(07-18-2022 10:27 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: ...if the ACC wants in on PAC schools because ESPN wants and need it for late night inventory and the ACC needs to be the clear front-runner for a third conference in this oncoming new era than they can't stop to think about building a bridge to the West Coast. They will need to grab 4 (my preference is for Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Utah) first and then worry about build a bridge after they have those four institutions signed on.
Of course this may be all moot if ND decides to join the B1G (I'm giving that at most a 20% chance of happening) AND the B1G goes west for 1 to 3 more since the ACC GoR is something they may not want or need to challenge to reach their goals).
Just my thoughts on this.
Cheers,
Neil
I like the 4 you picked, but if it was up to me, I'd also invite Colorado and Arizona State for a Western 6-pack. Then I might also go after Oklahoma State, TCU, Houston, and Kansas to get to 24 total.
Everything I am reading and hearing from people who cover the Arizona schools is that they are a package deal and they want the B12 for Texas recruiting since they feel California recruiting will tip towards B1G schools.
I am not familiar enough with recruiting to dispute the latter but I have to wonder why Texas joining Texas A&M wouldn't handicap Texas recruiting as much as USC and UCLA joining the B1G would impact California recruiting.
And I think for the ACC to succeed it needs both boldness and austerity at this time. IF jumping to 20 right away helps the ACC's overall monetary situation then go for it all at once but in those circumstances I might do the PAC 4 and two from Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU.
Time will tell.
Cheers,
Neil
You may be right.
:coffee3:
you’re assuming no defections ...
I MAY BE CRAZY
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022 10:57 AM by green.)
(07-18-2022 10:27 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: ...if the ACC wants in on PAC schools because ESPN wants and need it for late night inventory and the ACC needs to be the clear front-runner for a third conference in this oncoming new era than they can't stop to think about building a bridge to the West Coast. They will need to grab 4 (my preference is for Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Utah) first and then worry about build a bridge after they have those four institutions signed on.
Of course this may be all moot if ND decides to join the B1G (I'm giving that at most a 20% chance of happening) AND the B1G goes west for 1 to 3 more since the ACC GoR is something they may not want or need to challenge to reach their goals).
Just my thoughts on this.
Cheers,
Neil
I like the 4 you picked, but if it was up to me, I'd also invite Colorado and Arizona State for a Western 6-pack. Then I might also go after Oklahoma State, TCU, Houston, and Kansas to get to 24 total.
Everything I am reading and hearing from people who cover the Arizona schools is that they are a package deal and they want the B12 for Texas recruiting since they feel California recruiting will tip towards B1G schools.
I am not familiar enough with recruiting to dispute the latter but I have to wonder why Texas joining Texas A&M wouldn't handicap Texas recruiting as much as USC and UCLA joining the B1G would impact California recruiting.
And I think for the ACC to succeed it needs both boldness and austerity at this time. IF jumping to 20 right away helps the ACC's overall monetary situation then go for it all at once but in those circumstances I might do the PAC 4 and two from Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU.
Time will tell.
Cheers,
Neil
You may be right.
you’re assuming no defections ...
I MAY BE CRAZY
Defections from the ACC full members are certainly probable down the road as early as 2030 but I just don't see it before then. Which puts ACC management on the clock to make the moves necessary to lessen that prospect.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami may not be able to overcome a $50M plus deficit gap with the SEC and B1G teams, but if the ACC can get that within $25M then the ACC brand football programs may stay as long as there are interesting match-ups and they have access to the new CFP.
What SEC teams not named Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, or LSU, will somehow become more competitive on a year by year basis despite getting the same amount of $$$ as those programs? It hasn't up to now has it?
Yes every now and then a team like Auburn or Texas might do well in a single CF playoff now and then, but consistently every other year? I doubt it.
I can't believe FSU, Clemson, and Miami as well as Oregon and Washington aren't aware of this. For the latter two I suspect the travel distance between them and the B1G is lesser than it is with the ACC so that has to be a consideration - but for the ACC brand football programs as long as the $$$ is within shouting distance AND access to whatever the CFP becomes remains, AND the next level down teams in the ACC - Louisville, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Pitt take a step up along with perhaps Stanford and Utah - the conference can survive and thrive.
