With 2 Texas teams (Texas & Houston?) the ACC could break into 4 pods of 4. To ensure divisional balance you could have 2 pods as permanent members of a division.

Atlantic - Coastal
FSU - Texas
Clemson - Louisville
Miami - VT
GT - Houston (?)

Pod C: NC, Duke, Virginia, WF
Pod D: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, NC State, BC

Pods C & D would alternate between the Atlantic & Coastal every other year. Play your division & 1 or 2 crossover games against the opposite pod with no permanent rivals. You play everybody in 2 or 4 years. This works under the current rules.

Not endorsing but pointing out a method to make it work.

No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Oklahoma and Texas, or bust!

(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Wilkie you can eliminate UConn, Houston and Oklahoma from that list in order to be acceptable to the ACC.

(10-12-2016 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Wilkie you can eliminate UConn, Houston and Oklahoma from that list in order to be acceptable to the ACC.

Speak for yourself, Oklahoma is a WAY better get than Cincinnati...

(10-12-2016 01:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Wilkie you can eliminate UConn, Houston and Oklahoma from that list in order to be acceptable to the ACC.

Speak for yourself, Oklahoma is a WAY better get than Cincinnati...

I didn't say they weren't better, just not acceptable.

(10-12-2016 11:29 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  WVU is a good fit. If you're scared to go there, don't go there...it doesn't seem that complicated.

They have good rivalries with many current teams, they're a good geographic fit and they travel to bowl games. I wouldn't want to be in a conference full of West Virginias maybe, but the hand wringing and pearl clutching about those guys potentially spilling their moonshine on our new petticoats...please.

I think we could manage. No need to add a program with a history of substandard football that nobody wants to see play. You would really rather have Tulane or Uconn or SMU show up at your stadium for a game than WVU? That seems absurd to me...but granted, I come from a football school.

This may be heresy coming from a Hokie fan, but I've got no issue with WVU in the ACC either. In all fairness, it's probably because I started at VT in 2006 and we haven't played WVU since 2005. I might feel differently if I'd experienced it.

As far as division alignment, I think it makes far more sense to put them in the Coastal Division. You'd have annual matchups of WVU-VT and WVU-Pitt, and if you want to keep an annual crossover game you can go with WVU-Syracuse. However, that might not fly with Pitt fans taking away their annual game with Syracuse.

The only thing is, I'm not sure why any ACC fan wants to expand the conference. There's already complaints that teams across divisions don't play often enough, and it only gets worse by expanding. And you can call me a traditionalist if you want, but I feel that regional rivalries make college sports special. Adding Texas to the ACC might be a coup for the conference from a TV perspective, but does anybody in the ACC make sense as a "rival" for Texas?

And if you're Texas, does it make sense for your brand to be locked into playing teams on the East Coast all the time? I'm not sure that people who campaign for Texas realigning to the ACC think about it from the perspective of people in Texas. Would they rather play FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, a bunch of schools in North Carolina, and some northeast schools over long-standing rivals in the state of Texas? It might be novel and cool at first, but I think the luster would wear off. Nebraska fans are going through it right now - not that the school really is thinking about leaving the B1G, but the loss of traditional rivals has caused a lot of grousing around that program.

What is so bad about OU?

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-12-2016 01:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 01:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Wilkie you can eliminate UConn, Houston and Oklahoma from that list in order to be acceptable to the ACC.

Speak for yourself, Oklahoma is a WAY better get than Cincinnati...

I didn't say they weren't better, just not acceptable.

I understand that, imo, being better would be acceptable. So why do you feel they are not acceptable but Cincinnati is?

(10-12-2016 01:42 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 01:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 01:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 12:59 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:50 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  No to West Virginia ! Any of these would be acceptable 15 and 16 for football:

Cincinnati
Connecticut
Houston
Oklahoma
Texas

Wilkie you can eliminate UConn, Houston and Oklahoma from that list in order to be acceptable to the ACC.

Speak for yourself, Oklahoma is a WAY better get than Cincinnati...

I didn't say they weren't better, just not acceptable.

I understand that, imo, being better would be acceptable. So why do you feel they are not acceptable but Cincinnati is?

A number of ACC schools have had issues in the past with Oklahoma. If you are younger than 45 you don't care. If you are older than 55, you care and if you don't remember, your father did and told you. Issues between the ACC and OU go back to the days of the Southern Conference such as Tatum stealing the NC State playbook for the 1946 Gator Bowl. Here's a good, but short bio http://www.herloyalsons.com/blog/2013/09...-football/

There is SEC style cheating, then there is unabashed, no holds barred cheating. Danny Ford is pasted as the league's worst football cheater although shenanigans under Butch Davis at UNC were actually much worse. Both of those guys were choir boys compared to Tatum and Tatum was a choir boy compared to Switzer.

