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

[FSUTribe76]

I personally really like the idea of the ACC adding Houston IF it gets Texas because geographically being on the eastern most part of Texas it ties in the rest of the ACC to Texas by being near the Louisiana border. Plus it has a lot of upward mobility in academic rankings if it was in the right conference and received the right help.

Now if Texas goes to the Big Ten or PAC I'd prefer ditching Houston and going with Baylor and TCU.

 

[FSUTribe76]

So I personally prefer the two team pod system as it is the easiest and best way to keep the most preexisting rivalries but if the ACC went to 20 in my ideal scenario I would pair it up as.

Pod 1
Texas
Oklahoma
Okie State
Houston/Texas Tech/BYU
Cincinnati

Pod 2
Notre Dame
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Boston College

Pod 3
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
NC State
Duke

Pod 4
Florida State
Clemson
Miami
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest

It's a fairly balanced set of pods. Two very strong ones (1 & 4) and two weaker pods but still a couple of national contenders in each (2 & 3).

The problem is that you would lose out on some existing rivalries such as Clemson, GT and FSU versus Tobacco Road and Miami would lose out on its Big East rivalries and probably never recover by being in too tough of a pod.

 

[FSUTribe76]

If you did pods of 4 I would probably set it up as

Pod 1
Texas
Oklahoma
Okie State
Houston/TT/TCU/Baylor

Pod 2
Notre Dame
Louisville
Boston College
Syracuse

Pod 3
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Pittsburg
Cincinatti

Pod 4
North Carolina
NC State
Duke
Wake Forest

Pod 5
Florida State
Miami
Clemson
Georgia Tech

Which makes even more unbalanced as Pods 1 and 5 would be incredibly tough once Texas finds a decent coach and Pod 4 and 2 would be pretty weak.

 

[GE Nole]

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.

Yeah, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, those teams really get me jazzed up to play them...

 

[FSUTribe76]

Yeah, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, those teams really get me jazzed up to play them...

Texas Tech wouldn't be too bad. The others....blecch. Really if FSU had been in Big 12 instead how many teams would FSU fans be actually excited about playing? Basically Texas and Oklahoma because it doesn't matter how good TCU and Baylor actually are...no one cares. I'd take Clemson and Miami over Texas and Oklahoma as far as teams to generate enthusiasim in our fan base. And Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, North Carolina and Louisville arent too bad either. Plus if you had to see a game against a lower ranked team, I'd MUCH rather go to Boston, the mountains of North Carolina or Pittsburgh versus bumble^+%+ Iowa or Kansas.

 

[seminole97]

ND just doesn't make good decisions I guess.

 

[Bubbz]

We all agree that its an arms race for ratings right? We not only need to bring in teams with viewers - we need to keep other conference from grabbing them (just my opinion).

I personally think 20-team super-conferences are inevitable. Why not be the first? There are top tier teams open for the poaching so let's poach because I do not think the Big 12 is stable at all right now.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

We all agree that its an arms race for ratings right? We not only need to bring in teams with viewers - we need to keep other conference from grabbing them (just my opinion).

I personally think 20-team super-conferences are inevitable. Why not be the first? There are top tier teams open for the poaching so let's poach because I do not think the Big 12 is stable at all right now.

If 20 teams is good, why not 24? you could just merge with the Big 12, and have their winner play our winner. It would basically be two separate conferences whether you went to 18, 20, or 24, so what is the difference?

And if you are willing to do that, you might as well merge with the PAC.

I don't like any of those. I'd be OK with Texas, OU, Okie State and Houston, and that would give you a lot of eyeballs, but also a poaching suit.

And Texas and OU have a hard enough time winning in the Big 12, they certainly aren't going to join the ACC.

 

[FSUTribe76]

If 20 teams is good, why not 24? you could just merge with the Big 12, and have their winner play our winner. It would basically be two separate conferences whether you went to 18, 20, or 24, so what is the difference?

And if you are willing to do that, you might as well merge with the PAC.

I don't like any of those. I'd be OK with Texas, OU, Okie State and Houston, and that would give you a lot of eyeballs, but also a poaching suit.

And Texas and OU have a hard enough time winning in the Big 12, they certainly aren't going to join the ACC.

