(07-01-2015 09:41 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  NOTHING allows a non-football member to participate in the ACC CG. That is ridiculous.

Oh, I'm sure the ADs and Presidents could craft a scenario and agreement that, while ridiculous in your view, would allow ND (and Texas, ftm) to compete in the ACC CG while not playing a complete 8 (or 9) game schedule.

You'd be pissed, but that's collateral damage

(07-02-2015 01:48 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Why would ESPN act to protect the ACC if it did nothing to stop the Big 12 Conference from imploding?

Men's college basketball.

(07-02-2015 11:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

I gave you two rep points for the use of the phrase "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce."

I'm giving you 3 rep points for giving him 2 rep points for use of jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce.

Scenarios I could actually see taking place:

1) Texas joins as a full member, bringing Baylor with them.

2) Texas joins as a member, doesn't play a full ACC FB schedule, and brings Baylor with them.

3) Texas joins as a member (sans Baylor), doesn't play a full ACC FB schedule, but agrees to play 5-6 ACC members each season.

4) The ACC, Notre Dame, ESPN and NBC come to some sort of agreement that results in ND becoming ACC CG eligible while only playing 6 or 7 ACC games. 6 is probably the sweet spot as long as the ACC gets to determine which ND "OOC" games count.

5) John Swofford, in his final act as Commish, and dressed in full "ninja" gear announces that Michigan State has agreed to join the ACC as a full member, and follows that up by announcing that Notre Dame has agreed to play a full ACC FB schedule and compete for the conference title. Joining Swoff at the presser is WF President Nathan Hatch (because, WF is the mover and shaker in this league), ESPN and NBC media execs, and The Old Trench Fighter with a photochop of the Deacon mascot flipping Delany the finger (only Lumber will get this part)

6) Notre Dame, recognizing that New Orleans is prime media real estate, brings a replica of "Touchdown Jesus" to New Orleans and convinces Tulane to re-commit to athletics to the extent that it can (see Duke football, circa now). The ACC then extends an invitation for Tulane to return to the fold (if you will). Notre Dame agrees to play a complete FB schedule as long as NBC maintains home game TV rights. LSU starts to feel "some kinda way" about Tulane's re-emergence.

(07-02-2015 12:01 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

I gave you two rep points for the use of the phrase "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce."

I'm giving you 3 rep points for giving him 2 rep points for use of jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce.

I have a good mind to negative rep all 3 of you for using that term.

(07-02-2015 11:18 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:41 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  NOTHING allows a non-football member to participate in the ACC CG. That is ridiculous.

Oh, I'm sure the ADs and Presidents could craft a scenario and agreement that, while ridiculous in your view, would allow ND (and Texas, ftm) to compete in the ACC CG while not playing a complete 8 (or 9) game schedule.

You'd be pissed, but that's collateral damage

But but but isn't Northwestern going to join the ACC and cause ND to join with them? You even implied they'd be negotiating in Durham this fall. It's bad enough that you think NW would cause ND to join, but it's even worse that you think NW is a property the ACC wants.

Isn't the ACC going to create a network? If that's imminent, why do something only a conference in a position of weakness and desperation would do, such as allowing a non-football member playing an incomplete conference schedule to play in the ACC CG? That's an absurd notion that you and our faux insider lumberpack keep suggesting. Please, ask David Teel or any other NC/VA media member what they think about that deal. Do they think the ACC would allow that?

(07-02-2015 03:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:01 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

I gave you two rep points for the use of the phrase "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce."

I'm giving you 3 rep points for giving him 2 rep points for use of jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce.

I have a good mine to neg rep all 3 of you.

I'm not sure how it happened, but I actually decreased in Reputation even with TerryD's +2.

Oh, the humanity!

(07-02-2015 05:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 03:50 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 12:01 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:12 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

I gave you two rep points for the use of the phrase "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce."

I'm giving you 3 rep points for giving him 2 rep points for use of jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce.

I have a good mine to neg rep all 3 of you.

I'm not sure how it happened, but I actually decreased in Reputation even with TerryD's +2.

Oh, the humanity!

LOL, it wasn't me.

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

Substitute Baylor (whose religious doctrine has some sway over the campus and therefore would be anathema to the PAC) to the SEC and put T.C.U. (who has secularized) in the PAC and you're onto something here. Also substitute Connecticut for Oklahoma State. Neil is right.

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor/Oklahoma State to the ACC.
Kansas and Connecticut to the Big 10.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
And it doesn't matter if the PAC takes anyone if they aren't selling an interest in the PACN.

