(02-21-2013 10:12 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:06 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 09:45 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  When the B12 was imploding, the claim made by College Presidents and ADs was that there was no "official" contacts, which proved to be true. Rather, sports advisors hired by the college and/or conference were doing the talking and the setting up of proposals.

Hard for me to believe, in this day and age, that every President, AD, and Conference Administrator hasn't talk to every other President, AD, and Conference Administrator in this stage of this Circus Realignment. One da, Rutgers was in BE. Next day, they were gone. Ditto for Pitt and Syracuse. Not a publcity piece hit the newspaper before those schools made their move.

Yet MFer3 and Dude all know? Oh yeah that's right they were clueless too.

Dude and MHVer are FOS. Every single person on this board knows that, 90% of WVU fans know that and yet you ACC guys keep bringing them up as the source of all of these rumors. Get your head out of the sand.

It's actually a good point. There have been enough comments by others (including Delaney himself) that it is pretty clear the Big 10 is still considering expansion models, and we all know they are going to be aggressive with top target when they do make a move. To me, that's enough to drive discussions on message boards like this without relying on the admittedly "see what sticks to the wall" twitterers out there. They're obviously just guessing like we all are. But something is going to happen. College conference membership isn't going to stop at 14 team Big Ten, ACC and SEC leagues and a 10 team Big 12. We all know that. If ACC fans want to feel better that the latest round of rumors don't look like "the one", I can agree with that. But I also think an "all is well" attitude is naive as well.

(02-21-2013 11:10 AM)krux Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:57 AM)nert Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:37 AM)krux Wrote:  Lets talk about the last point he made in the interview about future ACC expansion. He said they're content with 14 + ND because 16 is still the magic number (in a nutshell). He also said that unless ND joined full time they'd stay at 14.

So as highly improbable as it is, lets say ND joins on as #15 full time. Who then would the ACC target as #16? More importantly, what options would that create for them? Would it put PSU in play? Hell, would it make UMD think about coming back?

Anyone find that an odd statement?
"Well, since 16 is what we want, we'll stay at 14 1/2"
huh?

No because if 16 is the cap why would you permenantly squeeze ND out of the picture for Cincy/UConn. And no offense to either of those schools but I don't think it's unfair to say ND >>>> Both of them.

I guess that I am reading it the exact opposite than you.

It isn't that they are squeezing ND out for Cincy/UConn, it is that they are squeezing Cincy/UConn out for ND.

In other words, the ACC is not expanding without ND. Additionally, ND would probably be able to name who #16 is going to be (or at least strongly suggest it).

agree with Terry, statement not odd at all.

(02-20-2013 11:58 PM)Villecard Wrote:  The interview with David starts at around 73:00. Highlights include:
-Says the UVa has "no interest or contact" with the B1G
-The ACC is "actively" engaging in talks with the ESPN about an ACC Network
-The ACC expects at least $1 million more a team due to the addition of ND and Louisville
-ND is not likely to play 6 ACC games as rumored
-He believes Maryland is the exception, not the rule

You can listen HERE

I'm shocked...SHOCKED! :ninja:

Oh wait. I'm not in the least bit shocked. See Notre Lame's "agreement" to play 4 Big East teams as part of their partial membership.

Notre Lame, eternal leeches of the college football world. Learn it, remember it, bookmarket.

agree, ND really never came through on BE 'deal'.
It was 3 games though.

(02-21-2013 11:49 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  agree, ND really never came through on BE 'deal'.
It was 3 games though.

My bad, but point is definitely still made. Thanks for the correction.

(02-21-2013 08:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:37 AM)krux Wrote:  Lets talk about the last point he made in the interview about future ACC expansion. He said they're content with 14 + ND because 16 is still the magic number (in a nutshell). He also said that unless ND joined full time they'd stay at 14.

So as highly improbable as it is, lets say ND joins on as #15 full time. Who then would the ACC target as #16? More importantly, what options would that create for them? Would it put PSU in play? Hell, would it make UMD think about coming back?

I think it would be UConn or Navy (if ND really pushed for them).

Hell, take both of them and Cincy and go to eighteen, then.

(I have never thought that ND would agree to the sixth ACC game, either)

I wonder how they are going to rotate it...1 Locked in-(Pitt) and 4 on a rotation?

i think they might just keep current games scheduled for the next few years when those are done you can play 1 team twice every 3 years(likely pitt)

(02-21-2013 08:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 07:37 AM)krux Wrote:  Lets talk about the last point he made in the interview about future ACC expansion. He said they're content with 14 + ND because 16 is still the magic number (in a nutshell). He also said that unless ND joined full time they'd stay at 14.

So as highly improbable as it is, lets say ND joins on as #15 full time. Who then would the ACC target as #16? More importantly, what options would that create for them? Would it put PSU in play? Hell, would it make UMD think about coming back?

I think it would be UConn or Navy (if ND really pushed for them).

Hell, take both of them and Cincy and go to eighteen, then.

(I have never thought that ND would agree to the sixth ACC game, either)

I wonder how they are going to rotate it...1 Locked in-(Pitt) and 4 on a rotation?

i think they might just keep current games scheduled for the next few years when those are done you can play 1 team twice every 3 years(likely pitt)

(02-21-2013 09:32 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 05:21 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 04:55 PM)Villecard Wrote:  FYI- David Teel, who covers the ACC for the Hampton Roads Daily Press will be on Louisville Sports Live to discuss the realignment rumors and the ACC in general at around 7:30 if you're interested.

You can stream HERE

Guarantee he pulls this move

Called it. No ACC beat writer is going to say that the ACC is in trouble while appearing on another ACC teams radio show. We all know that.