If there were 24 good teams then sure but there's not 24 teams I would want (assuming the SEC, PAC and BigTen is offlimits). The only teams I would want are in order from most want to meh are Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, BYU, Cincy, UConn, Texas Tech, and possibly Texas Christian OR but not and Houston. The any teams outside those like West Virginia, Okie State, Baylor, Navy or Kansas are not teams you're wanting but teams you're forced into taking to have the teams you actually want. Iowa State, Kansas State and West Virginia are completely worthless for tv ratings and not only would we want to jettison them but their current partners in the Big 12 would want to jettison them (well besides Kansas which is not worth taking on its own let alone WITH Kstate)

 

[Lemon Thrower]

I wouldn't want to go to 24, even if they were good teams. When a conference is that large, it really doesn't mean anything anymore.

That said, i'm a little tired of most of the teams we play in the ACC, except for Clemson and Louisville. We would play Miami regardless. We once had emerging rivalries with GT and VT, and I would like to play them more. Its really hard to get into the rest of the ACC games.

 

[Fijimn]

Tom Herman to UT is being reported as a done deal. Anticipate U of H to return to the land of mediocrity. They have a nice stadium. But the economics of big-time CF does not allow Houston to be a player without joining a Big 5 conference...even with Tillman Fertitta and Tony Busby writing the checks.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Tom Herman to UT is being reported as a done deal. Anticipate U of H to return to the land of mediocrity. They have a nice stadium. But the economics of big-time CF does not allow Houston to be a player without joining a Big 5 conference...even with Tillman Fertitta and Tony Busby writing the checks.

Yeah as soon as the Big 12 snubbed them, Herman to UT was a done deal in my head.

I still think they could be a decent ACC addition IF the ACC presidents could be convinced to overlook their poor academics.

I wouldn't want a ton of Texas schools unless that is what it took to get UT to join the ACC. But even without UT, they wouldn't be a bad pickup.

 

[GE Nole]

I wouldn't want to go to 24, even if they were good teams. When a conference is that large, it really doesn't mean anything anymore.

That said, i'm a little tired of most of the teams we play in the ACC, except for Clemson and Louisville. We would play Miami regardless. We once had emerging rivalries with GT and VT, and I would like to play them more. Its really hard to get into the rest of the ACC games.

Speak for yourself on that last sentence.

UNC, NCSU, Pitt--get into those easily. BC is a fantastic road trip. And that's all on top of Clemson, Louisville, VT, GT, and Miami.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

Speak for yourself on that last sentence.

UNC, NCSU, Pitt--get into those easily. BC is a fantastic road trip. And that's all on top of Clemson, Louisville, VT, GT, and Miami.

clemson and louisville i'll give you.
miami we'd play regardless of the conference.
we don't play VT or GT.
there is little fan interest in the other games. ratings are low, ticket sales are low.

 

[FSUTribe76]

clemson and louisville i'll give you.
miami we'd play regardless of the conference.
we don't play VT or GT.
there is little fan interest in the other games. ratings are low, ticket sales are low.

And if we had Florida's schedule we'd play four teams actually interesting (FSU/UF, Jawja, Tennessee and LSU) and the rest total garbage (Vandy, Kentucky, Mizzou, Arkansas and two patsies). If you think that's somehow a better schedule than what we're playing (Clemson, Louisville, Miami, Ole Miss, North Carolina and yes even USF which was pretty highly attended and the crowd for both sides energetic as I was actually there) then you need to have your SEC Loverectomy removed. The SEC Least is hot garbage and this year with Miss State being actually worse than the Vandy/Kentucky/Missouri triumvirate of %*%* and Arkansas being fully exposed as overrated garbage you've got exactly three teams of quality in the SEC and I'm not convinced TAMU is really one versus not played anyone.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

i disagree. its not just X's and O's, its the total product.

South Carolina is a crappy team but there is a high level of passion among the fans. If you went to the Peach Bowl a few years ago you know what I mean. Ditto Missouri who played in the SEC CCG 2 years in a row I think. Has NC or NCS done that?

there is just no passion to these ACC games. In the SEC, the fans travel and if you work with someone who is a gamecock fan, you know it. I might work with NC or NCS fans and would never know it.

you can make the case that this year the quality of football in the ACC is as good or better than the SEC, I get that. but the quality of the product is still lagging.

there is a poster on the free football board who makes the point that the revenue from the expected ACC Network will be a fraction of FSU's football revenues. He's got a point. the bulk is booster contributions and ticket sales. Well, those go up when you have more interesting opponents, like Bama or ND or even an Auburn or Oklahoma. NC and NCS don't sell tickets for us.