I just hope the ACC management is BOLD enough to see this and at least make a concerted effort to attempt this. If they fail, they fail but I don't see what they have to lose.
I have been known to be wrong before.
Cheers,
Neil
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022 12:10 PM by OrangeDude.)
(07-19-2022 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: ...I just hope the ACC management is BOLD enough to see this and at least make a concerted effort to attempt this. If they fail, they fail but I don't see what they have to lose.
(07-19-2022 09:11 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: I like the 4 you picked, but if it was up to me, I'd also invite Colorado and Arizona State for a Western 6-pack. Then I might also go after Oklahoma State, TCU, Houston, and Kansas to get to 24 total.
Everything I am reading and hearing from people who cover the Arizona schools is that they are a package deal and they want the B12 for Texas recruiting since they feel California recruiting will tip towards B1G schools.
I am not familiar enough with recruiting to dispute the latter but I have to wonder why Texas joining Texas A&M wouldn't handicap Texas recruiting as much as USC and UCLA joining the B1G would impact California recruiting.
And I think for the ACC to succeed it needs both boldness and austerity at this time. IF jumping to 20 right away helps the ACC's overall monetary situation then go for it all at once but in those circumstances I might do the PAC 4 and two from Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU.
Time will tell.
Cheers,
Neil
You may be right.
you’re assuming no defections ...
I MAY BE CRAZY
Defections from the ACC full members are certainly probable down the road as early as 2030 but I just don't see it before then. Which puts ACC management on the clock to make the moves necessary to lessen that prospect.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami may not be able to overcome a $50M plus deficit gap with the SEC and B1G teams, but if the ACC can get that within $25M then the ACC brand football programs may stay as long as there are interesting match-ups and they have access to the new CFP.
What SEC teams not named Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, or LSU, will somehow become more competitive on a year by year basis despite getting the same amount of $$$ as those programs? It hasn't up to now has it?
Yes every now and then a team like Auburn or Texas might do well in a single CF playoff now and then, but consistently every other year? I doubt it.
I can't believe FSU, Clemson, and Miami as well as Oregon and Washington aren't aware of this. For the latter two I suspect the travel distance between them and the B1G is lesser than it is with the ACC so that has to be a consideration - but for the ACC brand football programs as long as the $$$ is within shouting distance AND access to whatever the CFP becomes remains, AND the next level down teams in the ACC - Louisville, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Pitt take a step up along with perhaps Stanford and Utah - the conference can survive and thrive.
I just hope the ACC management is BOLD enough to see this and at least make a concerted effort to attempt this. If they fail, they fail but I don't see what they have to lose.
I have been known to be wrong before.
I think it's a fantasy at this point to believe the ACC is salvageable. The GoR may or may not be able to stave off the Reaper for years yet, but I believe the goose is fully cooked this time and just can't be served yet because the oven is chained shut. Whether or not it's too burned for any part of it to still be edible once we get the door open, who knows at this point.
The ACC has no potential moves that will amount to anything more than putting lipstick on a pig. I agree the PAC teams would provide interesting match-ups, at least compared to more of the same lackluster ACC slate. But there is no way that games with Oregon & Washington, let alone the lesser lights out west, will provide the same kind of interest for Clemson & FSU that SEC teams can. Our fans want a future as brand name programs playing other brand name programs in the same region, not flying across country. And I don't expect the easier path to the playoff argument to hold anyone back when emancipation comes, OUT & Southern Cal-UCLA are all moving from easier path situations into more challenging environments. I expect the B1G & SEC will structure the next iteration of the playoff so that P2 membership does in fact provide an easier path as compared to the access offered to the ACC/PAC/XII.
I continue to think ACC schools would be wiser to use the diminishing leverage provided by the GoR to negotiate for spots with real long-term stability. Let us go for a reasonable amount, and combine with the best of the PAC and XII into an unquestioned third place conference. If you continue to focus on bailing water and plugging leaks in this sinking ship for the next 14 years you may find the rest of college football has moved on without you and you are facing a G5 future.
