(07-04-2015 08:17 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I find it amusing that the nc/va schools say they won't go anywhere without wake. Good luck with that.

Which is why I have posted before that the B1G would pay anything for WF.

(07-04-2015 10:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:26 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  If it's unrealistic for the ACC to ever be close to the Big Ten and SEC in reputation and revenue, then the ACC will never be a stable conference.

Again, stability is the result of both a gap in revenue and available opportunities to move elsewhere.

Cheers,
Neil

I hear what you're saying but I see it this way. If the ACC adds an Oklahoma and Texas they want to keep Florida State for a content multiplier and the Noles would likely want to stay anyway.

If the ACC doesn't add schools like OU and UT and they reach a point where they are willing to let their top ACC football product go, then as my father used to say, "Katie bar the door!" Nothing would signal the demise of the ACC more clearly than the willingness to relinquish Florida State to a rival conference. When ESPN reaches that decision they have truly decided that their way to maximize revenue is through the redistribution of the parts that comprise the ACC.

Stinkin' Conference?

(07-04-2015 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  Stinkin' Conference?

Sometimes that how I see some of the fans of two particular football schools view the ACC.

I'm from the Big East and old Eastern indies. So it's not up to me to refer to any conference as such. Well at least P5 conference that is.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:26 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  If it's unrealistic for the ACC to ever be close to the Big Ten and SEC in reputation and revenue, then the ACC will never be a stable conference.

Again, stability is the result of both a gap in revenue and available opportunities to move elsewhere.

Cheers,
Neil

I hear what you're saying but I see it this way. If the ACC adds an Oklahoma and Texas they want to keep Florida State for a content multiplier and the Noles would likely want to stay anyway.

If the ACC doesn't add schools like OU and UT and they reach a point where they are willing to let their top ACC football product go, then as my father used to say, "Katie bar the door!" Nothing would signal the demise of the ACC more clearly than the willingness to relinquish Florida State to a rival conference. When ESPN reaches that decision they have truly decided that their way to maximize revenue is through the redistribution of the parts that comprise the ACC.

Actually, I'm not sure you are seeing my point or are not following this part of the thread carefully.

Think PAC. They have a $21M TV contract and are only making $1M off their network. That is well below what the SEC and B1G are making and the gap will widen very soon for them as well.

Are they or are they not a stable conference? I see them as being stable, despite the gap. Why? Because the members of their conference are unlikely to move to any other power conference, even to get paid more.

The gap by itself does not make a conference unstable. It's a gap PLUS the availability of other options for members in said conference that make it vulnerable.

So the ACC is vulnerable since teams within it are at the moment desirable by other conferences that are realistic options for them. But it is not just a football school like FSU that is wanted. Others not considered football schools are desired as well - UNC and UVa to name the most prominent two.

It's the incessant whining by a few that "the ACC better go out and get both OU and UT and if they don't get both they still suck" that is annoying. Some will never be satisfied.

I have said it quite a few times in the past and will repeat it again now -

If the ACC were to add WVU as a full member, get ND to commit to 6 games, and make one of those 6 games a permanent rivalry game against Miami, that is about the best the conference can realistically expect.

Then it will be up to the teams within the conference to elevate their product to change the perception of its football product.

If they wind up doing better than this, such as UT in an ND-type deal or OU as full member then I see that as gravy. Not as, "well they didn't get both so they still suck" mentality that a few of the posters on this board continually demonstrate.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 10:26 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  If it's unrealistic for the ACC to ever be close to the Big Ten and SEC in reputation and revenue, then the ACC will never be a stable conference.

Again, stability is the result of both a gap in revenue and available opportunities to move elsewhere.

Cheers,
Neil

I hear what you're saying but I see it this way. If the ACC adds an Oklahoma and Texas they want to keep Florida State for a content multiplier and the Noles would likely want to stay anyway.

If the ACC doesn't add schools like OU and UT and they reach a point where they are willing to let their top ACC football product go, then as my father used to say, "Katie bar the door!" Nothing would signal the demise of the ACC more clearly than the willingness to relinquish Florida State to a rival conference. When ESPN reaches that decision they have truly decided that their way to maximize revenue is through the redistribution of the parts that comprise the ACC.

Actually, I'm not sure you are seeing my point or are not following this part of the thread carefully.

