PDA

View Full Version : 14th Member Replacement Discussion



SCMatt33
11-19-2012, 03:42 PM
I know this discussion is already in full swing inside the Maryland thread (so please move it there if the mods feel that its appropriate), but I think this is a big enough topic to be separate from discussing the reaction to Maryland leaving.

With Maryland now out, the ball is fully in the ACC's court to act (or not act) on these developments. The way I see it, there are three basic options. First, and the most commonly discussed, is to replace Maryland with a full member, with the leading candidates being UConn and Louisville. The second option, which has not really been discussed, are to add a football only member, which combined with ND, would give the ACC 14 members in both football and basketball. The third option is to stand pat, put the ACC title game on ice, and beg Notre Dame over and over to come in for football. Options 2 and 3 are worth exploring, but I think there's a reason that Option 1 has dominated the discussion thus far.

As far as candidates go, there are the two leaders, a few candidates that I think stand out a bit from the remainder, and a bunch of fringe candidates, with some kind of extreme baggage (weak programs, terrible geography, etc.) that make them very unlikely. It's also good to note what the ACC will be looking for in it's search, in order to put each candidate in context.

Academics: So far, the ACC hasn't really reached down academically to find new members, but it's always a possibility. US News rankings are hardly adequate, but they're all I have to go on right now, so that's where we'll start. Here is the current academic breakdown of the ACC based on the US News Rankings (pulled from the website today):

8 - Duke
17 - Notre Dame*
24 - UVA
27 - Wake Forest
30 - UNC
31 - BC
36 - Georgia Tech
44 - Miami
58 - Syracuse
58 - Pitt
68 - Clemson
72 - Virginia Tech
97 - FSU
106 - NC State

Football Strength: One of the big key to the financial viability of any conference is the strength of it's football programs. Despite not having many big media markets, the SEC has one of the most valuable first-tier rights contracts because they have so many games with national appeal. Any time a new team comes in, it's an opportunity to renegotiate, and with Maryland not being a football power house, there is an opportunity for improvement here.

Basketball Strength: I'm not going to sugar coat it, basketball isn't very valuable financially. There are just too many games saturating the market for people to care outside of the NCAA tourney. Even the Austin Rivers shot, which got ratings that greatly exceeded even very good basketball games, paled in comparison to what an average prime time college football game gets. With that said, the ACC is solidifying it's place as the best basketball conference out there, and it is a feather that the Tobacco Road center of the conference likes to have in its hat.

Media Market Size: Right now, this only really matters to the ACC in terms of how many eyeballs would watch their local teams and other ACC games in comparison to what else is on. There are no immediate plans for a full cable network, or even Pac-12 style regional network. Even if the ACC wanted this, they gave away pretty much all media rights to ESPN so a new network would need ESPN backing (a la the Longhorn Network). With the changing landscape of college sports however, that's not an implausible scenario, and more eyeballs on a team is better in general, so the importance of media market isn't to be underestimated.

Geography: This doesn't mean as much as it used to, but the ACC has yet to leave the Eastern timezone, and it would be a tough sell to bring in a team from way out west, even if there is a viable option or two out there.

With the general criteria in place, it's time to look at the candiates:

Connecticut: They are definitely the leaders in the clubhouse at the moment. They would solidify the ACC's presence in the New York Market, and would be a big selling point towards getting 1 or more out of the YES network, SNY, and MSG to carry ACC sports. Aside from the New York market being the biggest in the county, it also fits into the ACC's new northeast footprint. Their basketball program rates as very good to excellent, even with recent NCAA run-in's. We'll see how they come out of this postseason ban/coaching change, but you have a hard time selling me that it's not an upgrade from Maryland. The football is mediocre at best, even with the one recent BCS run, but Maryland didn't bring much to the table either. Academics is probably the biggest thing going for UConn. At 63, they are the only viable full member east of the Mississippi that fits into the ACC's academic profile. Don't underestimate that factor in this decision.

Louisville: On the surface, Louisville looks like a great option. Their football is more than respectable, and would help shore up the soft middle of the ACC. Their basketball would slot in to the upper third of the conference. They're also in a good geographic location to pair with Notre Dame and bridge that gap a bit. The problem comes with the other two areas. Louisville has atrocious academics compared to other BCS schools. At 160, they are below even most SEC schools. I can see the ACC reaching academically, but that is really far to reach. The other problem is that Louisville is a tiny market. Depending on who you ask, Louisville is somewhere around the bottom of or just outside the top 50 markets. Not only that, but they don't even own the market outright, as there are a ton of UK fans in the area. They just don't bring much from a TV perspective. There's a reason the Big 12 has passed on them thus far.

Cincinnati If Louisville was too big of a stretch academically, look at Cincinnati as Louisville light. You get a small boost in media market size (20-30) and academics (139), but sacrifice some of the power that Louisville football and basketball brings. They are solid in both, but won't wow anyone in either for consistent periods of time. Geographically, they would serve the same purpose as Louisville, bridging that gap out west.

Temple If the ACC wants to reach academically, Temple is an intriguing candidate. They are rated 125 academically so they're still a big reach, but not quite as big as Louisville or Cincinnati. Geographically, they would replace Maryland pretty well and provide a natural rival for Pitt. They're football is mediocre, but that's true of most options available. They're basketball ranks as good to very good, and with the Philadelphia recruiting base, they are one of the few programs that could really benefit from moving up. I think they'd be stealing some recruits from Villanova if they were in the ACC. If Syracuse buys the ACC some presence in New York, Philadelphia is the next biggest market that the ACC doesn't have (slightly bigger than Washington alone, although a decent bit smaller than Washington and Baltimore combined). Philadelphia is far from a college sports town, but so is the entire northeast. Being a native of the area, there is no better time then right now to build college buzz in the city. The Eagles are woeful, the Flyers aren't playing, the Sixers' buzz is muted with Bynum hurt, and the Phillies just missed the playoffs for the first time in five years. Plus there's nothing that Temple and St. Joe's fans love to do more than give 'Nova the finger. This would allow them to do just that.

Other Full Members: Most other available programs have some kind of baggage, whether it be South Florida being in the same state as two other members, Memphis having really, really bad football, BYU being so far out there geographically (If they'd even take the call), there just isn't much else out there that would be viable.

Football Only Members: You could try and take someone like Navy or Boise State to go to 14 in both football and basketball, but then you're really signalling that you've accepted that Notre Dame isn't coming for football ever. Doesn't sound like what I'd want.

Wait for ND: You could just beg ND to join in football, but with the way FSU's been buried by the computers and ND one win away from the title game, there's never been a worse time to make that Argument.

Personally, I'm fine with UConn, but if they want to reach academically, I'd go to Temple before Louisville. What does everyone else think?

MulletMan
11-19-2012, 03:53 PM
I think that Temple is the way to go. They are building a football program and the allure of Philly kids having the chance to play in the ACC as the BigEast disintegrates might give them a nice advantage over Temple in basketball. They aren't that far below NCState, and don't come with the NCAA-bagagge that UConn does.

hurleyfor3
11-19-2012, 03:53 PM
I'm intrigued by Temple. They're certainly outside of any "box" of typical candidates.

Seems like academics is a drawback for all the candidates you listed. That said, Maryland was never among the ACC's academic leaders to begin with, to be tactful about it. Are there any candidates other than ND with good academic numbers? Don't say Vanderbilt.

The correlation between academics and endowment size is strong, even among public schools. How big a factor is endowment size?

Kedsy
11-19-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm from Philadelphia, so I voted for Temple for purely selfish reasons. That said, what would be wrong with adding both Temple (or Louisville) and UConn, to make sure we still have a decent number if another school bolts?

DK

Native
11-19-2012, 04:04 PM
I'd actually be OK with UConn now that Calhoun is out.

kingboozer
11-19-2012, 04:10 PM
Although it's looking like UConn will be coming on board, I'd much rather have Louisville in the conference and here's why:

Basketball
Name recognition, big nice shiny new arena
38 NCAA Tournament Appearances
64 NCAA Tournament Wins
9 Final Fours
2 National Championships
2 Big East Championships, 2 CUSA Championships before that, and 11 Metro Championships before that

Rick Pitino, won it all at UK IN 1996, has lead UL to 2 Final Fours and has a serious shot at a 3rd this year and maybe a National Title. Also has a 629-234 record. He would definately add to the pedigree of ACC coaches we have. He would be a fire ball if UL did come on board, especially with his comments about Cuse and Pitt bolting for the ACC, but come onnnn, that was just jealousy right?!?

Football
Bowl record 7-8-1, includes beating WF in the 2006 Orange Bowl
Charlie Strong has the team going in the right directions, has them ranked #19 with a 9-1 record and in position to win the BE. 23-13 record at UL so far.
2 Big East conference championships (possibly a 3rd this season), 3 CUSA championships before that and 2 MVC championships.
55,000 seat stadium (on par with UM, NCSU, and GTech) with indoor practice facilites (something a lot of ACC schools don't have)
1,307,647 metro area size population, good enough for the #48 media market

Obviously, basketball would be the biggest pickup, but football isn't too shabby either. A lot of potential for continued growth there, especially if they maintain where they are now for years to come.

EDIT: Academics would be a challenge, although I don't have time to research the specifics, I know that academically the ACC may look in another direction.

formerdukeathlete
11-19-2012, 04:14 PM
I'm intrigued by Temple. They're certainly outside of any "box" of typical candidates.

Seems like academics is a drawback for all the candidates you listed. That said, Maryland was never among the ACC's academic leaders to begin with, to be tactful about it. Are there any candidates other than ND with good academic numbers? Don't say Vanderbilt.

The correlation between academics and endowment size is strong, even among public schools. How big a factor is endowment size?

Temple's endowment is small, but so is the endowment of UConn.

$280 million for Temple, $329 million for UConn. Temple may have one of the smallest endowments per student of any state related university. The academic issue will be a ligering one. I dont think one can expect a big ascendancy on the part of Temple academically by virtue of joining, say the ACC. 90 plus percent of students are from PA. PA funding of the state related universities is tight and declining as a percentage of the overall state budget. Penn State and Pitt will (always) be higher ranked academically - Penn State as a destination choice in PA, including all of its satellite campuses; and, Pitt with its extensive financial resources and top notch medical complex. Then there is the issue of thinking of Duke in the same sentence as Temple around Philadelphia, albeit athletically, when Duke and U Penn are peer instituions. The PA / Southern NJ media market is a strong selling point. Temple is a city school with not much of a campus. On the other hand, Philadelphia is a nice place to live (so maybe this can be sold by Temple in building a Football program) and Duke used to recruit a whole lot of Football players out of metro Phily.

I dont like any of the options being talked about, that much. Why could we not have two 6 team divisions in Football, plus one floater (an individual Football member, changing each year, rotating through the Conference every 13 years), with the two teams heading to the ACC CG the two divisional champs or the floater if by a mathematical formula the floater performed better than the lesser of the two divisional champs? I'd rather not see Duke locked into one Football division, anyway.

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 04:16 PM
I'd be happy with any of those, but I voted UConn. If I cared a little more about football and little less about academics, I'd go with Louisville. I'd also go with the "whoever Notre Dame wants as the 15th and 16th" option. The Navy/Georgetown hybrid would be a pretty good option too that would fill in the geographic hole left by Maryland and help get ND in sooner.

Wander
11-19-2012, 04:25 PM
Not responding to anyone here specifically, but I've never been personally convinced on why we should care about academics that much for a sports conference. I mean, I get why you want to have some minimum level of respectability in academics, but basically every school in a BCS conference and the majority of schools in Division 1 have that.

Beyond that... it's just a sports conference. It has little impact on the academic standing of the university. People from Pittsburgh aren't any more or less likely to collaborate about research or classes or whatever with people from Virginia or Cincinnati as a result of the moves, right? If UNC left for the SEC tomorrow, we'd still have the Robertson scholar program and the ability to take classes at the other university, right? If anything, isn't it more relevant to care more about running an academically clean athletic program (cough, UNC) than it is to care about the general academic reputation of the university?

I care a lot about Duke's academic reputation, and I'm not one of the people who think poorly of the US News rankings, I just don't see the relevance for realignment of athletic conferences. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

CrazyNotCrazie
11-19-2012, 04:27 PM
Is the minimum number of schools to have the vaunted league championship game 12 or 14? If it is 12, I say don't bother adding anyone else. If we need to get to 14 to put on a game that very few people care about but allegedly brings in big money, I think Louisville is our best bet if Notre Dame won't join completely. Would the last football team in the Big East located within 500 miles of the Atlantic Ocean please turn off the lights?

hurleyfor3
11-19-2012, 04:30 PM
What idiosyncrasies are involved with adding a service academy? Such as government/military approval required, impact on future membership changes, restrictions on when cadets can actually play and so on. Of course K will probably run up the score against USNA at every opportunity. :)

Duvall
11-19-2012, 04:32 PM
Is the minimum number of schools to have the vaunted league championship game 12 or 14? If it is 12, I say don't bother adding anyone else.

It's 12, but putting together a football schedule for 13 teams is nearly impossible.

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 04:34 PM
Not responding to anyone here specifically, but I've never been personally convinced on why we should care about academics that much for a sports conference. I mean, I get why you want to have some minimum level of respectability in academics, but basically every school in a BCS conference and the majority of schools in Division 1 have that.

Beyond that... it's just a sports conference. It has little impact on the academic standing of the university. People from Pittsburgh aren't any more or less likely to collaborate about research or classes or whatever with people from Virginia or Cincinnati as a result of the moves, right? If UNC left for the SEC tomorrow, we'd still have the Robertson scholar program and the ability to take classes at the other university, right? If anything, isn't it more relevant to care more about running an academically clean athletic program (cough, UNC) than it is to care about the general academic reputation of the university?

I care a lot about Duke's academic reputation, and I'm not one of the people who think poorly of the US News rankings, I just don't see the relevance for realignment of athletic conferences. I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

In theory, playing schools with lesser academic standards gives the other teams an unfair advantage -- especially in sports like football where brute strength is a primary determinant of success. But the ACC already has UNC, so that theory has pretty much been proven to be incorrect.

Papa John
11-19-2012, 05:17 PM
I say we go after Texas again, and perhaps see if Oklahoma and OKState might still be interested too...

A-Tex Devil
11-19-2012, 06:07 PM
.... unfortunately, it may be too late.

Look, Louisville doesn't fit the ACC profile except for good basketball, I get that. But there are only 2 options that aren't just filler (Temple, service academies) or yet unrealized potential (USF) -- and those are Louisville and UConn. The problem with UConn is that it may be a floundering program anchored by women's basketball. Women's basketball is great, but that is not what you are looking for to strengthen a conference.

Louisville is the best strategic decision, and a damn good tactical one at this point as well. Louisville is the only non-ACC option that the Big XII is going to accept right now. Outside shot of BYU, but that's unlikely. If the ACC takes Louisville off the table, the Big XII doesn't have a dancing partner for Florida St. which certain conference members will require.

So we can talk about how nice Temple or Navy or South Florida might be. But the school that gives the ACC the best chance at preventing further attrition is Louisville. Louisville also happens to be the most successful athletic department, by far -- it's not really close, of any team looking to move.

So if we are going to hold our nose and choose a team, it should be one that looks the strongest.

MattC09
11-19-2012, 06:11 PM
Lots of "Hail Marys" and "Our Fathers." Beg the Pope to make Notre Dame join in football. Maybe Coach K has some connections in the Vatican.

Mike Corey
11-19-2012, 06:13 PM
I think that the Big 10 is going to make another push at ND. They'll convince the Irish brass that the ACC is collapsing, and that it would be wise to stick to the Midwest.

I also think that the Big 10 has a much stronger bargaining position for Texas than does the ACC--particularly now.

MarkD83
11-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Its time for a more novel idea than adding or subtracting schools from existing conferences. So....

With 14 teams you really do not have a football conference. You can't play 13 conference games a year to insure that everyone plays everyone and even in basketball 26 conference games is out so no home and home series.

The big drive for all of this is TV contracts so why don't two power conferences join up and promise to do some special things for the TV stations. For example why not have the ACC and Big 10? join up and promise two football weekends every fall where the Big 10 and ACC have a challenge. Seven games one weekend and seven games later on in the year (assuming each team has 14 teams in the conference). On the basketball side promise a Big 10/ACC challenge in December as is currently done but then also promise an open week in Feb where the top teams play again. You don't have to set the actual schedule for the Feb games just earmark 7 TV slots and then play 1 v 1; 2 v 2 etc. based on the standings in each league at the time of the challenge.

That would generate fan interest and money.

Duvall
11-19-2012, 06:17 PM
I think that the Big 10 is going to make another push at ND. They'll convince the Irish brass that the ACC is collapsing, and that it would be wise to stick to the Midwest.

I also think that the Big 10 has a much stronger bargaining position for Texas than does the ACC--particularly now.

Push for what - to get the Irish to take full membership in the Big Ten? Why would Notre Dame have any more interest in that than they did the last few dozen times that the Big Ten asked? Besides, Notre Dame has the luxury of waiting to see how things shake out.

A-Tex Devil
11-19-2012, 06:17 PM
I think that the Big 10 is going to make another push at ND. They'll convince the Irish brass that the ACC is collapsing, and that it would be wise to stick to the Midwest.

I also think that the Big 10 has a much stronger bargaining position for Texas than does the ACC--particularly now.

Texas hitched its wagon to the Big XII with the grant of rights. Unless there is a mass simultaneous exit from the Big XII (which admittedly could be led by Texas), Texas isn't going anywhere.

The grant of rights is a pretty powerful binding force -- and one the ACC ought to consider if it can get unanimous agreement to it. Probably a fool's errand, though, considering Florida St.'s past votes.

Mike Corey
11-19-2012, 06:24 PM
Push for what - to get the Irish to take full membership in the Big Ten? Why would Notre Dame have any more interest in that than they did the last few dozen times that the Big Ten asked? Besides, Notre Dame has the luxury of waiting to see how things shake out.

If the ACC goes, doesn't it follow that we're going to have a quartet of super conferences--and does ND want to be left out in the cold?

Sure, it can wait things out, but in so doing, doesn't the Big 10 potentially have the bargaining position it's needed?

uh_no
11-19-2012, 06:30 PM
If the ACC goes, doesn't it follow that we're going to have a quartet of super conferences--and does ND want to be left out in the cold?

Sure, it can wait things out, but in so doing, doesn't the Big 10 potentially have the bargaining position it's needed?

It's tough to see how the current geographical arrangement would result in just 4 conferences....unless there was some super conference that spanned the east and west coast with the pac 10 and the remainder of the ACC/big east, that being unlikely, I just don't see how you could come up with a situation with just 4 conferences. If anyone wants to take a stab at how it could shake out, that'd be great...but it seems that even if the big 12, SEC and big 10 fill out, there are still about a dozen very prominent schools on the east coast who would be looking for a conference

Duvall
11-19-2012, 06:39 PM
It's tough to see how the current geographical arrangement would result in just 4 conferences....unless there was some super conference that spanned the east and west coast with the pac 10 and the remainder of the ACC/big east, that being unlikely, I just don't see how you could come up with a situation with just 4 conferences. If anyone wants to take a stab at how it could shake out, that'd be great...but it seems that even if the big 12, SEC and big 10 fill out, there are still about a dozen very prominent schools on the east coast who would be looking for a conference

Four "superconferences" and five regular conferences, with the ACC/Big East being one of the latter.

Olympic Fan
11-19-2012, 06:45 PM
I don't see the need to bring in a 14th school.

Scheduling for 13 is not very different from scheduling for 14. Heck, we had seven teams for a decade in the '70s (after South Carolina left and before Georgia Tech joined). We had nine members for more than a decade after Florida State joined. We had 11 members for a season after VPI and Miami joined before BC came into the league.

It's not like Major League baseball where it's a closed universe and you have to have an even number of opponents.

Do you know how many weekends this season when we had all 12 ACC teams playing each other in six conference games?

One -- Oct. 20 (the day we beat UNC).

