Texas and Oklahoma not committed to the Big 12, maybe UT to ACC and OU to SEC

[GE Nole]

I'm ok with Navy coming in with Notre Dame. I would never in a million years add Navy voluntarily by itself but if required by Notre Dame it's ok. Frankly I really enjoyed my trip to Annapolis so it would be a nice spot for away games, it just doesn't bring enough eyeballs and $$$$ to make it worth it on its own.

I HOPE we can convince ND to let us bring in Cincy or even UConn as its partner as I think they both bring more eyeballs and better sports teams. But I would be ok with Navy.

ND folks I have talked with don't seem too fond of the idea of Cincy. Perhaps Uconn.

I think Navy would be pretty solid. Football is better than the bottom 1/4 of the league, and other sports would benefit from P5 money and branding. Also, it would mean the Army/Navy game becomes part of the ACC's tradition and package. Not to mention getting back into the Baltimore market more fully.

But yes, clearly we would only bring in Navy with ND--not on their own.

 

[RTM58]

2. Staying with 8 conference games is MUCH preferred by them. Would be a backwards step in our pursuit of ND if we went to 9.

ACC opts to remain at 8 league games despite the fact ACC schools will now receive $500K less per school in TV revenue industry sources said

 

[FSUTribe76]

ND folks I have talked with don't seem too fond of the idea of Cincy. Perhaps Uconn.

I think Navy would be pretty solid. Football is better than the bottom 1/4 of the league, and other sports would benefit from P5 money and branding. Also, it would mean the Army/Navy game becomes part of the ACC's tradition and package. Not to mention getting back into the Baltimore market more fully.

But yes, clearly we would only bring in Navy with ND--not on their own.

I would hope that prior to officially expanding the ACC goes to ESPN/ABC/Disney and says how much will you give us for Notre Dame plus Navy and Notre Dame plus Cincy and we can go "Lookie here ND, SOOOO much more money if we can get into the Ohio market". Then I think Notre Dame will be on board with keeping Navy as a nonconference opponent only.

I get what you're saying about Army/Navy but keep in mind we'd only get half. It's the home team who gets the tv rights so the other half of the time we'd be missing out unless we came up with some type of Halfway in type of deal for Army where they can play Navy and four other ACC teams for a much smaller share. I'd be perfectly fine with something like that, heck maybe try that for both military branches.

 

[GE Nole]

I would hope that prior to officially expanding the ACC goes to ESPN/ABC/Disney and says how much will you give us for Notre Dame plus Navy and Notre Dame plus Cincy and we can go "Lookie here ND, SOOOO much more money if we can get into the Ohio market". Then I think Notre Dame will be on board with keeping Navy as a nonconference opponent only.

I get what you're saying about Army/Navy but keep in mind we'd only get half. It's the home team who gets the tv rights so the other half of the time we'd be missing out unless we came up with some type of Halfway in type of deal for Army where they can play Navy and four other ACC teams for a much smaller share. I'd be perfectly fine with something like that, heck maybe try that for both military branches.

There are plenty of bright people working on expansion so I'm sure they would do due diligence. But fwiw, ND is a massive presence in Ohio. You get ND and you get the entire Midwest.

But as long as we stay at 8 conference games (which today looks like that will continue for now) then it's a moot point because ND would still be able to schedule Navy, USC, Stanford, and another.

 

[F4Gary]

I think that the B1G is the desire of the OU administrators, by far.

However, I think there is actually a fair amount of concern among boosters about going to the B1G WITHOUT Texas. There is some concern that having only one game in Texas/vs a Texas school each year is bad news for OU recruiting.

They wouldn't have a problem recruiting in Texas.
a. They are just across the Red River, well within striking distance.
b. There are a ton of OU grads all over Texas.
c. OU is know as the best Texas team money can buy.

As far as the other ideas, I don't think the ACC leadership has the brains to pull any of that off. Sorry for the "no confidence" vote.

 

[FSUTribe76]

They wouldn't have a problem recruiting in Texas.
a. They are just across the Red River, well within striking distance.
b. There are a ton of OU grads all over Texas.
c. OU is know as the best Texas team money can buy.

As far as the other ideas, I don't think the ACC leadership has the brains to pull any of that off. Sorry for the "no confidence" vote.

I'm actually a little different (for the most part) than the typical Seminole narrative that the ACC leadership has been bungling along. And really I'd say they "won" the expansion wars since FSU joined.

If you look at the moves they've always been intellectually the right move. Bringing in Miami after they'd won a title two years before and Virginia Tech after they were in the title game four years before expansion (Boston College may be worth quibbling about but they finished 9-3 their first year in the ACC followed by 10-3 and 11-3 seasons). No one expected Miami, FSU and Clemson to be awful/really just mediocre for big stretches of the newly expanded ACC. If we three "old guard" had stayed strong none of the "ACC sucks" mentality would have existed.

Then in this most recent round we added Notre Dame half in where they can't go to another conference for decades, added Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville while only losing Maryland but keeping Virginia (probably because of adding Virginia Tech), FSU, GT, Clemson and Miami despite vigorous attempts by the Big Ten and Big 12 to steal them.

So if you go back and say who is the winners and losers of expansion so far you'd have to say the biggest losers are the now nonexistent Big East followed by the Big 12 (losing Missouri, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska while gaining TCU and West Virginia) and Mountain West (losing Utah, TCU and BYU while adding San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State, and Utah State).

