Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
Author Message
hawghiggs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,792
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 124
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma want no part of the SEC. They want to control their own conference, thank you.
Its not a question. When everyone else leaves that party. The party is over. Then it doesn't matter what you want.
04-17-2015 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mizzou and Vanderbilt

Both want the research consortium.
Mizzou can lead to Oklahoma and Texas down the road.
Vanderbilt along with Maryland can break down barriers with UVa, UNC, and GT down the road.
Would strike a major blow to the SECs ego.

SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
Big12 goes west with BYU, Colo St, and UNM

I like it.

Enhance the B1G with value (Missouri, Vandy). Take 2 SEC schools at once while your at it.

SEC doesn't have to do anything if they don't want to.....

SEC East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Auburn
SEC West: Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Miss St, Alabama

They still have 12 schools and they've tightened up their geography some.
04-17-2015 10:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #63
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:55 PM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
SEC won't turn a blind eye to academics and research.

ECU offer more than the Ms schools.

SMU and WVU. A&M wouldn't want Houston.
04-17-2015 10:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #64
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mizzou and Vanderbilt

Both want the research consortium.
Mizzou can lead to Oklahoma and Texas down the road.
Vanderbilt along with Maryland can break down barriers with UVa, UNC, and GT down the road.
Would strike a major blow to the SECs ego.

SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
Big12 goes west with BYU, Colo St, and UNM

The SEC cant afford to lose it's only Private University. The amount of cover that single University gives for the rest of the conference is incalculable in value. The PAC has Stanford. The Big Ten has Northwestern. The SEC has Vanderbilt. The big 12 has always had Baylor as they followed the rule upon their creation. The fact that they had to take another shows just how weak they were at the time.
04-17-2015 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma want no part of the SEC. They want to control their own conference, thank you.

Message board crap I've heard:

1. Gentlemen's agreement: Never happened. Slive asked that #13 & #14 be for new markets. Said later additions could be in state rivals. Florida sponsored F.S.U. in '91 and South Carolina was willing to support Clemson next time around per Spurrier. Both schools were afraid growing conferences would kill the rivalry that their donations depend upon.

2. Oklahoma wants no part of the SEC: They've been in discussion with us 3 times since '91.

3. Texas wants no part of us. While I believe this to be true the reality is Texas wants no part of the West and their fans want games against their old and present rivals and the ACC seems unwilling to entertain them. So if things get rougher for the Big 12 they may have no other palatable choice. They would really get killed by A&M in the Big 10.

4. Academics don't matter to the SEC: The last two additions were both AAU.

5. It's all about new markets: Content will drive the paycheck from here on out. Even Texas will have a hard time if they can't get at least half of the schedule filled with brand names. If cable does go a la carte bet on content driving the rest of realignment.

6. The SEC has no GOR: Among our schools no. With ESPN for the SECN, yes.

7. The conferences make their own decisions about realignment: Really? The conferences take the checks. The networks write the checks. The Big 10 and SEC set some parameters, but ESPN and to a lesser degree FOX control the decisions within those parameters.

8. Bloggers and twitter guys have inside knowledge: No. But they do get used to float trial balloons and to release misinformation. I give you Clay Travis, The Dude and now Greg Flugaur.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2015 11:15 PM by JRsec.)
04-17-2015 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BE4neva Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 89
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation: -11
I Root For: Providence
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
Chain of events:

2016-18
Mizzou and UConn to the B1G
ECU rebrands itself "Carolina University" and starts talking about research and stuff.
WVU leaves the B12 for the SEC
ACC adds Cincy before B12 even gets a phone call off
BYU puts its football in the B12

Things quiets down for a year or so. The end game is a power 4 with 16-20 each with all divisions getting a bid to a 8 team playoff. The first round of the playoff is divisions from same conferences playing aka the conference ship game owned by the conferences and not the bcs.

It's now 2020-2023. Money can be made and it's time to destroy the b12. Musical chairs erupts again before contracts.
04-17-2015 11:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HamiltonJames Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 270
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 13
I Root For: G-5
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:58 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:55 PM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
SEC won't turn a blind eye to academics and research.

ECU offer more than the Ms schools.

SMU and WVU. A&M wouldn't want Houston.
They aren't taking research lightweights. The only conference that might is the Big 12.
04-17-2015 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HamiltonJames Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 270
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation: 13
I Root For: G-5
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mizzou and Vanderbilt

Both want the research consortium.
Mizzou can lead to Oklahoma and Texas down the road.
Vanderbilt along with Maryland can break down barriers with UVa, UNC, and GT down the road.
Would strike a major blow to the SECs ego.

SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
Big12 goes west with BYU, Colo St, and UNM

The SEC cant afford to lose it's only Private University. The amount of cover that single University gives for the rest of the conference is incalculable in value. The PAC has Stanford. The Big Ten has Northwestern. The SEC has Vanderbilt. The big 12 has always had Baylor as they followed the rule upon their creation. The fact that they had to take another shows just how weak they were at the time.
Vanderbilt and Northwestern are also AAU schools. TCU and Baylor aren't and never will be. Under the Vandy/Missou exodus scenario, SEC loses 2 of its 4 AAU schools.
04-17-2015 11:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #69
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 11:41 PM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 10:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Mizzou and Vanderbilt

Both want the research consortium.
Mizzou can lead to Oklahoma and Texas down the road.
Vanderbilt along with Maryland can break down barriers with UVa, UNC, and GT down the road.
Would strike a major blow to the SECs ego.

SEC takes WVU and ECU in response.
Big12 goes west with BYU, Colo St, and UNM

The SEC cant afford to lose it's only Private University. The amount of cover that single University gives for the rest of the conference is incalculable in value. The PAC has Stanford. The Big Ten has Northwestern. The SEC has Vanderbilt. The big 12 has always had Baylor as they followed the rule upon their creation. The fact that they had to take another shows just how weak they were at the time.
Vanderbilt and Northwestern are also AAU schools. TCU and Baylor aren't and never will be. Under the Vandy/Missou exodus scenario, SEC loses 2 of its 4 AAU schools.

I get that, point made. My point really didn't have anything to do with academics. The academics of Northwestern and Vanderbilt are why they were the private institutions that were chosen.
04-17-2015 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
Thoughts:

The Good:
1. The presentation here is plausible (with issues, but plausible), but I'm strongly leaning toward their being nothing here.
2. I like that the author seems to acknowledge the grant of rights issues by talking about maybe Kansas in 7-8 years and that he acknowledges that many potential schools do not want to be in the Big Ten despite advantages.

The Bad:
1. The notion of ESPN being OK with Missouri leaving, but not an ACC school makes some sense, but also misses something big. True, the SEC is not in danger of complete collapse the way ACC might be (if you open the flood gates, theoretically you could have both the Big Ten and SEC take a number of schools from the ACC). At the same time though, the SEC has a very long term contract with ESPN while the Big Ten does not. ESPN does not want the Big Ten to take a school it already has rights to and force them to pay more for it (partially) in a new contract with
the Big Ten.

2. It seems quite doubtful the Big Ten would target Missouri before 2017 and #16 afterward meaning if Missouri was actually targeted and came, it would likely be with someone else available and UConn is probably the only team out there that's possible. That makes the notion of going after Kansas or Oklahoma several years later harder to buy for me, which makes me less buying of what is being said.

3. This flies in the face of several comments we received about expansion leaving an active status and also goes against the narrative of the liking the scheduling format and of expansion in the east being largely to keep Penn State. While those comments could have been partly cover, I'm still leaning toward them being true and thus think our chain is being pulled here by someone.

Good or Bad:
1. Missouri is almost certain to say no if asked which means most of this is mute.
04-18-2015 12:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
The B1G to 16 with Missouri/Vandy would put pressure on the PAC to move to 16 with Texoma combo......

B1G: Missouri, Vanderbilt
PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St

Then the SEC to get its private schools back adds TCU and Baylor.

The B12 loses 6 schools but still can reload, however it would be a tweener power conference with its champ in the Sugar Bowl vs. #2 power conference school while the SEC takes the Cotton Bowl.

B12: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis, Cincinnati, BYU-FB only

AAC then becomes a pure Eastern Seaboard G5 conference.....

AAC: Georgia St., ODU, Buffalo, Toledo

The MAC uses the opportunity to double down in Chicago for basketball purposes.

MAC: Illinois-Chicago, Loyola-Chicago

07-coffee3
04-18-2015 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
I should add, the Big Ten has conference football schedules out all the way through 2019. They can certainly change, but that seems to go against the notion that the plan was always 16.
04-18-2015 12:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-18-2015 12:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Thoughts:

The Good:
1. The presentation here is plausible (with issues, but plausible), but I'm strongly leaning toward their being nothing here.
2. I like that the author seems to acknowledge the grant of rights issues by talking about maybe Kansas in 7-8 years and that he acknowledges that many potential schools do not want to be in the Big Ten despite advantages.

