(06-26-2013 12:36 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-26-2013 11:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 10:05 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-25-2013 09:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  In terms of realignment, since Kansas is the topic of this conversation now, where is all the talk of Kansas possibly going should the Big 12 break down further? The Big Ten. The Big Ten has it's own tier 3 Network. Guess what ESPN just bought up? Some of Kansas's rights. ESPN just made it difficult for the Big Ten to ever get Kansas should realignment be alive and well as SI would like to say.

By difficult I mean much more expensive to buy up the rights so Kansas can be brought into the fold.

IMO Kansas and Texas are now more definitively in the ESPN fold. So they would move to an ESPN conference. If I'm not mistaken, and I could be since I'm trusting memory, Oklahoma's tier 3 package is with Comcast. But I don't think their package is so strong that it couldn't be bought out. They front most of the expenses and so net around 3 million a year out of the 7 reported.

You might, assuming their is a dissolution, see Texas as a hybrid, Baylor and West Virginia to the ACC and Oklahoma and Kansas to the SEC. Then if the PAC truly wants an entry into the central time zone they have 4 states and 4 state schools with which to acquire it. Heck if they were both willing to go to 18 they could pull it off together.

I can actually see KU being in the SEC someday. UK v. KU would be epic in basketball and Mizzou v. KU would have some kick to it, given their experience in the Big XII, and Mizzou's departure.

I'm still not sold on Baylor to the ACC, though. I think that we would just stay at 14 and take Texas and ND as partials. I could see WVU, and I would be alright with it, but I don't think that would fly in VA, and it definitely wouldn't fly in NC. I realize that 8 Big XII schools need to want to leave for the conference GOR to be broken, but I'm willing to wait, and I bet the ACC is too.

http://theragingbull.com/0703db/071003.htm

Taken from an Esayem post......interesting.
Carolina was attempting to propose West Virginia and Virginia Tech in the original ACC. BTW, Robert House (Carolina Chancellor at the time )was an academic GIANT.

The ACC was not born out of whole cloth. The ACC is the old Southern Conference and MD, Clemson, Duke, and South Carolina decided to leave in 1952 due to a fight with VT's President who had instituted a post season bowl ban with the support of West Virginia who had only been in the Southern Conference for two years.

The four invited UNC and NC State and NC State wanted Wake Forest since Wake Forest at the time had not moved to Winston Salem and was only 10 miles from NC State. MD wanted UVa back in the league (they left the Southern Conference in 1937) and UVa was the first "expansion" but not really an expansion.

UNC wanted to patch things up with VT and WVa and made a motion to readmit VT to the group - but MD, Clemson, SC, and Duke still had hard feelings and the motion died 4-4. When UNC made a motion to admit WVa it died for lack of a second.

Greensboro News and Record Writer Bill Brill wrote a number of articles on this subject.

UNC and Duke could have blocked VT from rejoing the group in 2003 by switching votes with UVa and allowing UVa off the political hook in Virginia. UNC and Duke talked opposition to expansion, but cast their votes in a manner to ensure that VT and Miami would enter at 10 and 11. The truth was that Duke and UNC wanted VT due to their travelling fan base and to take a firmer grip on Virginia.

WVa's addition to the Southern Conference in 1950 changed the power sturcture of the leage enough to put the bowl ban in place and even though VT's President implemented the ban, West Va got the blame for supporting him. UVa, UNC, WF, and Duke will not support West Va in the ACC and it takes four votes to keep someone out. VT, Pitt, and NC State might or might not support WVa but it wont matter.

West Va and UConn are not going to get invitations to join the ACC - the votes just aren't there.

The are 12 votes in the ACC for Texas, and Penn State (not that PSU is looking to leave the B10).

There would be 12 ACC votes for any of Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Vandy, Florida, Michigan State, Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State - however all of those schools are happy where they are and have no reason to move. Also the ACC and SEC don't poach each other and supposedly have a long-standing "gentleman's agreement".

The real question would be "are there 12 votes for schools like Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Kansas State, etc., on the way to the ACC becoming an 18 team conference."

I don't think there are 12 votes to go to 18.

I think there are 12 votes to add Texas with a deal like ND, and 12 votes to add Penn State if they are unhappy with the B10. There might be 12 votes to add Navy if Notre Dame ups it's annual ACC games from 5 to 8.

Unlike the B10, both the SEC and ACC have institutional memory of being in a conference with too many members. The Southern Conference had 23 members when 13 teams left to form the SEC in 1933. The Southern Conference ballooned again and by 1950 was at 17 members when the bowl ban issue split the league and the ACC teams pulled out, leaving VT and West Va behind.

At the end of the day, if OU is happy with Texas and the B12, the B12 will survive.

I agree.

I would be amazed if there is any support from Syracuse, Pitt, or BC for any school in the southwest who has a name that doesn't begin with "The University" and end with "of Texas."

Baylor/TCU/KSU/ISU would be starting out 0-3 and the old ACC schools tend to be anti-expansion (presumably for a number of reasons, including the reasons that you described), so convincing all of Duke, WF, UNC, NCSU, and UVA that expansion is a good idea is next to impossible unless there is a super power involved (barring schools like Vanderbilt, which won't leave the SEC - especially if there really is a gentleman's agreement).

IMO, aside from TX, the only way I can see the ACC going south and to the west is via Tulane, and that won't happen unless Tulane realizes their potential and turns into Miami circa 1980. However, even then, it might still require ND joining them.

I think that the ACC would rather wait for Texas (which may never come) then jump the gun by taking a southwestern school that has nothing to do with the rest of the conference, and is only there because there isn't anywhere else for that school to go (*cough WVU and the Big XII*). I'm content with the ACC as is, and I think the vast majority of ACC fans/schools agree with me.