I'd say the PAC stayed even really by adding Colorado and Utah but was really a loser by striking out on adding the Texas and Oklahoma schools. The Big Ten was a slight winner as they did get a major score by stealing Nebraska but adding only Rutgers and Maryland while missing out on its real targets (Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and possibly even FSU and/or Georgia Tech) means it was just a slight winner.

In contrast the ACC was the major victor of the expansion wars of the 00s and 10s not only by playing great defense by keeping FSU, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia away from the desperate clutches of the Big Ten and Big 12 while adding in half of Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Boston College while only losing Maryland. I'd take that outcome any day of the week.

 

[funksouljon]

In the off season, I love the expansion drama and talk. During the season, it just isn't as fun. Have real football to discuss.

 

[FSUTribe76]

In the off season, I love the expansion drama and talk. During the season, it just isn't as fun. Have real football to discuss.

Do we?

Do we really?

My interest has dropped 10,000%.

 

[funksouljon]

Do we?

Do we really?

My interest has dropped 10,000%.

Absolutely fair callout. And I begrudgingly am forced to admit you are right. Gonna go get my pitchfork and post up in the fire somebody thread.

 

[GE Nole]

I'm actually a little different (for the most part) than the typical Seminole narrative that the ACC leadership has been bungling along. And really I'd say they "won" the expansion wars since FSU joined.

If you look at the moves they've always been intellectually the right move. Bringing in Miami after they'd won a title two years before and Virginia Tech after they were in the title game four years before expansion (Boston College may be worth quibbling about but they finished 9-3 their first year in the ACC followed by 10-3 and 11-3 seasons). No one expected Miami, FSU and Clemson to be awful/really just mediocre for big stretches of the newly expanded ACC. If we three "old guard" had stayed strong none of the "ACC sucks" mentality would have existed.

Then in this most recent round we added Notre Dame half in where they can't go to another conference for decades, added Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville while only losing Maryland but keeping Virginia (probably because of adding Virginia Tech), FSU, GT, Clemson and Miami despite vigorous attempts by the Big Ten and Big 12 to steal them.

So if you go back and say who is the winners and losers of expansion so far you'd have to say the biggest losers are the now nonexistent Big East followed by the Big 12 (losing Missouri, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska while gaining TCU and West Virginia) and Mountain West (losing Utah, TCU and BYU while adding San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State, and Utah State).

I'd say the PAC stayed even really by adding Colorado and Utah but was really a loser by striking out on adding the Texas and Oklahoma schools. The Big Ten was a slight winner as they did score a major score by stealing Nebraska but adding only Rutgers and Maryland while missing out on its real target (Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and possibly even FSU and/or Georgia Tech).

In contrast the ACC was the major victor of the expansion wars of the 00s and 10s not only by playing great defense by keeping FSU, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia away from the desperate clutches of the Big Ten and Big 12 while adding in half of Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Boston College while only losing Maryland. I'd take that outcome any day of the week.

Agreed. Not sure why folks continue to insist that the acc is run by dummies, let alone bafoons.

 

[Nole Lou]

Agreed. Not sure why folks continue to insist that the acc is run by dummies, let alone bafoons.

I think there is a clear demarcation of when the ACC got their act together. However, before the "realignment crisis" of 2011 or so, the ACC made some extremely questionable and short-sighted moves. They basically boil down to two key points...failing to see how essential football was to the value of a conference, and failing to appreciate the financial arms race in college football and the need to maximize revenue. The two are obviously related.

Remember, they great add of Virginia Tech, which basically carried whatever football credibility the ACC had in the 2000s, was forced upon them. If the ACC had their way, Syracuse would have been in the ACC throughout their collapse, and Virginia Tech would be in the SEC right now. I can't imagine a more disastrous outcome. They were saved from the ultimate bonehead move there. In addition, terrible football scheduling for years, extremely biased officials, and an almost total lack of football buy-in from most of the conference set the ACC precariously behind. They forced 9 conference games on the football schools. And it's not like nobody could football's importance coming...I'd say that the value reversal from basketball to football was evident a good 7-10 years before the ACC showed any sign of understanding that. And I'm not convinced they would have if not for the perceived vulnerability during realignment.

Financially, they made a bad deal in 2010, you can't cut it any other way. They passed on a network. They refused to parcel out the product to two or more partners to maximize revenue, unlike every other conference. And they of course insisted ESPN sublease to Raycom. All of those cost the ACC money. And it's not like nobody could have known where things were heading...I was furious at the time.

NOW...all that said...over the last 3-4 years, I'd raise the ACC's grade from a D+ to a solid B+. With just a couple exceptions, the ACC has made almost all the right moves every time they could do it. You have to give Swofford and Co. a lot of credit for turning a very, very poor situation with zero leverage into a pretty solid footing, and you have to credit ACC schools for stepping up their game in football. You would not find many people more critical of Swofford and the ACC in general than me prior to 2012, and you won't find many more willing to credit them since. They very much turned lemons into lemonade somehow.

It shows me clearly that the people running the ACC (it's not just Swofford, the schools including FSU deserve a fair share of the blame as well as the credit) are not morons or incompetent. It's like they were just willfully blind, operating in a world that just didn't exist anymore. Once the scales were lifted off their eyes, you can see that they are fairly sharp and effective dealmakers. Got only knows how well off this conference could have been if they hadn't let themselves get so far behind the 8 ball, but you can't change the past. I feel pretty strongly confident that based on everything we've scene, right up to yesterday's schedule decision, that the ACC "gets it" now. Finally.