It's like an issue of scale where a dim memory exists. Sort of like the worry humans have of being chased in the dark. The deep genetic memory is a hundred thousand years old but it's still there.

Real or perceived, that is the perception for a number of ACC, old time, big financial wheels.

Boren made raising the academics of OU a top priority, but they remain an issue for the P12 (namely Stanford and Cal) and would likely be an issue to UVa and Duke. Then there is the issue of oil money. And finally there are basketball issues from the past and no one here cares.

In short, OU presents a huge potential headache but only a good sized check. The perceived negatives with Texas are less, and the check is larger.

But if you think there are 12 votes now for expansion, you might be surprised. For some schools their vote will be tied to structural changes and the same issues exists in the SEC with Florida and LSU.

Bottom line though is that you aren't getting into the conference unless you can split academic and/or ethical opposition from Duke, UVa, ND, WF, and GT. You have to be able to peel off at least two of those five. Then you have to negotiate with NC State and Syracuse who will use such a vote to extract something on league structure as they are the two most unhappy - Syracuse wanting to play in metro Florida and Atlanta, and NC State getting out from under a triple whammy, yet no Duke or Va schools.

(10-12-2016 01:34 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:29 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  WVU is a good fit. If you're scared to go there, don't go there...it doesn't seem that complicated.

They have good rivalries with many current teams, they're a good geographic fit and they travel to bowl games. I wouldn't want to be in a conference full of West Virginias maybe, but the hand wringing and pearl clutching about those guys potentially spilling their moonshine on our new petticoats...please.

I think we could manage. No need to add a program with a history of substandard football that nobody wants to see play. You would really rather have Tulane or Uconn or SMU show up at your stadium for a game than WVU? That seems absurd to me...but granted, I come from a football school.

This may be heresy coming from a Hokie fan, but I've got no issue with WVU in the ACC either. In all fairness, it's probably because I started at VT in 2006 and we haven't played WVU since 2005. I might feel differently if I'd experienced it.

As far as division alignment, I think it makes far more sense to put them in the Coastal Division. You'd have annual matchups of WVU-VT and WVU-Pitt, and if you want to keep an annual crossover game you can go with WVU-Syracuse. However, that might not fly with Pitt fans taking away their annual game with Syracuse.

The only thing is, I'm not sure why any ACC fan wants to expand the conference. There's already complaints that teams across divisions don't play often enough, and it only gets worse by expanding. And you can call me a traditionalist if you want, but I feel that regional rivalries make college sports special. Adding Texas to the ACC might be a coup for the conference from a TV perspective, but does anybody in the ACC make sense as a "rival" for Texas?

And if you're Texas, does it make sense for your brand to be locked into playing teams on the East Coast all the time? I'm not sure that people who campaign for Texas realigning to the ACC think about it from the perspective of people in Texas. Would they rather play FSU, Clemson, Miami, VT, a bunch of schools in North Carolina, and some northeast schools over long-standing rivals in the state of Texas? It might be novel and cool at first, but I think the luster would wear off. Nebraska fans are going through it right now - not that the school really is thinking about leaving the B1G, but the loss of traditional rivals has caused a lot of grousing around that program.

I honestly think that Texas might end up as a partial ACC member one day.

That would give them 7 non-ACC games per year. Out of those 7 games, they could play OU (Dallas), A&M (east Texas), Texas Tech (west Texas), Rice/SMU/Houston/TCU/Baylor, and still have 3 OOC games - one of which would be against a Pac team.

That would give Texas a number of high profile OOC games, great east coast exposure, an unrivaled presence in Texas, left coast exposure, and 2 other OOC games for interesting match ups or exotic locations.

(10-12-2016 02:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Bottom line though is that you aren't getting into the conference unless you can split academic and/or ethical opposition from Duke, UVa, ND, WF, and GT. You have to be able to peel off at least two of those five. Then you have to negotiate with NC State and Syracuse who will use such a vote to extract something on league structure as they are the two most unhappy - Syracuse wanting to play in metro Florida and Atlanta, and NC State getting out from under a triple whammy, yet no Duke or Va schools.

I would imagine GT's opposition to Oklahoma would start with .... "Dude, you're in f***ing Oklahoma." I mean seriously. We're already up the entire eastern seaboard. Why bring two more timezones into this????

And the counterpoint that could eliminate that would be simple: $$$$$$




Also, I want to run some of your assertions up the flag pole ....

1) Do Syracuse fans want to play in Metro Atlanta? WHY?!?
2) Do Syracuse fans want to play annually in Florida? WHY?!? You've already got FSU sending you there every other year.