There's no reason to bring in a 14th school. We already have 14 for basketball (with Notre Dame as a full basketball member). And we'll have 4 or 5 Notre Dame football games a year to fill out weekends for the 13th team. Yeah, it would unbalance the divisions, but they are already unbalanced in quality.

Again, we'll be fine with 13 -- the only danger is losing a couple of more and getting down to 11 (and losing the championship game).

uh_no
11-19-2012, 06:59 PM
I don't see the need to bring in a 14th school.

Scheduling for 13 is not very different from scheduling for 14. Heck, we had seven teams for a decade in the '70s (after South Carolina left and before Georgia Tech joined). We had nine members for more than a decade after Florida State joined. We had 11 members for a season after VPI and Miami joined before BC came into the league.

It's not like Major League baseball where it's a closed universe and you have to have an even number of opponents.

Do you know how many weekends this season when we had all 12 ACC teams playing each other in six conference games?

One -- Oct. 20 (the day we beat UNC).

There's no reason to bring in a 14th school. We already have 14 for basketball (with Notre Dame as a full basketball member). And we'll have 4 or 5 Notre Dame football games a year to fill out weekends for the 13th team. Yeah, it would unbalance the divisions, but they are already unbalanced in quality.

Again, we'll be fine with 13 -- the only danger is losing a couple of more and getting down to 11 (and losing the championship game).

with the ACC on the bottom of the totem pole, losing a couple more is a very real danger. The ACC will need to be proactive when either the big 10 comes knocking again or the SEC/Big12 want more.

Wander
11-19-2012, 07:01 PM
I don't see the need to bring in a 14th school.

Scheduling for 13 is not very different from scheduling for 14. Heck, we had seven teams for a decade in the '70s (after South Carolina left and before Georgia Tech joined). We had nine members for more than a decade after Florida State joined. We had 11 members for a season after VPI and Miami joined before BC came into the league.


Scheduling 13 is much harder than scheduling for 14. The examples you cite come from a time when the ACC didn't have divisions.

Example: the Coastal has 7 teams, the Atlantic has 6 teams. The thing you want to do is have each Atlantic team plays 5 games in the division and 3 games out of the division, then have each Coastal team play 6 games in the division and 2 games out of the division. Which, of course, doesn't mathematically work. You have to put in something awkward or lame to make it work - like teams do not always play every team in their division each year, or different ACC teams play a different number of conference games.

A-Tex Devil
11-19-2012, 07:02 PM
Again, we'll be fine with 13 -- the only danger is losing a couple of more and getting down to 11 (and losing the championship game).

Scheduling 13 for football is a nightmare. I believe an FCS conference (Big Sky?) dealt with this, but it makes it impossible to do divisions without either (1) one division playing in one more conference game than the other or (2) one division doesn't play a full round robin. Or you go without divisions and have completely unbalanced schedule that can lead to some messy tiebreaker rules for a conference championship game.

So yeah, it can be done, but it is probably the worst number possible to have for a conference. The SEC invite to Mizzou was almost as much to avoid a 13 team league as anything else.

Duvall
11-19-2012, 07:03 PM
Scheduling 13 for football is a nightmare. I believe an FCS conference (Big Sky?) dealt with this, but it makes it impossible to do divisions without either (1) one division playing in one more conference game than the other or (2) one division doesn't play a full round robin. Or you go without divisions and have completely unbalanced schedule that can lead to some messy tiebreaker rules for a conference championship game.

So yeah, it can be done, but it is probably the worst number possible to have for a conference. The SEC invite to Mizzou was almost as much to avoid a 13 team league as anything else.

Yes. The SEC actually put together a 13-team schedule model before inviting Missouri and the league's athletic directors were repulsed by the proposal.

wilson
11-19-2012, 07:11 PM
I know the idea's been bandied about for a while now, but I think basically what we're headed toward is the four superconferences of 16 each. The B1G and SEC are safe, and will each add a handful more teams. Then, put the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 in a blender and make two conferences out of them, possibly with one or two conference brand names surviving. The Big 12 seemed to foresee this when they negotiated the TV rights clause on their latest contract.
I think in coming days and weeks it will become clearer that Maryland to the B1G is much worse than some people yet appreciate. Even if (when?) we add UConn, the ACC is not out of the woods.

Edit: I forgot about the Pac 12. But that makes things even more worrisome, because it throws ~70-75 schools into the pot for 64 conference slots.

brevity
11-19-2012, 07:15 PM
I say go the other way. Push a team out of the ACC to get the number down to 12.

Goodbye, UNC.

ChillinDuke
11-19-2012, 07:29 PM
What is Canada's best football university?

Does the ACC have the power to create a new school? Preferably with an excellent football team in a huge media market?

In all seriousness, A-Tex more or less convinced me away from UConn and to Louisville. Although, what the heck, invite them both at this point.

As Dana O'Neill's article on ESPN.com mentioned, does anyone even care anymore at this point? This whole thing is just a joke now.

- Chillin

wilson
11-19-2012, 07:36 PM
As Dana O'Neill's article on ESPN.com mentioned, does anyone even care anymore at this point? This whole thing is just a joke now.

- ChillinThis is particularly salient. The conference expansion saga has been a colossal, disgusting power/cash grab by university bureaucrats and external hangers-on.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-19-2012, 07:45 PM
I say we go after Texas again, and perhaps see if Oklahoma and OKState might still be interested too...


I know the idea's been bandied about for a while now, but I think basically what we're headed toward is the four superconferences of 16 each. The B1G and SEC are safe, and will each add a handful more teams. Then, put the ACC, Big East, and Big 12 in a blender and make two conferences out of them, possibly with one or two conference brand names surviving. The Big 12 seemed to foresee this when they negotiated the TV rights clause on their latest contract.
I think in coming days and weeks it will become clearer that Maryland to the B1G is much worse than some people yet appreciate. Even if (when?) we add UConn, the ACC is not out of the woods.

Edit: I forgot about the Pac 12. But that makes things even more worrisome, because it throws ~70-75 schools into the pot for 64 conference slots.

Agree on Both posts. Pac12, B1G, and SEC are safe. If the ACC is to survive, they must take from the Big12 to strengthen itself as the 4th member of The 64. Texas and OK would be perfect to accomplish this task.

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 07:59 PM
It's tough to see how the current geographical arrangement would result in just 4 conferences....unless there was some super conference that spanned the east and west coast with the pac 10 and the remainder of the ACC/big east, that being unlikely, I just don't see how you could come up with a situation with just 4 conferences. If anyone wants to take a stab at how it could shake out, that'd be great...but it seems that even if the big 12, SEC and big 10 fill out, there are still about a dozen very prominent schools on the east coast who would be looking for a conference

It won't happen. It WILL be far easier to arrange an 8-team playoff than a 64 team superleague. But even if it did, the league that would get cannibalized is the Bevo because that is the only shopping mall in the neighborhood of the Pac12.

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 08:03 PM
What is Canada's best football university?


McGill has the best academic reputation. Definitely ACC material:

http://www.mcgill.ca/athletics/varsitysports/teamshome/football_m/schedule/

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 08:10 PM
This is particularly salient. The conference expansion saga has been a colossal, disgusting power/cash grab by university bureaucrats and external hangers-on.

On that note:

Maryland, Rutgers cash in on their incompetence with move to Big Ten (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaab--maryland--rutgers-cash-in-on-their-incompetence-with-move-to-big-ten-19541709.html)

ForkFondler
11-19-2012, 08:12 PM
I say go the other way. Push a team out of the ACC to get the number down to 12.

Goodbye, UNC.

After all, the ACC has too many North Carolina schools anyway.:)

CLW
11-19-2012, 08:12 PM
So in 20-30 years when Football is banned due to being deemed too dangerous due to the by then "known" head/brain injuries associated with the sport do we go through this whole process over again as the conferences try to poach the best basketball programs?

sporthenry
11-19-2012, 08:54 PM
It's tough to see how the current geographical arrangement would result in just 4 conferences....unless there was some super conference that spanned the east and west coast with the pac 10 and the remainder of the ACC/big east, that being unlikely, I just don't see how you could come up with a situation with just 4 conferences. If anyone wants to take a stab at how it could shake out, that'd be great...but it seems that even if the big 12, SEC and big 10 fill out, there are still about a dozen very prominent schools on the east coast who would be looking for a conference

I think the B12 would break up. I know they have Texas' backing but they would make the most sense going forward. They would be able to fill out the rest of the country without having teams all over the place in a hodgepodge of a conference. Imagine Pac12 plus Texas/Tech, OSU, and OU with the SEC adding FSU/Clemson and the B1G adding KSU/KU along with MD and Rutgers so the ACC picks up ND, WVU, and some form of Temple, Louisville, Uconn, etc.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-19-2012, 09:31 PM
I think the B12 would break up. I know they have Texas' backing but they would make the most sense going forward. They would be able to fill out the rest of the country without having teams all over the place in a hodgepodge of a conference. Imagine Pac12 plus Texas/Tech, OSU, and OU with the SEC adding FSU/Clemson and the B1G adding KSU/KU along with MD and Rutgers so the ACC picks up ND, WVU, and some form of Temple, Louisville, Uconn, etc.

The Big 12 definitely isn't as solid as it appears, as I think Texas, TT, OSU, and OU would all leave to the Pac 12 if they thought they could make more $. However, I see B1G going after UVA and either NCSU or UNC to get to 16 rather than KSU/KU.

SEC would take UNC/Duke if NCSU went B1G. Obviously a win for Duke.

If UNC went to the B1G, then NCSU and VTech go SEC. Not a good outcome for the Blue Devils.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are dependent on UNC requiring Duke to come with it wherever UNC decides to go. If they go their own way, we are MUCH less attractive.

sporthenry
11-19-2012, 09:42 PM
The Big 12 definitely isn't as solid as it appears, as I think Texas, TT, OSU, and OU would all leave to the Pac 12 if they thought they could make more $. However, I see B1G going after UVA and either NCSU or UNC to get to 16 rather than KSU/KU.

SEC would take UNC/Duke if NCSU went B1G. Obviously a win for Duke.

If UNC went to the B1G, then NCSU and VTech go SEC. Not a good outcome for the Blue Devils.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are dependent on UNC requiring Duke to come with it wherever UNC decides to go. If they go their own way, we are MUCH less attractive.

But what about FSU and Clemson in that scenario? Remember the SEC is already at 14 with the addition of Mizzou and A&M. They can only take 2 and while Clemson/FSU makes sense, Texas is probably the 1A to ND as the University with its own golden ticket. I would assume that they could make more in the SEC but even if Texas goes to the Pac12, that still only leaves 2 openings presumably for Clemson/FSU.

Duke probably won't be an attractive option for any other conference but the ACC isn't going to fold either. Duke will be in the ACC, it will be more, who else will be in it. The ACC could lose the likes of a Clemson/FSU and replace them with Temple/UConn a net loss for the ACC but still a top 4 conference. If I'm a Baylor, then I would be very worried but Duke, not so much. Of course this isn't to say they shouldn't stay abreast of everything and utilize all their options but I just don't see the SEC taking Duke.

lotusland
11-19-2012, 09:55 PM
Granted I'm not a big college football fan and haven't really studied the economics of conference realignment but I just don't think you make more money by making conferences bigger just for the sake of being bigger. If MD and Rutgers make more money in the Big12 then the rest of the conference is going to make less in the end. I do not think MD and Rutgers fans are going to take more interest in their football programs just because they will be getting creamed by even better teams that are further away and have no established rivalries. This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The NCAA has a football bubble the same as the tech bubble of the 90s and the real estate bubble this decade and sooner or later there will be a correction that will leave a bunch of schools scattered about in conferences that make no sense and collectively scratching their heads crying "what were we thinking?”

Duke really has no play to make so I'd prefer they play it cool and let everyone else panic. Duke is not only a basketball school but they are the Notre Dame of basketball schools. They have a national market and they fill up arenas all over the country. I may be wrong but I don't think Duke needs the football money bad enough to go crawling to the SEC with their hand out only to be a door mat there in football. Besides if it costs $50 Million to leave and Duke is the only one left aren't they holding a huge purse? They can piece together a conference for football and Olympic sports in which they can be competitive and maintain integrity while remaining independent in basketball. They could play anyone they want to play in hoops regardless of conference affiliation. Heck they might even negotiate their own TV deal ala ND football albeit smaller.

The ACC is not going to keep Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT by adding UConn, Temple, Louisville, WV or anyone else. If those schools want to chase fool’s gold they are as good as gone. Maybe GT and NCSU too for that matter. But hopefully UNC will be chastened by their current scandal and decide to reverse course. Even if no one acts sensibly now the time will come when it all falls apart and sanity will prevail. Time will do the talking so, like Patty Griffin sings, let's "just find a comfy spot and wait it out".

wallyman
11-19-2012, 10:04 PM
Yes, there's the small problem that it has zero chance of happening, but the obvious 14th -- for them and for us -- is Vanderbilt. Right part of the country, great academics, strong in lots of sports. Solid as a basketball school, now becoming solid in football, though there's no reason they should have to compete every year with Alabama, Georgia and LSU. Could be a great rivalry for Duke. Come on down.

sporthenry
11-19-2012, 10:06 PM
Granted I'm not a big college football fan and haven't really studied the economics of conference realignment but I just don't think you make more money by making conferences bigger just for the sake of being bigger. If MD and Rutgers make more money in the Big12 then the rest of the conference is going to make less in the end. I do not think MD and Rutgers fans are going to take more interest in their football programs just because they will be getting creamed by even better teams that are further away and have no established rivalries. This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The NCAA has a football bubble the same as the tech bubble of the 90s and the real estate bubble this decade and sooner or later there will be a correction that will leave a bunch of schools scattered about in conferences that make no sense and collectively scratching their heads crying "what were we thinking?”

Duke really has no play to make so I'd prefer they play it cool and let everyone else panic. Duke is not only a basketball school but they are the Notre Dame of basketball schools. They have a national market and they fill up arenas all over the country. I may be wrong but I don't think Duke needs the football money bad enough to go crawling to the SEC with their hand out only to be a door mat there in football. Besides if it costs $50 Million to leave and Duke is the only one left aren't they holding a huge purse? They can piece together a conference for football and Olympic sports in which they can be competitive and maintain integrity while remaining independent in basketball. They could play anyone they want to play in hoops regardless of conference affiliation. Heck they might even negotiate their own TV deal ala ND football albeit smaller.

The ACC is not going to keep Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT by adding UConn, Temple, Louisville, WV or anyone else. If those schools want to chase fool’s gold they are as good as gone. Maybe GT and NCSU too for that matter. But hopefully UNC will be chastened by their current scandal and decide to reverse course. Even if no one acts sensibly now the time will come when it all falls apart and sanity will prevail. Time will do the talking so, like Patty Griffin sings, let's "just find a comfy spot and wait it out".

I would agree that I'm not too worried about Duke going to the SEC but I do think they should remain vigilant about their options. Of course teams like Georgetown have proven you don't need football to be successful at basketball but Duke football is growing and if they get left out in the cold, all gains would be lost.

As far as finances go, I don't understand them completely and how much money the conferences will actually get. I guess a lot of it depends on what TV stations they can get shares of but I think the biggest reason expansion matters is that if it goes to 16 team conferences, the conferences are positioning themselves to not only survive but also have the best teams for their financial health. By the B1G making this move, they are being proactive with MD and Rutgers so they don't have to pick up Louisville or ISU at a later date.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-19-2012, 11:24 PM
But what about FSU and Clemson in that scenario? Remember the SEC is already at 14 with the addition of Mizzou and A&M. They can only take 2 and while Clemson/FSU makes sense, Texas is probably the 1A to ND as the University with its own golden ticket. I would assume that they could make more in the SEC but even if Texas goes to the Pac12, that still only leaves 2 openings presumably for Clemson/FSU.

Duke probably won't be an attractive option for any other conference but the ACC isn't going to fold either. Duke will be in the ACC, it will be more, who else will be in it. The ACC could lose the likes of a Clemson/FSU and replace them with Temple/UConn a net loss for the ACC but still a top 4 conference. If I'm a Baylor, then I would be very worried but Duke, not so much. Of course this isn't to say they shouldn't stay abreast of everything and utilize all their options but I just don't see the SEC taking Duke.

As has been mentioned on other threads and previous posts, it's about adding major TV markets, not necessarily major programs. To that point, I don't see the benefit of FSU/Clemson for the SEC. They already have the Florida and SC markets(not taking into consideration the fact that SC and UF probably don't want FSU and Clemson anyway) sewn up. However, the Charlotte, Triad, and Triangle markets could all be had with UNC(to a slightly lesser extent, NCSU). UVA would likewise open up the Richmond/DC market to the SEC. Hence why they would be much more attractive financially than FSU/Clemson.

So, the SEC would prefer to take UVA/UNC but if the B1G takes UVA first, the SEC may go ahead and settle for UNC/DUKE.

opossum
11-19-2012, 11:28 PM
As has been mentioned on other threads and previous posts, it's about adding major TV markets, not necessarily major programs. To that point, I don't see the benefit of FSU/Clemson for the SEC. They already have the Florida and SC markets(not taking into consideration the fact that SC and UF probably don't want FSU and Clemson anyway) sewn up. However, the Charlotte, Triad, and Triangle markets could all be had with UNC(to a slightly lesser extent, NCSU). UVA would likewise open up the Richmond/DC market to the SEC. Hence why they would be much more attractive financially than FSU/Clemson.

So, the SEC would prefer to take UVA/UNC but if the B1G takes UVA first, the SEC may go ahead and settle for UNC/DUKE.

What if Duke says no? We are better than that.

sporthenry
11-19-2012, 11:34 PM
As has been mentioned on other threads and previous posts, it's about adding major TV markets, not necessarily major programs. To that point, I don't see the benefit of FSU/Clemson for the SEC. They already have the Florida and SC markets(not taking into consideration the fact that SC and UF probably don't want FSU and Clemson anyway) sewn up. However, the Charlotte, Triad, and Triangle markets could all be had with UNC(to a slightly lesser extent, NCSU). UVA would likewise open up the Richmond/DC market to the SEC. Hence why they would be much more attractive financially than FSU/Clemson.

So, the SEC would prefer to take UVA/UNC but if the B1G takes UVA first, the SEC may go ahead and settle for UNC/DUKE.

Well then if the ACC keeps Clemson/FSU and loses a UVa or NC State or even UNC, I'd say that is a net win for the ACC in terms of football and the ACC is still a fairly strong football conference with FSU, Clemson and Va. Tech. So I think that would be good for Duke/ACC.

I also think this is a very simplified view of TV markets. With the B1G it matters b/c of the money they get for being in a teams market although I'm sure they won't get as much as they think as someone alluded to. But will the SEC get that much more money from opening up another market seeing as they don't have their own TV station.

And I was under the impression, it is more about quality of play than location. Sure, location matters but it just isn't as easy as Penn State brings Philadelphia, UVa brings DC (which I highly doubt, UMD would struggle with DC and they are a 15 minute metro ride). I think a lot of the money comes from the big games. The SEC doesn't bring in a ton of money b/c of the Knoxville TV market but b/c they can offer top 10 match ups on almost a weekly basis. CBS will pay the big bucks not to televise the UNC/Alabama or UVa/Alabama game but so they can broadcast the FSU/Georgia game.

A-Tex Devil
11-20-2012, 12:04 AM
The Big 12 definitely isn't as solid as it appears, as I think Texas, TT, OSU, and OU would all leave to the Pac 12 if they thought they could make more $. However, I see B1G going after UVA and either NCSU or UNC to get to 16 rather than KSU/KU.

SEC would take UNC/Duke if NCSU went B1G. Obviously a win for Duke.

If UNC went to the B1G, then NCSU and VTech go SEC. Not a good outcome for the Blue Devils.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think we are dependent on UNC requiring Duke to come with it wherever UNC decides to go. If they go their own way, we are MUCH less attractive.