 

[GE Nole]

clemson and louisville i'll give you.
miami we'd play regardless of the conference.
we don't play VT or GT.
there is little fan interest in the other games. ratings are low, ticket sales are low.

You're wrong on Miami. If we went to Big 12, as you are wishing, we would play 9 conference games. Plus Florida. We aren't keeping Miami on as a yearly foe in that situation. We would occasionally play them, as UF does now.

We played GT last year. We play VT in 2018. We play ND every couple years.

If you think ticket sales for Kansas State or Iowa State would be any better than NC State or BC, I've got some fresh Florida snow to sell you. And Raleigh and Boston sure are better road trip destinations.

 

[FSUTribe76]

i disagree. its not just X's and O's, its the total product.

South Carolina is a crappy team but there is a high level of passion among the fans. If you went to the Peach Bowl a few years ago you know what I mean. Ditto Missouri who played in the SEC CCG 2 years in a row I think. Has NC or NCS done that?

there is just no passion to these ACC games. In the SEC, the fans travel and if you work with someone who is a gamecock fan, you know it. I might work with NC or NCS fans and would never know it.

you can make the case that this year the quality of football in the ACC is as good or better than the SEC, I get that. but the quality of the product is still lagging.

there is a poster on the free football board who makes the point that the revenue from the expected ACC Network will be a fraction of FSU's football revenues. He's got a point. the bulk is booster contributions and ticket sales. Well, those go up when you have more interesting opponents, like Bama or ND or even an Auburn or Oklahoma. NC and NCS don't sell tickets for us.

Well first of all no Coastal team other than Virginia Tech early on has had back to back ACC Championship appearances. So UNC's appearance last year isn't too surprising that it MAY be a one and done. And Mizzous back to back appearances have more to do with how %*%* the SEC Least was when they went. For Example in 2013 Missouri finished 2-2 against ranked teams they faced (beating Vandy and Okie State and losing to South Carolina and Auburn) so while that sounds good on paper, the main reason they had such a gaudy record was playing three patsies and Florida, Georgia and Tennessee were awful then. Then in 2014 Missouri again played three patsies and went 0-2 against teams that ended up in the Top 25 (Jawja and Bama) but went to the SEC championship because they faced no other ranked teams while Jawja which was decent that year but not great didn't represent because they were upset by USCe and UF.

Meanwhile heads up, UNC has a .566 winning percentage, been to 31 bowls including 8 major/current BCS bowls, won 8 conference championships and had 30 All-Americans. USClEast on the other hand has a .510 winning percentage, has been to 20 bowls but only 2 major/current BCS bowls, won only 2 conference championships with the last one in 1969, and had a whopping 4 All-Americans. I don't care if there's more tobaccy chawing rednecks in their stands, UNC is a substantially better opponent most years.

You're mistaking fan interest for quality.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

I would much rather see FSU play UGA, SC, Tenn, or Vandy than NC, NCS, Wake, Pitt, BC, Cuse.

These days (I used to live in Manhattan) I don't know anyone who went to Cuse, BC, or Pitt, and the folks I know who went to the Carolina schools don't talk about football.

so even if the SEC East is down right now, the games have more fan interest. this is why the SEC sells more tickets, has a more lucrative network, has larger stadiums, higher coaching and referee salaries, and higher booster fees. There aren't enough fans like GE Nole who love to watch Wake and BC, bless their hearts.

 

[FSUTribe76]

You're wrong on Miami. If we went to Big 12, as you are wishing, we would play 9 conference games. Plus Florida. We aren't keeping Miami on as a yearly foe in that situation. We would occasionally play them, as UF does now.

We played GT last year. We play VT in 2018. We play ND every couple years.

If you think ticket sales for Kansas State or Iowa State would be any better than NC State or BC, I've got some fresh Florida snow to sell you. And Raleigh and Boston sure are better road trip destinations.

And it's not just that I (and any rationale sane person) would rather go to Boston or Pittsburgh or Raleigh versus bumble%*%* Iowa or Kansas, it's also ease of travel. You can easily drive to all but the Northern third of the ACC and can find cheap plane tickets to or near all of the locations. But Kansas and Iowa? Heck even Texas. From Tallahassee which is closer than where most of our fans are (Orlando/Tampa/Jax/Miami/Atlanta) it is an all day drive to the closest Big 12 teams (UT and West Virginia) and a multiday drive to most. And good luck flying into KC and then driving 6 hours to the bumble%*%* locations.

