state flagship schools since that is what the ACC is lacking. Than again, i think the ACC going to 16 might even work, Uconn, Rutgers, syracuse, and WV but i don't think that is on the table. Yet, it would be a pretty big ACC empire, basically 2 leagues of 8 teams with cross-over play under the ACC umbrella.

gosports1 Wrote:

esayem Wrote:The ACC wanted Miami (better fit in ACC anyway) and a conference championship. The main goal was not: "let's destroy the Big East, bwaaahaahaa!"

The Big East started the football race behind everyone else and also doesn't even have the juggernaught (Penn State) of their own region in the league. If anything, the Big East was killing itself. I mean they were relying on a school in the southern most tip of the continental states, c'mon.

If the SEC lost Arkansas, which they won't because SEC>Big XII, they would add another school to the west division.

It was one of the ACC'S (or at the very least swoffords)goals to destroy the BE. They wanted to be THE eastern conference. If they were truly concerned about about creating a 12 member FB conference to hold a playoff game WHY wouldnt they have gone after someone like VANDERBILT? Vandy is a great fit academically and geographically. Miami and VTECH I understand, but BC (the northeastern most school on the eastern tip)and Syracuse? Really? Did they even send out feelers to other southern schools? No one can honestly say that during the discussion of adding syracuse and/or BC that the idea wasnt brought up about how this could bring down the BE. I'm sure that was considered and encouraged
As far as the SEC and Arkansas, adding a team to the west division is a minor concern. Existing teams can be moved(tenn or vandy perhaps)I've read that arkansas would consider a move to the b12 to get back with Texas. Clemson fancies itself more as a Fb school and i think would consider the SEC, since that conference does have a better rep in FB than the ACC.

All of this comes to what's "low hanging fruit" versus "high hanging fruit". Even if Vandy and Arkansas would be supposedly better fits on paper within the ACC and Big 12, respectively, they would be taking significant revenue cuts if they left the SEC. Thus, teams in the richest and most stable conferences (the SEC and Big Ten) plus Notre Dame are the "highest of high hanging fruit". To get any team to move from that list would be impossible (hence, there should be a complete moratorium on any Penn State-to-the-BE suggestions, which I believe that most reasonable people understand). The teams in the Pac-10, Big 12, and ACC are "high hanging fruit" - there might be an infinitesimal chance that a school from one of those conferences could be convinced to move to either the SEC or Big Ten, but ultimately it is much more difficult practically, financially, and legally, where the revenue gains likely aren't "game changing" enough to the point where it's worth it to leave a very stable and comfortable situation.

In contrast, the BE teams both before the ACC expansion and now are all "low hanging fruit" - the TV revenue is much lower than any of the other BCS conferences, that little revenue is inequitably distributed, and there are constant talks about whether there's going to be an expansion, split, or both, which means that there's a complete sense of instability in the membership. The simple argument that the ACC had for the BE schools that it ultimately took was that they could eliminate every single one of those concerns such that those BE schools would completely jump at the chance. Frankly, the situation is the same today - if the Big Ten offered a BE school the 12th spot in its conference, that BE school would say within about 10 seconds of receiving that offer, "Well, it's been nice having these BE rivalries over the years, but I'm on the next flight to Chicago to sign the papers before they change their minds." It was a thousand times easier for the ACC to go after the BE schools (as opposed to an SEC school), just as it is a thousand times easier for the Big Ten to go after a BE school (as opposed to a Big 12 school such as Mizzou).

It's one thing if we're talking about a true marquee program moving, such as Notre Dame or Texas - in that remote scenario, you'll see the Big Ten or SEC take the time and dollars to make that type of deal happen. However, all the expansion discussions generally deal with what I'd call the "upper middle class" of college football. If there's not really a major difference in the revenue or popularity gains between adding Missouri or Rutgers, but one school is going to be exponentially easier to get to move than the other, guess which one the conference is going to take the time to go after? I don't know how anyone can reasonably say that the BE teams aren't much easier targets than any schools in the other BCS conferences, which is why the ACC went after the BE schools in the first place and if the Big Ten decides to expand with a school other than Notre Dame, it will be a BE team.