If you truly think the value of the status quo is so great, you can hold out as long as the GoR will protect you. That's an option, albeit a very short-sighted one in my opinion. But if you're holding out thinking you can somehow make changes that convince schools like Clemson & FSU to stay once we get a choice again, that is just foolish. At this point I believe even the core of UNC-Duke-UVA has given up on the ACC as a viable conference post-GoR.
Make this conference the undisputed 3rd conference for the next 14 years and give those that will be left a shell to add the best available to at that point.
We aren't going to make top 2 money but we could create distance between us and 4th.
(07-19-2022 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: FSU, Clemson, and Miami may not be able to overcome a $50M plus deficit gap with the SEC and B1G teams, but if the ACC can get that within $25M then the ACC brand football programs may stay as long as there are interesting match-ups and they have access to the new CFP.
What SEC teams not named Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, or LSU, will somehow become more competitive on a year by year basis despite getting the same amount of $$$ as those programs? It hasn't up to now has it?
Yes every now and then a team like Auburn or Texas might do well in a single CF playoff now and then, but consistently every other year? I doubt it.
Texas has more long-term potential and upside than Bama, OU, UF, or LSU. That group maxed out their potential in recent years/decades. UGA on the other hand (which was a perennial underachiever like Texas)...has been living up to it in recent years. If I could buy stock in SEC programs (there's an idea)...I'd put more of it into the Longhorns than any other.
(This post was last modified: 07-19-2022 08:12 PM by GarnetAndBlue.)
(07-19-2022 02:36 PM)Gamenole Wrote: ... The GoR may or may not be able to stave off the Reaper for years yet, but I believe the goose is fully cooked this time and just can't be served yet because the oven is chained shut. Whether or not it's too burned for any part of it to still be edible once we get the door open, who knows at this point.
The ACC has no potential moves that will amount to anything more than putting lipstick on a pig.
(07-19-2022 02:36 PM)Gamenole Wrote: ... The GoR may or may not be able to stave off the Reaper for years yet, but I believe the goose is fully cooked this time and just can't be served yet because the oven is chained shut. Whether or not it's too burned for any part of it to still be edible once we get the door open, who knows at this point.
The ACC has no potential moves that will amount to anything more than putting lipstick on a pig.
No more metaphors. That's an order.
- James T. Kirk
That goose definitely should have feared the Reaper.
(07-19-2022 02:36 PM)Gamenole Wrote: ... The GoR may or may not be able to stave off the Reaper for years yet, but I believe the goose is fully cooked this time and just can't be served yet because the oven is chained shut. Whether or not it's too burned for any part of it to still be edible once we get the door open, who knows at this point.
The ACC has no potential moves that will amount to anything more than putting lipstick on a pig.
(07-19-2022 08:48 PM)Gitanole Wrote: No more metaphors. That's an order.
- James T. Kirk
(07-19-2022 08:49 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote: That goose definitely should have feared the Reaper.
Yeah. At this point, though, it's like putting lipstick in the oven.
(07-19-2022 10:20 AM)OrangeDude Wrote: Everything I am reading and hearing from people who cover the Arizona schools is that they are a package deal and they want the B12 for Texas recruiting since they feel California recruiting will tip towards B1G schools.
I am not familiar enough with recruiting to dispute the latter but I have to wonder why Texas joining Texas A&M wouldn't handicap Texas recruiting as much as USC and UCLA joining the B1G would impact California recruiting.
And I think for the ACC to succeed it needs both boldness and austerity at this time. IF jumping to 20 right away helps the ACC's overall monetary situation then go for it all at once but in those circumstances I might do the PAC 4 and two from Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU.
Time will tell.
Cheers,
Neil
You may be right.
you’re assuming no defections ...
I MAY BE CRAZY
Defections from the ACC full members are certainly probable down the road as early as 2030 but I just don't see it before then. Which puts ACC management on the clock to make the moves necessary to lessen that prospect.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami may not be able to overcome a $50M plus deficit gap with the SEC and B1G teams, but if the ACC can get that within $25M then the ACC brand football programs may stay as long as there are interesting match-ups and they have access to the new CFP.
What SEC teams not named Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, or LSU, will somehow become more competitive on a year by year basis despite getting the same amount of $$$ as those programs? It hasn't up to now has it?