 

[GE Nole]

I would much rather see FSU play UGA, SC, Tenn, or Vandy than NC, NCS, Wake, Pitt, BC, Cuse.

These days (I used to live in Manhattan) I don't know anyone who went to Cuse, BC, or Pitt, and the folks I know who went to the Carolina schools don't talk about football.

so even if the SEC East is down right now, the games have more fan interest. this is why the SEC sells more tickets, has a more lucrative network, has larger stadiums, higher coaching and referee salaries, and higher booster fees. There aren't enough fans like GE Nole who love to watch Wake and BC, bless their hearts.

I would prefer to watch BC over Vandy. That is true.

But its funny how you've switched from talking about all the great matchups we would have in the Big 12, to now talking about the SEC. Never mind that we have no way of getting into the SEC...

 

[FSUTribe76]

I would much rather see FSU play UGA, SC, Tenn, or Vandy than NC, NCS, Wake, Pitt, BC, Cuse.

These days (I used to live in Manhattan) I don't know anyone who went to Cuse, BC, or Pitt, and the folks I know who went to the Carolina schools don't talk about football.

so even if the SEC East is down right now, the games have more fan interest. this is why the SEC sells more tickets, has a more lucrative network, has larger stadiums, higher coaching and referee salaries, and higher booster fees. There aren't enough fans like GE Nole who love to watch Wake and BC, bless their hearts.

You're talking to only SEC lovers. I got up early to watch BC and GT in Ireland and catch as many ACC games or more than SEC. I wouldn't give two %*%*s to see Kentucky versus Miss State or Vanderbilt versus USClEast or Arkansas versus Missouri.

This year there's one and only one SEC team worth watching and that's Bama. But I do somewhat follow Florida (for the Schadenfreude), Jawja, Tennessee, LSU and to a much lesser extent Auburn and Texas A&M. So that's six teams I partially care about with Ole Miss being interesting to watch only because they were our opponent. But normally Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, USC and Arkansas are not worth following period.

Conversely in the ACC I've seen all or at least part of every game of FSU, Clemson and Louisville and followed Virginia Tech, Miami, Pitt (which beat Penn State something Corch Irvan Mayer couldn't do), Georgia Tech, and NC State. The only teams not worth following are Boston College, Wake, Duke, Syracuse and Virginia.

And when you line them up this year, if you had a game matching equivalent teams I think the ACC wins 10+ of them.

Bama = Clemson
Auburn < Louisville
Texas A&M < Florida State
Tennessee > Virginia Tech (but take away the five flukey turnovers and I don't think that's true as each turnover is worth about 5 Pts and they won by 21)
LSU < North Carolina
Florida < Miami
Arkansas < Pittsburgh
Ole Miss > NC State
Georgia = Georgia Tech
Kentucky < Wake Forest
Vanderbilt < Duke
South Carolina = Syracuse
Missouri = Virginia
Miss State < Boston College

 

[FSUTribe76]

I would prefer to watch BC over Vandy. That is true.

But its funny how you've switched from talking about all the great matchups we would have in the Big 12, to now talking about the SEC. Never mind that we have no way of getting into the SEC...

Yeah after wussing out against LSU, do you think the Hogtown CC would allow us into the SEC? Those chicken^*%*s that tried to weasel out of their second toughest game only to have to cave to the SEC when they said they would be disqualified from the championship game they're trying to back into? They would do everything in their power to keep us out even if we wanted into the SEC.

And yes I acknowledge the ACC < SEC in the past on the field and currently when it comes to $$$$. But the ACC made more than the SEC in $$$$ when we joined and when Miami and VT signed up, so depending on how we do in the next round of expansion we might be back on top again anyways. A conference with Texas, Notre Dame, FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and a footprint over the southeast, Texas and northeast will be printing $$$$$$$.

 

[Lemon Thrower]

SEC attendance, salaries, booster fees, ratings, etc. are more powerful than anecdotal evidence.

as for UF, its to their advantage to have their conference opponents also get hung with and FSU loss. the didn't want us in due to prestige, but we lapped them anyway so what to lose at this point?