If the ACC is high hanging fruit why wouldnt a school such as Vandy want ot be part of it? Afterall if FB is just as good and academics superior why not? If the ACC has such high aspirations when will it have the revenue to attract other quality programs? I realize the BE cant compare to the SEC, B12 B10 AND PAC10 in FB. Someday hopefully it will be much better.The ACC isn't much better off. Even with the BE transfers the ACC still shouldnt be mentioned as being comparable to the other 4 BCS conferences. More revenue than the BE, i get it. Vandy would still have a better chance of a conference title in the ACC then it would in the SEC. Lets be honest, when most people hear the name ACC or BE the think BB. Its going to take along time to change those thoughts to FB

My only comment is that the BE and ACC would have probably been equal - in terms of $$ amounts - for their next contracts without the aCC raid. The ACC's TV contracts were overvalued because it was rumored that they were going to get anywhere from 25-40% decrease in their FB contracts.

Conversely, the BE's contract was undervalued because when it was negotiated in 1997, BE FB was in 'shambles' as it's most marketable product - Miami - was on probation from 96-98. Since then, the BE was coming off of Miami's MNC runs with VT becoming a media darling, had won the MBB tourney in 2003 and 2004 and overall improvement in BE FB and BB. Certainly, that would have meant higher TV contracts.

Ulitmately, though, those issues that you noted wouldn't have gone away.

gosports1 Wrote:If the ACC is high hanging fruit why wouldnt a school such as Vandy want ot be part of it? Afterall if FB is just as good and academics superior why not? If the ACC has such high aspirations when will it have the revenue to attract other quality programs? I realize the BE cant compare to the SEC, B12 B10 AND PAC10 in FB. Someday hopefully it will be much better.The ACC isn't much better off. Even with the BE transfers the ACC still shouldnt be mentioned as being comparable to the other 4 BCS conferences. More revenue than the BE, i get it. Vandy would still have a better chance of a conference title in the ACC then it would in the SEC. Lets be honest, when most people hear the name ACC or BE the think BB. Its going to take along time to change those thoughts to FB

ACC is high hanging fruit, but the SEC is the highest of them all (along with the Big Ten). So, why would Vandy or anyone else trade down in that scenario? I'll move from the "fruit" analogy to a neighborhood analogy that all of you will probably find annoying by the end (but hopefully will illustrate my point). If you've got a large house in Beverly Hills, are you going to rationally trade it for a smaller house in Burbank if you didn't have to? Even though you're still better off living in Burbank than 90% of the population, it just doesn't make sense (at least from a property value standpoint). Vandy lives in college football's Beverly Hills, so it's a sheer waste of time for the college football equivalent of Burbank, that being the ACC, to even bother taking 5 minutes to make a phone call to them. Meanwhile, the BE is in that part of town that has been constantly changing for many years. The BE's neighborhood might turn out nicer in the end but there's also a decent chance that some of the longest-standing neighbors might move away and leave it as a ghetto. The point is that we don't know what the future holds for the BE, and instability is what scares the crap out of school presidents and athletic directors more than anything else. The ACC isn't ever going to be on the same financial level as the Big Ten or SEC (although I think it's pretty close to the Big 12 and actually better than the Pac-10 financially - the last ABC/ESPN contract that the ACC signed was a boon), but all of its members can be assured that it's in a nice, stable, upscale (even if it's not the richest) neighborhood. The Big 12 and Pac-10 members can say the same thing - they might be able to move to Beverly Hills if they really pushed themselves to take out a jumbo mortgage, but they're nicely settled into their stable homes and aren't in a rush to move. On the other hand, the BE doesn't know whether they're going to split the neighborhood in half, have new people move in, or both. Therefore, the BE members are inherently going to be much more open to moving to a nice and stable neighborhood if the opportunity arises.

My point had nothing to do with comparing the ACC's relative strength to the other BCS conferences - we can debate that all day and never come to a resolution on that. However, there shouldn't be much debate of the fact that the ACC is every bit as stable as the other BCS conferences (outside of the BE). The BE is the outlier here in terms of having an unstable situation, which by its very nature makes its members skittish and much easier to pick off by another conference such as the Big Ten or ACC. Once again, if we're talking about a monster school such as Notre Dame or Texas, then the amount of time and money for a superpower such as the Big Ten or SEC to get a deal done is inconsequential - adding a school of that magnitude would have such a huge impact that it's worth it. However, if we're talking about two schools where reasonable people are parsing relatively small differences between them (i.e. Missouri vs. Rutgers), then the time and money to get the deal done is going to be a huge factor. A team from the Big 12 such as Mizzou is going to at least think twice before considering a move to the Big Ten (if not go through tons of surveys and financial impact studies to see if it's the right thing to do), which could take years to complete even in the best case scenario. A team from the BE, however, would commit to the Big Ten on the same day that it is asked. That's the big difference here and why I absolutely believe that the next Big Ten team (assuming that it's not ND) will be Rutgers or Syracuse from the BE (and I'm saying this sincerely as a lifelong Big Ten guy - we absolutely will not be going after a Big 12 school).