Think PAC. They have a $21M TV contract and are only making $1M off their network. That is well below what the SEC and B1G are making and the gap will widen very soon for them as well.

Are they or are they not a stable conference? I see them as being stable, despite the gap. Why? Because the members of their conference are unlikely to move to any other power conference, even to get paid more.

The gap by itself does not make a conference unstable. It's a gap PLUS the availability of other options for members in said conference that make it vulnerable.

So the ACC is vulnerable since teams within it are at the moment desirable by other conferences that are realistic options for them. But it is not just a football school like FSU that is wanted. Others not considered football schools are desired as well - UNC and UVa to name the most prominent two.

It's the incessant whining by a few that "the ACC better go out and get both OU and UT and if they don't get both they still suck" that is annoying. Some will never be satisfied.

I have said it quite a few times in the past and will repeat it again now -

If the ACC were to add WVU as a full member, get ND to commit to 6 games, and make one of those 6 games a permanent rivalry game against Miami, that is about the best the conference can realistically expect.

Then it will be up to the teams within the conference to elevate their product to change the perception of its football product.

If they wind up doing better than this, such as UT in an ND-type deal or OU as full member then I see that as gravy. Not as, "well they didn't get both so they still suck" mentality that a few of the posters on this board continually demonstrate.

Cheers,
Neil

I got that part Neil. I was referring to the unlikelihood that ESPN ever lets go of F.S.U.. I was merely stating that if they ever do, since they are needed to prop up value if no big brand is added, and they are needed to multiply value if big brands are added, that such a signal from ESPN would be ominous. In short I just don't see it happening. So they can whine all they want it doesn't change their circumstances. I also get that if FOX could secure them for possibly the Big 10 or an even longer shot, a new conference, that the possibility to remains, ever how remote. Since the Mouse will never pay the SEC to destabilize the ACC your only threat is indeed the Big 10. But I would think if things got to that point the ACC would stay together and simply merge with the SEC into one giant conference broken into 6 or 8 divisions. In reality that may be where the next steps are ultimately headed but we will have a short path before then I think.

(07-04-2015 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I got that part Neil. I was referring to the unlikelihood that ESPN ever lets go of F.S.U.. I was merely stating that if they ever do, since they are needed to prop up value if no big brand is added, and they are needed to multiply value if big brands are added, that such a signal from ESPN would be ominous. In short I just don't see it happening. So they can whine all they want it doesn't change their circumstances. I also get that if FOX could secure them for possibly the Big 10 or an even longer shot, a new conference, that the possibility to remains, ever how remote. Since the Mouse will never pay the SEC to destabilize the ACC your only threat is indeed the Big 10. But I would think if things got to that point the ACC would stay together and simply merge with the SEC into one giant conference broken into 6 or 8 divisions. In reality that may be where the next steps are ultimately headed but we will have a short path before then I think.

Which brings me back to a point I made years ago when we were debating. As long as all of this conference trying to top other conferences nonsense exists, then top Tier college athletics is missing the mark. They need to become one entity that deals with TV as one, rather than all of these ever decreasing number of conferences (with actual clout). I believe you agreed with this point.

But the fear by some within the power college administration is that this would harken back to when the NCAAs controlled who got on TV and they don't want to share the exposure. The Kings want the exposure all for themselves.

Never mind that tv has changed since the 70s and 80s and everyone can be televised somewhere, but that the big draws will still be shown more often and on the more highly distributed channels.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 12:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 11:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I got that part Neil. I was referring to the unlikelihood that ESPN ever lets go of F.S.U.. I was merely stating that if they ever do, since they are needed to prop up value if no big brand is added, and they are needed to multiply value if big brands are added, that such a signal from ESPN would be ominous. In short I just don't see it happening. So they can whine all they want it doesn't change their circumstances. I also get that if FOX could secure them for possibly the Big 10 or an even longer shot, a new conference, that the possibility to remains, ever how remote. Since the Mouse will never pay the SEC to destabilize the ACC your only threat is indeed the Big 10. But I would think if things got to that point the ACC would stay together and simply merge with the SEC into one giant conference broken into 6 or 8 divisions. In reality that may be where the next steps are ultimately headed but we will have a short path before then I think.

Which brings me back to a point I made years ago when we were debating. As long as all of this conference trying to top other conferences nonsense exists, then top Tier college athletics is missing the mark. They need to become one entity that deals with TV as one, rather than all of these ever decreasing number of conferences (with actual clout). I believe you agreed with this point.