The Bad:
1. The notion of ESPN being OK with Missouri leaving, but not an ACC school makes some sense, but also misses something big. True, the SEC is not in danger of complete collapse the way ACC might be (if you open the flood gates, theoretically you could have both the Big Ten and SEC take a number of schools from the ACC). At the same time though, the SEC has a very long term contract with ESPN while the Big Ten does not. ESPN does not want the Big Ten to take a school it already has rights to and force them to pay more for it (partially) in a new contract with
the Big Ten.

2. It seems quite doubtful the Big Ten would target Missouri before 2017 and #16 afterward meaning if Missouri was actually targeted and came, it would likely be with someone else available and UConn is probably the only team out there that's possible. That makes the notion of going after Kansas or Oklahoma several years later harder to buy for me, which makes me less buying of what is being said.

3. This flies in the face of several comments we received about expansion leaving an active status and also goes against the narrative of the liking the scheduling format and of expansion in the east being largely to keep Penn State. While those comments could have been partly cover, I'm still leaning toward them being true and thus think our chain is being pulled here by someone.

Good or Bad:
1. Missouri is almost certain to say no if asked which means most of this is mute.

Let's just assume for a second that this is true (which I profoundly doubt). If ESPN would rather loose Missouri than one of the AAU ACC schools what does that mean?

The networks are controlling all of this. That if the SEC is required to give up Missouri for ESPN's relatively short term economic advantage this alone proves what I've been saying for three years about who really controls this process and that obviously the SEC will be given a quid pro quo, likely also from ESPN's inventory of stashed product either from the ACC or select Big 12 schools. Further it means that the SEC would take at least three new schools from somewhere.

What all of this means is that if this is true the distribution of the remaining realignment product has been brokered and all parties are in agreement. The top ESPN product would not give up a unit without agreed upon recompense. If this is the beginning of the end of this mess there is no danger of the ACC, SEC, Big 10, or PAC having anything happen to them beyond what moves have been approved by everyone. The timeline suggests that the same isn't true in the Big 12. Instead it means that the key properties may have agreed upon movement at a less costly time.

So if as the tweeter proposes the Big 10's ultimate plan is expansion to 18 with Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Connecticut (which I doubt) then the SEC has agreed to an expansion to be announced a bit closer to its next negotiation or renegotiation. What I rather suspect is this. That this is a trial balloon to check Missouri's pulse before the Big 10 moves on Kansas and that the possibility of Missouri being included is designed to dissuade Oklahoma from the SEC possibility and to encourage them to join Nebraska. If the Missouri rumor proves true I expect to see Kansas join them to make the Big 10 sixteen. I would then expect that FOX would permit Oklahoma to join ESPN product Texas along with Oklahoma State in the SEC. Now the SEC would be at 16. West Virginia with Notre Dame all in and the ACC is at sixteen. Major conferences even if they plan to go to 18 will move like this to insure that nobody gets hosed in a 4 team addition. They'll agree on how to get to 16 and then if we move further they will agree on how to get to 18. But again my suspicion is that once they get to 16 there won't be much desire to get to 18 because all of the perfect scenarios that grabbing 4 now might get you wouldn't be equitable for the remaining P conferences and especially their networks. Therefore the agreements break down. So after everyone that wants to get to 16 do there won't be anything left that is enticing enough on its own to spur further movement. I like 18 and it works on a number of levels, but not if we move to 16 first.

Now as to the main reason I suspect this to be false. Nobody is moving to the Big 10 prior to 2017 outside of a previously unattached school. It screws up network deals, scheduling, and most conferences require a 2 year notice prior to movement. If it happens within that time frame it means that FOX and ESPN have brokered out at least 8 schools from the Big 12. If the Big 10 was willing to take 4 and the SEC 4 it would be easy. But 2 a piece or 1 and Missouri for the Big 10 and 3 for the SEC is about it. If the ACC did take WVU then the PAC would have to pitch in. I don't think they will.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2015 12:51 AM by JRsec.)
04-18-2015 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  6. The SEC has no GOR: Among our schools no. With ESPN for the SECN, yes.

Mark's rule of the GOR. The GOR is like Jerry Seinfeld on duty free shopping, the duty is doodie.