People can say otherwise all they want, but the Big XII tried the Pac 12 twice and it didn't work out either time. That ship has sailed, and the Big 12 is, for better or worse, together for at least 13 years or until the conference chooses to break up. There are teams in the conference that may be on generational high points (TCU, K-State, Oklahoma St), so it is certainly a risky proposition. But no conference is going to pick off a Big XII team right now because they won't have the rights to air that teams games under the new conferences television contract. It's a whole different ball of wax than an exit fee.

I don't think we will see 4 power conferences, but I could envision the Big 10, SEC and Big XII picking off about 2/3rds of the ACC and leaving the rest to scramble with the Big East. That's a worst, worst, worst case scenario, of course. I still think FSU may stay in the end and the ACC will be just fine. We really don't lose that much in Maryland so long as they are the only one to leave.

Greg_Newton
11-20-2012, 12:33 AM
Money, shmoney, I say just add Louisville and CofC purely for my tailgating enjoyment and be done with it until ND joins fully. I'll be quite upset if conference road trips are taking me to Cincinnati and Pittsburgh in a few years.

sporthenry
11-20-2012, 12:41 AM
Money, shmoney, I say just add Louisville and CofC purely for my tailgating enjoyment and be done with it until ND joins fully. I'll be quite upset if conference road trips are taking me to Cincinnati and Pittsburgh in a few years.

Well if the ACC doesn't make some type of move, ND will most likely leave the ACC. Not sure they'll have to pay the $50 million esp. assuming UMD and FSU don't pay the full 50 then ND will return back to either a stronger B12 or B1G on their own terms.

Greg_Newton
11-20-2012, 12:51 AM
Well if the ACC doesn't make some type of move, ND will most likely leave the ACC. Not sure they'll have to pay the $50 million esp. assuming UMD and FSU don't pay the full 50 then ND will return back to either a stronger B12 or B1G on their own terms.

On a serious note, where are you thinking FSU is going to go? SEC isn't going to let them in, with a redundant TV market and recruiting pool.

sporthenry
11-20-2012, 01:09 AM
On a serious note, where are you thinking FSU is going to go? SEC isn't going to let them in, with a redundant TV market and recruiting pool.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/11/19/3667854/florida-state-big-12-maryland-acc-fee

This is another reason why the ACC probably won't settle the $50 million exit fee out of court. FSU could probably get the money easier than MD and the B12 would help but FSU could leave.

kingboozer
11-20-2012, 01:33 AM
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/11/19/3667854/florida-state-big-12-maryland-acc-fee

This is another reason why the ACC probably won't settle the $50 million exit fee out of court. FSU could probably get the money easier than MD and the B12 would help but FSU could leave.

You know, FSU gets under my skin more than any other program in this conference, including now departed Maryland. If you ever read their message boards or pay attention to their fan base, there is a lot of unwarranted arrogance, they all seem to think it's still the 90's and they are in their heyday, even though they've been mostly irrelevant for most of the decade on the national scene. They complain about the ACC about as much as Maryland, even though their titles were won while members here, and mostly think that the ACC is the only reason why they can't succeed. I'm sure if they win the conference title and choke it up in the Orange Bowl (which precedent states) it'll probably be the conferences fault. In a perfect world, I'd love to tell them to pack it up and move on, but at this point they and Clemson are all we've got to bring to the table. The ACC has to stand firm on the $50 million to prevent them from thinking they can bolt and tell the conference to shove it, because from what I've been reading on their boards, their fans would love nothing more.

End rant, apologies if that offends any lurking FSU alums out there, just my observations.:D


Oh yeah, Go Duke!

madscavenger
11-20-2012, 06:17 AM
If you want the entire ball of wax, mixed metaphor that it is, pursue ND football. For the same reason, pursue Purdue.

lotusland
11-20-2012, 06:43 AM
Money, shmoney, I say just add Louisville and CofC purely for my tailgating enjoyment and be done with it until ND joins fully. I'll be quite upset if conference road trips are taking me to Cincinnati and Pittsburgh in a few years.

CofC? I know I'm missing somthing obvious but all I can think of is College of Charleston. That would make a good tailgate destination but not a good road trip since I already live there.

Reisen
11-20-2012, 09:27 AM
The DBR article hints at it, and I don't think it will happen due to the lack of football, but I'd love it if Georgetown were included in the ACC. Right Geographic location, right academics, right basketball tradition (and a good current squad), and, almost most of all, a good fit in other sports as well. They always have good lacrosse teams, have a good men's soccer team right now, etc.

Selfishly, it would be great for Duke fans in the DC area, where there are a ton of us. Georgetown plays in a giant arena that they never fill, so you'd have a ton of tickets available for that game.

Bluedog
11-20-2012, 09:40 AM
Selfishly, it would be great for Duke fans in the DC area, where there are a ton of us. Georgetown plays in a giant arena that they never fill, so you'd have a ton of tickets available for that game.

Except when they play Duke. ;) It's always funny when I look at their ticket policy on their website in a year in which we play them at the Verizon Center:


Regular Season Ticket Policy:
blah blah

Season Ticket Holder Policy:
blah blah

Tournament Policy:
blah blah blah

Duke Game Policy:
!

I agree Georgetown would be great, but they don't have an FBS football team and so that's not going to fly.

formerdukeathlete
11-20-2012, 11:32 AM
Except when they play Duke. ;) It's always funny when I look at their ticket policy on their website in a year in which we play them at the Verizon Center:



I agree Georgetown would be great, but they don't have an FBS football team and so that's not going to fly.

Georgetown in all sports but Football.

Louisville, UConn, or USF in all sports.

= 16 all sports except Football.

=14 all including Football.

Could work.

Would add another Catholic school (for Notre Dame).

Dukeblue91
11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
I voted for Temple as I don't want to see Ucon or Louisville in the ACC with all their baggage and NCAA problems, no thanks.

tux
11-20-2012, 01:28 PM
I don't follow these things as closely as some of you, but why not try to grab someone from one of the other top conferences.

I.e., I'd hate to throw the ACC academic standards out the window completely.

So I say we approach Vanderbilt for all sports (and as a MD replacement) and then grab Georgetown as the 16th member for non-football sports.

Maybe by the time ND decides to join as a full member, Georgetown can have a football program?

Wishful thinking I guess.

Matches
11-20-2012, 01:33 PM
I don't follow these things as closely as some of you, but why not try to grab someone from one of the other top conferences.


Because they won't come. Money doesn't add up. Doesn't make financial sense for anyone to leave the SEC, B1G or Big 12 for the ACC.

The only major conference we've still got the ability to plunder is the Big East.

senkiri
11-20-2012, 01:42 PM
Putting this in the discussion about the potential 14th member, but really it's about securing the future of the ACC and preventing further defections.

Seems like the ACC needs to be creative about finding another source for revenue that is outside the box. An ACC network seems technically not feasible since ESPN already owns our third tier rights, but maybe not. And that's not really outside the box given the BTN, PAC-12 network, and the soon to be SEC network.

Preferably it would be something that taps into mobile or a la carte viewing habits that is a novel approach to sports and thus a novel revenue stream. And better still, if it could potentially undermine the model on which the other conferences are basing their future revenue projections and thus their current moves. Maybe some sort of new partnership with Apple, ESPN and several telecom companies for an ACC mobile sports network. Don't know enough about this -- but an app that the ACC owns a majority stake in, with an annual fee for streaming HD sports content might be something that could work.

The point is, gaming everything out under the current rules seems to be a losing scenario for the ACC and thus Duke. And thus something unexpected and creative seems a better next move than simply (to mix metaphors) the bandaid approach of adding the most appetizing of the other conferences leftovers...

tux
11-20-2012, 01:54 PM
Because they won't come. Money doesn't add up. Doesn't make financial sense for anyone to leave the SEC, B1G or Big 12 for the ACC.

The only major conference we've still got the ability to plunder is the Big East.


I'm sure you're right, but the money is not guaranteed to be there in the same amounts as today. I.e., the SEC is not guaranteed to be the dominant football conference from now till the end of time. Things change. What may not make financial sense for Vandy today, may still be a good long term decision. Not saying they'd be likely to leave for the ACC, but I think they would be much more comfortable in the ACC --- they have good basketball and other non-revenue sports and are a good fit academically.

I'd give my left "leg" to NOT see Louisville or UCONN in the ACC. Just really hate either of those options for our conference.

kingboozer
11-20-2012, 03:12 PM
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/sports/vanderbilt-acknowledges-accusation-against-football-program

Maybe this would stand in the way of Vandy to ACC, not including the money aspect, just a bad taste it its mouth from these complaints. I'd absolutely love to have them in the ACC but can't see them leaving the money train in the SEC, even if they could compete a heck of a lot more here than there. I'd love to bring them in and get South Carolina back but that will never happen.

Papa John
11-20-2012, 05:18 PM
...pursue Purdue.

Okay... Now type that really quickly 5 times in a row... Go!

I still think swinging for the bleachers by talking with Texas and Oklahoma is the way to go. It's really the best way to truly solidify our position as the soap opera that is college athletic alliances plays out...

The immediate concern is the $50 million buy-out penalty. This will be another big test of Swofford as the guy in charge of the conference—if he messes this up, FSU could bolt. The conference will need to play hardball and hold MD's feet to the fire here, demanding full payment of the $50 million rather than allowing the amount to be whittled down through negotiation. Allow that to happen and FSU might be gone, and rather than talking about going after Texas and Oklahoma, we'll likely be talking about who else the Big 12 intends to poach from the ACC.

Another concern here—Syracuse and Pitt are slated to begin conference play in 2013, but technically they are not yet part of the ACC. Would it be possible for them to back out and head to the B1G if they were to offer? If I were running the B1G, that would be my play right now.

lotusland
11-20-2012, 06:13 PM
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/sports/vanderbilt-acknowledges-accusation-against-football-program

Maybe this would stand in the way of Vandy to ACC, not including the money aspect, just a bad taste it its mouth from these complaints. I'd absolutely love to have them in the ACC but can't see them leaving the money train in the SEC, even if they could compete a heck of a lot more here than there. I'd love to bring them in and get South Carolina back but that will never happen.

No South Carolina would not be even remotely interested in rejoining the ACC now. The favorite pastime for Gamecock fans is pointing out to Clemson fans what a crappy football conference they are in. Also Spurrier's stated goal is to win the SEC. I seriously don't think they would come even if the money were better in the ACC. The good news is that that they definitely would not go along with Clemson joining the SEC.

lotusland
11-20-2012, 06:16 PM
Okay... Now type that really quickly 5 times in a row... Go!

I still think swinging for the bleachers by talking with Texas and Oklahoma is the way to go. It's really the best way to truly solidify our position as the soap opera that is college athletic alliances plays out...

The immediate concern is the $50 million buy-out penalty. This will be another big test of Swofford as the guy in charge of the conference—if he messes this up, FSU could bolt. The conference will need to play hardball and hold MD's feet to the fire here, demanding full payment of the $50 million rather than allowing the amount to be whittled down through negotiation. Allow that to happen and FSU might be gone, and rather than talking about going after Texas and Oklahoma, we'll likely be talking about who else the Big 12 intends to poach from the ACC.

Another concern here—Syracuse and Pitt are slated to begin conference play in 2013, but technically they are not yet part of the ACC. Would it be possible for them to back out and head to the B1G if they were to offer? If I were running the B1G, that would be my play right now.

I would rather see the ACC falll apart and Duke join the Southern Conference than to have Texas and OK in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

throatybeard
11-20-2012, 08:50 PM
I would rather see the ACC falll apart and Duke join the Southern Conference than to have Texas and OK in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

I'd rather see Duke go D3 in all sports than be associated with Texas in any way.

Indoor66
11-20-2012, 09:02 PM
I'd rather see Duke go D3 in all sports than be associated with Texas in any way.

But having Texas in Basketball, so long as Barnes is coach, would result in a win for Duke every time. :cool:

hurleyfor3
11-20-2012, 09:05 PM
But having Texas in Basketball, so long as Barnes is coach, would result in a win for Duke every time. :cool:

Not to mention the inevitable apoplexy among unc fans.

superdave
11-20-2012, 10:39 PM
Swofford has been pretty proactive the last few years. He's added VT/BC, then Pitt and Cuse. He brought the Irish further than any other commissioner could, and every conference covets Notre Dame.

I feel good with him at the helm and I believe he's got a plan A (Texas/Oklahoma), a plan B (UConn/Louisville) and a plan C (absorb the rump Big East into the rump ACC after FSU/VT/Clemson bail).

If sensible college conferences are going to heck, then I would prefer to be helping cause it than sitting passively figuring out how to get Temple to form a women's swim team so we can satisfy all the people who want a regionally pure conference.

If you assume as I do we are heading towards four 16-team super conferences, then either the ACC or the Big 12 is going to be sub-super. I'd rather be super than non. The power play here is to go after Texas and Oklahoma, form the ACC Network, take over MSG for the ACCT, and get Notre Dame as a full time conferee.

It can be done and it's the only move that makes sense to go all-in for. Plan B can wait. Go for it, Johnny!

TheDevilMadeMeDoIt
11-21-2012, 12:07 AM
I live in Kentucky and twenty years ago I would never have thought about Louisville bringing much to the ACC, but times change. Louisville has a very nice, new football stadium. That have a great young football coach, although keeping him will be tough. They have been pretty good in football the last several years. There new basketball arena is palatial, probably as nice as any in the country. They have historically been a good basketball school. I witnessed that first hand in Dallas in 1986 when we lost the National Championship to them. Pitino is a great coach, although his personal reputation has certainly taken a hit in the last few years. They have an excellent AD who keeps the programs fresh with good coaching hires. It may surprise but they have a good medical school and have always had a great music program, so they are not just a bunch of hillbillies. They would actually improve both the ACC's football and basketball. THey would jump at the chance to join the ACC, so they should be considered.

gumbomoop
11-21-2012, 08:29 AM
I live in Kentucky and twenty years ago I would never have thought about Louisville bringing much to the ACC, but times change. Louisville has a very nice, new football stadium. That have a great young football coach, although keeping him will be tough. They have been pretty good in football the last several years. There new basketball arena is palatial, probably as nice as any in the country. They have historically been a good basketball school. I witnessed that first hand in Dallas in 1986 when we lost the National Championship to them. Pitino is a great coach, although his personal reputation has certainly taken a hit in the last few years. They have an excellent AD who keeps the programs fresh with good coaching hires. It may surprise but they have a good medical school and have always had a great music program, so they are not just a bunch of hillbillies. They would actually improve both the ACC's football and basketball. THey would jump at the chance to join the ACC, so they should be considered.

Second this. Can't claim UL is superb academically, but plenty of fine students there, in several programs and undergrad majors. The law school, though not highly ranked, is top 100, and ahead of Nebraska, Marquette, Syracuse, Villanova.

lotusland
11-21-2012, 11:07 AM
Swofford has been pretty proactive the last few years. He's added VT/BC, then Pitt and Cuse. He brought the Irish further than any other commissioner could, and every conference covets Notre Dame.

I feel good with him at the helm and I believe he's got a plan A (Texas/Oklahoma), a plan B (UConn/Louisville) and a plan C (absorb the rump Big East into the rump ACC after FSU/VT/Clemson bail).

If sensible college conferences are going to heck, then I would prefer to be helping cause it than sitting passively figuring out how to get Temple to form a women's swim team so we can satisfy all the people who want a regionally pure conference.

If you assume as I do we are heading towards four 16-team super conferences, then either the ACC or the Big 12 is going to be sub-super. I'd rather be super than non. The power play here is to go after Texas and Oklahoma, form the ACC Network, take over MSG for the ACCT, and get Notre Dame as a full time conferee.

It can be done and it's the only move that makes sense to go all-in for. Plan B can wait. Go for it, Johnny!

Not me. As I posted before I'm not a college football fan so take that for what it's worth but I see this all as a bunch of hubris that will unfold badly in the end. I'd rather Duke have no part in it and I don't think Duke needs a conference affiliation to maintain a top flight basketball program. Despite recent gains I really can't imagine that Duke would want to compete against UT and OK in football. I don't think it is possible for Duke to field a team that would be competitive without completely sacrificing its integrity. So I don't see the purpose of being a perennial doormat just to collect some conference TV cash.

rifraf
11-21-2012, 11:45 AM
Hi everyone, first time posting despite lurking since I was actually at Duke years ago!

I know this idea is blasphemy to a lot of people, but is anyone else starting to think about Duke leaving the ACC? From the sounds of it, there is no way to get anyone to leave the B1G or the SEC, at least not until we can renegotiate our TV contract. That leaves the BigXII and what's left of the Big East. If I understand the BigXII's television contracts correctly, none of them are going to leave for a while as their television rights stay with the conference. Meanwhile, nobody we can grab from what's left of the Big East strikes me as the kind of schools that are going to create long term stability or bring in enough money to lift the ACC up to the the level of the B1G or the SEC.

Regional conferences and long standing tradition are going the way of the dodo in the current landscape, which I absolutely hate, but if it's going to happen I'd rather end up somewhere else with UNC than risk staying with the ACC and end up in what becomes a mid-major because we don't have as strong a football program. I'm worried that if Duke sits tight, we'll get passed over. If we are proactive however, I could see us getting creative with the B1G and joining. It'd suck to lose some of our games with schools like NCState and Wake, but as long as we still get UNC I'd be ok forging new traditions and mini-rivalries with the likes of Purdue, Indiana, OSU, and Izzo.

formerdukeathlete
11-21-2012, 11:52 AM
Not me. As I posted before I'm not a college football fan so take that for what it's worth but I see this all as a bunch of hubris that will unfold badly in the end. I'd rather Duke have no part in it and I don't think Duke needs a conference affiliation to maintain a top flight basketball program. Despite recent gains I really can't imagine that Duke would want to compete against UT and OK in football. I don't think it is possible for Duke to field a team that would be competitive without completely sacrificing its integrity. So I don't see the purpose of being a perennial doormat just to collect some conference TV cash.

The limit among FBS teams of 85 scholarship players, this, along with larger TV contracts, might be the two largest contributing factors to the relative success of academic Football programs at private universities such as Stanford and Northwestern. These factors have allowed private universities to become more competitive on a relative basis. No way Vandy could have had 200 players on Football scholarship like Alabama did back in Bear Bryant's time.

Could Stanford 2012 team beat UT or OK? I think there would be a good chance. Could Duke become as good as Stanford without reducing academic requirements among scholarship Football players, from where they are now? Absolutely, Duke could be this good. Stanford and Northwestern both impose higher thresholds right now. There is no need to lower academic thresholds at Duke in order to become better at Football.

Now, if all of the conference realignment dance ends with Duke without a date within a major BCS conference, would it be the end of the world? - No. And, might it be ok for Duke to consider deemphasizing Football under such circumstances? I think if that were to happen we would need to take a good hard and long look at the matter. If the walls were to come falling in the next couple of months, perhaps we would reconsider Wade renovations and keep the track.

On the other hand we are positioned with Basketball and an emergingly respectable Football Program to be included among BCS conferences were such a major shakeup to occur.

One thing I have liked reading today is that it has been said that the ACC is considering / reconsidering whether we would need to add a 14 full member at this time. Maybe we do not need to. Maybe our TV contract would work better without doing so, given our choices. Or, maybe ESPN would consider rethinking our current arrangement rather than seeing the ACC disband for all intents and purposes. Seems to me that as much as we need to consider whether to or whom we might add, we need to have a CTJ meeting with ESPN about whether they might wish to allow the ACC to structure its TV package(s) more along the lines of the Pac 12, for example.

sagegrouse
11-21-2012, 11:54 AM
On the subject of next steps for the ACC, it is now time for the grouse to start booming on his territorial grounds. [BASS DRUMS BOOM. Above these, TRUMPETS and TROMBONES BLARE. Then all is quiet and an ensemble of FIFES AND KAZOOS start their tinny mewl.]