But the fear by some within the power college administration is that this would harken back to when the NCAAs controlled who got on TV and they don't want to share the exposure. The Kings want the exposure all for themselves.

Never mind that tv has changed since the 70s and 80s and everyone can be televised somewhere, but that the big draws will still be shown more often and on the more highly distributed channels.

Cheers,
Neil

I still agree with that assessment. But empire building is a disease that's hard to eradicate from carnal minds.

Is this consensus?

An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has done a great job in frustrating Delany.

(07-04-2015 12:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has don't a great job in frustrating Delany.

XLance about 4 years ago Frank the T(Y)ank had a good piece on Big 10 targets. Texas was 1st. Nebraska was 2nd. Maryland was 3rd. Rutgers was 4th, Notre Dame was 5th, Boston College, Syracuse, Kansas and Missouri were all on the list. The one missing was Oklahoma. I didn't recall North Carolina or either of the Virginia's being on that list either. I suppose because the thought of actually raiding the ACC for anyone other than Maryland (for Penn State security) was not thought possible.

I couldn't see the Big 10 going for Kentucky because of the AAU thing and I doubt WVU would even get a Big 10 synapse to fire. But if you can find it you would find it interesting. I think I once linked it when the SEC board first go started but that thread is probably buried pages deep. Still it was one of the most informative articles on Big 10 expansion that I have read. It's worth a look if you can find it.

(07-04-2015 12:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has don't a great job in frustrating Delany.

The inclusion of Kentucky and WVU on that list makes the document extremely suspect to me.

Does it say when? Was this around the 2010 expansion or earlier?

Cheers,
Neil

Good for ESPN, then, XLance. Anything that frustrates Delany makes my day.

Neil, I know this is just a tangent on your entire point, but what exactly would ND get out of contractually entangling another football game every year with the ACC?

Playing Pitt, BC or Miami every year doesn't seem to do it from an ND perspective. Just curious as to why you think ND would ever consider this.

I think that game would be put to better use by playing Texas, Arizona State or an SEC team instead.

(07-04-2015 12:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has don't a great job in frustrating Delany.

XLance about 4 years ago Frank the T(Y)ank had a good piece on Big 10 targets. Texas was 1st. Nebraska was 2nd. Maryland was 3rd. Rutgers was 4th, Notre Dame was 5th, Boston College, Syracuse, Kansas and Missouri were all on the list. The one missing was Oklahoma. I didn't recall North Carolina or either of the Virginia's being on that list either. I suppose because the thought of actually raiding the ACC for anyone other than Maryland (for Penn State security) was not thought possible.

I couldn't see the Big 10 going for Kentucky because of the AAU thing and I doubt WVU would even get a Big 10 synapse to fire. But if you can find it you would find it interesting. I think I once linked it when the SEC board first go started but that thread is probably buried pages deep. Still it was one of the most informative articles on Big 10 expansion that I have read. It's worth a look if you can find it.

My PSU contact at that time says the initial three targets were ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

I think FTT called it by referring to Mizzou as a stalking horse to unsettle the B12 in hopes of shaking free Texas and Texas A&M, but when that didn't happen they set their sights on Nebraska.

ND was a pipe dream, but I still believe the report out of Indianapolis that basically said Nebraska would be #12 and that if further expansion took place it would be ND, Maryland, Rutgers, and SU.

ND didn't bite and they stopped at Nebraska. But came back later for Maryland and Rutgers.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 12:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Good for ESPN, then, XLance. Anything that frustrates Delany makes my day.

Neil, I know this is just a tangent on your entire point, but what exactly would ND get out of contractually entangling another football game every year with the ACC?

Playing Pitt, BC or Miami every year doesn't seem to do it from an ND perspective. Just curious as to why you think ND would ever consider this.

I think that game would be put to better use by playing Texas, Arizona State or an SEC team instead.

Keep in mind, my suggestion is what the ACC should do to realistically try and improve itself. So it would be on the conference leadership to sell it to ND.

The possible selling points I see to ND by the ACC is helping increase conference stability as well as an annual game against a team in prime recruiting territory.

I think we agree that ND does not want full membership in any conference for football. But we also can agree that when their safe haven for their olympic sports was taken away the old argument by you and other ND fans that the dissolution of the BE wouldn't matter at all to ND since they would simply go with C7 group proved to be incredibly naive and false.