(10-12-2016 06:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 02:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Bottom line though is that you aren't getting into the conference unless you can split academic and/or ethical opposition from Duke, UVa, ND, WF, and GT. You have to be able to peel off at least two of those five. Then you have to negotiate with NC State and Syracuse who will use such a vote to extract something on league structure as they are the two most unhappy - Syracuse wanting to play in metro Florida and Atlanta, and NC State getting out from under a triple whammy, yet no Duke or Va schools.

I would imagine GT's opposition to Oklahoma would start with .... "Dude, you're in f***ing Oklahoma." I mean seriously. We're already up the entire eastern seaboard. Why bring two more timezones into this????

And the counterpoint that could eliminate that would be simple: $$$$$$




Also, I want to run some of your assertions up the flag pole ....

1) Do Syracuse fans want to play in Metro Atlanta? WHY?!?
2) Do Syracuse fans want to play annually in Florida? WHY?!? You've already got FSU sending you there every other year.

1) Eh
2) YES! A) recruiting and B) see the countless New Yorkers in Florida

(10-12-2016 06:26 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 02:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Bottom line though is that you aren't getting into the conference unless you can split academic and/or ethical opposition from Duke, UVa, ND, WF, and GT. You have to be able to peel off at least two of those five. Then you have to negotiate with NC State and Syracuse who will use such a vote to extract something on league structure as they are the two most unhappy - Syracuse wanting to play in metro Florida and Atlanta, and NC State getting out from under a triple whammy, yet no Duke or Va schools.

I would imagine GT's opposition to Oklahoma would start with .... "Dude, you're in f***ing Oklahoma." I mean seriously. We're already up the entire eastern seaboard. Why bring two more timezones into this????

And the counterpoint that could eliminate that would be simple: $$$$$$




Also, I want to run some of your assertions up the flag pole ....

1) Do Syracuse fans want to play in Metro Atlanta? WHY?!?
2) Do Syracuse fans want to play annually in Florida? WHY?!? You've already got FSU sending you there every other year.

Syracuse's' past and present AD has stated a preference for more appearances in Miami, they appear in Georgia just one every 12 years.

(10-12-2016 07:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Syracuse's' past and present AD has stated a preference for more appearances in Miami, they appear in Georgia just one every 12 years.

Atlantic: Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami

Coastal: UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU


Problem solved. If Cavman cries too hard, swap UVA and WF.

(10-12-2016 07:49 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 07:27 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Syracuse's' past and present AD has stated a preference for more appearances in Miami, they appear in Georgia just one every 12 years.

Atlantic: Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Miami

Coastal: UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Duke, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU


Problem solved. If Cavman cries too hard, swap UVA and WF.

Coastal: Carolina, Wake Forest, Dook, UVa, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU

Yeah, UVA would hate that. It would also be the impetus for them to look to moving to the B1G as soon as they could. And in XLance's scenario, NC St gets boned hard.

Why is everyone so quick to reshuffle the divisions to make it Old Big East & Old ACC? It only changes who you'd make unhappy (and frankly, some of those probably carry more weight). If you go with lumberpack's scenario, you'd be ticking off VT, Miami, UVA and likely Louisville too (since they'd lose annual games against Clemson & FSU). Is that worth it to placate the Carolina schools, Syracuse and BC? My guess is that ACC leadership doesn't think so, or it would have happened when Syracuse & Pitt were added.

I think people need to understand and accept that making all the teams in North Carolina happy is going to be impossible. If they don't like the current setup, they can always schedule one another in "out-of-conference" games. Plus, I think ESPN would be perfectly happy with that arrangement too as it gives them guaranteed inventory with the ACC Network. For what it's worth, I'd rather VT play Syracuse or Louisville "out-of-conference" than ECU until the end of time.

Can someone explain to me why scheduling an OOC game with a conference opponent is a bad thing? If FSU wants to play GT more often or Cuse wants Miami more often or VaTech wants Clemson or FSU more often, why not schedule it OOC? Not understanding the hesitance for not doing this.

(10-13-2016 10:02 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Can someone explain to me why scheduling an OOC game with a conference opponent is a bad thing? If FSU wants to play GT more often or Cuse wants Miami more often or VaTech wants Clemson or FSU more often, why not schedule it OOC? Not understanding the hesitance for not doing this.

Same down side as a 9-game schedule (another guaranteed loss for some ACC team) but less up side. Good thing about it is teams can choose which years to play the extra ACC team and which not to...

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

At this point, ACC is in a powerful position as a conference. The ACC doesn't need anyone from the XII conference including UT or OU. If UT did come & ask for partial membership, I would tell them to go fly a kite. Either full membership or nothing. Its the foolishness with UT having LHN dictating to OU & the remaining schools that are one of many root cause to the almost dead conference. I would never put both OU & UT in the same conference. Its a complete mess over here in XII land. A mess. If i were the ACC, I wouldn't want either of the two.

Sent from my LG-D850 using CSNbbs mobile app