 

[seminole97]

Do we?
Do we really?
My interest has dropped 10,000%.

championship or bust is a lot of disappointing years of football.
The most important things to me every season are still on the table.

 

[Nole Lou]

Have a friend who is, along with his very well connected father, ND alums and big boosters. They say ND wil join ACC in full, only a matter of time.

They have been VERY pleased with the basketball, women's athletics, helping their baseball, and direction that ACC is going in. It's either Indy or ACC for them.

Two things of note:
1. Bringing in Navy (a move I would LOVE) would expedite process of ND joining in full.

2. Staying with 8 conference games is MUCH preferred by them. Would be a backwards step in our pursuit of ND if we went to 9.

I do think they're going to join, only the timing is unknown. I literally wouldn't be shocked if it was 2 years from now or 20. I think a lot of it will have to do with whether the Big 12 implodes or not. My guess would be six to eight years from now.

My speculation is that the higher ups at ND know they need to join a conference, but they know it will be very very hard to sell. Their current situation is untenable. They are playing a brutal schedule, with higher academic standards, and a much narrower path to the playoffs. That combo just isn't going to work forever. It's not working now.

The big problem is going to be that they will not be able to hire the best coaches going forward with that kind of stacked deck. They've already had a problem landing top guys. I know "but it's Notre Dame" but Tom Herman was in middle school the last time ND won a title. How much longer is that going to mean anything, if it still does?

Notre Dame fans love to act like independence is non-negotiable, but the last couple decades have been a steady, unyielding, irreversible eroding of independence. They are down to all of three games of independence, and at the same time their mystique is maybe a quarter of what it once was. If it was 1980, ND could count on being ushered into the playoffs at 9-3...those days are long gone.

ND fans that insist than independence is now secured are are as if they were in a car with no brakes that has been crashing down a hillside for a mile, and gets right to the edge of a cliff, and is dangling half way over, suspended by a branch. And being like "Ok, cool. This is safe. This is permanent."

Any rational look at it can see that it's eroded to the point that it's barely even symbolic. I think realistic people their know it, and they are just waiting for the opportunity to claim they "had to". I think if the Big 12 implodes, and we go to four major conferences, that will do it. If not, it's going to be a harder sell.

All that being said, the ACC should not let ND hold some future joining over it's head in decisions. If WVU or someone else comes available, the ACC shouldn't be "saving" a spot for ND or a partner. The ACC needs to move forward as if ND will never join, and it will be up to the Irish to jump in if they want any say in the situation.

 

[Bubbz]

Navy with the big game today so far...

 

[FSUTribe76]

Navy with the big game today so far...

Kind of sucks that Louisville isn't the team that gets to expose Houston.

 

[Bubbz]

That's true

 

[RTM58]

Agreed. Not sure why folks continue to insist that the acc is run by dummies, let alone bafoons.

$$$$'s

 

[Nole Lou]

The real question based on last weekend...would you be willing to take Notre Dame if Navy really insisted on them?

 

[FSUTribe76]

The real question based on last weekend...would you be willing to take Notre Dame if Navy really insisted on them?

Lol, very true.

Notre Dame is definitely going to end up with a losing season and maybe even a Gator level 4-8 type of season.

But having said that they are horrible, they are still the crown jewel of the expansion era. Other than maybe Texas.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

I'm actually a little different (for the most part) than the typical Seminole narrative that the ACC leadership has been bungling along. And really I'd say they "won" the expansion wars since FSU joined.

If you look at the moves they've always been intellectually the right move. Bringing in Miami after they'd won a title two years before and Virginia Tech after they were in the title game four years before expansion (Boston College may be worth quibbling about but they finished 9-3 their first year in the ACC followed by 10-3 and 11-3 seasons). No one expected Miami, FSU and Clemson to be awful/really just mediocre for big stretches of the newly expanded ACC. If we three "old guard" had stayed strong none of the "ACC sucks" mentality would have existed.

Then in this most recent round we added Notre Dame half in where they can't go to another conference for decades, added Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville while only losing Maryland but keeping Virginia (probably because of adding Virginia Tech), FSU, GT, Clemson and Miami despite vigorous attempts by the Big Ten and Big 12 to steal them.

So if you go back and say who is the winners and losers of expansion so far you'd have to say the biggest losers are the now nonexistent Big East followed by the Big 12 (losing Missouri, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Nebraska while gaining TCU and West Virginia) and Mountain West (losing Utah, TCU and BYU while adding San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State, and Utah State).

I'd say the PAC stayed even really by adding Colorado and Utah but was really a loser by striking out on adding the Texas and Oklahoma schools. The Big Ten was a slight winner as they did get a major score by stealing Nebraska but adding only Rutgers and Maryland while missing out on its real targets (Notre Dame, Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and possibly even FSU and/or Georgia Tech) means it was just a slight winner.

In contrast the ACC was the major victor of the expansion wars of the 00s and 10s not only by playing great defense by keeping FSU, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia away from the desperate clutches of the Big Ten and Big 12 while adding in half of Notre Dame, Louisville, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, and Boston College while only losing Maryland. I'd take that outcome any day of the week.

This is a good analysis as far as it goes. But you leave out a few things.

First, the SEC. Their expansion was modest but it cemented a killer TV deal. Prior to expansion they were probably no. 2 financially to the Big Ten, but just lapped them.

Big Ten - fair analysis that their expansion was modest, but they have a solid franchise, improved it, and did not go backwards. Plus, they have seeds of future growth with Penn State (now in a slump), Maryland/Rutgers markets, and Nebraska (fallen and it can't get up).