Traditionalist I may be, but I see huge value in the ACC. But ACC or not, Duke needs to be part of a major conference. I have seen this movie before, and I don't like the ending. My grad school was Rice and 16 years ago it was defenestrated from the burning structure of the Southwest Conference, when Texas, A&M, Texas Tech and politically connected Baylor bolted for the Big Eight (now almost 12). The private schools -- Rice, TCU, and SMU -- and the reprobates at Cougar High were left to fend for themselves. It's worked out OK for TCU but Rice is a force only in baseball.

And, as a practical matter, Duke's best chance to be part of a major conference is to keep the rest of the ACC together. And I agree with K that the ACC is "vulnerable." For example, don't you think the NCAA would find UNC and UVa more attractive than Rutgers and Terpdom? I am willing to cut the Big Ten a little slack if it says, "We didn't poach, the two schools came to us." Rutgers is desperate and such is the perfidy of Maryland that I truly believe it contacted the Big Ten without saying "boo" to its collegial brethren. But, why wouldn't either UNC or UVa (or FSU or Clemson or Ga Tech) now "apply" to the Big Ten. It's one of the two (three with the geography on the Pacific Coast) that is sure to survive and prosper.

I think the key player going forward is, I hate to say it, the folks ten miles south of Durham. It is as attractive as any school in the conference; it is far more acceptable academically than FSU or Clemson (which are not going to the SEC because of intrastate matters). I think Ga. Tech, which is strong academically, may be too much in the shadow these days of the Bulldogs. As to the school in Blacksburg, the ACC didn't want Virginia Tech; why should the Big Ten? I think Swofford knows that UNC is the major player going forward and will deal with it.

Options for Duke? Maybe Duke and UNC could go to the Big Ten? Duke ranks relatively high (25-30) in athletics revenue.

Big 12? I don't see it, 'cuz that looks like an ocean liner without a rudder. Maybe, just maybe Duke could hitch on together with UNC, FSU and Florida, but as a separate applicant, I don't think it will happen.

The fallback is to unite the East Coast teams remaining into a viable conference. It could be a viable entity, but it clearly will be a second-tier conference yielding much less revenue than the ACC.

sagegrouse

lotusland
11-21-2012, 12:54 PM
On the subject of next steps for the ACC, it is now time for the grouse to start booming on his territorial grounds.

Traditionalist I may be, but I see huge value in the ACC. [B]But ACC or not, Duke needs to be part of a major conference. I have seen this movie before, and I don't like the ending. My grad school was Rice and 16 years ago it was defenestrated from the burning structure of the Southwest Conference, when Texas, A&M, Texas Tech and politically connected Baylor bolted for the Big Eight (now almost 12). The private schools -- Rice, TCU, and SMU -- and the reprobates at Cougar High were left to fend for themselves. It's worked out OK for TCU but Rice is a force only in baseball.

And, as a practical matter, Duke's best chance to be part of a major conference is to keep the rest of the ACC together. And I agree with K that the ACC is "vulnerable." For example, don't you think the NCAA would find UNC and UVa more attractive than Rutgers and Terpdom? I am willing to cut the Big Ten a little slack if it says, "We didn't poach, the two schools came to us." Rutgers is desperate and such is the perfidy of Maryland that I truly believe it contacted the Big Ten without saying "boo" to its collegial brethren. But, why wouldn't either UNC or UVa (or FSU or Clemson or Ga Tech) now "apply" to the Big Ten. It's one of the two (three with the geography on the Pacific Coast) that is sure to survive and prosper.

I think the key player going forward is, I hate to say it, the folks ten miles south of Durham. It is as attractive as any school in the conference; it is far more acceptable academically than FSU or Clemson (which are not going to the SEC because of intrastate matters). I think Ga. Tech, which is strong academically, may be too much in the shadow these days of the Bulldogs. As to the school in Blacksburg, the ACC didn't want Virginia Tech; why should the Big Ten? I think Swofford knows that UNC is the major player going forward and will deal with it.

Options for Duke? Maybe Duke and UNC could go to the Big Ten? Duke ranks relatively high (25-30) in athletics revenue.

Big 12? I don't see it, 'cuz that looks like an ocean liner without a rudder. Maybe, just maybe Duke could hitch on together with UNC, FSU and Florida, but as a separate applicant, I don't think it will happen.

The fallback is to unite the East Coast teams remaining into a viable conference. It could be a viable entity, but it clearly will be a second-tier conference yielding much less revenue than the ACC.

sagegrouse

Duke doesn't need a major conference to maintain a top flight basketball program any more than ND needs one in football. Duke will never have a top SEC caliber football team. Vanderbilt is ceiling for Duke and they aren't going to ever be more than an occasional spoiler for the contenders in the SEC. When Duke starts fielding some 300+ pound lighting quick linemen and linebackers I will believe they can be more than a doormat to AL, LSU, Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan etc.. Stanford and ND are at least known as football schools with a history of success and honestly Stanford isn't going to win a national championship and would be a middling SEC school at best. chasing that goal will take Duke where Miami and UNC are now. It isn't worth it IMO.

sagegrouse
11-21-2012, 01:02 PM
Duke doesn't need a major conference to maintain a top flight basketball program any more than ND needs one in football. Duke will never have a top SEC caliber football team. Vanderbilt is ceiling for Duke and they aren't going to ever be more than an occasional spoiler for the contenders in the SEC. When Duke starts fielding some 300+ pound lighting quick linemen and linebackers I will believe they can be more than a doormat to AL, LSU, Texas, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan etc.. Stanford and ND are at least known as football schools with a history of success and honestly Stanford isn't going to win a national championship and would be a middling SEC school at best. chasing that goal will take Duke where Miami and UNC are now. It isn't worth it IMO.

I don't disagree with your specific points, but I still see huge value in a major conference membership. We should agree to disagree.

sagegrouse

johnb
11-21-2012, 01:37 PM
NCAA football is, what, 14 Saturdays followed by an interminable grabbag of bowl games, most of which are unimportant?
NCAA basketball is nightly entertainment for months followed by a month which dominates the airwaves and is more lucrative than just about anything?

NCAA football is hugely expensive and is a loss to many schools?
Basketball takes 10 scholarships, a gym, and some coaches?

Anyone have links to an article that discusses how things could get reshuffled? I see no reason why football has to forever be the Big Dog in the discussion.

rifraf
11-21-2012, 01:37 PM
Duke doesn't need a major conference to maintain a top flight basketball program any more than ND needs one in football. .

I'm not sure I agree with this. There is a big difference between scheduling 20+ games and scheduling 10-12. Also, football is worth a lot more to television companies than basketball is. The reason teams play ND is because their television contract is huge and they earn good money for doing so. What incentive would anyone in the B1G have to schedule Duke in basketball out of conference? The only way they would do it is if whatever television contract we had was so large that it had a financial incentive. If we don't go independent and instead were in a lower-tier basketball conference, I'd be willing to bet our recruiting would start to struggle especially if K retires in the next 5 years. Could we maintain the level of success we're used to? Maybe, but I'd rather be in the B1G...

lotusland
11-21-2012, 02:16 PM
I don't disagree with your specific points, but I still see huge value in a major conference membership. We should agree to disagree.

sagegrouse

Of course that is the nature of discussion:)

lotusland
11-21-2012, 02:23 PM
I'm not sure I agree with this. There is a big difference between scheduling 20+ games and scheduling 10-12. Also, football is worth a lot more to television companies than basketball is. The reason teams play ND is because their television contract is huge and they earn good money for doing so. What incentive would anyone in the B1G have to schedule Duke in basketball out of conference? The only way they would do it is if whatever television contract we had was so large that it had a financial incentive. If we don't go independent and instead were in a lower-tier basketball conference, I'd be willing to bet our recruiting would start to struggle especially if K retires in the next 5 years. Could we maintain the level of success we're used to? Maybe, but I'd rather be in the B1G...

TV will pay for Duke vs. ???? if they are worthy. Duke is a big game wherever they go on the road so I don't worry about scheduling 20+ ACC caliber opponents. UNC, MD, NCSU,and Wake will continue to play Duke regardless. I would miss the old ACC Tournament but that is already gone. Why not scheule a bunch of neutral court games against top programs as preparation for the tournament. I'm not saying it is ideal but neither is joining another so-called superconference. To me the whole business too sordid and doesn't make sense for Duke and, in the long term, college athletics as a whole.

TexHawk
11-21-2012, 02:41 PM
TV will pay for Duke vs. ???? if they are worthy. Duke is a big game wherever they go on the road so I don't worry about scheduling 20+ ACC caliber opponents. UNC, MD, NCSU,and Wake will continue to play Duke regardless. I would miss the old ACC Tournament but that is already gone. Why not scheule a bunch of neutral court games against top programs as preparation for the tournament. I'm not saying it is ideal but neither is joining another so-called superconference. To me the whole business too sordid and doesn't make sense for Duke and, in the long term, college athletics as a whole.

This was discussed by KU fans a couple years ago during the "Big12 is falling apart" days, and while it's a nice idea in theory, in practice it would be a nightmare. You couldn't schedule any Big10/SEC/Pac12/Big12/A-10 teams during Jan-March, as they are in the middle of conference play. You might find an opening here or there, but finding two opponents per week for 2+ months would be crazy hard.

Unless other schools try the same thing at the same time, of course.

kingboozer
11-21-2012, 03:40 PM
Duke basketball came in at #29 in generated revenue, nearly $27 million before expenses, including football and basketball programs. Duke football came in at #111, generating nearly $16.2 million before expenses. It's hard to argue that we aren't a great candidate for a conference like the B1G if it becomes neccessary to jump from the ACC. Our football revenue needs help, winning and getting to bowls consistently should change that. Add to that the academics, name recognition, and prestige, I don't see how our basketball program wouldn't be enough for anyone to want.

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/06/20/which-football-and-basketball-programs-produce-the-largest-profits/

wilson
11-21-2012, 04:14 PM
NCAA football is, what, 14 Saturdays followed by an interminable grabbag of bowl games, most of which are unimportant?
NCAA basketball is nightly entertainment for months followed by a month which dominates the airwaves and is more lucrative than just about anything?

NCAA football is hugely expensive and is a loss to many schools?
Basketball takes 10 scholarships, a gym, and some coaches?

Anyone have links to an article that discusses how things could get reshuffled? I see no reason why football has to forever be the Big Dog in the discussion.
The NCAA Tournament television contract is indeed worth billions, but it's held by the NCAA itself, diluting the money a good bit before it gets distributed. It also gets split a lot more ways than football money, since it draws from a pool of ~320 teams instead of a pool of ~60. They're both big cash grabs by university bureaucrats and external people with business interests, but the football pool is grabbed by fewer hands with more direct access to the cash (not to mention the murky ways in which the organizations that present the individual bowls operate). Notice that major-conference ADs and related university staff are the drivers of this, along with television executives. That's because they're the ones whose salaries (and number of available jobs) increase and whose broadcast deals and endorsement revenues get bigger as a direct result of the consolidation of all of these allegiances and their airable content. That this power structure (or at least its money) exists so heavily outside the purview of the NCAA is a fundamental reason why there's never been a proper NCAA Division I football championship*, and why many believe the realignment process is driving the system toward the NCAA's eventual extinction.

*The winner of the FCS playoffs is presented with a trophy as NCAA Division I Football Champion", but that's of course not what we're talking about here.

johnb
11-21-2012, 04:57 PM
The NCAA Tournament television contract is indeed worth billions, but it's held by the NCAA itself, diluting the money a good bit before it gets distributed. It also gets split a lot more ways than football money, since it draws from a pool of ~320 teams instead of a pool of ~60. They're both big cash grabs by university bureaucrats and external people with business interests, but the football pool is grabbed by fewer hands with more direct access to the cash (not to mention the murky ways in which the organizations that present the individual bowls operate). Notice that major-conference ADs and related university staff are the drivers of this, along with television executives. That's because they're the ones whose salaries (and number of available jobs) increase and whose broadcast deals and endorsement revenues get bigger as a direct result of the consolidation of all of these allegiances and their airable content. That this power structure (or at least its money) exists so heavily outside the purview of the NCAA is a fundamental reason why there's never been a proper NCAA Division I football championship*, and why many believe the realignment process is driving the system toward the NCAA's eventual extinction.

*The winner of the FCS playoffs is presented with a trophy as NCAA Division I Football Champion", but that's of course not what we're talking about here.

Which gets me to thinking about how differently football and basketball view parity and the so-called mid-majors.

Football makes little effort for parity (want parity? limit teams to 14 scholarships/year with stiff non-graduation penalties and a total of 60 players on scholarship at a time--allowing for some transfers but also involving scholarship penalties for players being kicked off the team or not graduating at some reasonable level). As it is, the top teams load up on talent, and there's little chance that a team like Duke can beat a team like Florida State. Basketball, meanwhile, may annually feature the same top 20-30 teams, but the money and players seems more widely spread (and I think upsets are more common, though I don't have the data).

Depending on how much of the basketball pie is cut out before it is distributed to the schools, I could certainly imagine a scenario in which the majority of the top 80 schools (or at least an unhappy cadre of basketball-oriented schools) decide that they take their show on the road and simply create their own NIT 3.0.

lotusland
11-21-2012, 08:29 PM
This was discussed by KU fans a couple years ago during the "Big12 is falling apart" days, and while it's a nice idea in theory, in practice it would be a nightmare. You couldn't schedule any Big10/SEC/Pac12/Big12/A-10 teams during Jan-March, as they are in the middle of conference play. You might find an opening here or there, but finding two opponents per week for 2+ months would be crazy hard.

Unless other schools try the same thing at the same time, of course.

I guess I don't see how basketball is very different than football in that regard and ND doesn't seem to have any problem scheduling opponents in football where a non-conference loss is a lot more damaging to post season hopes than in basketball.

Even so I don't really think going independent is a likely outcome. I think Duke should remain in the ACC even if some football schools leave. I don't think Duke should look to jump ship and furthermore I don't think they will have the option if they wanted to. I also don't think Duke should support the conference expanding further geographically by inviting Texas and/or Oklahoma. As a side note I don't see how the ACC loses MD for football reasons but somehow picks up either Texas or Oklahoma even considering the different conference dynamics in the BIG 10 vs. the Big 12.

FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, UNC, UVA, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt and NCSU can't all leave. Let's say 4-5 teams leave for one of the 4 supposed 16-team superconferences: That simply means that Duke is locked out of a National Championship game that they were never going to play in anyway. It also means the ACC no longer has to figure out how to get to 16-teams and it still has 9-10 teams in football + 1 more in all other sports. That is the number of teams that many of us have argued is ideal for the ACC Tournament.

So I have no problem bringing on UConn, Louisville or Temple if we lose some more schools but I also don't think it is necessary. If the ACC were going to add schools for football I'd be for Penn State, Louisville and WV for the proximity alone. Temple and Georgetown would also be a good fit for hoops. Bottom line I see no reason for Duke to panic.

Newton_14
11-21-2012, 09:20 PM
I guess I don't see how basketball is very different than football in that regard and ND doesn't seem to have any problem scheduling opponents in football where a non-conference loss is a lot more damaging to post season hopes than in basketball.

Even so I don't really think going independent is a likely outcome. I think Duke should remain in the ACC even if some football schools leave. I don't think Duke should look to jump ship and furthermore I don't think they will have the option if they wanted to. I also don't think Duke should support the conference expanding further geographically by inviting Texas and/or Oklahoma. As a side note I don't see how the ACC loses MD for football reasons but somehow picks up either Texas or Oklahoma even considering the different conference dynamics in the BIG 10 vs. the Big 12.

FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, UNC, UVA, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt and NCSU can't all leave. Let's say 4-5 teams leave for one of the 4 supposed 16-team superconferences: That simply means that Duke is locked out of a National Championship game that they were never going to play in anyway. It also means the ACC no longer has to figure out how to get to 16-teams and it still has 9-10 teams in football + 1 more in all other sports. That is the number of teams that many of us have argued is ideal for the ACC Tournament.

So I have no problem bringing on UConn, Louisville or Temple if we lose some more schools but I also don't think it is necessary. If the ACC were going to add schools for football I'd be for Penn State, Louisville and WV for the proximity alone. Temple and Georgetown would also be a good fit for hoops. Bottom line I see no reason for Duke to panic.

I wish it were that simple, but I am afraid it is not. If we get to the 4 super conferences with 16 teams each, College Hoops as we know it today will die. This is about money. Just like the BCS killed the mid-majors recruiting efforts, as the elite recruits do not want to go to non-BCS schools, the same will happen in hoops. The new world order will consist of 64 teams, and the first thing they will do is have their own March Madness and split that money 64 ways. How many elite recruits will want to come to Duke if there is no chance of playing for the National Title? Zero.

For Duke to be Duke as we know it today, they have to get a seat at the table of 64. I pray it never comes to this as Cinderella is a huge part of the majesty of March Madness, but unless Congress steps in or people wise up and stop this insanity, it might actually happen.

ForkFondler
11-21-2012, 10:30 PM
For Duke to be Duke as we know it today, they have to get a seat at the table of 64. I pray it never comes to this as Cinderella is a huge part of the majesty of March Madness, but unless Congress steps in or people wise up and stop this insanity, it might actually happen.

Nuts. The table of 64 is a pipedream borne of NCAA madness. Even if it briefly comes to pass, global warming or some other form of evolution will kill it. The far more functional alternative is an 8 team playoff with 3 at-large bids.

kingboozer
11-21-2012, 11:13 PM
I hate a lot about realignment, but what I hate the most is how it could affect basketball. I love Duke football and Coach Cut and follow it closely, but we, at our heart, will always be a basketball minded school, just like most of the original ACC schools are. The conference can thank its founding to basketball and I hate having to turn our backs on that for the sake of football and the all mighty dollar. If this is the way we are heading, here's a thought, how about let's all have separate conference affiliations for basketball and football. In today's games, the two sports have different philosophies and goals, why not?

How about this for a basketball conference:
Duke, Villanova, Georgetown, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, Wake, Lousiville, UConn, Pitt, UVA and BC (just examples)

Football could do what it has to do, but basketball would cease to suffer from choices made by football programs, just a thought I had about all this madness.

uh_no
11-21-2012, 11:39 PM
I hate a lot about realignment, but what I hate the most is how it could affect basketball. I love Duke football and Coach Cut and follow it closely, but we, at our heart, will always be a basketball minded school, just like most of the original ACC schools are. The conference can thank its founding to basketball and I hate having to turn our backs on that for the sake of football and the all mighty dollar. If this is the way we are heading, here's a thought, how about let's all have separate conference affiliations for basketball and football. In today's games, the two sports have different philosophies and goals, why not?

How about this for a basketball conference:
Duke, Villanova, Georgetown, UNC, NC State, Syracuse, Wake, Lousiville, UConn, Pitt, UVA and BC (just examples)

Football could do what it has to do, but basketball would cease to suffer from choices made by football programs, just a thought I had about all this madness.

A conference founded around the idea of really good basketball schools with football playing second fiddle where there is mixed membership of football and non-football schools.

For some reason I think that has tried before and the conference is in shambles...

I would love if we could have that, absolutely, and that is why i'm saddened by the demise of the big east, but we've seen it, and it doesn't work. There is little reason to try again.

sporthenry
11-21-2012, 11:41 PM
I wish it were that simple, but I am afraid it is not. If we get to the 4 super conferences with 16 teams each, College Hoops as we know it today will die. This is about money. Just like the BCS killed the mid-majors recruiting efforts, as the elite recruits do not want to go to non-BCS schools, the same will happen in hoops. The new world order will consist of 64 teams, and the first thing they will do is have their own March Madness and split that money 64 ways. How many elite recruits will want to come to Duke if there is no chance of playing for the National Title? Zero.

For Duke to be Duke as we know it today, they have to get a seat at the table of 64. I pray it never comes to this as Cinderella is a huge part of the majesty of March Madness, but unless Congress steps in or people wise up and stop this insanity, it might actually happen.

I can't agree that the 4 super conferences will ruin March Madness. For football it makes some sense b/c 8 team divisions seem perfect and lead into quarterfinals perfectly.