The Dude actually got McMurphy to appear on his show tonight, lets see what an unbiased reporter has to say about the situation.

Oh, sweet Jesus! Now some of you goofs are quoting yourselves to try and "prove" some asinine point.

You guys are unbelievable!

Hey Einstein, Teel is not an "ACC beat writer," he's a columnist whose focus happens to be on college athletics - because that's the focus of most of his readership.

Also, for readership purposes, most of his columns relate to how particular issues impact Virginia and Virginia Tech - which each happen to compete in the ACC.

I can assure you that if UVA were to defect to the B1G, and VT to the SEC - as so many of you continue to predict - Teel will still have the exact same job he has right now. That won't make him a "B1G beat writer" or an "SEC beat writer" hell-bent on parroting the messages of those league's respective leaders. Nope, he will still be a columnist with a focus on his state's major D1-A schools.

Now, compare that to some of the guys on the other side of this issue and how they make their livings and tell me which source would appear to be more credible?

That is not to say that realignment is over or that the ACC - or any league - is forever saved. Like you, and the rest of the growing legion of realignment soothsayers (read: profiteers), I have no idea what the future holds? The difference to me seems to be that some of us are willing to acknowledge that basic truth while others appear to be more wont to trumpet anything that comes out that coincides with their agenda is "proof" that the apocalypse is coming and are lightning quick to discredit everything that goes against it, even if that information is coming from a source that would appear to most neutral observers to be more informed on the topic than just about anyone else.

Regarding credibility," the Dude" is saying that Brett McMurphy is scheduled to appear on his new show. Which reputation would be affected the most if this comes to pass?

(I hate even mentioning this and it may even violate some board rule so feel free to delete, just a question I have.)

(02-21-2013 01:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Regarding credibility," the Dude" is saying that Brett McMurphy is scheduled to appear on his new show. Which reputation would be affected the most if this comes to pass?

(I hate even mentioning this and it may even violate some board rule so feel free to delete, just a question I have.)

Neither. They both have said that it seems like the Big Ten is going to move. The Dude has been screaming it and McMurphy has been more cautious and professional but the stance is similar.

who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

(02-21-2013 01:07 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Regarding credibility," the Dude" is saying that Brett McMurphy is scheduled to appear on his new show. Which reputation would be affected the most if this comes to pass?

(I hate even mentioning this and it may even violate some board rule so feel free to delete, just a question I have.)

Neither. They both have said that it seems like the Big Ten is going to move. The Dude has been screaming it and McMurphy has been more cautious and professional but the stance is similar.

Not the message I am speaking of, it would be the fact that someone from ESPN would appear on "the Dude's" show that would be the real story. For better or worse (depending on your view) McMurphy being a guest on his show would take "the Dude" to the next level. Think "gravitas"

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

Clearly someone who goes by the name "The Dude." Why not put your actual name behind all these predicitions? (Unless he does, in that case I am just being a d!ck)

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

McMurphy.

(02-21-2013 01:44 PM)Riptsa Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

Clearly someone who goes by the name "The Dude." Why not put your actual name behind all these predicitions? (Unless he does, in that case I am just being a d!ck)

He does use his actual name. Chris Lambert I believe.

(02-21-2013 01:56 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

McMurphy.

(02-21-2013 01:44 PM)Riptsa Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

Clearly someone who goes by the name "The Dude." Why not put your actual name behind all these predicitions? (Unless he does, in that case I am just being a d!ck)

He does use his actual name. Chris Lambert I believe.

You "believe" correctly.

(02-21-2013 02:03 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:56 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:44 PM)Riptsa Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

Clearly someone who goes by the name "The Dude." Why not put your actual name behind all these predicitions? (Unless he does, in that case I am just being a d!ck)

He does use his actual name. Chris Lambert I believe.

You "believe" correctly.

You mean the Dude is actually the Highlander?

(02-21-2013 02:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 02:03 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:56 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:44 PM)Riptsa Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:26 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  who is more credible? David Teal or "The Dude"?

Clearly someone who goes by the name "The Dude." Why not put your actual name behind all these predicitions? (Unless he does, in that case I am just being a d!ck)

He does use his actual name. Chris Lambert I believe.

You "believe" correctly.

You mean the Dude is actually the Highlander?

Yes I do, he is an immortal.

(02-21-2013 11:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The ACC can't/won't go to 16 schools unless/until Notre Dame decides to join full time.

Otherwise, it is not economically feasible for the ACC to expand.

At least, that is how I read it.

Is 20 out of the question?

(02-21-2013 01:07 PM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:01 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Regarding credibility," the Dude" is saying that Brett McMurphy is scheduled to appear on his new show. Which reputation would be affected the most if this comes to pass?

(I hate even mentioning this and it may even violate some board rule so feel free to delete, just a question I have.)

Neither. They both have said that it seems like the Big Ten is going to move. The Dude has been screaming it and McMurphy has been more cautious and professional but the stance is similar.

Sammy, sammy. McMurphy never said the B1G was going to expand. He has just said that it's within the realm of possibility.

The DUD has basically said it's a done deal, that approval has happened, and that it's only a matter of time. Basically garbage. The DUD's story changes by the hour.

It was just a few months ago that that the DUD said FSU and Clemson to the Big 12 was a "done deal". McMurphy repeatedly shot that rumor down. It's only been recently that the DUD has changed course and started on this B1G expansion stuff because that's the only chance that FSU/Clemson would even consider moving. The DUD was exposed as a fraud long ago.

McMurphy does have sources and is reputable. The DUD is just an idiot. What they are saying isn't even remotely close.[/quote]