FSU - was the real loser. We always had the ability to leave, to get some upside, now that is forever capped at something less than we'd get in another conference. Now, we are surgically attached at the wallet to Tobacco Road and all we got were a few peanuts. We have no leverage against the incompetence of the officiating (FSU v. Miami), scheduling (GT?), ACC CCG, or kick-the-can TV deals. The ACC collapsing would have been bad for the ACC but it would have been good for FSU. All 4 surviving conferences would have been on the table for brands like FSU and NC. I know there are mixed views about the ACC, but lets not pretend that the ACC doing well in expansion by handcuffing FSU is good for FSU.

 

[FSUTribe76]

This is a good analysis as far as it goes. But you leave out a few things.

First, the SEC. Their expansion was modest but it cemented a killer TV deal. Prior to expansion they were probably no. 2 financially to the Big Ten, but just lapped them.

Big Ten - fair analysis that their expansion was modest, but they have a solid franchise, improved it, and did not go backwards. Plus, they have seeds of future growth with Penn State (now in a slump), Maryland/Rutgers markets, and Nebraska (fallen and it can't get up).

FSU - was the real loser. We always had the ability to leave, to get some upside, now that is forever capped at something less than we'd get in another conference. Now, we are surgically attached at the wallet to Tobacco Road and all we got were a few peanuts. We have no leverage against the incompetence of the officiating (FSU v. Miami), scheduling (GT?), ACC CCG, or kick-the-can TV deals. The ACC collapsing would have been bad for the ACC but it would have been good for FSU. All 4 surviving conferences would have been on the table for brands like FSU and NC. I know there are mixed views about the ACC, but lets not pretend that the ACC doing well in expansion by handcuffing FSU is good for FSU.

Just noticed after your message I left out where I would put the SEC in the expansion wars. While I have the ACC as the clear winner with keeping NC, FSU, Virginia and Clemson while bringing in Louisville, Virginia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Boston College and Syracuse plus most importantly half of Notre Dame, I would have the SEC the clear number 2 mainly due to the success of bringing in TAMU. Of course IF the ACC successfully brings in Texas then I'd say the ACC lapped the SEC in expansion as if we brought in Texas Tech as well (which is a sure thing if we got Texas and probably a requirement) we'd have 2 of the top 3 programs in the two biggest football states.

The problem with the SEC expansion and why you clearly couldn't have the SEC as the winner is that by taking Missouri they admitted they lost out on their true targets (Virginia Tech, North Carolina and NC State). Texas A&M is a quality get and probably the best team not named ND, Texas and possibly Oklahoma up for grabs but Mizzou was just a small consolation prize.

As far as FSU, short term being in the SEC is better but long term I don't think that's true. The ACC paid out more money than the SEC when we first joined and probably will again because of market sizes and that's a complete foregone conclusion IF we land Texas and Notre Dame fully. The ACC adding Texas as a market and solidifying the Northeast TVs by bringing in Notre Dame trumps the SEC and Big Ten. Plus not that anyone really cares, but associating with the quality ACC schools academically rather than the %*%* SEC schools will probably continue to have good impacts despite Florida manuevering to keep us down and FAMU hitched as our ball and chain.

 

[Bubbz]

Sweet Baby Moses if we add four with Navy, Texas, ND and a pick 'em, it's chicken dinner.

 

[Nole Lou]

This is a good analysis as far as it goes. But you leave out a few things.

First, the SEC. Their expansion was modest but it cemented a killer TV deal. Prior to expansion they were probably no. 2 financially to the Big Ten, but just lapped them.

Big Ten - fair analysis that their expansion was modest, but they have a solid franchise, improved it, and did not go backwards. Plus, they have seeds of future growth with Penn State (now in a slump), Maryland/Rutgers markets, and Nebraska (fallen and it can't get up).

FSU - was the real loser. We always had the ability to leave, to get some upside, now that is forever capped at something less than we'd get in another conference. Now, we are surgically attached at the wallet to Tobacco Road and all we got were a few peanuts. We have no leverage against the incompetence of the officiating (FSU v. Miami), scheduling (GT?), ACC CCG, or kick-the-can TV deals. The ACC collapsing would have been bad for the ACC but it would have been good for FSU. All 4 surviving conferences would have been on the table for brands like FSU and NC. I know there are mixed views about the ACC, but lets not pretend that the ACC doing well in expansion by handcuffing FSU is good for FSU.

I agree that FSU should have joined the SEC when it had the chance.

But it is TOTALLY speculative for you to say that FSU would have definitely ended up better off than they are now in an ACC collapse. That's far from certain. First of all, the PAC is an absurd option and Big 12 would be a worse destination for FSU if you don't know who's coming along. The Big 12 is a dysfunctional cluster---- and that isn't magically fixed by FSU joining, and their football trending in the wrong direction.

While I think there were scenarios that FSU could have ended up in the B1G or SEC, they were far from certain. There were many choices ahead of FSU in the line.

If FSU had a standing, "redeem any time" offer from the SEC, then yes, I would agree that signing a GOR was a bad move. But they didn't. It was the wrong play to continue to destabilize the ACC, when you've got schools like UNC, UVA, VT, NCSU, Duke, and maybe GT that could potentially leave for the SEC/B1G tomorrow.

