(07-02-2013 08:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  UConn, Georgetown.................GET REAL!

I seem to recall you pushing for SC and Vandy....ahem

As far as Big Ten vs. ACC in the northeast, as much as we on these boards might like to think about things like a game of risk with control over various states/media markets (myself included), I don't think the northeast is really going to work out like that. For as much as something like New York City might be a target for both conferences, really they both probably gain far more from the city caring about college football in general more than they do from a little extra strength vs. the other. I'm not saying that the relative positions aren't at all important (they influence which game ESPN will put on for instance), but in the truly competitive areas of the northeast and Mid-Atlantic, neither conference is likely to really dominate. So cities like New York in the northeast and Washington D.C. (not northeast historically, but grouped in a lot now) are probably not going to continue to have divided interest (to the extent they care about college sports) regardless of what the conferences do.

As for expansion, I think it's becoming even more of a bad idea. You already have a set-up where teams in opposite divisions rarely meet in football. Any increase exposure you might gain from more teams, is going to be countered by the conference feeling less and less like a conference.

I'm OK with Texas, even with ND treatment, PSU, UCONN as a basketball/Olympic sport only with the understanding that football will never happen and that they will get a boot as soon as/if ND ever decides to join and/or if the ACC ever goes to 16, or Georgetown/'Nova to hit an even number in basketball/Olympic sports.

I am against anything else unless it involves ND joining as a full member.

So, unless either UCONN or UC as a full member would attract ND, then I am against both schools as full members.

(07-02-2013 03:49 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  But it's not entirely clear what the B1G and ACC are fighting for. It's an area that doesn't give two flips about college football (outside ND maybe), which drives vastly disproportionate revenue.

The NY area schools were virtually the last picked on the playground. The previous conference anchored in that region imploded.

I'm not against making a move on NYC, but I hope it's a part of plan, particularly financially, that I've yet to see.

I'm actually very slightly intrigued by a UConn/Cinci expansion only as a way out of this horrid scheduling setup, but as a gambit to "solidify" the Northeast? I don't get it. It's like two guys in the desert stabbing at each other in a battle to control an empty well.

Good points. Agree on all. We're at 14. Which is scheduling suck. Four pods of four just makes everything HUGELY better on the scheduling front. So the question is how to get to 16. We all want ND as a full member and that gets to 15. So we need one more.

In order from most appealing to least ......

Pedo State, Tennessee, Florida, and Ohio State all fit within the footprint and open up valuable markets. But would they leave their home turf for bottom bucket BCS football? Doubtful. West Virginia fits within the footprint and brings a lot of fans, but nobody likes those fans, they behave deplorably, their academics are poor, and they have no media markets. Perhaps if they got serious about academics and sent their fans to obedience classes at the end of their GOR they'd be an option. Maryland continues torching their bridge, so it seems even more unlikely than the above teams joining that they come back. You could pull in Navy or some Navy hybrid or partial mix thereof (Navy fb only, Georgetown all but fb and Navy fb only, etc). But that's pretty jank. I'm flat out against UCONN.

Cincinnati is sort of the fallback option.

It is concerning regarding the long term viability of the league if there isn't some way to get to 16, preferably while picking up meaningful schools in Ohio, WV, and/or MD.

(07-02-2013 07:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Parting shots: The sooner the ACC permanently leaves Greensboro for New York City the better. It can't happen fast enough.

I'm for staying at 14 until the next round of negotiations. When that nears, I say we try to move ND to 7 ACC games and offer Texas ND treatment. I can even see a deal where Texas and ND trade some of ND's southern games for Texas' Pitt and BC games to help reach 7 ACC games/yr. I realize that ND isn't going to want to go to 7, but 7 would still leave them USC, Stanford, Navy, and two other games (a power conference team and a non-power conference team?), which is something that I think ND fans could (grudgingly) come to terms with. Since I think that ND + Texas as partials would forever solidify the ACC, while allowing ND to forever remain independent and comfortable, there's an argument for them to bite the bullet and pay the price.