Yes every now and then a team like Auburn or Texas might do well in a single CF playoff now and then, but consistently every other year? I doubt it.
I can't believe FSU, Clemson, and Miami as well as Oregon and Washington aren't aware of this. For the latter two I suspect the travel distance between them and the B1G is lesser than it is with the ACC so that has to be a consideration - but for the ACC brand football programs as long as the $$$ is within shouting distance AND access to whatever the CFP becomes remains, AND the next level down teams in the ACC - Louisville, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and Pitt take a step up along with perhaps Stanford and Utah - the conference can survive and thrive.
I just hope the ACC management is BOLD enough to see this and at least make a concerted effort to attempt this. If they fail, they fail but I don't see what they have to lose.
I have been known to be wrong before.
I think it's a fantasy at this point to believe the ACC is salvageable. The GoR may or may not be able to stave off the Reaper for years yet, but I believe the goose is fully cooked this time and just can't be served yet because the oven is chained shut. Whether or not it's too burned for any part of it to still be edible once we get the door open, who knows at this point.
The ACC has no potential moves that will amount to anything more than putting lipstick on a pig. I agree the PAC teams would provide interesting match-ups, at least compared to more of the same lackluster ACC slate. But there is no way that games with Oregon & Washington, let alone the lesser lights out west, will provide the same kind of interest for Clemson & FSU that SEC teams can. Our fans want a future as brand name programs playing other brand name programs in the same region, not flying across country. And I don't expect the easier path to the playoff argument to hold anyone back when emancipation comes, OUT & Southern Cal-UCLA are all moving from easier path situations into more challenging environments. I expect the B1G & SEC will structure the next iteration of the playoff so that P2 membership does in fact provide an easier path as compared to the access offered to the ACC/PAC/XII.
I continue to think ACC schools would be wiser to use the diminishing leverage provided by the GoR to negotiate for spots with real long-term stability. Let us go for a reasonable amount, and combine with the best of the PAC and XII into an unquestioned third place conference. If you continue to focus on bailing water and plugging leaks in this sinking ship for the next 14 years you may find the rest of college football has moved on without you and you are facing a G5 future.
If you truly think the value of the status quo is so great, you can hold out as long as the GoR will protect you. That's an option, albeit a very short-sighted one in my opinion. But if you're holding out thinking you can somehow make changes that convince schools like Clemson & FSU to stay once we get a choice again, that is just foolish. At this point I believe even the core of UNC-Duke-UVA has given up on the ACC as a viable conference post-GoR.
If nothing changes between now and 2036 then I agree that the ACC is going to get picked apart by the SEC and Big Ten. What if something changes though? 14 years is a long time and I have a feeling cable TV will be replaced by Internet streaming. Why would this happen? That's easy because it is more profitable. Bigger markets, US = 330 million people, world = 6 billion people. The real question for the ACC management is, will they be able to capitalize on selling to a wider audience. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. One thing that could happen is that the top sports oriented schools break off from the rest of the NCAA. The SEC, Big Ten and the best of the rest schools (ACC, Big 12, Pac 12) could potentially break off from the NCAA in the future and figure out some sort of financial agreement to make even more money. Right now the big fight is over college football, but what happens when all the olympic sports could potentially get added as revenue generating sports when the world market is considered. That's where I forsee all of these break away power schools come together and pool their resources to make even more money selling to a world market. I would not discount this happening. Previous moves in re-alignment have always revolved around making more money and I doubt this is over.
(07-19-2022 02:36 PM)Gamenole Wrote: I think it's a fantasy at this point to believe the ACC is salvageable.
Of course the ACC can stay around. The Big East is still around, the B12 is still around.
College conferences are like Kenny in South Park. They keep getting destroyed in gruesome ways, only to appear again next week with no explanation.
Whatever happens in the next few weeks could tell us a lot. If ESPN is actually willing to go back to the negotiating table and do something to indicate that they want the ACC to survive and thrive, then I expect it will do both. If they treat the ACC like a temporary holding pen, that's not good for the future of the conference. However, I disagree with those who think it's a fait accompli.