This would bring balance, give the ACC an network, provide you with football gravitas, and the SEC would be done with markets and two affable fan bases.

Always ask for more than what you deserve (Oklahoma and Florida State) and settle for what you want (Virginia Tech and N.C.State).

(07-02-2015 07:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 06:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Now ESPN and FOX are both experiencing minor economic setbacks and are being asked to tighten their belts just at the moment in time when the B1G tier 1 content will be up for grabs. This likely means they will end up working together again but if it's a competition with only one winner?

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, I saw that too... you think it's legit, or just poor-mouthing in advance of negotiations? ESPN certainly has a reputation for manipulating negotiations to their advantage, but it'll only work if Fox is in on it too... I could even see a case for shared Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

It's a Sicilian message saying that the good times are over for sports contracts. The globe is in economic contraction, so too will be leisure activities.

(07-02-2015 07:48 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:29 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What Big 12 rules currently constrain what Texas would like to do with the LHN?
Would a move to the ACC in a ND type deal enable them (and ESPN) to do things differently with the LHN?
I'm asking because I've heard there are things the Big12 won't let Texas show on the LHN but I'm not familiar with the terms.

That's a good question. As I see it, the LHN is pretty much history, it either gets folded into a B12 Network (if the league expands and stays alive), PACN, SECN, BTN, or future ACCN.

The only way the Longhorns gain an equivalent to $15M annually or more that the LHN provides (since being folded into a conference network isn't likely to do that) is an ND type NBC deal for 6 or 7 home football games but then they lose out on the B12 Tier 1 and 2 TV contract money of $20M annually. So if UT goes the indy route like ND and gets $20M for their indy football and then $5M from the ACC tv contract that gets them to $25M.

So what gets UT to $35M annually in TV revenue? It almost seems like the Longhorns have to wind up in either the B1G or the SEC to get that type of money from TV.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really. If every conference member accepts their bump up with a network and then gives Texas 1 million a year for 15 years out of their raise then ESPN pays nothing to get out from under the LHN and the conference schools collectively sacrifice little for what could be a 5 or 6 million dollar bump.

(07-02-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:48 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:29 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What Big 12 rules currently constrain what Texas would like to do with the LHN?
Would a move to the ACC in a ND type deal enable them (and ESPN) to do things differently with the LHN?
I'm asking because I've heard there are things the Big12 won't let Texas show on the LHN but I'm not familiar with the terms.

That's a good question. As I see it, the LHN is pretty much history, it either gets folded into a B12 Network (if the league expands and stays alive), PACN, SECN, BTN, or future ACCN.

The only way the Longhorns gain an equivalent to $15M annually or more that the LHN provides (since being folded into a conference network isn't likely to do that) is an ND type NBC deal for 6 or 7 home football games but then they lose out on the B12 Tier 1 and 2 TV contract money of $20M annually. So if UT goes the indy route like ND and gets $20M for their indy football and then $5M from the ACC tv contract that gets them to $25M.

So what gets UT to $35M annually in TV revenue? It almost seems like the Longhorns have to wind up in either the B1G or the SEC to get that type of money from TV.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really. If every conference member accepts their bump up with a network and then gives Texas 1 million a year for 15 years out of their raise then ESPN pays nothing to get out from under the LHN and the conference schools collectively sacrifice little for what could be a 5 or 6 million dollar bump.

ND apparently increased the ACC TV contract to about an average of $19M per institution from $17M. Will Texas increase it much more than that? Or are you counting the ACCN bump in addition to the national TV contract bump?

And if FSU fans on this board are correct, I am not sure they would want the Noles administration to give the Longhorns anything out of their pockets.

But maybe they won't care because this entire discussion is "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce".

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor/Oklahoma State to the ACC.
Kansas and Connecticut to the Big 10.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
And it doesn't matter if the PAC takes anyone if they aren't selling an interest in the PACN.

This would bring balance, give the ACC an network, provide you with football gravitas, and the SEC would be done with markets and two affable fan bases.

Always ask for more than what you deserve (Oklahoma and Florida State) and settle for what you want (Virginia Tech and N.C.State).

This only helps the ACC and the SEC.

So, if you are correct with this scenario and ESPN and FOX will work together on this I simply don't see how FOX wins with this set-up. Outside of the B12, FOX and the B1g are the huge losers here.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2015 09:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:48 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:29 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What Big 12 rules currently constrain what Texas would like to do with the LHN?
Would a move to the ACC in a ND type deal enable them (and ESPN) to do things differently with the LHN?
I'm asking because I've heard there are things the Big12 won't let Texas show on the LHN but I'm not familiar with the terms.