From the ACC's perspective, 6 Division games, 1 perm cross, 1 rotating other division game, and 1 ND/UTex game isn't perfect, but it is far from the end of the world.

I can even see Texas taking that. Basketball/Olympic sports would improve, academics would improve, and they would go from 3 OOC games to 5. In theory they could play TA&M (I know they have bad blood and have sworn to never play again, but tickets to that game would be out of this world, so I don't believe them), Nebraska (I know that Nebraska might be hesitant to schedule another major team, but I think that they feel lost and like an island in the B1G, and might want to fondly remember their glory days in the Big XII), Oklahoma (who would be all for keeping their rivalry game with Texas, regardless of where they end up), and two TX schools (Houston/Baylor/TCU/SMU/Rice/Texas Tech/UTSA/UTEP/North Texas). That would give them 3 epic OOC, games 4 OOC games in Texas (1 of Neb and OU + TAMU + 2 Texas schools), 3.5 ACC games in Texas (7.5 games in TX every year), and games against either UL, FSU, and Clemson, or Miami, GT, and VT every year. That's a minimum of 6 very high quality games, not counting decent games like UNC, Pitt, TCU, Syracuse, BC (if they get back to form), and Baylor (recently). That's up to a min. of 4 decent games/yr if they want, plus the 6 high-end games/yr. 10/12 high end/decent games/yr isn't bad, especially if it guarantees games in the south (SC/GA), Florida, NC, and Northern Kentucky/Western PA every year on top of games in traditional Big XII recruiting hotspots, on top comparable exposure in Texas to what they get now.

I realize that putting TX in the east is a little bit of a stretch, but how many UTex fans really want to see Kansas football (ever) again? Iowa State? TCU EVERY year?* Texas Tech EVERY year?* Baylor EVERY year?* WVU anymore than teams like UL, Pitt, or Syracuse? Kansas State?** Now compare that with FSU, Miami, Clemson, VTech, and Georgia Tech.

Furthermore, not that this is Texas' top priority, but Big XII basketball doesn't compare to ACC round ball. Sure KU is elite and KSU is great, but UNC, Duke, UL, and Syracuse with games in the country's best recruiting grounds... 'nuff said.

*I know these schools are in-state, but I don't think that the average Texas fan sees them as being any more special than Rice, Houston, or SMU and would be more than content with some variety.
**Most Texas fans might be neutral about this, or mildly ambivalent about this, but I do not think that they are circling the game on their calendars.

(07-03-2013 12:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm OK with Texas, even with ND treatment, PSU, UCONN as a basketball/Olympic sport only with the understanding that football will never happen and that they will get a boot as soon as/if ND ever decides to join and/or if the ACC ever goes to 16, or Georgetown/'Nova to hit an even number in basketball/Olympic sports.

I am against anything else unless it involves ND joining as a full member.

So, unless either UCONN or UC as a full member would attract ND, then I am against both schools as full members.

That would equal about zero attraction for ND for either, I believe.

(07-02-2013 08:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 08:49 PM)XLance Wrote:  UConn, Georgetown.................GET REAL!

I seem to recall you pushing for SC and Vandy....ahem

Still a great option if you had to add two schools. I also think the combo of SC and West Virginia is a good one.
IMO if we add two (if Notre Dame does not join as a full member) one needs to be a "southern" school.
I admit that I'm an OF and I remember when the league was drivable. South Carolina is within a three hour drive from 6 ACC schools. It has a huge football stadium that gets filled (80,000). They haven't been able to develop "real" rivalries in the SEC even though they have been in the SEC longer than they were in the ACC. Plus it moves the SEC footprint just a little south.

One other point to consider when talking about NYC is that it really is big enough for both the ACC and the B1G. NYC loves winners but even more than ghat they love controversy. Think Yankees and Dodgers/Giants of old and Yankees and Mets now. Giants and Jets. Now add in ACC and B1G. A good rivalry will benefit more than one conference dominating the market.

