(05-13-2018 11:13 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote: Being very close to Charlotte, I noted before, seeing one current ACC school in the SEC could actually be good for both the SEC and the ACC. It would take a deal external to the ACC's GoR, and a willingness involving all parties. It won't happen, availability remains locked.
WVU remains the only viable eastern option from the current P5, and that depends on what happens in the B12 in a few years. From an earlier SEC viewpoint, WVU had been like "they are OK from a minimal expansion perspective, and we have them down the list below others that show better overall appeal".
WVU would really benefit the ACC the most.
The States of NC and VA are the ACC'a core, unshared turf, and that reality will hold for a long time to come.
I'll address all of your posts here in one reply.
Travel? Not really that bad. Three divisional games for Texas and OU including each other, Kansas, and Louisville which is far more accessible than Morgantown. With an 8 game schedule, which is imminently possible with floating half divisions, Texas would still have 6 home games and at least 1 sometimes 2 road games within their division. They would only have two or three away games out of division per year.
So it's workable.
As to the GOR? It's also extremely workable if the deal benefits everyone. This deal was on the table in 2010 and the SEC went to a great deal of trouble to market what they considered then to be a possibly unpopular move. They realized the fan base was expecting Florida State and Clemson, or somebody more SEC like. So Clay Travis was leaked the concept of N.C. State and Va Tech, Mr. SEC sold the profitability angle and ESPN wanted the distribution for the SECN to be as profitable as possible at the open, wanted to balance the power, and had Deloss Dodds pushing the concept of moving East at Texas to donors. Oklahoma and Kansas were quietly apprised. The concept went far enough to have the SEC reportedly meeting with Virginia Tech officials at the Greenbriar in W.V. (prompting the Dude of WV to see the conference jet flights plan assuming the SEC was there to speak with WV) before certain ACC schools afraid of losing power within the conference shut it down.
If such a move profited everyone enough to be enticing (and since many N.C. State fans would be as happy as Aggies to be out from under the shadow of Chirpel Hell) it is at least feasible from the standpoint of the parties involved. A temporary dissolution of the GOR's could be accomplished with new ones signed. So it is workable.
The GOR's that had to be slapped into place following the blow up of this plan in 2010-3 (as things played out) are what locked us into this mess, served as the catalyst for the bolting of Maryland, alerted FOX to what had been a carefully crafted covert move by ESPN, and set the Big 10 on alert. The branding was going to be locked down for both leagues and markets shared to derive the maximum benefit for them by spreading the interest between two ESPN majority held conferences.
So I would submit that the plan, while it has some flaws, is still workable.
That said we are probably past it in as much as both Texas and Oklahoma have more leverage now than perhaps they perceived they had in 2010 when Notre Dame was to be the 4th addition.
Now admittedly I resurrected the topic because things are the slowest they've been since things heated up in 2009, and revisiting the early concepts and attempts can be informative to a degree. While the market model is dying there is still some value in double dipping large states, where ESPN is concerned, and the brands involved are the only ones worth stirring the pot over.
So I thought a good hypothetical rehash might be informative.
The real question to delve into is would a late addition to the ACC (Va Tech) and a school from a state with 4 current ACC schools (N.C. State) be worth the branding that Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame would bring to the their football value and Kansas would add to the content value for hoops? And would Virginia Tech and N.C. State benefit by being in the SEC? I think the first question is a no brainer, "Yes!" I think the second question is far more debatable.
Consider also that a scheduling agreement between the two 16 member conferences would restore some rivalries and still leave 3 OOC games for anyone desired by the parties involved to schedule. Meaning Texas can pick up all 3 of those in state if they wished and would still have the Sooners in Dallas and A&M back in the rotation, or Arkansas if they desired.
The interesting sociological question here is, "Are historical relationships strained or abandoned for revenue?" If there is anything that can be derived from the realignment of 2010-2 it's that the answer to that question is, "Yes!" Now the question is, "How much control will institutions cede in the name of revenue?" That IMO remains to be seen. And an ancillary question might be, "What other factors are needed as a catalyst?" In the case of Nebraska it was revenue, fear and loathing. For Penn State it was exposure/branding and revenue. For Maryland it was foremost debt, but laced with latent hostility. For Missouri it was shear terror. For Rutgers none of the questions are relevant because it was a no brainer golden ticket. For A&M it was exposure, branding, and loathing.
If Oklahoma or Texas ever leave it will be for more than just money. I feel their primary motivating factors will be different but similar. For Texas it will be to reestablish primacy, even if they must sacrifice a fiefdom of a conference for a fiefdom of a division. For Oklahoma it will be about maintaining the interest and support of a fan base. For all of the noise coming out of Norman, particularly under Boren, I do not believe it will be for academics. First because athletic associations have little to do with academic associations, and because the University's identity is probably as closely tied to athletics as that of Alabama.
And with regards to Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest I don't think they will move at all. The question is whether they will sacrifice their cadre's total control over the ACC to gain financial stability and if so are they willing to cut two of their minions loose in order to do so. Regarding my OP more specifically have they discovered how very tenuous their position is should the SEC and Big 10 divide Oklahoma and Texas? As AllTideUp alluded to in his post should either or both of those conferences wind up acquiring Oklahoma and/or Texas the gap the ACC exists under with regard to revenue today will be insurmountable in the future and the 4 aforementioned ACC overlords may one day find they've been abandoned because of it. So their sociological question is "Is their desire to survive and thrive as a conference greater than their need for subservience and control, especially if the price of not taking that option may one day mean their total subjugation?" When dealing with narcissism I always bet on the the self preservation aspect over the need to dominate because the identity of the self is paramount as it is with these 4 institutions.
So Texas will choose to rule a smaller version of fiefdom to preserve it's dominance and North Carolina, Duke, and to much lesser extent Virginia will choose to compromise ultimately to preserve theirs. In 2010 it was convenient for UNC to assume that Texas might go ahead an take the PAC deal which eliminates them from interfering with the ACC and Tar Heel / Blue Devil rule, and it means that they don't add to the immediate value of their nearest adversaries, the SEC and Big 10. Here we are 8 years later and the likelihood of the PAC being positioned to attract Texas and/or Oklahoma is greatly diminished. The likelihood that if either move it will be to the Big 10 or SEC is much greater. Therefore the threat to the ACC is much greater.
So I submit that any plan, should Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma agree to it again, be offered to preserve the ACC and make it competitive financially be given in 2019, that those schools who were allegedly against it before, may now have changed their tune. Especially since it not only profits and secures their position, but because it secures and profits the position of their benefactor, ESPN.
The 2020 and after realignment period will be a war between rights purchasers and will have little to do with conference agendas. There will be parameters that conferences will set, but the carriers will try to lock up and park the most valuable product. Antiquated notions about what conferences desire being the driving force in the additions will be insignificant to the importance of the carrier landing and parking brands for which the conferences will be handsomely rewarded.
We established that we were cash whores in 2010-2. Now we will find out how particular our associations will be and how much cash it takes to make new bedfellows.