The GOR in the case of ACC and Big XII just means they get paid like the schools are still there. If they are more valuable elsewhere, the market will allow them to move.

The overlooked by most vital element of GOR, if you want to add a school, and the network owning that school's rights via the GOR wants that school to move, it makes moving more efficient to achieve. If the network thinks the move is not in its best interest it is a significant roadblock.

Right now B1G is in an incredible spot. If a TV exec were told he could have only three P5 leagues and would have to concede the other two the pick is SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12. You can have a dandy product with just Big XII and ACC or those two and one of the other three but your best bang to reach a huge number of people willing to change providers to get the product, and to get a lot of eyeballs is the first three. If you are ESPN and don't want FS1 to narrow the gap, you want all the non-BTN content from the Big 10 and Big 10 is the best product entering the marketplace.

Locking up Big 10 to a long-term deal freezes FS1 out of all the goodies until 2021 when the current NFL deal expires. Limiting FS1 to some baseball, a piece of Big XII, a piece of Pac-12, soccer and UFC until 2021 keeps FS1 from being a major player.

If ESPN can keep FS1 marginalized then helping encourage Mizzou to abandon SEC is a logical play.

But such a play still depends on what Mizzou wishes to do. If Maryland was worth a $30 million upfront payment, B1G may very well be capable of making the Tigers a hard to refuse offer.

Let's also never forget there are egos at play. Big 10 has raided Big East, ACC, and Big XII. Nothing would be a greater ego stroke than raiding SEC.
04-18-2015 12:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-18-2015 12:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 11:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  6. The SEC has no GOR: Among our schools no. With ESPN for the SECN, yes.

Mark's rule of the GOR. The GOR is like Jerry Seinfeld on duty free shopping, the duty is doodie.

The GOR in the case of ACC and Big XII just means they get paid like the schools are still there. If they are more valuable elsewhere, the market will allow them to move.

The overlooked by most vital element of GOR, if you want to add a school, and the network owning that school's rights via the GOR wants that school to move, it makes moving more efficient to achieve. If the network thinks the move is not in its best interest it is a significant roadblock.

Right now B1G is in an incredible spot. If a TV exec were told he could have only three P5 leagues and would have to concede the other two the pick is SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12. You can have a dandy product with just Big XII and ACC or those two and one of the other three but your best bang to reach a huge number of people willing to change providers to get the product, and to get a lot of eyeballs is the first three. If you are ESPN and don't want FS1 to narrow the gap, you want all the non-BTN content from the Big 10 and Big 10 is the best product entering the marketplace.

Locking up Big 10 to a long-term deal freezes FS1 out of all the goodies until 2021 when the current NFL deal expires. Limiting FS1 to some baseball, a piece of Big XII, a piece of Pac-12, soccer and UFC until 2021 keeps FS1 from being a major player.

If ESPN can keep FS1 marginalized then helping encourage Mizzou to abandon SEC is a logical play.

But such a play still depends on what Mizzou wishes to do. If Maryland was worth a $30 million upfront payment, B1G may very well be capable of making the Tigers a hard to refuse offer.

Let's also never forget there are egos at play. Big 10 has raided Big East, ACC, and Big XII. Nothing would be a greater ego stroke than raiding SEC.

I agree about the GOR's. If the network owns the property rights outright it makes the movement from one network interest to another much easier. That said Missouri shouldn't be anymore of an ego boost than any other school sheltered by ESPN in either the ACC or SEC, or parts of the Big 12. And what's more the ACC would be the easiest for ESPN to broker. If the Big 10 lands Missouri all they would be getting is a school parked in the SEC by ESPN for barter purposes. Ditto for any of the former Big East properties parked in the ACC. If the Big 10 requires AAU membership then I understand the reluctance of ESPN to release the identity core of the ACC. But letting Florida State or Virginia Tech, or even N.C. State go wouldn't do damage to their valuation of the ACC. If the SEC loses Missouri's 6 plus million viewers and picks up 9 or 10 milion in either Virginia or North Carolina and does so without taking one of U.N.C., Duke, or Virginia then Notre Dame has no reason to recoil from their commitment. The SEC suffers no loss. The Big 10 gets what they want. Connecticut joins the Big 10 with Missouri and everyone waits on the Big 12 GOR to reach an affordable buyout, or ESPN and FOX agree to a brokering of that product. These moves won't be raids. They will be crafted business deals by the networks on behalf of the conferences and of course themselves and as such for educated business men no ego will be involved. T shirt fans are another matter.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2015 01:13 AM by JRsec.)
04-18-2015 01:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
How much money is ESPN leaving on the table with the ACC's limited footprint and does the ACC need marquis programs to expand the footprint at the current carriage rate?