Whether you agree with the above, one thing you should consider ia that the NYC market is huge and ripe for picking. Army and ND once dominated the market in CFB. No one can claim dominance now. NYC will watch if there is a product worth watching.

I think one important thing to remember with pods is that you don't have to have 16 for them. People use them a lot at 16 because it's the only good option for most conferences at that point, but you could do it at 14 with two pods of 4 and two pods of 3. The pods of 4 would never be together in a division (same with the pods of 3), but most/all their crossover games would be against the pod they were never attached with.

Example alignment:

Pod A
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson

Pod B
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke

Pod C
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt

Pod D
Louisville
Wake Forest
North Carolina State

Pod A and B would always be in separate divisions (as would C and D), but you'd play the opposite pod more in crossover games to make up for that fact. If need be, you could lock a game for everyone and play everyone more frequently than now. If you didn't lock any other games though, had all crossovers vs. the opposite pod, and stuck to 8 conference games, no opponent would be less common than 50% of the time.

If they ever go for an approach like this (in this case, no NCAA actually stops them, the WAC-16 did this once in fact), I'd recommend not using the word pods in any release and instead call them rotating divisions (I've seen others with similar suggestions too, but can't remember who). Just list the teams they will always play.

(07-03-2013 08:35 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  One other point to consider when talking about NYC is that it really is big enough for both the ACC and the B1G. NYC loves winners but even more than ghat they love controversy. Think Yankees and Dodgers/Giants of old and Yankees and Mets now. Giants and Jets. Now add in ACC and B1G. A good rivalry will benefit more than one conference dominating the market.

Whether you agree with the above, one thing you should consider ia that the NYC market is huge and ripe for picking. Army and ND once dominated the market in CFB. No one can claim dominance now. NYC will watch if there is a product worth watching.

Very good point. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a neutral site game or two of the Big Ten/ACC Tournament in New York here and there to promote that (although it would suck for schools loosing a home game).

(07-02-2013 08:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  The problem is, 99% of Ohio recruits are going to pick OSU over Cincy, even when Cincy has BCS access. Good school, good program, amazing strides, but down the list.

Bottom-line: there is absolutely no way we should add two more programs unless it is a Georgetown/Navy combo, with the assumption Notre Dame is joining for football. Georgetown counteracts the Big 10's move and adds another tremendous school.

Just coming over to offer an opinion of someone who has studied the SW Ohio recruting area. When it comes to top recruits, OSU will usually come and offer a majority and get a majority. The rest go to B1G schools (Michigan St does very well there, Michigan, Wisconsin) or Notre Dame. This year Kentucky has been coming out of nowhere, but thats only this year and I'm curious to see how long that lasts.

Cincy makes a very good living off taking those low 4 star/high 3 star recruits and pairing them with athlete/skill positions from Florida. They know it is a much better sell to a kid that you can start at Cincy rather than ride the bench at OSU/elsewhere while dealing with intense competition for playing time. Considering Cincy's success at putting players in the NFL recently and the coaches they have put out, this pitch usually works quite well. Most people visiting our campus are extremely surprised at how much they like it, and I feel any former big east members who visited will agree. Recruits see the same thing.

I see why you feel there is no reason to add UC from a revenue standpoint, but the recruting angle is a much more realistic pitch. If UC were playing ACC teams in Cincinnati, I can almost guarantee you will see those guys who were going to B1G schools start going to ACC schools like Clemson, Pitt, Va Tech and the others instead.

I'm not saying you need to add us because the truth is you don't, but I firmly disagree that it doesn't help some in the recruiting aspect. You say UC doesn't bring Ohio and you're right, but it does bring SW Ohio (Dayton-Cincy metro) which is a pretty significant area (one that also brings very high basketball ratings - http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...r-on-espn/ ).

I've always thought that Cincinnati would be a great add to the ACC. They are a lot like Louisville in that They are a very fan friendly city with lots of attractions for visitors, easy access to get to. Lots of nearby lodging great athletic atmosphere and with the right conference You would see a huge turn out at the games as well as fans traveling.
I've never been to Connecticut so I can't speak for them but if We need pods then those Two are the best currently available.