That's a good question. As I see it, the LHN is pretty much history, it either gets folded into a B12 Network (if the league expands and stays alive), PACN, SECN, BTN, or future ACCN.

The only way the Longhorns gain an equivalent to $15M annually or more that the LHN provides (since being folded into a conference network isn't likely to do that) is an ND type NBC deal for 6 or 7 home football games but then they lose out on the B12 Tier 1 and 2 TV contract money of $20M annually. So if UT goes the indy route like ND and gets $20M for their indy football and then $5M from the ACC tv contract that gets them to $25M.

So what gets UT to $35M annually in TV revenue? It almost seems like the Longhorns have to wind up in either the B1G or the SEC to get that type of money from TV.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really. If every conference member accepts their bump up with a network and then gives Texas 1 million a year for 15 years out of their raise then ESPN pays nothing to get out from under the LHN and the conference schools collectively sacrifice little for what could be a 5 or 6 million dollar bump.

ND apparently increased the ACC TV contract to about an average of $19M per institution from $17M. Will Texas increase it much more than that? Or are you counting the ACCN bump in addition to the national TV contract bump?

And if FSU fans on this board are correct, I am not sure they would want the Noles administration to give the Longhorns anything out of their pockets.

But maybe they won't care because this entire discussion is "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce".

Cheers,
Neil

Well you have to figure that the average game between national brands is worth about 3 million. Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State and even with a putrid football program North Carolina all qualify. Clemson is a very strong regional brand and Miami still counts everywhere but in attendance. So I'd say that the presence of Texas alone is worth maybe 12 million tops in content. The 26 million households they bring even at a dollar (.40 below the SECN) speaks for itself. So 16 into to 38 million would be worth 2.1 million plus for each school and we haven't even addressed the population of the rest of the ACC for the network carriage rates. Conservatively Neil 6 million would be my ballpark figure. The key here is Oklahoma. Add them too and you essentially double the content plus one extra game. Now were talking 10 million plus counting the almost 3 million in Oklahoma plus their national audience. So you tell me is giving up two redundant schools (and I'm talking N.C. State and Virginia Tech) who would be earning appx. 45 million in the SEC (so certainly not in pain), be worth everyone else getting bumped 10 million for starters? If you also add Kansas State and perhaps even Iowa State you've bumped the carriage almost 7 million more. That's not a lot, but it's more than you get from redundant schools. So in giving up two where Virginia and North Carolina still carry their respective states (unlike in Florida) you gain 10 million plus a almost another .5 million to add 4 schools that engorge your footprint.

Call me crazy but that's a no brainer. And I still haven't calculated the carriage for the rest of the ACC just the additions. So, unless you are UVa and UNC and afraid of 16 full members and only 4 votes instead of 6 that you can bank on, why are we still talking about something that should have been done 3 years ago.

(07-02-2015 09:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor/Oklahoma State to the ACC.
Kansas and Connecticut to the Big 10.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
And it doesn't matter if the PAC takes anyone if they aren't selling an interest in the PACN.

This would bring balance, give the ACC an network, provide you with football gravitas, and the SEC would be done with markets and two affable fan bases.

Always ask for more than what you deserve (Oklahoma and Florida State) and settle for what you want (Virginia Tech and N.C.State).

This only helps the ACC and the SEC.

So, if you are correct with this scenario and ESPN and FOX will work together on this I simply don't see how FOX wins with this set-up. Outside of the B12, FOX and the B1g are the huge losers here.

Cheers,
Neil

The Big 10 is still going to get bumped 2 million above the SEC no matter what. The reason is that is all they have ever wanted. The SEC doesn't care because with the attendance we have and the athletic contributions we still out earn them as a conference, even though Ohio State and Michigan finish slightly ahead of our leaders. The Big 10 only loses on its dreams of landing Southern schools which for the most part isn't going to happen unless the ACC collapses. For Texas to head North would be the equivalent of committing ritual suicide. Texans are more geocentric than most people in the Deep South. A&M knows this. Without Texas there is no way Oklahoma goes to the Big 10.

(07-02-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor/Oklahoma State to the ACC.
Kansas and Connecticut to the Big 10.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
And it doesn't matter if the PAC takes anyone if they aren't selling an interest in the PACN.

This would bring balance, give the ACC an network, provide you with football gravitas, and the SEC would be done with markets and two affable fan bases.