Interesting points. It seems all the talk about a BE split is coming from message boards and fans not from the conference itself, or its member institutions.(i said member)
Does anyone know the actual #'s of viewers a market like NYC,boston or philly would bring? Of the millions of people in the NYC metro area not many care about Rutgers FB,or syracuse. As good as BC has been in the past the majority of bostonians arent rushing home on sat afternoon to catch the BC-GTECH GAME.As far as actual viewers it could be argued that a market like Knoxville may be more valuable since in all probability many more people there are UT fans. The same could be said about other midwestern and southern states where it seems more of the general public supports the "state" team. True a market in the northeast might give the B10 more exposure for recruiting but I'm not so sure if the hoped for increase in viewers would be as great as anticipated. Would more people be into watching rutgers FB if they were playing wisconsin, minnesota or purdue as oppossed to syracuse or uconn?

it would be Mich, OSU, PennSt in place of Conn, Syc & Pitt.

gosports1 Wrote:Interesting points. It seems all the talk about a BE split is coming from message boards and fans not from the conference itself, or its member institutions.(i said member)
Does anyone know the actual #'s of viewers a market like NYC,boston or philly would bring? Of the millions of people in the NYC metro area not many care about Rutgers FB,or syracuse. As good as BC has been in the past the majority of bostonians arent rushing home on sat afternoon to catch the BC-GTECH GAME.As far as actual viewers it could be argued that a market like Knoxville may be more valuable since in all probability many more people there are UT fans. The same could be said about other midwestern and southern states where it seems more of the general public supports the "state" team. True a market in the northeast might give the B10 more exposure for recruiting but I'm not so sure if the hoped for increase in viewers would be as great as anticipated. Would more people be into watching rutgers FB if they were playing wisconsin, minnesota or purdue as oppossed to syracuse or uconn?

I completely agree that the large Northeast markets aren't great college football towns. However, the key point isn't viewers but households. TV ratings do matter (particularly for contracts with national networks such as ESPN), but in the Big Ten also has the Big Ten Network, which makes the bulk of its money from cable subscriber fees. That means that its value is maximized from simply getting into the most households possible (which is why they were willing to fight Comcast for a year to get basic cable coverage in the conference footprint), whether or not those people actually watch the network. Well, the state of New York has a higher population than the states of Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Iowa combined. Even just New Jersey has 3 million more people than any of those states. Thus, you see pretty clearly why Syracuse and Rutgers are way more attractive than Mizzou. Besides, much of the St. Louis market gets the Big Ten Network anyway since Illinois is considered a "home team" there, so Mizzou would really only add the Kansas City market. In contrast, if the Big Ten Network can get basic cable coverage in just New Jersey, then that alone sends the value of the Big Ten Network skyrocketing. If the Big Ten Network can get basic cable coverage in New York, then the gushers of money coming into the Big Ten will make the SEC look poor.

Think of it another way - the largest regional sports networks such as YES, NESN, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago are valued by a lot of people in the media industry as close to $1 billion each. (In fact, when you look at the valuations of the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs, respectively, their ownership interests in those RSNs are as valuable as the actual teams themselves.) Well, the Big Ten Network already blankets the major sports markets (defined as having at least 2 pro teams) of Chicago, Detroit, Philly (on digital basic, which essentially everyone has to switch to by the spring), Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis, not to mention nationally on DirecTV. Arguably, the Big Ten Network is already just as valuable as those large RSNs I listed above. Adding in just the households in New Jersey would definitely make the Big Ten Network the most valuable sports network in the country outside of the ESPN family, while adding in the households in New York would make that notion undisputed. The Big Ten getting bad press for a year for fighting with Comcast seems worth it now, eh? The math is simple - more households (even if they aren't watching) means more dollars, and there are a whole lot more households in New York and New Jersey than Missouri.