This has been shown twice now, when ND started negotiating with the ACC back in 2003 when it looked like the Big East would fall apart and again in 2012 when it actually had fallen apart.

I think we can also agree that the ACC is not presently a stable conference. We may disagree on the degree to which it is stable, but it is not 100% stable, probably not even 90% stable precisely because it is a merger of two conferences the same way the B12 was a merger of two conferences.

One of the ways to increase that stability is for Miami to get back to being some semblance of the Miami program that the ACC thought they were getting back in 2003. Right now they have one annual game they can count on for revenue and donor interest - FSU. Add ND to that list can only help, especially if the home games alternated between FSU and ND each and every year.

The addition of that game would also add to the TV contracts a little more and every little bit helps stabilize the conference as well.

In the scheme of things, is one more game truly that much to ask?

That still leaves ND with 6 games to schedule. I think you can find room for a Texas opponent on a near regular basis and an SEC opponent occasionally in that set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 12:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has don't a great job in frustrating Delany.

XLance about 4 years ago Frank the T(Y)ank had a good piece on Big 10 targets. Texas was 1st. Nebraska was 2nd. Maryland was 3rd. Rutgers was 4th, Notre Dame was 5th, Boston College, Syracuse, Kansas and Missouri were all on the list. The one missing was Oklahoma. I didn't recall North Carolina or either of the Virginia's being on that list either. I suppose because the thought of actually raiding the ACC for anyone other than Maryland (for Penn State security) was not thought possible.

I couldn't see the Big 10 going for Kentucky because of the AAU thing and I doubt WVU would even get a Big 10 synapse to fire. But if you can find it you would find it interesting. I think I once linked it when the SEC board first go started but that thread is probably buried pages deep. Still it was one of the most informative articles on Big 10 expansion that I have read. It's worth a look if you can find it.

My PSU contact at that time says the initial three targets were ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

I think FTT called it by referring to Mizzou as a stalking horse to unsettle the B12 in hopes of shaking free Texas and Texas A&M, but when that didn't happen they set their sights on Nebraska.

ND was a pipe dream, but I still believe the report out of Indianapolis that basically said Nebraska would be #12 and that if further expansion took place it would be ND, Maryland, Rutgers, and SU.

ND didn't bite and they stopped at Nebraska. But came back later for Maryland and Rutgers.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think any of the three were practical. And considering what they now have it shows. A&M was in talks with the SEC since 1991. We strongly believed they would come aboard but just didn't know when. Missouri was as I said an ESPN suggestion.

As for Texas the SEC long held out hopes, even structured its expansion to try to offer an irresistible set up for them. But, we never counted on them. Oklahoma was always #2 for the DFW area.

I strongly suspect that in the end geography will win out. Texas will take buddies whether it goes ACC or PAC and it will go PAC if ESPN gets a quid pro quo.

West Virginia will add some football props to the ACC, isn't bad at hoops, gets Pitt back on the schedule as a marquee game, and fills the whole in the footprint left by Maryland. They make sense.

Oklahoma can't go to the Big 10 without Texas. 1. ESPN would make it difficult on them with scheduling. 2. They would lose out on Texas recruiting if the only regional game they did play was the RRR. 3. Their BMD's aren't behind it.

Kansas will go Big 10. They fit and they are a lot closer to them.

Other than West Virginia in the Big 12 and Miami in the Big East (which made more sense culturally) there have not been such outrageous outliers in upper tier and I doubt there will be any going forward. So in the end geography will win out.

(07-04-2015 10:40 AM)Dasville Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 08:17 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I find it amusing that the nc/va schools say they won't go anywhere without wake. Good luck with that.

Which is why I have posted before that the B1G would pay anything for WF.

LOL, Dasville. I love reading your posts but I think you have been reading too much of Lumberpack's stuff. Just take a look at all of the realignment scenarios that Neil and JrSEC have been mentioning. Not one includes Wake Forest. In fact, during the crazy realignment years, Wake's name never came up once in any scenario by any writer. I'm not disrespecting Wake in any kind of way, as Wake is a very fine university that runs a pretty clean operation, and I'm glad to share a conference with them.

(07-04-2015 12:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Good for ESPN, then, XLance. Anything that frustrates Delany makes my day.

Neil, I know this is just a tangent on your entire point, but what exactly would ND get out of contractually entangling another football game every year with the ACC?