But for basketball, many (or at least a decent amount) of the 64 won't be great basketball programs. You could argue they'll get better as they become the only game in town as you say but I just don't see Nebraska, Penn State, or many of the SEC teams becoming basketball powerhouses over some of the more traditional powers.

Heck if this happens, the teams left out could form a pretty strong conference. Some of the following teams might get eaten up but you'd still have a big majority of Gonzaga, Louisville, Duke, Pitt, Cuse, Uconn, Butler, George Mason, Georgetown, Villanova, VCU, UNLV, Memphis, Marquette, Temple, etc. The 64 team conference will probably be stronger but certainly not hold the monopoly they do over football.

The one thing which could happen (although not sure about feasibility) is divvying up the college bball money more like football so teams are more likely to submit to the current situation which would seem to make more basketball programs viable as compared to its football counterparts.

lotusland
11-21-2012, 11:58 PM
I wish it were that simple, but I am afraid it is not. If we get to the 4 super conferences with 16 teams each, College Hoops as we know it today will die. This is about money. Just like the BCS killed the mid-majors recruiting efforts, as the elite recruits do not want to go to non-BCS schools, the same will happen in hoops. The new world order will consist of 64 teams, and the first thing they will do is have their own March Madness and split that money 64 ways. How many elite recruits will want to come to Duke if there is no chance of playing for the National Title? Zero.

For Duke to be Duke as we know it today, they have to get a seat at the table of 64. I pray it never comes to this as Cinderella is a huge part of the majesty of March Madness, but unless Congress steps in or people wise up and stop this insanity, it might actually happen.

Why would the NCAA tournament ever have anything to do with football superconferences? What am I missing? The way I see if the 4 conferences ever actually did shut out all but 64 teams they would die of a self inflicated wound. Those schools may have the most rabid football fans but if everyone else loses interest in the BCS because they are locked out it will be a huge net loss in overall interest which eventually translates to income loss. Even so why would the basketball tournament suffer?

johnb
11-22-2012, 01:39 AM
As a side note I don't see how the ACC loses MD for football reasons but somehow picks up either Texas or Oklahoma

FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, UNC, UVA, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt and NCSU can't all leave. Let's say 4-5 teams leave for one of the 4 supposed 16-team superconferences...

So I have no problem bringing on UConn, Louisville or Temple @ Bottom line I see no reason for Duke to panic.

Let's say we lose perhaps 4 of our biggest football/deep south schools: VT, Clemson, Ncsu, and FSU.

we'd be looking at adding some marginal teams with a modest chance of improving the brand (ct, lsv, and temple)

The recent Big 12 contract an LHN may be impossible to break, but my lawyer friends thrive on renegotiating contracts.

we give ND and Texas special football deals that befits their status.

We pick up Texas, Texas tech, OU, OSU, Kansas, and Kansas State.
We retain D, NC, gt, wake, Miami, UVA, BC
we retain and pick up newcomers: Syracuse, Pitt, ND

call the 2 divisions whatever you want, and put GT and ND out west--and minimize time zone travel-- but, bc the west would be loaded-- the conference championship game is played out between the 2 highest BCS rated teams. The championship game might be OU vs tx a third of the time, +/-ND, but that'd get more eyeballs than fsu/tech.

Matches
11-22-2012, 07:51 AM
I wish it were that simple, but I am afraid it is not. If we get to the 4 super conferences with 16 teams each, College Hoops as we know it today will die. This is about money. Just like the BCS killed the mid-majors recruiting efforts, as the elite recruits do not want to go to non-BCS schools, the same will happen in hoops. The new world order will consist of 64 teams, and the first thing they will do is have their own March Madness and split that money 64 ways. How many elite recruits will want to come to Duke if there is no chance of playing for the National Title? Zero.



Even if this turns out to be overstated, there is very valid reason to be concerned about this from a Duke bball perspective. I think some folks are underestimating how much of our recruiting pitch selling Duke emphasizes that we play in a big boy conference. If the ACC becomes us + Conference USA, our recruiting *will* suffer. It may not be apparent immediately but 10 years from now we will be able to tell a huge difference. I expect so long as K is there he could keep things in pretty good shape, but when he inevitably departs... even with a well-chosen successor, it would be a big double whammy for our program.

Notre Dame in football just isn't comparable. (a) It's football, and way more people care about football than basketball, and (b) Because of its religious affiliation, ND has a ton of fans who never attended the school. (Wal-Mart fans, if you will.) The notion that Duke will be Duke no matter how the conference musical chairs shake out seems like blind optimism - we might not become SMU but our days of being a national player on a regular basis would probably end.

superdave
11-22-2012, 08:02 AM
A few truths that have to be accepted before you can pontificate on what Duke and the ACC should do -


This is all driven by tv contracts, money and college football.
There's 5 major conferences - Pac 12 (12); Big 12(10); Big10 (14); SEC(14); ACC (14-including ND) - that currently contain 64 teams.
We're heading towards four 16-team conferences.
Those 64 teams are not yet set, with the ACC looking to add two from another major conference (Big 12?) or from the remnants of the Big East.
If the ACC does not add, it is likely to lose schools to a major conference.
Conferences that do not share revenue equally have issues (Texas is causing Big 2 crumbling).
Conferences that have some teams in for some sports, but not for others have issues (Big East could not cut it as basketball focused league).
There is less focus on academics and more on cash by administrators.



Because of these things I dont think Duke and the ACC can lean on basketball; they need to hitch their wagon to football. I do think playing the basketball card keeps Duke in the conversation though.

I do not think Duke and UNC will split up. I do not think there's much excitement to add Duke to another major conference. I do think shoring up the ACC - actually perfecting the ACC - is in Duke's best interest in the long run, and in the best interests of all other ACC schools except ND who can write its own ticket. The football schools in the ACC may not realize it yet, but if they cannot compete here, how will they ever compete over there?

That leads me to believe that Swofford should go all in for Texas and Oklahoma, as I said the other day. Two great football programs. Two really good basketball programs. 30 million new sets of eyeballs.

Swofford can use Texas and ND to attract each other, offer to punt on revenue in the short term, and go after a tv network. He's gotten ND further than any other commissioner which shows he's convincing and trustworthy. That will help him with Texas.

Time is short though. I really believe if we do not move fast after these two, we will lose schools to the SEC in a matter of days. I also believe if we take Louisville and UConn we may still lose schools in the next few days. There's one play. Swofford should be all in.

johnb
11-22-2012, 09:21 AM
A few truths that have to be accepted before you can pontificate on what Duke and the ACC should do -


This is all driven by tv contracts, money and college football.
There's 5 major conferences - Pac 12 (12); Big 12(10); Big10 (14); SEC(14); ACC (14-including ND) - that currently contain 64 teams.
We're heading towards four 16-team conferences.
Those 64 teams are not yet set, with the ACC looking to add two from another major conference (Big 12?) or from the remnants of the Big East.
If the ACC does not add, it is likely to lose schools to a major conference.
Conferences that do not share revenue equally have issues (Texas is causing Big 2 crumbling).
Conferences that have some teams in for some sports, but not for others have issues (Big East could not cut it as basketball focused league).
There is less focus on academics and more on cash by administrators.



Because of these things I dont think Duke and the ACC can lean on basketball; they need to hitch their wagon to football. I do think playing the basketball card keeps Duke in the conversation though.

I do not think Duke and UNC will split up. I do not think there's much excitement to add Duke to another major conference. I do think shoring up the ACC - actually perfecting the ACC - is in Duke's best interest in the long run, and in the best interests of all other ACC schools except ND who can write its own ticket. The football schools in the ACC may not realize it yet, but if they cannot compete here, how will they ever compete over there?

That leads me to believe that Swofford should go all in for Texas and Oklahoma, as I said the other day. Two great football programs. Two really good basketball programs. 30 million new sets of eyeballs.

Swofford can use Texas and ND to attract each other, offer to punt on revenue in the short term, and go after a tv network. He's gotten ND further than any other commissioner which shows he's convincing and trustworthy. That will help him with Texas.

Time is short though. I really believe if we do not move fast after these two, we will lose schools to the SEC in a matter of days. I also believe if we take Louisville and UConn we may still lose schools in the next few days. There's one play. Swofford should be all in.

I agree with a lot of that, but do think we can make small changes (eg uconn) as long as the football schools don't migrate to the other conferences, if they do, however, I like harvesting from the former big 8. if we do, however, it should be enough schools that they can keep their football and basketball rivalries and perhaps have separate competitions for other sports. As I wrote above, Tx is--I think--bound to Texas tech and to OU, and OU is bound to OSU. To bring some fairness to the relationship, it seems reasonable to also bring in a couple of other big state schools like Kansas and k state. I'd've tempted to go further and add 2 more in order to make it 8/8 but that probably means jettisoning wake. I'd also add that texas, etc, has more of a natural affinity for the Pac 8/12, and their fans would prefer trips to LA than Durham, so if there's an immediate choice, those southwestern teams will likely go west.

of course, I'd prefer small additions, but if we're down to 8-10 teams, we really should take steps to avoid becoming conference USA...

sagegrouse
11-22-2012, 09:34 AM
A few truths that have to be accepted before you can pontificate on what Duke and the ACC should do -


This is all driven by tv contracts, money and college football.
There's 5 major conferences - Pac 12 (12); Big 12(10); Big10 (14); SEC(14); ACC (14-including ND) - that currently contain 64 teams.
We're heading towards four 16-team conferences.
Those 64 teams are not yet set, with the ACC looking to add two from another major conference (Big 12?) or from the remnants of the Big East.
If the ACC does not add, it is likely to lose schools to a major conference.
Conferences that do not share revenue equally have issues (Texas is causing Big 2 crumbling).
Conferences that have some teams in for some sports, but not for others have issues (Big East could not cut it as basketball focused league).
There is less focus on academics and more on cash by administrators.


I will reluctantly yield my pontification crown to you, Superdave.

The cognoscenti (ooh!) have been noising about four 16-team conferences for some time. I think they are just plain wrong. The driving force in their logic seems to be the four main TV networks. That plus "arithmetic," as Bill Clinton might say, presuming an orderly division of 64 football schools.

Well, here are the arguments against:

1. Geography-1. How will the PAC-10 ever grow to 16 schools? Sure it could conceivably add Boise State or grow into Texas, but the former merely adds to the number of 64 schools. Moreover, can't we conclude that Texas and Oklahoma won't be welcome in the PAC-12? Talk about cultural disparity!

2. Geography-2. Let's take the PAC-12, the Big Ten, and the SEC as givens. How would it possibly make sense to form a 4th conference out of remnants of the Big 12, the ACC and the Big East?

3. Arithmetic-1. What's so magical about four? I don't see any difficulties now with the four major media complexes having deals with more than one conference. Good grief! ESPN alone is broadcasting games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU. Why would it want to be limited to only eight college games each week?

4. Arithmetic-2. What's so magical about 64 teams? True, the announced future membership of the five major conferences totals 63, plus Notre Dame making it 64. But the ACC will add at least one school, and there are other schools growing into major football powers -- Boise State, Cincy, Louisville, maybe UConn, and the various Florida schools beginning to make a splash. In short, college football is not a static system.

5. Technology. The changing economic model to be created by the Internet will have effects that no one can accurately predict. Surely, these disruptive forces will come into play a fortiori (ooh!) before the decade-long process of consolidation is completed.

6. Football. Anyone else feel that football, the raison d'etre behind consolidation, is in long-term trouble because of the violence and injuries? Maybe, just maybe, college athletics will not be ruled by the pigskin.

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
11-22-2012, 09:35 AM
That leads me to believe that Swofford should go all in for Texas and Oklahoma, as I said the other day. Two great football programs. Two really good basketball programs. 30 million new sets of eyeballs.

Swofford can use Texas and ND to attract each other, offer to punt on revenue in the short term, and go after a tv network. He's gotten ND further than any other commissioner which shows he's convincing and trustworthy. That will help him with Texas.

Time is short though. I really believe if we do not move fast after these two, we will lose schools to the SEC in a matter of days. I also believe if we take Louisville and UConn we may still lose schools in the next few days. There's one play. Swofford should be all in.

For better or worse, the Big XII is not going anywhere for quite a while. The grant of rights will require at least 75% of the teams to agree to waive them or dissolve the conference and there are at least 5 teams there that will need to make sure they have a safe landing place before they agree to that.

The grant of rights means, for instance, that if the ACC invites Texas and OU, that's cool, but the Big XII and its TV contract still control the tier 1 and 2 TV rights. So, of course, the ACC wouldn't do that. The grant of rights doesn't have the same potential penalty "out" that exit rights as liquidated damages does. Now there is perhaps a legal argument that could allow a school to wiggle its way out, but with unanimous agreement to the grant of rights, I imagine it will be very difficult.

Newton_14
11-22-2012, 09:45 AM
Even if this turns out to be overstated, there is very valid reason to be concerned about this from a Duke bball perspective. I think some folks are underestimating how much of our recruiting pitch selling Duke emphasizes that we play in a big boy conference. If the ACC becomes us + Conference USA, our recruiting *will* suffer. It may not be apparent immediately but 10 years from now we will be able to tell a huge difference. I expect so long as K is there he could keep things in pretty good shape, but when he inevitably departs... even with a well-chosen successor, it would be a big double whammy for our program.


You stated it better than me. Thanks. I did want to use the shock factor there though, because people need to realize it is very important to get a seat at the big boy table. It is critical actually. Look, I hate what is going on. Hate it hate hate it. They are ruining college sports as we know and love it. If we get to the 4/64 and they take the drastic measure of breaking from the NCAA and creating their own March Madness tourney leaving out not only Cinderella, but the traditional hoop powers like Georgetown, I think will be done with college sports. Hopefully it never gets to that, but it is being discussed.

Football is king partly because the big money has far less hands taking a slice of the pie, unlike basketball where the number of teams is more than double, and the NCAA gets a huge cut of the tournament money.

I was never worried the ACC would crumble until this week. I thought getting Notre Dame was the game saving move, but not getting their full membership in Football went a long way in devaluing the catch. Now, I am wondering if it even helped at all.

Swofford needs to find a way to steal Penn State from the Big 10. When the Maryland rumors broke last week, there was talk that Penn St was getting booted from the Big 10, but that talk disappeared in a hurry. Not sure what to make of that.

Otherwise, the fate of the ACC lies in the hands of ESPN (the puppet master in all this). If ESPN steps in and remakes the ACC TV deal to a point where it makes no sense for anyone else to leave, the poaching will stop for one, and for two, it could possibly mean adding a big name school from somewhere other than the Big East.

Papa John
11-22-2012, 09:58 AM
I will reluctantly yield my pontification crown to you, Superdave.

The cognoscenti (ooh!) have been noising about four 16-team conferences for some time. I think they are just plain wrong. The driving force in their logic seems to be the four main TV networks. That plus "arithmetic," as Bill Clinton might say, presuming an orderly division of 64 football schools.

Well, here are the arguments against:

1. Geography-1. How will the PAC-10 ever grow to 16 schools? Sure it could conceivably add Boise State or grow into Texas, but the former merely adds to the number of 64 schools. Moreover, can't we conclude that Texas and Oklahoma won't be welcome in the PAC-12? Talk about cultural disparity!

2. Geography-2. Let's take the PAC-12, the Big Ten, and the SEC as givens. How would it possibly make sense to form a 4th conference out of remnants of the Big 12, the ACC and the Big East?

3. Arithmetic-1. What's so magical about four? I don't see any difficulties now with the four major media complexes having deals with more than one conference. Good grief! ESPN alone is broadcasting games on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU. Why would it want to be limited to only eight college games each week?

4. Arithmetic-2. What's so magical about 64 teams? True, the announced future membership of the five major conferences totals 63, plus Notre Dame making it 64. But the ACC will add at least one school, and there are other schools growing into major football powers -- Boise State, Cincy, Louisville, maybe UConn, and the various Florida schools beginning to make a splash. In short, college football is not a static system.

5. Technology. The changing economic model to be created by the Internet will have effects that no one can accurately predict. Surely, these disruptive forces will come into play a fortiori (ooh!) before the decade-long process of consolidation is completed.

6. Football. Anyone else feel that football, the raison d'etre behind consolidation, is in long-term trouble because of the violence and injuries? Maybe, just maybe, college athletics will not be ruled by the pigskin.

sagegrouse

I was about to write a response agreeing with SuperDave on all but that third bullet, then saw your post and realized you did it far more eloquently. Bravo!

Nosbleuatu
11-22-2012, 09:59 AM
Is it too late to pull football out and let them have their own conference affiliations? No reason TV money needs to wreak havoc on the rest of the university, ruining conference affiliations based on academics and traditional rivalries.

sporthenry
11-22-2012, 11:41 AM
Even if this turns out to be overstated, there is very valid reason to be concerned about this from a Duke bball perspective. I think some folks are underestimating how much of our recruiting pitch selling Duke emphasizes that we play in a big boy conference. If the ACC becomes us + Conference USA, our recruiting *will* suffer. It may not be apparent immediately but 10 years from now we will be able to tell a huge difference. I expect so long as K is there he could keep things in pretty good shape, but when he inevitably departs... even with a well-chosen successor, it would be a big double whammy for our program.

Notre Dame in football just isn't comparable. (a) It's football, and way more people care about football than basketball, and (b) Because of its religious affiliation, ND has a ton of fans who never attended the school. (Wal-Mart fans, if you will.) The notion that Duke will be Duke no matter how the conference musical chairs shake out seems like blind optimism - we might not become SMU but our days of being a national player on a regular basis would probably end.

Really? So how does Memphis consistently compete on a National Level? How about Gonzaga? VCU? Butler? Xavier? The list can go on but conference isn't all that matters. Additionally, if everything breaks against Duke, they'll still land on their feet in basketball in a league with Georgetown, Villanova, Pitt, Syracuse, etc. You are telling me that TV channels wouldn't want to televise that conference? As I mentioned earlier as well, basketball profits aren't split up like football profits as the NCAA has their hands in the bowl so maybe if things disintegrate, it actually helps Duke b/c they'll get more of the basketball money they produce.

As far as Duke, I would wonder if a blanket statement such as "Notre Dame isn't comparable" actually holds up. The only stats I found about college football fans was Nate Silvers who someone tried to discredit but even then, ND only ranked 4th. Duke was America's favorite team according to a Harris poll (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/duke-remains-americas-favorite-college-basketball-team-kentucky-moves-up-to-number-two-while-unc-drops-to-number-three-144848635.html)

As you mention, I'm sure K will try to wait this out b/c a few years of K "post-apocalypse" should show Duke can still compete on a national level.

uh_no
11-22-2012, 12:01 PM
1. Geography-1. How will the PAC-10 ever grow to 16 schools? Sure it could conceivably add Boise State or grow into Texas, but the former merely adds to the number of 64 schools. Moreover, can't we conclude that Texas and Oklahoma won't be welcome in the PAC-12? Talk about cultural disparity!

2. Geography-2. Let's take the PAC-12, the Big Ten, and the SEC as givens. How would it possibly make sense to form a 4th conference out of remnants of the Big 12, the ACC and the Big East?


I think these are the key points. Everyone screams 4 16 team super conferences, but no one seems to be able to lay out a realistic path that would lead to such an outcome. If we accept certain known realities, it seems impossible for it to happen, as you have pointed out.

I think before anyone goes on simulating what could possibly happen, you have to come up with certain rules

1) no one is leaving the B10 or the SEC.
2) it may be impossible for someone to leave the B12 due to the rights deal.

that being the case, the fourth conference would need to magically span the Pac10, and whatever is left of the east coast conferences....and why in the world would the pac10 invite anyone on the east coast?

If you consider what would be worst case for what i'm going to call the big east coast conference, it still doesn't end up in extinction for that conference.

Worst case: big10 takes 2 more, big12 takes 6 more, SEC takes 2 more, and ALL of those 10 teams come from the east coast).

So the ACC currently has 12 football teams, and the big east has some 9 reasonable teams (including the texas and florida teams yet to join)....so even if they lost 10 of those, which is unlikely on its own, there would still be 11 left. It would be insane to think that they wouldn't be able to cobble together a conference out of those 11 teams...and enough of those schools would be big name schools that it would still be able to command some sort of TV deal, even if it was not as high powered.