Basically, signing on to the GOR guaranteed a higher floor and lower ceiling. If they'd not signed, they'd be making $5M+ less a year, still in the ACC, and hoping for an invite that's never coming, and hoping that nobody else leaves the ACC and takes the spot they covet in the SEC.

 

[FSUTribe76]

I agree that FSU should have joined the SEC when it had the chance.

But it is TOTALLY speculative for you to say that FSU would have definitely ended up better off than they are now in an ACC collapse. That's far from certain. First of all, the PAC is an absurd option and Big 12 would be a worse destination for FSU if you don't know who's coming along. The Big 12 is a dysfunctional cluster---- and that isn't magically fixed by FSU joining, and their football trending in the wrong direction.

While I think there were scenarios that FSU could have ended up in the B1G or SEC, they were far from certain. There were many choices ahead of FSU in the line.

If FSU had a standing, "redeem any time" offer from the SEC, then yes, I would agree that signing a GOR was a bad move. But they didn't. It was the wrong play to continue to destabilize the ACC, when you've got schools like UNC, UVA, VT, NCSU, Duke, and maybe GT that could potentially leave for the SEC/B1G tomorrow.

Basically, signing on to the GOR guaranteed a higher floor and lower ceiling. If they'd not signed, they'd be making $5M+ less a year, still in the ACC, and hoping for an invite that's never coming, and hoping that nobody else leaves the ACC and takes the spot they covet in the SEC.

The only way the ACC collapsing is good for FSU is in some fantasy situation where the Big 12 also collapsed simultaneously and you made a completely new conference between the two of them while jettisoning the useless teams. Yeah a league made up of just FSU, Texas, Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Miami, Texas Tech, Virginia Tech and North Carolina/NC State would be a powerhouse that would destroy the SEC. But that wasn't going to happen. We would have been stuck in a shaky and VERY poorly led league with a bunch of small market (and therefore useless) teams like Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, West Virginia, etc... You think you hate going to a game to see FSU go to Duke or Syracuse where there's actual civilisation and tourist attractions nearby? Try a roadie to bumble%*% Kansas, Iowa or Oklahoma and you'll be PLEADING to get Wake back on the schedule.

 

[GE Nole]

This is a good analysis as far as it goes. But you leave out a few things.

First, the SEC. Their expansion was modest but it cemented a killer TV deal. Prior to expansion they were probably no. 2 financially to the Big Ten, but just lapped them.

Big Ten - fair analysis that their expansion was modest, but they have a solid franchise, improved it, and did not go backwards. Plus, they have seeds of future growth with Penn State (now in a slump), Maryland/Rutgers markets, and Nebraska (fallen and it can't get up).

FSU - was the real loser. We always had the ability to leave, to get some upside, now that is forever capped at something less than we'd get in another conference. Now, we are surgically attached at the wallet to Tobacco Road and all we got were a few peanuts. We have no leverage against the incompetence of the officiating (FSU v. Miami), scheduling (GT?), ACC CCG, or kick-the-can TV deals. The ACC collapsing would have been bad for the ACC but it would have been good for FSU. All 4 surviving conferences would have been on the table for brands like FSU and NC. I know there are mixed views about the ACC, but lets not pretend that the ACC doing well in expansion by handcuffing FSU is good for FSU.

Few thoughts here:

1. The Big 10 ain't be lapped by anyone when it comes to money.
2. TV as a whole is going to look radically different in 10 years. Heck, maybe even 5 years.
3. We always had the ability to leave, but we weren't assured of upside.
4. There is incompetent officiating everywhere. It's the problem with not having a full-time, year around paid corps of NCAA officials.
5. Until GT gets rid of Paul Johnson, I'm fine not playing them.

 

[Bubbz]

Since this is for entertainment purposes, I'm going to have to go dust off my ACC/Pac12 merger to form a super nationwide conference that would maximize the primetime slot by having both an East coast and West coast game of the week.

 

[funksouljon]

........ teams like Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, West Virginia, etc... You think you hate going to a game to see FSU go to Duke or Syracuse where there's actual civilisation and tourist attractions nearby? Try a roadie to bumble%*% Kansas, Iowa or Oklahoma and you'll be PLEADING to get Wake back on the schedule.

Well, it would make a viable option for me to road trip to one of this locations. Where as now, no chance. But I do agree with you.

I did go to a Duke game once, it wasn't that bad, but certainly felt like a HS sized venue and they clearly weren't into it like at a real football school.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

As far as FSU, short term being in the SEC is better but long term I don't think that's true.

leaving money aside, there would be far more fan interest at our games. Look at our games versus Bama, Ole Miss, South Carolina, etc. All sell outs. All intense. Huge ticket sales to opponents. That is the SEC. Even if the ACC someday matches the SEC in money, it won't match there.

As for the Big 12 or Big Ten, yeah its not the SEC but its no worse than the ACC and arguably better. Look at the number of teams they have had in contention recently - Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma. ACC may have just equaled that with the emergence of Louisville, but if you subtract FSU from the ACC and add to the Big Twelve well then that changes a lot. You also have Texas which is a sleeping giant.

Its all a moot point now, but the ACC putting a straightjacket on FSU is a win for Wake Forest and the rest of the ACC but not for FSU.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

someone a few years ago did an analysis that said FSU was worth half of the ACC eyeballs, and with football worth more than hoops it meant two thirds of the dollars. There were charts with data and everything.

If not for the GOR, Big Ten would have offered Clemson, GT, and FSU. They have a ton of alums in that area for auto companies and retirees and need new recruiting grounds. Would have been a financial home run. But the minute that happens, the SEC then offers FSU and NC. This is not linear, checkers game theory. Its thinking a couple of moves ahead.