(07-03-2013 09:39 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think one important thing to remember with pods is that you don't have to have 16 for them. People use them a lot at 16 because it's the only good option for most conferences at that point, but you could do it at 14 with two pods of 4 and two pods of 3.

Imo, that's a ridiculous setup.

(07-03-2013 10:17 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(07-02-2013 08:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  The problem is, 99% of Ohio recruits are going to pick OSU over Cincy, even when Cincy has BCS access. Good school, good program, amazing strides, but down the list.

Bottom-line: there is absolutely no way we should add two more programs unless it is a Georgetown/Navy combo, with the assumption Notre Dame is joining for football. Georgetown counteracts the Big 10's move and adds another tremendous school.

Just coming over to offer an opinion of someone who has studied the SW Ohio recruting area. When it comes to top recruits, OSU will usually come and offer a majority and get a majority. The rest go to B1G schools (Michigan St does very well there, Michigan, Wisconsin) or Notre Dame. This year Kentucky has been coming out of nowhere, but thats only this year and I'm curious to see how long that lasts.

Cincy makes a very good living off taking those low 4 star/high 3 star recruits and pairing them with athlete/skill positions from Florida. They know it is a much better sell to a kid that you can start at Cincy rather than ride the bench at OSU/elsewhere while dealing with intense competition for playing time. Considering Cincy's success at putting players in the NFL recently and the coaches they have put out, this pitch usually works quite well. Most people visiting our campus are extremely surprised at how much they like it, and I feel any former big east members who visited will agree. Recruits see the same thing.

I see why you feel there is no reason to add UC from a revenue standpoint, but the recruting angle is a much more realistic pitch. If UC were playing ACC teams in Cincinnati, I can almost guarantee you will see those guys who were going to B1G schools start going to ACC schools like Clemson, Pitt, Va Tech and the others instead.

I'm not saying you need to add us because the truth is you don't, but I firmly disagree that it doesn't help some in the recruiting aspect. You say UC doesn't bring Ohio and you're right, but it does bring SW Ohio (Dayton-Cincy metro) which is a pretty significant area (one that also brings very high basketball ratings - http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...r-on-espn/ ).

I've been on the campus and it's nice. Saw a basketball game there and it was packed and a fun atmosphere.

At this point it's speculation if having UC helps us tap into those recruits and I just don't see it. Once or maybe twice the kid plays near home? Louisville's close enough we already offer that.

15 is an odd number in more than one way. I firmly believe if ND ever joined a league it would be the ACC. I don't necessarily even want them to join. I'm happy with what we have. To be honest, I wish we stopped at 11 and played a 20 game basketball schedule.

(07-03-2013 11:13 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:39 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think one important thing to remember with pods is that you don't have to have 16 for them. People use them a lot at 16 because it's the only good option for most conferences at that point, but you could do it at 14 with two pods of 4 and two pods of 3.

Imo, that's a ridiculous setup.

In may be different, but is it really more ridiculous than a set-up where you play almost half the conference twice in 12 years? To put that in perspective, Louisville will host Virginia Tech for the first time sometime around 2025.

The particular pods I used might not be the best set-up (I just did a quick run through to get something realistic), but they preserve most rivalries and keep every other game frequent. No teams go more than 2 years without seeing each other and that's with home and homes.

Thinking about it again, I kind of like this set-up better.

Pod A
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson

Pod B
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville

Pod C
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina

Pod D
Duke
Wake Forest
North Carolina State

Particulars: 1. 8 game schedule. 2. Pod A will join with C or D to form a division and Pod B will join with the other. After 2 years, they rotate. 3. All crossover games are against the pod you are never in a division with.

For the North Carolina and Virginia schools, this set-up means, they play each other every year or 2 out of 3 years (depending on if they are in a pod together or not). It also means one game against a Florida team every year and equal access to both the higher population northern schools and the better recruiting southern schools (playing the other 8 teams exactly half the time).