Here's how i think it would shake out in this worst case:

FSU and Clemson to the SEC
Houston, BSU, TCU, SMU, Memphis, Louisville to the Big 12 (in reality they wouldn't take all of these teams....making it unlikely they could reach 16)
Pitt and GT to the big 10 (banking on the fact that NC would not allow UNC and NCSU to split)

so who does that leave?
BC
Duke
Miami
UNC
NCSU
UVA
VT
Wake
Syracuse
Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
South Florida
Central Florida

That sounds like a pretty viable conference to me...and regardless of which teams leave for the 3 other conferences, you will still be able to make a conference....and that is comforting.

superdave
11-22-2012, 01:43 PM
Here's how i think it would shake out in this worst case:

FSU and Clemson to the SEC
Houston, BSU, TCU, SMU, Memphis, Louisville to the Big 12 (in reality they wouldn't take all of these teams....making it unlikely they could reach 16)
Pitt and GT to the big 10 (banking on the fact that NC would not allow UNC and NCSU to split)

so who does that leave?
BC
Duke
Miami
UNC
NCSU
UVA
VT
Wake
Syracuse
Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
South Florida
Central Florida

That sounds like a pretty viable conference to me...and regardless of which teams leave for the 3 other conferences, you will still be able to make a conference....and that is comforting.

See, that's the point I'm making. This is a viable conference, but no longer a power conference. It's a step down. This resembles the Big East of the last 5 years. Sometimes they had pretty good football teams, although never competing for a title. But it's more of a basketball conference.

The major issue: This assemblage of teams will not be invited to play in a BCS championship playoff.

I want to be driving the ship, not riding along in the dinghey. If anyone can pull it off, it's John Swofford.

uh_no
11-22-2012, 01:58 PM
See, that's the point I'm making. This is a viable conference, but no longer a power conference. It's a step down. This resembles the Big East of the last 5 years. Sometimes they had pretty good football teams, although never competing for a title. But it's more of a basketball conference.

The major issue: This assemblage of teams will not be invited to play in a BCS championship playoff.

I want to be driving the ship, not riding along in the dinghey. If anyone can pull it off, it's John Swofford.

I think, unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. The ACC exists in its current form at the grace of the other conferences. If the SEC of Big10 wanted any of our schools, they're gone. I don't think there is any way that is going to change.

It's not based around basketball, it's based on the leftover football schools. There are no basketball only schools in there.

We don't hold any cards. We can poach as many big east teams as we like, but it won't stop the other leagues from poaching us.

Newton_14
11-22-2012, 02:09 PM
I think, unfortunately, that ship has already sailed. The ACC exists in its current form at the grace of the other conferences. If the SEC of Big10 wanted any of our schools, they're gone. I don't think there is any way that is going to change.

It's not based around basketball, it's based on the leftover football schools. There are no basketball only schools in there.

We don't hold any cards. We can poach as many big east teams as we like, but it won't stop the other leagues from poaching us.

Unless ESPN changes the game by upping the ACC TV package. That would stop the poaching as it would take away the incentive to leave.

Class of '94
11-22-2012, 02:52 PM
Unless ESPN changes the game by upping the ACC TV package. That would stop the poaching as it would take away the incentive to leave.

In hindsight, the only thing I wished the ACC could have been out in front of and proactive with was establishing its own network like the BTN. IMO, that has been the difference maker for the BIG 10, not their football. At this point, I hope the league is revisiting starting up their own network. I know the SEC will roll out theirs soon. The ACC could enhance their partnership with Raycom to do it imo. And you have to hand it to the BIG. Eight years ago, no one thought it would work and now it has becomes the difference maker for them. IMO, the BIG's football hasn't been that good or relevant nationally for years; but their making money because of their network. Long-term, I don't think the SEC's new tv deals will put them ahead of the BIG because of the BTN. I know the LHN and the PAC-12 network is struggling to get up and running (and it may never hit the financial goals that was expected, which makes the BTN's success all that more remarkable); but imo, for the ACC to survive and thrive long-term, it has to figure out a long-term move involving new, creative/innovative revenue streams that puts them on an equal playing field with the BIG; and imo it's not solely about football and building up its brand in football.

For me, I'm encouraged that the ACC could do it since imo it wasn't football that created their advantage, it was a conference tv network that strategically stockpiled important, desirable (2nd tier) rivalry games (like Mich vs Mich St) to create the incentive for people to complain to the cable-providers to get their the network at a time where cable providers and satellite companies was balking at the prices. ESPN did it for ESPN2 by putting certain highly desirable channels on ESPN2 (and to a lesser extent ESPNU) to force cable providers to add the channel in order to allow people to see UNC vs Duke basketball games. If the ACC could work with ESPN to allow them to do something similar by creating its own network and initially putting desirable games on that channel that could only be sen by getting that channel. The incentive for ESPN could be a profit-sharing one. And desirable/rivalry games like (Duke-UNC, UNC/Duke vs Pitt/Syracuse/ND, Syracuse/BC vs UConn in basketball and FLA ST vs MIA or Clemson vs ND football games) could initially be on the channel and then one a strong base has been established, go to putting least desirable games on the channel (a la what the BTN is doing now).

I've been in BIG country now for over 6 years and was forced to get the BIG when it was initially launched; and I'm telling you that what I wrote above was their initial strategy (and nothing new btw....the NFL network did something similar to get cable providers to add them to their packages) to add viewers and cable/satellite subscribers. I believe it could work the ACC as well; or at the very least, the conference needs to think of something that could grow and give them long-term big potential boosts in their finances that is outside of just adding more schools in the hope to get ESPN to tweak their tv deal for more money. That strategy will only go so far and long-term will not compete against the BTN imo.

ForkFondler
11-22-2012, 02:56 PM
Here's how i think it would shake out in this worst case:

FSU and Clemson to the SEC
Houston, BSU, TCU, SMU, Memphis, Louisville to the Big 12 (in reality they wouldn't take all of these teams....making it unlikely they could reach 16)
Pitt and GT to the B1G (banking on the fact that NC would not allow UNC and NCSU to split)

The only one of those things that is likely to happen is Louisville to the B12. As for the rest, the SEC and the B1G want to add markets. The SEC would like an NC and a Virginia team. So would the B10, if those two schools were UNC and UVA. But the B10 doesn't want to share a state with the SEC, and I don't think Virginia would do it. Also, as they bring in far more cable subscribers, I think the B10 is more interested in Syracuse and BC than Pitt. GT fits their economic model, so maybe the B1G takes them with UNC as part of a southern move:

So here's my worst case scenario: NCState and VT to the SEC, UNC/GT to the B10. If that happens, I see two main possibilities for the remaining nine teams:

1. Merge with the B12. The ACC becomes the eastern division of a 16, 18, or even a 20 team conference. This could happen either a formal merger, or 6-8 teams leave Wake and maybe two others behind. I think Duke would be in even with 6, but we might have to accept WVa on our schedule after all. Intradivisional play would dominate the regular season, of course. Maybe West Virginia ends up in the ACC after all.

2. Play the Notre Dame card. Let Notre Dame design the conference they would like to be in. Add the Navy/G-Town and Army/St Johns hybrids. If Notre Dame is coming, maybe Northwestern and Vandy could be pried away. The B1G and SEC would probably pay them to leave. If the ACC forks over some exit fee money too, it might be worth $100 mil to them to switch.

uh_no
11-22-2012, 03:16 PM
Unless ESPN changes the game by upping the ACC TV package. That would stop the poaching as it would take away the incentive to leave.

Why would the ACC up the tv package for a bunch of teams that are largely not relevant nationally, have not won a BCS bowl, and do not have as huge fanbases as some of the other leagues?

People here will try to argue that the ACC is relevant, but I can't see it.

I watch ACC football because of duke. I don't think I would care if it weren't for duke. Maybe the perception is different elsewhere.

Newton_14
11-22-2012, 05:55 PM
Why would the ACC up the tv package for a bunch of teams that are largely not relevant nationally, have not won a BCS bowl, and do not have as huge fanbases as some of the other leagues?

People here will try to argue that the ACC is relevant, but I can't see it.

I watch ACC football because of duke. I don't think I would care if it weren't for duke. Maybe the perception is different elsewhere.

Because it has nothing to do with the quality of the football. We just learned that with the Big 10 poaching two horrible football programs..

roywhite
11-22-2012, 06:15 PM
Why would the ACC up the tv package for a bunch of teams that are largely not relevant nationally, have not won a BCS bowl, and do not have as huge fanbases as some of the other leagues?

People here will try to argue that the ACC is relevant, but I can't see it.

I watch ACC football because of duke. I don't think I would care if it weren't for duke. Maybe the perception is different elsewhere.

Florida State would be unbeaten and quite possibly headed to the BCS championship game were it not for a 17-16 to a middling NCSU team. The Seminoles now appear to be back to the level we saw 15 or 20 years ago.

I have a hard time picturing the ACC imploding. Why would UNC, for example, want to be in the B1G? I can't think of a reason in the world except for TV revenue. The geography is wrong, the rivalries would be gone, the basketball tradition would be damaged, and the culture doesn't fit.

sporthenry
11-22-2012, 06:18 PM
Why would the ACC up the tv package for a bunch of teams that are largely not relevant nationally, have not won a BCS bowl, and do not have as huge fanbases as some of the other leagues?

People here will try to argue that the ACC is relevant, but I can't see it.

I watch ACC football because of duke. I don't think I would care if it weren't for duke. Maybe the perception is different elsewhere.

Well I'm not sure how the TV contracts work regarding losing teams. So if the ACC loses FSU/Clemson, is there TV deal voided or is it worth less? But I think the belief behind this is that the ACC as it stands now isn't getting market value so ESPN is getting some type of deal. However, if this doesn't change and the ACC as a football conference either dissolves or loses VT, FSU, Clemson, etc. then ESPN is SOL along with the ACC. They have tied themselves to the ACC as much as the ACC has tied themselves to ESPN. So it behooves ESPN to sweeten the pot a little or else they'll have a conference without Clemson/FSU.

As I said, not sure if ESPN has an out clause if this happens and ESPN could just wait until the contract runs out (although that is a long time) and then go after other conferences. I sort of understand where this is coming from but it seems like a long shot. Especially since the only conference that ESPN doesn't have tier 1 rights to is the SEC so losing teams to B1G or B12 wouldn't be felt as much since they'll still get FSU/Clemson games in presumably more interesting games than they currently have in the ACC but the problem being they'd have a conference on their payroll which provides few if any good games.

ForkFondler
11-22-2012, 06:32 PM
The thing is, cable contracts don't work like network contracts. ESPN and other networks get most of their money from advertising, which depends on how many people actually watch. The BTN is not like that. Under CURRENT cable subscription agreements, it doesn't matter whether anyone watches or not. It's a scam. It won't last. Maryland is screwed.

ice-9
11-22-2012, 09:39 PM
You stated it better than me. Thanks. I did want to use the shock factor there though, because people need to realize it is very important to get a seat at the big boy table. It is critical actually. Look, I hate what is going on. Hate it hate hate it. They are ruining college sports as we know and love it. If we get to the 4/64 and they take the drastic measure of breaking from the NCAA and creating their own March Madness tourney leaving out not only Cinderella, but the traditional hoop powers like Georgetown, I think will be done with college sports. Hopefully it never gets to that, but it is being discussed.

The danger is very real, but I think far more for football than basketball.

Assuming this 4/64 club gets formed, most likely, they wouldn't compete directly with the NCAA Tournament -- they would simply cut out their legs by 1) requiring all 64 of their own clubs to only play in their own tournament, and then 2) extending at-large invitations to the non-4/64. If Duke was stuck on the outside, would they rather join a tournament with 64 teams from power conferences plus a selection of the best mid-majors, or an antiquated NCAA Tournament consisting of only mid-majors? It would be an easy decision. It's not in the 4/64's interest to prevent schools like Duke, Georgetown, etc. from competing.

Now in football, it'll be a different matter, because pretty much any viable football program will be part of that 4/64 club (when all the conference reshuffling is said and done). They'll be in the driver's seat there. I don't think it'll ever get as ridiculous as a 64 team play-off, but an 8 team play-off with each conference contributing two teams sounds doable and frankly an improvement over the current system.

toooskies
11-23-2012, 12:27 AM
The fun thing about all this is, Duke and UNC actually do command reasonable basketball revenue. Enough revenue, probably, to make up for their football teams for any conference. But the rivalry itself is important enough to that revenue that they'll never split. Just not worth it.

If anything, the SEC could grab both, claim to be the best football conference AND the best basketball conference (Duke/UNC/KY/Florida is pretty top-heavy), while bringing in more patsies for the big football schools. Which means more undefeated seasons and more SEC-SEC BCS title games. Plus a new market.

Good thing Duke is too good for that... But UNC might be up for joining the Situatinal Ethics Conference.

Matches
11-23-2012, 08:01 AM
Really? So how does Memphis consistently compete on a National Level? How about Gonzaga? VCU? Butler? Xavier? The list can go on but conference isn't all that matters.

None of those programs are anywhere close to Duke's level. Gonzaga's probably the closest and they've never played in a Final Four. I like and respect a lot of those schools but none of them are Duke. Butler played in the CBI last year. Can you imagine what this board would look like after even one season where we weren't good enough to get in the NIT? There's certainly nothing *wrong* with being VCU or Xavier, but if in ten years Duke has become VCU, it will have been a major step down.



Additionally, if everything breaks against Duke, they'll still land on their feet in basketball in a league with Georgetown, Villanova, Pitt, Syracuse, etc. You are telling me that TV channels wouldn't want to televise that conference?

I'm sure it would be on TV somewhere, but it wouldn't command anywhere near the TV dollars that the ACC does currently. And even assuming it produced a good product (which I think it would at least at first), I really doubt there would be much national interest in it. Less TV $ impacts our bottom line, which affects our program in a variety of ways. I'm not saying such a thing isn't viable, because it may well be - but it's not an equal substitute for what we're at now.

Papa John
11-23-2012, 12:51 PM
The thing is, cable contracts don't work like network contracts. ESPN and other networks get most of their money from advertising, which depends on how many people actually watch. The BTN is not like that. Under CURRENT cable subscription agreements, it doesn't matter whether anyone watches or not. It's a scam. It won't last. Maryland is screwed.

This is why it would be a bad idea for the ACC to emulate the B1G... Under the current model, that money is guaranteed, but the trend in media delivery is going in the other direction, towards a la carte offerings. When that happens, networks like the Longhorns Network and the B1G are screwed, because not many people actually want to pay for them, so their revenue will immediately evaporate. So adding the NY/NJ and DC/Baltimore metro markets becomes a moronic move, because both of those markets are pro towns—in an a la carte world, the revenue gained by adding these markets will be marginal at best.

sporthenry
11-23-2012, 01:22 PM
None of those programs are anywhere close to Duke's level. Gonzaga's probably the closest and they've never played in a Final Four. I like and respect a lot of those schools but none of them are Duke. Butler played in the CBI last year. Can you imagine what this board would look like after even one season where we weren't good enough to get in the NIT? There's certainly nothing *wrong* with being VCU or Xavier, but if in ten years Duke has become VCU, it will have been a major step down.




I'm sure it would be on TV somewhere, but it wouldn't command anywhere near the TV dollars that the ACC does currently. And even assuming it produced a good product (which I think it would at least at first), I really doubt there would be much national interest in it. Less TV $ impacts our bottom line, which affects our program in a variety of ways. I'm not saying such a thing isn't viable, because it may well be - but it's not an equal substitute for what we're at now.

Memphis is pretty close to Duke's level and they are in C-USA who is barely on TV. I couldn't find Memphis on TV last year yet they do pretty well. Gonzaga hasn't missed the tournament since 1999. Xavier hasn't missed since 2005. For comparison, UNC didn't make the tourney in 2010, UK in 2009 so missing the tournament isn't unheard of. Using Butler isn't exactly fair because Stevens hasn't reaped the rewards from a recruiting standpoint of his final 4. We'll see how things change going forward besides, he also lost a top 10 pick which has crippled BCS programs before.

And I would disagree about commanding the same amount of money. Sure football drives the money so from that standpoint, they would make less but as a college basketball league, they could make as much if not more. You could pick and choose the teams you'd want. Putting teams like Georgetown, Cuse, Pitt, Memphis, VCU, Butler to replace teams like Clemson or Georgia Tech would be a win from a basketball standpoint.

And national interest is all based on good teams. Weekly top 10-top 20 match ups including Cinderellas (although Butler/VCU would probably shed those titles) would appear to be TV gold. Not to mention, the article previously cited had Duke as the most popular team in the country. Duke is the closest thing to ND in football and probably has more haters who seem to drive viewership more than actual fans.

Another thing to add to is that most schools are either-or in the sense they are either football schools or basketball schools. Duke and UNC are basketball schools. UK is a basketball school. Alabama and LSU are football schools. Yes, there are some exceptions but on the whole, many of the fans who drive football viewership aren't as interested in basketball hence why Penn State isn't a great basketball program and you hardly see them on TV. The new conference would be full of basketball driven schools so perhaps Georgetown and Memphis don't graduate the droves of students that state schools do but 20k of alumni who are dedicated fans are better than whoever goes to a Penn State basketball game.

TexHawk
11-23-2012, 04:03 PM
And national interest is all based on good teams. Weekly top 10-top 20 match ups including Cinderellas (although Butler/VCU would probably shed those titles) would appear to be TV gold. Not to mention, the article previously cited had Duke as the most popular team in the country. Duke is the closest thing to ND in football and probably has more haters who seem to drive viewership more than actual fans.

As a frame of reference, one of last year's Duke/UNC games (both Top 10 teams) drew a 2.2 rating for ESPN. That was the best rating for ESPN CBB in over 5 years.

Notre Dame/Michigan in September drew double that. Last weekend, Stanford/Oregon was almost triple.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-23-2012, 04:15 PM
Memphis is pretty close to Duke's level and they are in C-USA who is barely on TV.

I completely disagree. Memphis has built a nice little program, but there are only a handful who are "pretty close to Duke's level." And you don't even have to think for ten seconds to come up with them - if they aren't on the tip of you tongue, they aren't at that point.

However, part of the very reason they aren't is because they are in C-USA and barely on TV. The reason Duke is Duke is because they are almost ALWAYS on ESPN, they are almost ALWAYS a #1 seed, they have the best coach in history, and cycle McDonald's All-American's through like it was their job.

This isn't to disparage Memphis, but if we look back in ten years and have a program on par with Memphis, there's no way that it won't be disappointing to me.

/Go Duke

Class of '94
11-23-2012, 04:17 PM
As a frame of reference, one of last year's Duke/UNC games (both Top 10 teams) drew a 2.2 rating for ESPN. That was the best rating for ESPN CBB in over 5 years.

Notre Dame/Michigan in September drew double that. Last weekend, Stanford/Oregon was almost triple.

But the general point that sportshenry is making is still correct imo in that good matchups (be at football or basketball) will draw viewers; and I think the ACC has to continue to choose teams that create compelling matchups in sports like football and basketball. And I think that's where the BIG could potentially trip itself up. By focusing on just tv markets w/out considering compelling matchups, the BIG essentially dilutes its product (and again I keep harping on this but BIG hasn't been good or relevant for years); and if the ACC makes the right choices and come up with new and creative revenue streams to go with those compelling matchups, the ACC can close ground on the BIG.

TheDevilMadeMeDoIt
11-23-2012, 04:20 PM
This is why it would be a bad idea for the ACC to emulate the B1G... Under the current model, that money is guaranteed, but the trend in media delivery is going in the other direction, towards a la carte offerings. When that happens, networks like the Longhorns Network and the B1G are screwed, because not many people actually want to pay for them, so their revenue will immediately evaporate. So adding the NY/NJ and DC/Baltimore metro markets becomes a moronic move, because both of those markets are pro towns—in an a la carte world, the revenue gained by adding these markets will be marginal at best.