FSU would have come out ahead in an ACC collapse. FSU has a national brand and brings dollars and eyeballs where ever we would have landed. And landing at Big 12 would trigger a better offer from Big Ten, which would trigger a better offer from SEC. The problem was too many within FSU were butthurt from the old days and didn't want the SEC, and Barron couldn't corrall the faculty to leave the ACC. The irony is that for all the academic love for the ACC, we don't have the academic credentials supposedly to get into the Big Ten! How does that make any sense. The academics issue is a faculty smokescreen for anti-SEC snobbery.

 

[funksouljon]

leaving money aside, there would be far more fan interest at our games. Look at our games versus Bama, Ole Miss, South Carolina, etc. All sell outs. All intense. Huge ticket sales to opponents. That is the SEC. Even if the ACC someday matches the SEC in money, it won't match there.

Absolutely agree. The games are bigger and better. I also find I watch SEC match ups far more often that watching ACC matchups when FSU isn't involved.

 

[cfbfan23]

Can we just keep Texas Tech, UConn, Cinci and WVU out of any potential expansion scenarios? It would improve our basketball (an area that really doesn't need improvement). None of those teams bring eye balls to the tv. TT and Cinci are 3rd and 2nd rate teams in their own states and would not bring much to the table, recruiting-wise. UConn football is almost unwatchable. WVU is a decent program, but brings nothing extra to the table. Texas is the only team I would want from the state of Texas.....I'd take A&M too, if they were available. TCU and SMU don't get me excited. Take all of the rapists off of Baylor, and let's see how good they are. Houston hasn't been relevant, outside of Herman's recent stint, for almost three decades. And not much prior to that. Once Herman's gone, so too will be their dreams of being a top-10 program. Once Texas gets better (and they will eventually), Houston will lose their mojo.

Navy, Texas, OU, ND and BYU are the teams I think we should truly consider offering membership into the ACC. BYU probably doesn't make sense from a distance standpoint.

 

[Nole Lou]

someone a few years ago did an analysis that said FSU was worth half of the ACC eyeballs, and with football worth more than hoops it meant two thirds of the dollars. There were charts with data and everything.

If not for the GOR, Big Ten would have offered Clemson, GT, and FSU. They have a ton of alums in that area for auto companies and retirees and need new recruiting grounds. Would have been a financial home run. But the minute that happens, the SEC then offers FSU and NC. This is not linear, checkers game theory. Its thinking a couple of moves ahead.

FSU would have come out ahead in an ACC collapse. FSU has a national brand and brings dollars and eyeballs where ever we would have landed. And landing at Big 12 would trigger a better offer from Big Ten, which would trigger a better offer from SEC. The problem was too many within FSU were butthurt from the old days and didn't want the SEC, and Barron couldn't corrall the faculty to leave the ACC. The irony is that for all the academic love for the ACC, we don't have the academic credentials supposedly to get into the Big Ten! How does that make any sense. The academics issue is a faculty smokescreen for anti-SEC snobbery.

Sorry, that is just wishful thinking. There hasn't been one rational speculation by anyone that Clemson was in play for the Big 10. FSU was very, very borderline. The best opportunity would have been a Big 10 expansion to 18 with UVA, UNC, GT and FSU.

So we get to lose Miami and Clemson, and probably end up in a division with GT, UVA, UNC, MD, and/or Rutgers. That sounds exciting. Sure, you'll probably draw one of Michigan, Ohio State or Nebraska or Penn State every year. Is that much better than what we have now if we ditch Miami and Clemson. No doubt, we cash a bigger check, but I don't know that's a net win for recruiting or fan experience.

Oh, but if the Big 10 is going to 18...here's another option...what if they go Texas, Kansas, UNC, UVA? And the SEC goes Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, VT, and NC State?

You can say "Oh we'll get chosen, definitely!" But we certainly didn't get chosen over the likes of Missouri, Rutgers and Maryland. It's no slam dunk when there are 6-7 teams that check more boxes.

You tip the dominoes, you're not controlling where it falls.

 

[RTM58]

Sorry, that's wishful thinking.

You can say "Oh we'll get chosen, definitely!" But we certainly didn't get chosen over the likes of Missouri, Rutgers and Maryland. It's no slam dunk when there are 6-7 teams that check more boxes.

You tip the dominoes, you're not controlling where it falls.

That's because it's not about ranking and we didn't put ourselves in the ring, like the others did.....Wouldn't want to go in the SEC as the competition would make reaching a major bowl tough. I would love to see FSU, Clemson and Miami, 1/3 of the ACC's TV viewers, go somewhere though. If you can't sell that, your probably in middle management somewhere. (Not aimed at you Nole Lou)

Rutgers & Maryland are bad at football and not FSU, but still good additions for the B10:

In Rutgers’s first year in the conference, the Big Ten Network added eight million homes in the New York City area and experienced a higher-than-expected rise in advertising revenue, according to the network’s president, Mark Silverman. And without Rutgers and Maryland, it is not at all clear that the Big Ten could have secured reported rights deals with ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS Sports worth $250 million.

Rutgers brought other assets, harder to appraise but still valuable. Adding Maryland and Rutgers enabled the conference to credibly schedule its men’s basketball tournaments at, respectively, Washington’s Verizon Center (this season) and New York’s Madison Square Garden (in 2018).