Playing Pitt, BC or Miami every year doesn't seem to do it from an ND perspective. Just curious as to why you think ND would ever consider this.

I think that game would be put to better use by playing Texas, Arizona State or an SEC team instead.

Terry, I understand your views re Notre Dame and independence. The Irish REALLY don't want full membership for football in the ACC, B1G or anywhere else. That being said, I can't help but wonder just how far they would go to avoid it.

For example, what might happen if the ACC and Big 12, both of which have members who have legitimate concerns about the long-term stability of their conferences, were able to convince the Big Ten that it was in all their interests to prevent further strengthening of the SEC? It seems to be an article of faith that the SEC would like to add the states of North Carolina and Virginia to their footprint/market area. Similarly, it has often been suggested that the Big Ten would like to have UNC and UVa in their orbit. The corollary to that is that such a move would prompt the SEC to take NC State and Virginia Tech.

What if they were all to strike a deal in which the ACC members who would prefer to be in a football-first conference could avoid paying exit fees to keep the SEC from accomplishing that?

What if, subject to a vote to dissolve that conference, the Big 12 agreed to let the Big Ten have UNC, Virginia, Duke and Pitt - all AAU schools? That would open the door for the Big 12 to agree to take 10 schools from what's left of that conference. Under those circumstances, would Notre Dame pass on being one of those 10?

The problem for the Irish in such a scenario is that there would be no power conference left in which they could park their other sports. When they were in the Big East, it was a power conference in which ND could compete at the highest levels in all men's and women's sports other than football. Now, the ACC gives them that. But there would be little chance that an 18 team B1G or a 20 team Big 12 would be interested in giving them such a safe haven. What then? The new Big East? That seems like a comedown for the Irish in every sport but men's basketball. The AAC? I just don't see it.

With a P4 that is unlikely to have much more change down the road, the Irish could be effectively blocked from access to a CFP 95% of the time. The more likely scenario is a selection process for which the default option is the four P4 champs.

Let's say that this new 20 team Big 12 (with a new name, of course) were willing to guarantee that they would play an 8 game league schedule, allowing ND to keep its annual games against USC, Stanford and Navy. They could put the Irish in a five team pod with Texas, BC and Miami to give them an attractive conference schedule. And somehow, they find a way to accommodate some continuing relationship with NBC and convert the LHN to a true conference owned network.

Could that be the tipping point for the Irish?

(07-04-2015 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:45 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  An old document from Notre Dame showed that the 5 most likely schools for the B1G choice for #12 were, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.
It seems as if ESPN did everything they could to prevent the B1G for getting the other 4 after the took Nebraska.
If indeed those were the B1G's top 5 to get to 16 then ESPN has don't a great job in frustrating Delany.

XLance about 4 years ago Frank the T(Y)ank had a good piece on Big 10 targets. Texas was 1st. Nebraska was 2nd. Maryland was 3rd. Rutgers was 4th, Notre Dame was 5th, Boston College, Syracuse, Kansas and Missouri were all on the list. The one missing was Oklahoma. I didn't recall North Carolina or either of the Virginia's being on that list either. I suppose because the thought of actually raiding the ACC for anyone other than Maryland (for Penn State security) was not thought possible.

I couldn't see the Big 10 going for Kentucky because of the AAU thing and I doubt WVU would even get a Big 10 synapse to fire. But if you can find it you would find it interesting. I think I once linked it when the SEC board first go started but that thread is probably buried pages deep. Still it was one of the most informative articles on Big 10 expansion that I have read. It's worth a look if you can find it.

My PSU contact at that time says the initial three targets were ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

I think FTT called it by referring to Mizzou as a stalking horse to unsettle the B12 in hopes of shaking free Texas and Texas A&M, but when that didn't happen they set their sights on Nebraska.

ND was a pipe dream, but I still believe the report out of Indianapolis that basically said Nebraska would be #12 and that if further expansion took place it would be ND, Maryland, Rutgers, and SU.

ND didn't bite and they stopped at Nebraska. But came back later for Maryland and Rutgers.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think any of the three were practical. And considering what they now have it shows. A&M was in talks with the SEC since 1991. We strongly believed they would come aboard but just didn't know when. Missouri was as I said an ESPN suggestion.

As for Texas the SEC long held out hopes, even structured its expansion to try to offer an irresistible set up for them. But, we never counted on them. Oklahoma was always #2 for the DFW area.