Basically, say ESPN really wants to cut FOX out, could they do so and still break even?

Mizzou and KU to the B1G in exchange for cutting FOX out of the B1G's next contract.

NCST to the SEC to replace Mizzou.

UT, TTU, OU, Rice to the PAC in exchange for ownership in the PAC networks.

Reorganized ACC (we knew there was a reason for deregulation)
North: Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, BC, *ND*
Central: UVA, VT, UNC, WF, Duke
South: Miami, FSU, Clemson, Louisville, GT
West: Baylor, TCU, OSU, KSU, ISU
04-18-2015 04:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
If we take H1's favorite scenario and switch some pieces:

Big Ten - Kansas and Missouri

SEC - Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia

ACC - Baylor, Connecticut and Texas

PAC - Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU

Some possible outcomes:

Oklahoma might like this better than being in the Big Ten. First they would carry their in-state rivalry into another conference without losing games in Texas. They could still play the Horns and add back TAMU to their schedule. They wouldn't have to fly North unless for OOC games.

This would make it easier for Texas to go independent. The Oklahoma game would certainly continue. Then if they get a similar schedule agreement with the ACC as Notre Dame they could end up with seven games against whoever they want. That's enough to fit in OU, Texas Tech AND TAMU (if they want to bring that game back). Throw in ND to the mix and that's already better for them than the Big 12, without factoring in the ACC games. They'd still play Baylor from time to time.

Fluguar mentioned that ESPN will fund the ACCN. That would make UConn work by getting another basketball power to add more compelling content in the winter months. Add in the state of Texas to the mix (could the LHN be converted?).

The biggest question mark, as with his original scenario, is the Pac 12's end of things. TCU is decent and is in the middle of a great recruiting area but does it fit the PAC?
04-18-2015 05:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #78
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
I don't buy the trial balloon theory. Schools have options available to them without floating rumors through the media. Most schools had reps at the final four. It would be easier, safer and more reliable to simply propose a "what-if" scenario in a hallway conversation. Using the media for a trial balloon could have major negative consequences.

Unless the ACC looses a school or goes to 18, they only have room for 1 more school.

This could be a double edged sword for Missouri. It might give them enough cache to say, "Put us in the SEC West." It could also put them in a position where the SEC looks down on them because, "they are going to leave anyway."
04-18-2015 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rabbit_in_Red Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,496
Joined: Sep 2013
I Root For: Louisville, ACC
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 10:40 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 08:41 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  When are people going to learn that the ACC's not going to lose anyone else? That those schools generally just want to be together, unlike in the BigXII where everone's been trying to find an exit and are sticking together out of temporary convenience.

As a Louisville fan, seriously are you guys just having a karmaesque laugh right about now?

Absolutely, yes. Keep in mind, most Louisville fans WANTED the ACC to begin with but never thought it'd be a legit possibility and were thus willing to settle for the BigXII. Things worked out like a dream here in Louisville.
04-18-2015 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rabbit_in_Red Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,496
Joined: Sep 2013
I Root For: Louisville, ACC
Location:
Post: #80
RE: Greg Flugaur posts tonight, says more to come, fwiw.
(04-17-2015 11:09 PM)BE4neva Wrote:  Chain of events:

2016-18
Mizzou and UConn to the B1G
ECU rebrands itself "Carolina University" and starts talking about research and stuff.
WVU leaves the B12 for the SEC
ACC adds Cincy before B12 even gets a phone call off
BYU puts its football in the B12

Things quiets down for a year or so. The end game is a power 4 with 16-20 each with all divisions getting a bid to a 8 team playoff. The first round of the playoff is divisions from same conferences playing aka the conference ship game owned by the conferences and not the bcs.

It's now 2020-2023. Money can be made and it's time to destroy the b12. Musical chairs erupts again before contracts.

This in a nutshell. I fully believe The BigXII's in the crosshairs for a couple of reasons. 1) It's the most unstable conference. It's only together currently out of convenience. Damn near everyone in that conference has had legitimate talks of getting out somewhere, some way. 2) ESPN's going to want what Fox has at some point, and will spend big to at least severely dent Fox and Fox Sports 1's growth.
04-18-2015 07:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.