For the northern schools (counting Louisville in with this), it means a game in Florida every year, 3 games against their closer/traditional competition a year, and playing each of the other 10 teams in the conference exactly half the time.

For the southernmost 4 schools, it means playing each other annually, while playing everyone else exactly half the time.

(07-03-2013 11:13 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 09:39 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think one important thing to remember with pods is that you don't have to have 16 for them. People use them a lot at 16 because it's the only good option for most conferences at that point, but you could do it at 14 with two pods of 4 and two pods of 3.

Imo, that's a ridiculous setup.

14 actually works better than 16 if you want to keep some permanent cross-overs and still have good rotation. But since 14 is not evenly divisible by 4, lots of people (not just you) think it's "ridiculous". IMO, just need to be more open-minded and think outside the 4 X 4 box.

(07-03-2013 12:25 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thinking about it again, I kind of like this set-up better.

Pod A
Florida State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Clemson

Pod B
Boston College
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville

Pod C
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina

Pod D
Duke
Wake Forest
North Carolina State

Particulars: 1. 8 game schedule. 2. Pod A will join with C or D to form a division and Pod B will join with the other. After 2 years, they rotate. 3. All crossover games are against the pod you are never in a division with.

For the North Carolina and Virginia schools, this set-up means, they play each other every year or 2 out of 3 years (depending on if they are in a pod together or not). It also means one game against a Florida team every year and equal access to both the higher population northern schools and the better recruiting southern schools (playing the other 8 teams exactly half the time).

For the northern schools (counting Louisville in with this), it means a game in Florida every year, 3 games against their closer/traditional competition a year, and playing each of the other 10 teams in the conference exactly half the time.

For the southernmost 4 schools, it means playing each other annually, while playing everyone else exactly half the time.

I like your thinking but that would be confusing for Joe Everyman. We need memorable divisions without pushing the VA schools North.

(07-03-2013 01:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  I like your thinking but that would be confusing for Joe Everyman. We need memorable divisions without pushing the VA schools North.

Explaining it to the public is definitely the most difficult part, but most the public doesn't know the ACC divisions to begin with (and didn't the Big Ten either for that matter). I think the best way to approach that if they ever did it (very unlikely), was to present it like this:

"The Atlantic Coast Conference has listened to fan input and concern about how rare games are between schools of the Atlantic and Coastal divisions. To address this, we've decided that divisions will start rotating every other year. From now on, every single ACC football player will play every ACC school at least once home and once away during a 4 year college career. To keep up rivalries, every school will also have 3 or 4 teams it still plays every year.

The games that will happen every year are:
.....
....

The divisions will look like this in 20-- :

The divisions will look like this in 20--:

After those 4 years, we'll start over again. Enjoy the new ACC!"

(07-02-2013 02:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  Cincinnati does nothing in terms of NYC. Nobody outside of Cincinnati cares about them. I've lived in NW and NE Ohio and it's rare to see anything besides Ohio State or local school support. It's a good school, but seriously? No to Cincinnati, they're where they belong and I'd rather take UConn or even Temple before them if we HAD to expand.

Btw, to the people who diss WF and Duke: compare their stadium sizes to Cincy.

That will be all.

Even.

(07-03-2013 06:57 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 12:46 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm OK with Texas, even with ND treatment, PSU, UCONN as a basketball/Olympic sport only with the understanding that football will never happen and that they will get a boot as soon as/if ND ever decides to join and/or if the ACC ever goes to 16, or Georgetown/'Nova to hit an even number in basketball/Olympic sports.

I am against anything else unless it involves ND joining as a full member.

So, unless either UCONN or UC as a full member would attract ND, then I am against both schools as full members.

That would equal about zero attraction for ND for either, I believe.

Yup. That's why I am staunchly in the no UC(ONN) camp. I do hope UC makes it to the Big XII, though. They deserve to be in some power conference. I also hope that UCONN ends up being indy in football (or dropping back down or MAC, or whatever) and joining the BIG EAST in basketball. They deserve to be in a decent basketball conference and they deserve NE rivalries.