Always ask for more than what you deserve (Oklahoma and Florida State) and settle for what you want (Virginia Tech and N.C.State).

Why take K State? Rather have TCU, Baylor, WVU or OK State before them.

You're stopping at 16 in this for the ACC and SEC? Does that mean TCU and WVU are homeless? I'd take both in the ACC, or at least WVU if we already had Baylor and Texas to represent Texas. Divsions/Pods and scheduling would be rough.

Great thread. A few observations.

The B12's GOR expires two years before the ACC's (2025 vs. 2027). The end of these GORs opens the door to the next potential round of conference realignment. It is interesting that the B12, which is the most unstable of the P5 conferences, is the one that comes in play at the earliest date. Another important date, though, is the expiration of the University of Texas LHN deal with ESPN, which ends in 2031.

Looking at the P5 conferences, it is pretty clear that the B1G, the SEC and the P12 are absolutely secure - they will continue to exist with their existing core members indefinitely. Therefore, there continues to be some gravity for some members of the ACC and B12 to consider moving to one of these other conferences to ensure their long term position in college athletics.

On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the P5 would ever shrink below 4 conferences. Like two people in the woods trying to outrun a bear, the B12 and ACC really only have to outlast the other conference to survive.

Really, Texas is the prize in all of this. Whatever Texas chooses to do is going to be the first domino to fall.

My guess is that both the B1G and the P12 are going to have significant interest in Texas, as they did 5 years ago. I believe the SEC is likely comfortable with their existing position in the State of Texas with A&M on board. They may entertain an approach by Texas, but they are not going to chase them. The other members of the B12, except perhaps OU, are likely to do whatever it takes to keep Texas on board. If the CFP landscape evolves so that independents can have reasonable access to the NY6/CFP bowls, Texas may want to take their football independent, in which case the ACC may be a good landing spot.

Since it came closest to happening last time, my guess is that if Texas does leave the B12, it would be in a group of 4 schools (UT, TTU, OU, and OSU) to the P12. This might establish 16 as the new target conference size. The SEC and B1G are both interested in expanding into the States of North Carolina and Virginia. The B1G would still love to get Notre Dame and was rumored to have interest in Georgia Tech at one point. Of the schools left from the B12, KU would appear to be the only one of potential interest to the B1G.

I personally don't see the SEC or B1G being interested in anyone from the State of North Carolina except UNC. I also don't see UNC ever splitting from Duke. Would either the SEC or B1G be willing to take UNC and Duke as a pair? In the State of Virginia, I do see the SEC interested in either UVA or VT, but the B1G only interested in UVA.

UVA, UNC and Duke are closely aligned and are core members of the ACC. If they all want to stick together, would either the SEC or B1G take them as a group and move to 18? I also see VT as very committed to staying with UVA. I would only see them leaving if UVA were leaving also - so that if UVA were going to the B1G, VT would head for the SEC in a SECond, and the SEC would likely take them.

Curious about folks thoughts.

(07-03-2015 01:20 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas State, and Baylor/Oklahoma State to the ACC.
Kansas and Connecticut to the Big 10.
Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC.
And it doesn't matter if the PAC takes anyone if they aren't selling an interest in the PACN.

This would bring balance, give the ACC an network, provide you with football gravitas, and the SEC would be done with markets and two affable fan bases.

Always ask for more than what you deserve (Oklahoma and Florida State) and settle for what you want (Virginia Tech and N.C.State).

Why take K State? Rather have TCU, Baylor, WVU or OK State before them.

You're stopping at 16 in this for the ACC and SEC? Does that mean TCU and WVU are homeless? I'd take both in the ACC, or at least WVU if we already had Baylor and Texas to represent Texas. Divsions/Pods and scheduling would be rough.

After Texas and Oklahoma which other two you take doesn't really matter that much. I could have just put "pick two".

(07-03-2015 09:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  UVA, UNC and Duke are closely aligned and are core members of the ACC. If they all want to stick together, would either the SEC or B1G take them as a group and move to 18? I also see VT as very committed to staying with UVA. I would only see them leaving if UVA were leaving also - so that if UVA were going to the B1G, VT would head for the SEC in a SECond, and the SEC would likely take them.

Curious about folks thoughts.

The affinity of the ACC foursome - Duke, UNC, UVa and VT - is the reason why the league is unlikely to break up, IMO. Having said that, if key teams were ever stripped away (FSU, Clemson, etc.), it could effectively neuter it as a football conference.