(07-18-2022 10:27 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: ...if the ACC wants in on PAC schools because ESPN wants and need it for late night inventory and the ACC needs to be the clear front-runner for a third conference in this oncoming new era than they can't stop to think about building a bridge to the West Coast. They will need to grab 4 (my preference is for Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Utah) first and then worry about build a bridge after they have those four institutions signed on.
Of course this may be all moot if ND decides to join the B1G (I'm giving that at most a 20% chance of happening) AND the B1G goes west for 1 to 3 more since the ACC GoR is something they may not want or need to challenge to reach their goals).
Just my thoughts on this.
Cheers,
Neil
I like the 4 you picked, but if it was up to me, I'd also invite Colorado and Arizona State for a Western 6-pack. Then I might also go after Oklahoma State, TCU, Houston, and Kansas to get to 24 total.
Everything I am reading and hearing from people who cover the Arizona schools is that they are a package deal and they want the B12 for Texas recruiting since they feel California recruiting will tip towards B1G schools.
I am not familiar enough with recruiting to dispute the latter but I have to wonder why Texas joining Texas A&M wouldn't handicap Texas recruiting as much as USC and UCLA joining the B1G would impact California recruiting.
And I think for the ACC to succeed it needs both boldness and austerity at this time. IF jumping to 20 right away helps the ACC's overall monetary situation then go for it all at once but in those circumstances I might do the PAC 4 and two from Oklahoma State, Baylor, and TCU.
Time will tell.
Cheers,
Neil
the reason the B12 will still recruit Texas heavy with UT and A&M in the SEC is the B12 still has a heavy presence in Texas with TCU, TT, Baylor and now Houston. The PAC is not going to have a valid team in the LA market going forward.
I know most of us by now, just look at WVU realignment rumor guys with major side eyes and "you're a clown vibes"....So I try to be more diligent with the countless online individuals/bloggers/media sites with regard to who to listen to on all these rumors... so with that, where are we at with Sideline Sports Network and their 125k followers on twitter?...Do they know stuff, are legit, have a large following but not trusted?...
(07-19-2022 12:07 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: FSU, Clemson, and Miami may not be able to overcome a $50M plus deficit gap with the SEC and B1G teams, but if the ACC can get that within $25M then the ACC brand football programs may stay as long as there are interesting match-ups and they have access to the new CFP.
What SEC teams not named Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, or LSU, will somehow become more competitive on a year by year basis despite getting the same amount of $$$ as those programs? It hasn't up to now has it?
Yes every now and then a team like Auburn or Texas might do well in a single CF playoff now and then, but consistently every other year? I doubt it.
Texas has more long-term potential and upside than Bama, OU, UF, or LSU. That group maxed out their potential in recent years/decades. UGA on the other hand (which was a perennial underachiever like Texas)...has been living up to it in recent years. If I could buy stock in SEC programs (there's an idea)...I'd put more of it into the Longhorns than any other.
Over the past 30 years Texas has had more $$$ than any other program in the nation; easy access to the best recruits in one of the three best states in producing college football prospects; and the second easiest pathway to the championship game and yet in thirty years of such games, they have managed to shine in two, count it two out of 30 championship level heights.
Consider me skeptical they will attain the lofty status you appear to think that they will. It's possible I suppose but the competition in the SEC is not the competition they faced in B12.
(07-21-2022 10:06 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: I know most of us by now, just look at WVU realignment rumor guys with major side eyes and "you're a clown vibes"....So I try to be more diligent with the countless online individuals/bloggers/media sites with regard to who to listen to on all these rumors... so with that, where are we at with Sideline Sports Network and their 125k followers on twitter?...Do they know stuff, are legit, have a large following but not trusted?...
(07-21-2022 10:06 AM)dgrace4cards Wrote: I know most of us by now, just look at WVU realignment rumor guys with major side eyes and "you're a clown vibes"....So I try to be more diligent with the countless online individuals/bloggers/media sites with regard to who to listen to on all these rumors... so with that, where are we at with Sideline Sports Network and their 125k followers on twitter?...Do they know stuff, are legit, have a large following but not trusted?...
Thanks Green for sharing Wilners tweet...that along with Sideline themselves backstepping this afternoon all the way to the point of saying "its just rumors we're hearing"...just cleared that one out of my mind too....