I think we have a trump card that is not being talked about. If I am correct the Big 10 is tied into fox sports, while the SEC football is tied in with CBS, and isn't the PAC whatever tied in with FOX? If that is correct, then the big kahuna of sports, ESPN, has a vested interest in seeing the ACC survive. I know they have the Big 12, but except for Texas that is a lot of square miles, but not many people. The ACC is the whole East coast, a LOT OF PEOPLE. I also agree that if a la carte pricing takes hold the BIG Network is screwed. I also just heard someone on ESPN talking about how the loss of rivalries will eventually impact ticket sales, something that the Maryland totally failed to consider. I am more in the camp of take a step back and see how this plays out. If the BCS does try to go to only 4 super conferences, I see Boise State and others on the outside filing anti trust case against the BCS. Maybe even Congress gets involved. This would be a non partisan issue as football schools all over the country would be angry at being excluded.

sporthenry
11-23-2012, 06:27 PM
I completely disagree. Memphis has built a nice little program, but there are only a handful who are "pretty close to Duke's level." And you don't even have to think for ten seconds to come up with them - if they aren't on the tip of you tongue, they aren't at that point.

However, part of the very reason they aren't is because they are in C-USA and barely on TV. The reason Duke is Duke is because they are almost ALWAYS on ESPN, they are almost ALWAYS a #1 seed, they have the best coach in history, and cycle McDonald's All-American's through like it was their job.

This isn't to disparage Memphis, but if we look back in ten years and have a program on par with Memphis, there's no way that it won't be disappointing to me.

/Go Duke

Well part of what makes Duke, Duke or in that group of teams that are on the tip of your tongue is because Duke has been Duke for 25+ years. It is hard to draw a comparison to Duke because they are a blue blood but my main point of contention was that Duke could still have success just like Memphis has had. Since 2007, Duke is 11-5 in the NCAAT, in that same time, Memphis has been 10-5, Xavier has been 10-6. Yes, Duke has the 1 win that truly matters but if Rose hits a FT, Memphis has a better record. There is no reason to think Duke won't be able to compete without being part of the 4 conferences, especially with K and teams like Cuse and Pitt.

sporthenry
11-23-2012, 06:50 PM
But the general point that sportshenry is making is still correct imo in that good matchups (be at football or basketball) will draw viewers; and I think the ACC has to continue to choose teams that create compelling matchups in sports like football and basketball. And I think that's where the BIG could potentially trip itself up. By focusing on just tv markets w/out considering compelling matchups, the BIG essentially dilutes its product (and again I keep harping on this but BIG hasn't been good or relevant for years); and if the ACC makes the right choices and come up with new and creative revenue streams to go with those compelling matchups, the ACC can close ground on the BIG.

Agreed. Nobody is arguing the ratings are that comparable but one other thing to note is that you also get 30 Duke games a year. I'm sure the single games bring in more money but TV stations need something to show in the winter and 30 games averaging 1 million viewers might be around 10 games averaging 3 million viewers. I also agree that the B1G is possibly diluting itself but someone did bring up that they can't just add a bunch of good programs b/c then you have situations like this where the SEC has several 1 loss teams b/c the conference is too strong. But if that is the case and the SEC wants a team in the East to balance out Vandy both academically and from a football standpoint, can't think of another team.

I think there is some concern from a Duke football standpoint but I just don't see the basketball program dying. Sure Duke/Cuse or Duke/Pitt don't sound the same as a Duke/UNC but it sure beats the hell out of a Penn State/Rutgers tilt. It seems like half of the big 4 conference teams would be average to bad at basketball and even with the monopoly, I don't see them overtaking the Dukes of the world. Heck, Duke/Georgetown drew a 1.6 overnight 2 years ago.

ForkFondler
11-23-2012, 06:57 PM
This is why it would be a bad idea for the ACC to emulate the B1G...

Actually, I think the ACC should have a cable network. But, the revenue expectations need to be very tempered.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-23-2012, 07:20 PM
Well part of what makes Duke, Duke or in that group of teams that are on the tip of your tongue is because Duke has been Duke for 25+ years. It is hard to draw a comparison to Duke because they are a blue blood but my main point of contention was that Duke could still have success just like Memphis has had. Since 2007, Duke is 11-5 in the NCAAT, in that same time, Memphis has been 10-5, Xavier has been 10-6. Yes, Duke has the 1 win that truly matters but if Rose hits a FT, Memphis has a better record. There is no reason to think Duke won't be able to compete without being part of the 4 conferences, especially with K and teams like Cuse and Pitt.

But the point is that Duke has more than a 5 year history. They have sustained excellence for generations. Are they mid-majors who can claim that? There have always been teams like Cincinnati, Davidson, Memphis, Gonzaga, Butler, UNLV.... but those programs have more down years and don't tend to keep their place at the top. Duke has been in the top 10 of the AP poll how many weeks in a row now?

I think that being forced into a mid-major conference would be disastrous. Our fan base is accustomed to excellence. We have message board meltdowns when we only win by single digits. Can you imagine if we were suddenly struggling for tournament bids and playing home and home with Dayton and Wichita State instead of UNC, FSU, VaTech? Do you think teams like OSU will play us if we aren't in a ACC/Big Ten Challenge? Do you think we can recruit to a conference that plays twice a year against George Mason on regional television instead of NC State on ESPN?

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't imagine Duke remaining Duke if they took a path of a Memphis in the C-USA. The mystique, the history, the name would all be lessened.

Go Duke

sporthenry
11-23-2012, 09:23 PM
But the point is that Duke has more than a 5 year history. They have sustained excellence for generations. Are they mid-majors who can claim that? There have always been teams like Cincinnati, Davidson, Memphis, Gonzaga, Butler, UNLV.... but those programs have more down years and don't tend to keep their place at the top. Duke has been in the top 10 of the AP poll how many weeks in a row now?

I think that being forced into a mid-major conference would be disastrous. Our fan base is accustomed to excellence. We have message board meltdowns when we only win by single digits. Can you imagine if we were suddenly struggling for tournament bids and playing home and home with Dayton and Wichita State instead of UNC, FSU, VaTech? Do you think teams like OSU will play us if we aren't in a ACC/Big Ten Challenge? Do you think we can recruit to a conference that plays twice a year against George Mason on regional television instead of NC State on ESPN?

I hope I'm wrong, but I can't imagine Duke remaining Duke if they took a path of a Memphis in the C-USA. The mystique, the history, the name would all be lessened.

Go Duke

But again, the ACC as it stands now is one blue blood in UNC along with Duke. The ACC is a good conference but teams like UMD or NC State haven't exactly lit the world on fire. So it isn't like their playing partner prestige matters. Additionally, you would be joining a conference with the likes of Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Georgetown, etc. Those aren't mid majors. Sure you could round it out with Butlers or VCUs but I could see Duke coming out of that with a better basketball conference overall then they've had in the past 3-4 years.

I understand the difference between mid majors and the blue bloods is sustained success but that had to start somewhere. When Duke hired a 33 year old, were they considered a blue blood?

As far as scheduling, it depends upon what happens. If the 64 freeze everyone out or what. But I don't think Duke will ever have a problem with scheduling. The only reason people wouldn't want to schedule Duke is b/c of fear which is why many teams fear scheduling VCU or Butler in home and homes. But the interest a Duke brings to town is huge. Just look at Maryland where they riot for winning or losing to Duke.

Besides, how many teams versus top BCS teams does Duke play in a year? They play one in the B1G/ACC challenge, 1-2 in preseason tourneys, 1 in the Champions classic and sometimes they'll add another like Georgetown but usually their OOC schedule is riddled with top mid majors. So your conference would be as good if not better from a basketball standpoint and worst case is their OOC would be full of teams like Gonzaga (which Duke has played in New York, presumably over other BCS schools).

sagegrouse
11-23-2012, 10:43 PM
The ACC makes a huge difference to Duke athletics. Let's look at finances.

ESPN's data, no later than 2008, shows that Duke was #25 with $68 million in revenue (not broken down, but including donations). It was SECOND in the ACC, just below FSU (#22). The highest ranking Big East team was UConn at #43 with $55 million in revenues. The highest ranking non-BCS conference member was TCU (now in the Big 12) at #58.

There is probably more recent data out there, although there is always a lag due to delays in reporting.

Anyway, how would you like to run the Duke athletic program with 20 percent fewer dollars (best case)? Or, 50 percent fewer (worst case)? It would not be pretty, and our pride and joy -- the basketball program -- would not be immune to cuts. And managing such reductions will be a serious downer, casting a pall over all of Duke athletics.

Football would not be most heavily hit: the Olympic sports would be a disaster area. Donations overall and to athletics are likely to drop. Basketball will not have the same cachet, being in a different conference from UNC and our traditional rivals.

And you might scoff and say, "This won't necessarily happen" if the ACC dissolves or becomes a much weaker conference. But it well might. Neither Duke nor its fans should want to take the risk.

sagegrouse

lotusland
11-24-2012, 11:18 AM
The ACC makes a huge difference to Duke athletics. Let's look at finances.

ESPN's data, no later than 2008, shows that Duke was #25 with $68 million in revenue (not broken down, but including donations). It was SECOND in the ACC, just below FSU (#22). The highest ranking Big East team was UConn at #43 with $55 million in revenues. The highest ranking non-BCS conference member was TCU (now in the Big 12) at #58.

There is probably more recent data out there, although there is always a lag due to delays in reporting.

Anyway, how would you like to run the Duke athletic program with 20 percent fewer dollars (best case)? Or, 50 percent fewer (worst case)? It would not be pretty, and our pride and joy -- the basketball program -- would not be immune to cuts. And managing such reductions will be a serious downer, casting a pall over all of Duke athletics.

Football would not be most heavily hit: the Olympic sports would be a disaster area. Donations overall and to athletics are likely to drop. Basketball will not have the same cachet, being in a different conference from UNC and our traditional rivals.

And you might scoff and say, "This won't necessarily happen" if the ACC dissolves or becomes a much weaker conference. But it well might. Neither Duke nor its fans should want to take the risk.

sagegrouse

I don't think duke fans have any say in it but stupid is as stupid does so I'd rather duke not do anything stupid to perpetuate the madness. I'm not going to have a panic attack about the potential demise of the program either way

Class of '94
11-24-2012, 07:18 PM
Airowe retweeted a tweet from Chip Brown in which he stated he's hearing that the BIG is not finished with expansion. It will be interesting to see if this plays into the ACC's decision(s) on who they invite. I doubt anyone at the ACC office would be surprised to hear that (if in fact it is true). Heck, even K said he would n't be surprised if there was more movement, I really hope the league can keep the remaining teams together; and despite my strong dislike for UNC, I do not want to see them leave with for the BIG along with GT or UVA (or even Duke for that matter). With Delaney's connection to UNC, I can see him trying to pry them away to feed that BTN machine. Also, GT is looking for a new AD who could have no previous ties to the ACC; and GT basketball HC has ties to IZZO and Mich St. So I could see GT being vulnerable to and desirable by the BIG (for their tv market).

The ACC may need (as others have suggested) to be even more proactive and go to 16 FB playing schools; and pick schools with compelling athletic programs like both Louisville and Uconn together (as opposed to one or the other). And Cincinnati has good FB and BB teams. I'm not saying I like it but I want the ACC to survive and maintain its status as a power conference (even if it oscillates between the 4th and 5th best power conference in FB; I think this year the ACC has been ranked 4th with BIG being really bad this year),

Papa John
11-25-2012, 12:02 PM
Airowe retweeted a tweet from Chip Brown in which he stated he's hearing that the BIG is not finished with expansion. It will be interesting to see if this plays into the ACC's decision(s) on who they invite. I doubt anyone at the ACC office would be surprised to hear that (if in fact it is true). Heck, even K said he would n't be surprised if there was more movement, I really hope the league can keep the remaining teams together; and despite my strong dislike for UNC, I do not want to see them leave with for the BIG along with GT or UVA (or even Duke for that matter). With Delaney's connection to UNC, I can see him trying to pry them away to feed that BTN machine. Also, GT is looking for a new AD who could have no previous ties to the ACC; and GT basketball HC has ties to IZZO and Mich St. So I could see GT being vulnerable to and desirable by the BIG (for their tv market).

The ACC may need (as others have suggested) to be even more proactive and go to 16 FB playing schools; and pick schools with compelling athletic programs like both Louisville and Uconn together (as opposed to one or the other). And Cincinnati has good FB and BB teams. I'm not saying I like it but I want the ACC to survive and maintain its status as a power conference (even if it oscillates between the 4th and 5th best power conference in FB; I think this year the ACC has been ranked 4th with BIG being really bad this year),

I'd go after Pitt and Syracuse, before they officially begin playing as members of the ACC (the other possibility would be to go after UNC and UVa, but I think that would be more difficult to pull off). That would be the most decisive blow that he could deal to the ACC, as this would put the conference in chaos. FSU (and perhaps Clemson) would likely reopen talks with the Big 12, ND would rethink its new agreement, and this chain of events might provide the SEC with the opportunity to lure VaTech and one of the NC schools away (State, perhaps?).

Meanwhile, I hope MD athletics continues to bleed red ink for years to come as a result of this move... It's entirely possible that their decision could spell the end of both the ACC and the Big East conferences (I personally don't have confidence in Swofford's leadership—I think he negotiated a bad television contract, and the agreement with ND isn't set in stone by any means, so that doesn't provide the conference with much leverage if the B1G swoops in for another poaching attack)...

[Sorry, have my pessimist's hat on this morning]

And this is why I think the ACC needs to be proactive and go after the big fish that previously showed interest (Texas & Oklahoma).

wilko
11-25-2012, 12:19 PM
If I were the ACC commish, I'd look for ways to bump the revenue stream that don't include dinking around with the membership roster.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
I'd explore streaming ACC live sports thru Netflix or some other service along these lines.

As we move to a iTunes distribution model for TV content delivery on a either a monthly subscription or a'la cart viewing the ACC needs to be ahead of this curve and get its product out in front positioned for this trend. This will monkey up the B1G revenue projects based on an outdated system. This is the PLAY to make.

Class of '94
11-25-2012, 02:06 PM
I'd go after Pitt and Syracuse, before they officially begin playing as members of the ACC (the other possibility would be to go after UNC and UVa, but I think that would be more difficult to pull off). That would be the most decisive blow that he could deal to the ACC, as this would put the conference in chaos. FSU (and perhaps Clemson) would likely reopen talks with the Big 12, ND would rethink its new agreement, and this chain of events might provide the SEC with the opportunity to lure VaTech and one of the NC schools away (State, perhaps?).

Meanwhile, I hope MD athletics continues to bleed red ink for years to come as a result of this move... It's entirely possible that their decision could spell the end of both the ACC and the Big East conferences (I personally don't have confidence in Swofford's leadership—I think he negotiated a bad television contract, and the agreement with ND isn't set in stone by any means, so that doesn't provide the conference with much leverage if the B1G swoops in for another poaching attack)...

[Sorry, have my pessimist's hat on this morning]

And this is why I think the ACC needs to be proactive and go after the big fish that previously showed interest (Texas & Oklahoma).

I thought about this as well; but I doubt the BIG will now make those types of movies involving Pitt and Syracuse because they now have MD and Rutgers; which in their mind increases their market exposure. With Penn St already in the fold, taking Pitt doesn't add anything and they believe Rutgers gives them the NY/NJ market so getting Syracuse now would be redundant. That said, if the intent was to cripple the ACC, taking Pitt and Syracuse now would be crippling; but it would also be a huge PR hit as well since the MD and Rutgers acquisitions have not gone over well in the BIG country and the DC area. Pitt and Syracuse doesn't give them anything football wise and would further dilute their football product.

UVA and UNC would be the better choices because it would still cripple the ACC while allowing the BIG to increase their markets for the BTN machine. The ACC has to keep everyone in the fold and it starts with holding MD to that 50 million exit fee. And if MD wants to drag it out through the courts, go for it; but it would most likely impact their ability to play in the BIG in the 2014 season and further drain their financial resources (even if the Under Armour guy pays the bills). The MD situation is one of few where the ACC imo has all the leverage and should use it to their advantage. Second, the ACC needs to make the Again, I'd take both Louisville and UConn at this point. Lastly, the ACC has to look at creating new revenue streams that will close the gap with the BTN. The BTN imo is the only competitive advantage the BIG has over the ACC right now.

Class of '94
11-25-2012, 02:15 PM
If I were the ACC commish, I'd look for ways to bump the revenue stream that don't include dinking around with the membership roster.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
I'd explore streaming ACC live sports thru Netflix or some other service along these lines.

As we move to a iTunes distribution model for TV content delivery on a either a monthly subscription or a'la cart viewing the ACC needs to be ahead of this curve and get its product out in front positioned for this trend. This will monkey up the B1G revenue projects based on an outdated system. This is the PLAY to make.

The ACC has to come up with creative and innovative revenue streams that are ahead of the curve (similar to what the BIG did). That said, they still have to add some teams imo to stabilize themselves with the departure of MD; and they may need to thoroughly look into the potential of an ACC network channel at this point to see what the income and growth potential would be. While the netflix idea sounds intriguing; i would want the ACC to thoroughly examine all possibilities for revenue streams that could grow/expand and be very profitable quickly. While their is a belief that the programming models will be changing (with a'la cart, etc). how quickly will the new trends and models kick in and how much profit and growth potential will there be in the those new models. I am all for the ACC to be ahead of the curve; and I hope they do their research and make the right decisions in creating new revenue streams because i agree that the adding teams is not the long-term solution to stability and profitability for the ACC.

johnb
11-25-2012, 03:29 PM
I think we have a trump card that is not being talked about. If I am correct the Big 10 is tied into fox sports, while the SEC football is tied in with CBS, and isn't the PAC whatever tied in with FOX? If that is correct, then the big kahuna of sports, ESPN, has a vested interest in seeing the ACC survive. I know they have the Big 12, but except for Texas that is a lot of square miles, but not many people. The ACC is the whole East coast, a LOT OF PEOPLE. I also agree that if a la carte pricing takes hold the BIG Network is screwed. I also just heard someone on ESPN talking about how the loss of rivalries will eventually impact ticket sales, something that the Maryland totally failed to consider. I am more in the camp of take a step back and see how this plays out. If the BCS does try to go to only 4 super conferences, I see Boise State and others on the outside filing anti trust case against the BCS. Maybe even Congress gets involved. This would be a non partisan issue as football schools all over the country would be angry at being excluded.

in regard to the suggestion that the acc develop a cable network, sounds like we have one: espn.

in regards to other scenarios, featherston's front page article was terrrIfic, especially it's anti-hysteria. we lost a below-our-average program in MD and a non-conf program we didn't want in Rutgers. no big deal, and it won't be unless we lose a few of the football schools. but if we do losesome large schools, and if there becomes a mandate for 4 super conferences, then we merge an eastern alliance of8 teams with 8 teams from the big 12 region and presto, we're done...

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-26-2012, 05:50 PM
If I were the ACC commish, I'd look for ways to bump the revenue stream that don't include dinking around with the membership roster.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -
I'd explore streaming ACC live sports thru Netflix or some other service along these lines.

As we move to a iTunes distribution model for TV content delivery on a either a monthly subscription or a'la cart viewing the ACC needs to be ahead of this curve and get its product out in front positioned for this trend. This will monkey up the B1G revenue projects based on an outdated system. This is the PLAY to make.

I think this is a great idea, but I don't have any idea how the revenue would compare to television. I love that NBC Sports puts Sunday Night Football online. Why is it the only game of the week? ESPN has some bizarre algorithm for determining which games are available to the masses online. Fox and CBS seem to be very late to the game. Why not experiment with putting sports online? Why do you think people flock to Justin.tv or any of the other sketchy sites? It is because it's the only way to watch sometimes.

I'm just not sure how to maximize the profits from this. No reason the ACC shouldn't be on the leading edge though. I assume it would require extremely little overhead to launch.