It also prevented the Atlantic Coast Conference from adding Rutgers, and thereby kept New Jersey’s rich recruiting soil, long dominated by Big Ten stalwarts like Penn State and Michigan, in the tent.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Can we just keep Texas Tech, UConn, Cinci and WVU out of any potential expansion scenarios? It would improve our basketball (an area that really doesn't need improvement). None of those teams bring eye balls to the tv. TT and Cinci are 3rd and 2nd rate teams in their own states and would not bring much to the table, recruiting-wise. UConn football is almost unwatchable. WVU is a decent program, but brings nothing extra to the table. Texas is the only team I would want from the state of Texas.....I'd take A&M too, if they were available. TCU and SMU don't get me excited. Take all of the rapists off of Baylor, and let's see how good they are. Houston hasn't been relevant, outside of Herman's recent stint, for almost three decades. And not much prior to that. Once Herman's gone, so too will be their dreams of being a top-10 program. Once Texas gets better (and they will eventually), Houston will lose their mojo.

Navy, Texas, OU, ND and BYU are the teams I think we should truly consider offering membership into the ACC. BYU probably doesn't make sense from a distance standpoint.

I would prefer to just add Notre Dame and Texas and be done with it, but that's not going to happen. At the very least Texas is going to demand two or three "buddies" from nearby so they're not an outlier and have schools they can bully into voting their way. Oklahoma as I've said wouldn't want to continue playing the part of Texas' little brother so if the Big 12 breaks up they are DEFINITELY going separate ways. Either to the Big Ten or SEC, but we have ZERO shot of bringing in Oklahoma.


So here are the potential ACC candidates ranked by USNWR

Notre Dame is 15
Tulane is 39
Texas is 52
UConn is 60
BYU is 68
Baylor is 71
TCU is 82
Oklahoma is 111
Iowa State is 111
Kansas is 118
Cincinatti is 132
Kansas State is 135
USF is 159
Central Florida is 176
Oklahoma State is 182
West Virginia is 183
Houston is 191
Southern Miss is 220
Memphis is 247

Navy is the 12th Liberal Arts School and not really directly comparable in ranking, but it would obviously be good enough for the ACC.

In the 2014-2015 Capital One Cup (i.e. Athletic department based upon each sports ranks) which somewhat shows overall athletic standings albeit bifurcated into women's and men's standings the candidates were ranked (men rank/women rank) somewhat surprisingly as

TCU was 7th in men/49th in women
Notre Dame was 9th/18th
Texas was 15th/22nd
Oklahoma was 23rd/37th
Baylor was 39th/22nd
Texas Tech was 50th/59th
West Virginia was 56th/49th
Oklahoma State was 72nd/NR
South Florida was 73rd/NR
Brigham Young was 79th/29th
Memphis was 103rd/91st
UConn was NR/8th
Iowa State was NR/45th

And Tulane, Kansas, Kansas State, Houston, UCF and Navy scored no points for any sport in the two year period.

During the 2015-2016 year the potential schools were ranked in the Capital One Cup for overall athletic programs as

Oklahoma was 4th/4th
TCU was 13th/42nd
Texas was 17th/9th
Oklahoma State was 18th/49th
Kansas was 21st/29th
Notre Dame was 34th/24th
Texas Tech was 44th/NR
Brigham Young was 49th/NR
Houston was 56th/NRh
West Virginia was 57th/NR
Navy was 69th/NR
Memphis was 99th/84th
UConn was NR/8th
Kansas State was NR/54th

While Tulane, Iowa State, and UCF scored no points in any sport.

 

[RTM58]

Notre Dame will be joining and the ACC will pick who they want. This plan started years ago and will culminate in 19, it would have already happened but there's been some changes on the TV landscape that is still not fully figured out.

Odd that ND would extend their NBC TV contract 10 years, instead of the normal five years, in advance of joining the ACC. Especially when you take into consideration they were already slated to join by now based on your 2010 conversation. ND just doesn't make good decisions I guess.

 

[cfbfan23]

I would prefer to just add Notre Dame and Texas and be done with it, but that's not going to happen. At the very least Texas is going to demand two or three "buddies" from nearby so they're not an outlier and have schools they can bully into voting their way. Oklahoma as I've said wouldn't want to continue playing the part of Texas' little brother so if the Big 12 breaks up they are DEFINITELY going separate ways. Either to the Big Ten or SEC, but we have ZERO shot of bringing in Oklahoma.


So here are the potential ACC candidates ranked by USNWR

Notre Dame is 15
Tulane is 39
Texas is 52
UConn is 60
BYU is 68
Baylor is 71
TCU is 82
Oklahoma is 111
Iowa State is 111
Kansas is 118
Cincinatti is 132
Kansas State is 135
USF is 159
Central Florida is 176
Oklahoma State is 182
West Virginia is 183
Houston is 191
Southern Miss is 220
Memphis is 247

Navy is the 12th Liberal Arts School and not really directly comparable in ranking, but it would obviously be good enough for the ACC.

In the 2014-2015 Capital One Cup (i.e. Athletic department based upon each sports ranks) which somewhat shows overall athletic standings albeit bifurcated into women's and men's standings the candidates were ranked (men rank/women rank) somewhat surprisingly as

TCU was 7th in men/49th in women
Notre Dame was 9th/18th
Texas was 15th/22nd
Oklahoma was 23rd/37th
Baylor was 39th/22nd
Texas Tech was 50th/59th
West Virginia was 56th/49th
Oklahoma State was 72nd/NR
South Florida was 73rd/NR
Brigham Young was 79th/29th
Memphis was 103rd/91st
UConn was NR/8th
Iowa State was NR/45th

And Tulane, Kansas, Kansas State, Houston, UCF and Navy scored no points for any sport in the two year period.