I strongly suspect that in the end geography will win out. Texas will take buddies whether it goes ACC or PAC and it will go PAC if ESPN gets a quid pro quo.

West Virginia will add some football props to the ACC, isn't bad at hoops, gets Pitt back on the schedule as a marquee game, and fills the whole in the footprint left by Maryland. They make sense.

Oklahoma can't go to the Big 10 without Texas. 1. ESPN would make it difficult on them with scheduling. 2. They would lose out on Texas recruiting if the only regional game they did play was the RRR. 3. Their BMD's aren't behind it.

Kansas will go Big 10. They fit and they are a lot closer to them.

Other than West Virginia in the Big 12 and Miami in the Big East (which made more sense culturally) there have not been such outrageous outliers in upper tier and I doubt there will be any going forward. So in the end geography will win out.

I agree that Texas and Texas A&M were not practical for the B1G. Doesn't mean what I state isn't true especially considering their egos, then super-sized due to the success of the BTN.

I can understand why they thought ND would eventually come around. ND way in the distant past had wanted in and they had regularly scheduled OOC games with them for a long period of time. I think the no interest by the Irish really frustrates them because they don't understand logically why it didn't happen. Which, of course, goes to why they had no chance with ND.

I still think you are underestimating the appeal the B1G might have for the Sooners. I actually think they have the step up on the SEC in this case and the SEC's best shot of getting them is to take both OU and Okla State, something the B1G will not do.

But if OU is willing to separate from the the Cowboys, and KU comes with them, their pod of OU, Nebraska, Iowa, and KU definitely has a Big 8'ish feel to it.

Now if the RRR game is threatened at all it will be threatened by the Longhorns joining the SEC in full. If they join either the ACC or PAC, I see it continuing.

Lastly, the Sooners recruit California almost as much as they recruit Texas. The Rose Bowl might help a little in this regard.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-04-2015 01:03 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-04-2015 12:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Good for ESPN, then, XLance. Anything that frustrates Delany makes my day.

Neil, I know this is just a tangent on your entire point, but what exactly would ND get out of contractually entangling another football game every year with the ACC?

Playing Pitt, BC or Miami every year doesn't seem to do it from an ND perspective. Just curious as to why you think ND would ever consider this.

I think that game would be put to better use by playing Texas, Arizona State or an SEC team instead.

Keep in mind, my suggestion is what the ACC should do to realistically try and improve itself. So it would be on the conference leadership to sell it to ND.

The possible selling points I see to ND by the ACC is helping increase conference stability as well as an annual game against a team in prime recruiting territory.

I think we agree that ND does not want full membership in any conference for football. But we also can agree that when their safe haven for their olympic sports was taken away the old argument by you and other ND fans that the dissolution of the BE wouldn't matter at all to ND since they would simply go with C7 group proved to be incredibly naive and false.

This has been shown twice now, when ND started negotiating with the ACC back in 2003 when it looked like the Big East would fall apart and again in 2012 when it actually had fallen apart.

I think we can also agree that the ACC is not presently a stable conference. We may disagree on the degree to which it is stable, but it is not 100% stable, probably not even 90% stable precisely because it is a merger of two conferences the same way the B12 was a merger of two conferences.

One of the ways to increase that stability is for Miami to get back to being some semblance of the Miami program that the ACC thought they were getting back in 2003. Right now they have one annual game they can count on for revenue and donor interest - FSU. Add ND to that list can only help, especially if the home games alternated between FSU and ND each and every year.

The addition of that game would also add to the TV contracts a little more and every little bit helps stabilize the conference as well.

In the scheme of things, is one more game truly that much to ask?

That still leaves ND with 6 games to schedule. I think you can find room for a Texas opponent on a near regular basis and an SEC opponent occasionally in that set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

The ACC is unstable just like the Big East was unstable.

ND walked away from the Big East.

It is just possible that ND football could stand on the sidelines and let the ACC take several hits with a few schools leaving (Florida State, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech?).

There would still be a backfilled ACC that is pretty good at hoops, baseball and lacrosse for ND to play in and would still have some decent minor bowl options for ND to be part of.

What you are suggesting is the type of "mission creep" that ND should resist.

Just one more game to six...just one more game to seven..c'mon, it is only one more game to eight and full membership....

This far and no further?