During the 2015-2016 year the potential schools were ranked in the Capital One Cup for overall athletic programs as

Oklahoma was 4th/4th
TCU was 13th/42nd
Texas was 17th/9th
Oklahoma State was 18th/49th
Kansas was 21st/29th
Notre Dame was 34th/24th
Texas Tech was 44th/NR
Brigham Young was 49th/NR
Houston was 56th/NRh
West Virginia was 57th/NR
Navy was 69th/NR
Memphis was 99th/84th
UConn was NR/8th
Kansas State was NR/54th

While Tulane, Iowa State, and UCF scored no points in any sport.

You may very well be right, but I think Texas is less likely to demand others from the State come along, as well. Especially since its alumni have seen how well A&M has benefited (as a program) by going it alone in the SEC. Plus, they have a lot less leverage than they did a decade ago. The demise of the Big 12 could well end up as rats fleeing the sinking ship. At that point, the Horns may not stick up for the Red Raider rat, or its rapist cousin, Baylor-Bear rat.

If they do insist on it, I'd be fine with some combination of OU, Navy (they bring a lot of cache to the table), ND and/or BYU. I think any of those names makes the conference more compelling.

It will be very interesting to see how the conference landscape changes over the next decade.

 

[TexSkills]

I don't think Texas would be "required" to bring TTU or Baylor anywhere. Baylor isn't a state school so they have no say in what direction state schools go. That would merely be a political posturing maneuver in the Texas Legislature, as it was when the Big XII was formed.

 

[Bubbz]

Now that the Big 12 has fumbled expansion, I wonder if an 18-team ACC is the play?

The ACC is tied in as a member, so the only way to go after the top tier of the B12 is to go to 18 teams.

Get them before someone else does.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Now that the Big 12 has fumbled expansion, I wonder if an 18-team ACC is the play?

just because they thought none of the candidates worthy of expansion at this time doesn't mean they fumbled it.

arguably, adding low value and far flung teams like Pitt and Cuse was a fumble.

I dont' think the decision to not expand makes any Big 12 team more likley to leave now than before. So that begs the question of whether we want any of the Big 12 teams.

why would we want to add Big 12 teams if they were too far away to play and not interesting matchups in terms of joining the Big 12?

Personally I would rather watch FSU play most of the Big 12 teams rather than the ACC teams, but the ACC crowd seems to think that Texas doesn't play nice and want to take their ball and go home. Shoot, anything is better than Wake and GT.

anyway, if there were a gun to my head, I would add Texas, Houston, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, assuming you could somehow cherry pick those. Financially and recruiting wise I think that would be very interesting. However, an 18-team conference is unwieldy and its basically two nine-team conferences married at the CCG.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Now that the Big 12 has fumbled expansion, I wonder if an 18-team ACC is the play?

The ACC is tied in as a member, so the only way to go after the top tier of the B12 is to go to 18 teams.

Get them before someone else does.

I've been a huge proponent of that for quite some time.

The best case scenario imo for the ACC would be to finish adding Notre Dame then add in Texas, Oklahoma, Cincinatti and then either Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU or Houston. So if I had the power to pluck and choose whomever I want, I'd add those five and stay at 18.

Unfortunately I don't think that's realistic because there's a number of problems. Notre Dame probably will demand Navy before they'd full come in and Oklahoma would demand Okie State. Which I would be 100% on board with adding and going to an even 20 which in my mind works fantastic with a five, four or two team pod system (I'll post what the five team pod could look like later). So REALISTICALLY I think the best ACC outcome is a 20 team league adding Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Cincinatti, Navy, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech/Houston/TCU/Baylor. And if I'm in charge of the ACC that's what I'm working towards every day in order to bring in more $$$$ than the SEC or Big Ten ever dreamt about.

I do think that will be close to impossible to bring about though as my BIL is a big OU booster and those at the top want a complete divorce from UT with the SEC, PAC or Big Ten as the most likely destinations. So it would be tough to bring them into the ACC especially WITH Texas and totally impossible without Okie State. And the latter is another problem for the ACC. Because while the ACC obviously let its academic standards slip to bring in Louisville (171 USNWR), Oklahoma (111 USNWR) barely fits in with the rest of the conference academically and only do so at the bottom with FSU (92 USNWR), NC State (92 USNWR) and Louisville (171 USNWR). Meanwhile Okie State (152 USNWR), Texas Tech (176) and especially Houston (194 USNWR) would be huge outliers as the dumb dumb schools.

So because of that it would be tough to maybe impossible to convince the ACC school presidents to let in Okie State and Houston especially when there are better academic fits in TCU (82 USNWR) and Baylor (71 USNWR). Navy (12th in national liberal arts colleges that would correspond to a top 50 National University ranking that the rest are ranked in), Texas (56 USNWR) and Notre Dame (15 USNWR) all fit in well at the top and middle of the ACC and would be more than welcomed in. Baylor and TCU would be at the bottom but above the bottom quartile so they would get in without too many issues the main problem being that they're Christian (Also I should add BYU (68 USNWR) would fit in here and I'd be fine with adding them if we can't get our more ideal candidates). But Cincinnati (135 USNWR), Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas Tech and Houston would all immediately be at the very bottom of the conference academically.