I like it wilko.

opossum
11-26-2012, 11:19 PM
I just don't get the Virginia to the Big Ten talk. It's not a huge difference in money for UVA especially when you factor in the exit fee and ACC long term potential vs B1G, haven't heard anything about immediate athletic department debt there. And the supposed academic prestige of the B1G doesn't seem like it would be a factor for UVA the way it was for Maryland. Maryland is a fine school, but isn't thought of as on par with Michigan and UNC and Berkeley, even if it should be. I completely understand why the handful of conspirators behind the UMD decision thought it was a big step up academically. But UVA is already in that company without ever playing a down of football in the far midwest in November.

On digital distribution, isn't the ACC already moving on that? A much better bet than relying on cable subscription schemes (I'm sure $0.15 per subscriber for out-of-footprint and $0.90 for in-footprint was fine with the NY to DC cable companies right up until they added Rutgers and Maryland). So we have a Nebraska to New Jersey conference whose revenue depends on current content delivery methods and revenues remaining completely static for the next 15 years or the whole house of cards collapses versus a Boston to Miami (plus most of Notre Dame for now) conference that has kept its powder dry on content delivery. Unless it's a Scarecrow situation like Maryland where a rogue school President needs a CIC "diploma" to show that he is smart and has a more-money-than-sense booster to pick up the tab, or an immediate financial situation that makes it impossible to think long term, I don't know why anyone would leave the ACC for the Big Ten.

kingboozer
11-26-2012, 11:59 PM
If the ACC app could cover all the basketball and football games, I'd spend $15-20 bucks for it. I'd much rather be able to pick and choose my content versus having 100 channels I never watch. The TV revenue bubble will burst and make way for more digital distribution mark my word, making all this conference nonsense irrelevant.

opossum
11-27-2012, 12:07 AM
If the ACC app could cover all the basketball and football games, I'd spend $15-20 bucks for it. I'd much rather be able to pick and choose my content versus having 100 channels I never watch. The TV revenue bubble will burst and make way for more digital distribution mark my word, making all this conference nonsense irrelevant.

I'd pay $15-$20 a year and I'd cancel all the extra tiers on my cable plan. The only reason we got the extended plan was so I could watch Duke basketball games at home. In my experience an iPad in my lap is as good as a 37" TV across the room (and I could probably figure out how to get the game on to the tv if I wanted to).

kingboozer
11-27-2012, 01:53 AM
I'd pay $15-$20 a year and I'd cancel all the extra tiers on my cable plan. The only reason we got the extended plan was so I could watch Duke basketball games at home. In my experience an iPad in my lap is as good as a 37" TV across the room (and I could probably figure out how to get the game on to the tv if I wanted to).

Airplay with Apple TV, works beautifully to get content from iPhone/iPad to the TV. I would much rather have the option to pick and choose my sports as well as everything else on TV. We have hundreds of channels and MAYBE watch 20 of them consistently!

Class of '94
11-27-2012, 08:18 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-md-president-big-ten-move-deliberate/2012/11/26/a26ef4a0-380b-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html

Interesting interview with the MD President and confirms what many people thought in that his objection to the 50 million dollar exit fee was because he was already involved in plans to leave the ACC. The articles mentioned that the President formed a coalition of famous alumni, big boosters, politicians and administrators; and earned their favor in making the move. I wonder who, outside of Gary Williams, were the famous alumni to support this move because it sure didn't include Lefty or Elmore; and apparently others who were strongly associated with MD.

IN many ways, the President comes across as contradictory. On the one hand, he says the ACC is a strong conference and MD is a proud member; and that he was always willing to walk away from the "deal"; yet, he repeatedly states that he wanted the deal to work, MD officials initiated subsequent meetings when they didn't hear from the BIG; and that both sides moved quickly once information about their potential move started to leak; and the President was afraid the deal would be ruined as word started leaking out.

The main thing from that article that concerns me is that Loh said he was blown away by the projections of the BIG's expansion beyond 12 schools; and with the supposed opening of an east coast office, I have to believe the BIG plans to initiate (if not done so already) a full court press for more ACC schools to expand their BTN profits. I'm sure MD was and is well aware of who else the BIG plans to target in the ACC; and it will be imperative for the ACC to keep everyone in the fold and not budge on the exit fee. The ACC, as many have mentioned before,will have to pick wisely to satisfy the remaining conference members and develop new revenues streams to counteract the BTN. I'm all for looking at taking advantage of a'la cart offerings. I just hope that shift occurs sooner or later because it won't hurt the BTN if that shift doesn't occur for 20 years.

If the BIG plans are based on poaching more ACC teams, I hope the league members will man-up and stick it to the BIG not joining them; and look at the BIG's encroachment onto the east coast as an invasion and declaration of war. Yes, I know we've done something similar to the Big East; and I'm not proud of it. But as a writer mentioned, the ACC's expansion has always been about survival and stability, the BIG moves are about greed and feeding their BTN machine imo; and if the league could hold strong and resist joining the BIG, I do think the ACC can eventually put a strop to the BIG's moves.

wilko
11-27-2012, 09:31 AM
I think this is a great idea, but I don't have any idea how the revenue would compare to television.

I'm just not sure how to maximize the profits from this. No reason the ACC shouldn't be on the leading edge though. I assume it would require extremely little overhead to launch.


I'd put everything on the negotiating table to try and make it go. Streaming ads, a'la cart per game - monthly subscription, dancing girls. Some combination of enrollment fee AND a'la cart subscription..

The beauty of this method of distribution is instead of projections and estimates - you have an EXACT click thru rate and KNOW who is getting what when. It would be a VERY targeted AD spend.


On digital distribution, isn't the ACC already moving on that? A much better bet than relying on cable subscription schemes.

I hope so. Where the heck is it?
I'll buy it and have it installed on all my devices and drop cable by EOD.

And here is and odd thought thats semi related to UMd leaving..
UNC and Duke voluntarily shared revenue. Since UMd is leaving do we have the right to ask for a portion of that shared revenue back?

A-Tex Devil
11-27-2012, 10:59 AM
Airplay with Apple TV, works beautifully to get content from iPhone/iPad to the TV. I would much rather have the option to pick and choose my sports as well as everything else on TV. We have hundreds of channels and MAYBE watch 20 of them consistently!

When I was defending the Longhorn Network last year, despite its lack of providers, it was because the network was created with the above in mind. ESPN was willing to give UT a ton of money to get a cable network started, but the end game was for Texas to have ESPN as a content distributor to give its fans and alumni across the nation access to *all* sports, as well as additional athletic department content using resources available to it in Austin. It's a long game, despite Mack's pissing and moaning.

I hope the ACC does the same thing -- uses ESPN as a distributor to allow people to pick and choose content based on a season pass or a la carte by sport or by game. If I'm a huge ACC swimming fan, for instance, the host school may set up cameras at the ACC championships, but get ESPN.com to distribute that through ESPN3 so that everyone that bought the ACC package, or the Duke Olympic Sports package, or the ACC swimming package, or just the ACC Swimming Championships on their own one off purchase, can stream the event live onto their 52 inch plasma.

-bdbd
11-27-2012, 12:38 PM
Tulane to the Big East (announcement coming later today); ECU Joining in FB-only.
How can the Big East honestly be considered a BCS conference anymore??
:confused:


http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/27/tulane-calls-press-conference-big-east-membership-coming/

BigWayne
11-27-2012, 12:50 PM
How can the Big East honestly be considered a BCS conference anymore??
:confused:


They are not. They are officially part of the "group of 5" other conferences in the new bowl alignment plan. This is why
Boise St and SDSU are thinking about jumping back to the MWC as they will now be equal to the Big East as far as BCS qualification.

wilko
11-27-2012, 01:04 PM
I hope the ACC does the same thing -- uses ESPN as a distributor to allow people to pick and choose content based on a season pass or a la carte by sport or by game. .

Whatever shape it takes - I think a true change (to bust up the B1G revenue stream model) would be based on the premise that you don't need TWC or Dish or Comcast or Cox content distribution. In other words: buy direct from (ESPN the school, or Conference), for the stream of the schools/games you want the most..

Leveraging ESPN in this way doesn't make it better, unless we can monkey up someone elses cash-flow.

sporthenry
11-27-2012, 01:41 PM
Whatever shape it takes - I think a true change (to bust up the B1G revenue stream model) would be based on the premise that you don't need TWC or Dish or Comcast or Cox content distribution. In other words: buy direct from (ESPN the school, or Conference), for the stream of the schools/games you want the most..

Leveraging ESPN in this way doesn't make it better, unless we can monkey up someone elses cash-flow.

I also don't see this working because I think a lot of people watching would be rather casual fans and I think this would make a lot of people question what they truly want. I would assume this would become the model for all TV, i.e. you pick and choose channels for a price but this would hurt tons of people because then nobody would discover anything. I'll never discover Duck Dynasty because it is on A&E and I'm not going to buy it. I like watching SEC football b/c it is good but if I had to pay for it, I'm not sure I would.

When you break things up like this, then people will think twice about what they really need and more times than not, cut things they currently watch. This would probably kill TV because people would recognize they don't truly need most of it. It reminds me of the argument against charging an up front fee at a college party. If every drink costs $1, then the marginal cost is the same, however, if it is all you can drink for $20, then drinking more decreases your marginal cost. But in this situation, the TV companies want you to drink more.

I think the biggest hit to the B1G current model will be that TV companies will soon realize that the new TV markets don't act the same as the old and they won't get the money they think they'll get b/c the NY and DC markets won't bring as much as the current Michigan market does percentage wise. However, by then, the ACC might be on life support or being led by Duke in football, at which point the ACC won't even be able to compete in a TV deal. So I guess we should just hope this bubble bursts quick before anyone else leaves.

-bdbd
11-27-2012, 03:13 PM
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/27/acc-files-contract-suit-against-departing-maryland/


The ACC has filed a contract suit in Greensboro, NC against departing member Maryland. This is in the hopes of collecting the $50M full departure fee. Kind of a sad day, but I am very glad that they are taking a hard stance. It'll impact the receptiveness of other programs that are approached by the likes of the Big10 and SEC and Big12....

BTW, kinda neat that NBC is quoting Duke Chronicle as the source of much of this info for a conference-wide story...

wilko
11-27-2012, 03:26 PM
I also don't see this working because I think a lot of people watching would be rather casual fans and I think this would make a lot of people question what they truly want. I would assume this would become the model for all TV, i.e. you pick and choose channels for a price but this would hurt tons of people because then nobody would discover anything. I'll never discover Duck Dynasty because it is on A&E and I'm not going to buy it. I like watching SEC football b/c it is good but if I had to pay for it, I'm not sure I would.
Maybe maybe not... less TV isn't necessarily bad.
I only watch ACC sports. (always Duke and a few other schools when they look like they are going to have a good year). I'm sedentary enough. I don't need another reason to keep my butt in the chair.



When you break things up like this, then people will think twice about what they really need and more times than not, cut things they currently watch. This would probably kill TV because people would recognize they don't truly need most of it. It reminds me of the argument against charging an up front fee at a college party. If every drink costs $1, then the marginal cost is the same, however, if it is all you can drink for $20, then drinking more decreases your marginal cost. But in this situation, the TV companies want you to drink more.

I've discovered TONS of things on Netflix that I never knew existed. That's why I thought piggy-backing on their distribution would be a slam dunk. You are right, it would be a tremendous pain in the hindquarters to pick thru everything from network and cable TV even IF you could afford it all.

In that case an aggregation service/process would be useful. However for my part, I can live w/o it. (And I can only speak for myself) - The ONLY reason for me to have cable is sports - IMHO. If I could make myself care less about sports, it wouldn't bother me to walk away from TV. In the conference realignment dance if Duke and or the ACC gets caught w/o a seat when the music stops.... that will do it for me and make it EASY to walk away and just not care.



So I guess we should just hope this bubble bursts quick before anyone else leaves.
All for that my friend!

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
11-27-2012, 04:41 PM
I know this is all worth the paper that it is printed on, but at least UNC is saying all the right things...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8683443/north-carolina-athletic-director-email-responds-realignment-rumors

BigWayne
11-27-2012, 06:54 PM
At least one article is up saying the ACC is not looking at any replacement schools yet as the lawsuit might make MD change their mind.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/48994/acc-lawsuit-against-maryland-a-sign-of-solidarity

johnb
11-27-2012, 07:06 PM
At least one article is up saying the ACC is not looking at any replacement schools yet as the lawsuit might make MD change their mind.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/48994/acc-lawsuit-against-maryland-a-sign-of-solidarity

If this is true, it's big news that ALL the ACC college presidents (current and near future) are lining up to back this approach. If Florida State et al were planning their own moves, I really can't see their presidents taking such a public stance. I don't worry that much about Maryland. If it's the only school to leave, and we replace them with a UConn, I'd say it's about even. And if they are semi-forced back into the fold, we wouldn't be the first relationship to get back together...

Olympic Fan
11-27-2012, 07:11 PM
If this is true, it's big news that ALL the ACC college presidents (current and near future) are lining up to back this approach. If Florida State et al were planning their own moves, I really can't see their presidents taking such a public stance. I don't worry that much about Maryland. If it's the only school to leave, and we replace them with a UConn, I'd say it's about even. And if they are semi-forced back into the fold, we wouldn't be the first relationship to get back together...

Agree with this POV ... hard to see schools thinking of leaving supporting the lawsuit to insist on a $50 million exit fee.

Also check out the links pointing to public statements by UNC and Virgini -- two schools reportedly targeted by other conferences -- reaffirming their commitments to the ACC.

Duvall
11-27-2012, 07:13 PM
Also check out the links pointing to public statements by UNC and Virgini -- two schools reportedly targeted by other conferences -- reaffirming their commitments to the ACC.

The only commitment that matters at this point would be a grant of media rights to the conference. Anything else is just a waste of electrons.

wilko
11-27-2012, 07:16 PM
Agree with this POV ... hard to see schools thinking of leaving supporting the lawsuit to insist on a $50 million exit fee.

Also check out the links pointing to public statements by UNC and Virgini -- two schools reportedly targeted by other conferences -- reaffirming their commitments to the ACC.

Uh, So can UMd effectively say to the B1G at this point:
"I left my wallet at home and if you cant cover me I'm gonna have to leave.."

Oh man - that is gonna make for some interesting signs at games if they have to come back to the ACC with their collective tails between their legs...

Class of '94
11-27-2012, 09:10 PM
The only commitment that matters at this point would be a grant of media rights to the conference. Anything else is just a waste of electrons.

That might not even hold up if reports are true that the BIG reportedly sent out feelers to Kansas as well, as per a tweet that was retweeted by Airowe. Again, if true, it would appear that even the grant of rights might not be enough to keep a school from looking and potentially jumping to the BIG; and it might be because of the BTN. Something has to be done to disable machine of the BTN...:)

lotusland
11-27-2012, 09:13 PM
The only commitment that matters at this point would be a grant of media rights to the conference. Anything else is just a waste of electrons.

Who would grant media rights to the conference? Sorry but I don't really understand the TV/revenue aspects.

blazindw
11-27-2012, 10:39 PM
Who would grant media rights to the conference? Sorry but I don't really understand the TV/revenue aspects.

The Big 12 did that. Now, if any Big 12 school leaves, the conference still controls their media rights for the life of their current TV contract. So, that means that even if Kansas went to the B1G, their TV rights would be controlled by the Big 12 until (I believe) 2019.

TexHawk
11-27-2012, 11:14 PM
The Big 12 did that. Now, if any Big 12 school leaves, the conference still controls their media rights for the life of their current TV contract. So, that means that even if Kansas went to the B1G, their TV rights would be controlled by the Big 12 until (I believe) 2019.

It's 2025. 13 years * $20 million+ for Tiers 1/2. The schools do not own those TV rights, the conference does. So if a Big12 school were to leave, they would (a) forfeit over $260 million, and (b) their new conference couldn't reap the TV reward of having them until 2025.

blazindw
11-27-2012, 11:45 PM
It's 2025. 13 years * $20 million+ for Tiers 1/2. The schools do not own those TV rights, the conference does. So if a Big12 school were to leave, they would (a) forfeit over $260 million, and (b) their new conference couldn't reap the TV reward of having them until 2025.

Gotcha, thanks.

In other news, this discussion may be closed by about 8am tomorrow morning: http://www.accsports.com/blogs/david-glenn/2012112714123/acc-will-vote-on-expansion-wednesday-morning.php

Sounds like we will have to get used to more games against the 'Ville going forward.

Newton_14
11-27-2012, 11:56 PM
Gotcha, thanks.

In other news, this discussion may be closed by about 8am tomorrow morning: http://www.accsports.com/blogs/david-glenn/2012112714123/acc-will-vote-on-expansion-wednesday-morning.php

Sounds like we will have to get used to more games against the 'Ville going forward.

Works for me. I like Lousivill over the other potential candidates. My dream ACC would include ND as a full member, with Florida and Kentucky coming aboard. It will never happen of course, but back when expansion started for the ACC and we brought in the 3 Big East schools, my wishes were always Florida and Kentucky as it would add one Football Power and one Basketball power. Just thought that would be cool. As of now though, my wishes have changed and all I want is for the ACC to survive as a major conference once the dust clears from all of this madness.

Sounds like tomorrow is the day Lousiville replaces the Terps. A good move imo to try to keep the ACC relevant and somewhat stable.

sporthenry
11-28-2012, 12:14 AM
Works for me. I like Lousivill over the other potential candidates. My dream ACC would include ND as a full member, with Florida and Kentucky coming aboard. It will never happen of course, but back when expansion started for the ACC and we brought in the 3 Big East schools, my wishes were always Florida and Kentucky as it would add one Football Power and one Basketball power. Just thought that would be cool. As of now though, my wishes have changed and all I want is for the ACC to survive as a major conference once the dust clears from all of this madness.

Sounds like tomorrow is the day Lousiville replaces the Terps. A good move imo to try to keep the ACC relevant and somewhat stable.

If they invite someone, does that make their lawsuit less viable? What happens if MD reneges on its commitment to the B1G with the $50 million exit fee?

SoCalDukeFan
11-28-2012, 12:32 AM
Anybody but the UConnvicts.

SoCal

-bdbd
11-28-2012, 01:13 AM
If they invite someone, does that make their lawsuit less viable? What happens if MD reneges on its commitment to the B1G with the $50 million exit fee?

Wow. As the toast goes, "May you have the good fortune to live in interesting times..." Mission accomplished.
I'm kinda rooting for a vote to "continue deliberating" on Wed. A move right now seems a little rash, knee-jerk following the MD defection. I don't have a big problem with L'ville as they have a great BB tradition and a tremendous (Yum!) new BB facillity, and their FB has been consistently top-25 in recent years; but the academic ranking is very disconcerting. Not that I'm a big fan, but I'm sincerely surprised U-con not getting stronger support given the NYC proximity, etc.

Interesting times.....
:rolleyes:

ricks68
11-28-2012, 02:43 AM
Just in:

http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/28/report-louisville-to-be-added-to-the-acc-on-wednesday/

So much for our semi-high academic standards.

It's still a vote, so it didn't happen yet.

ricks

KenTankerous
11-28-2012, 03:19 AM
So the addition of Louisville is going to drag down the ACC academic standard? I question that prima facie.

Louisville has an excellant medical school, not Duke's by any measure, but excells in hand and orthopedic studies.

Speed Research in Engineering is World Class.

And we are pretty damn good in basketball.

dchen09
11-28-2012, 04:26 AM
According to espn (http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8685360/acc-expected-vote-add-louisville-cardinals-source-says), the ACC is actually considering the trio of UConn, UL, and Cinn. However, the expectation is that they'll only add one at this point with the other 2 being easily added later.

I wonder if UL is being considered because of its proximity to ND. It gives ND more of a reason to join the ACC if there is a program within driving distance.

ice-9
11-28-2012, 04:44 AM
If they invite someone, does that make their lawsuit less viable? What happens if MD reneges on its commitment to the B1G with the $50 million exit fee?

Then we'll have 16 teams in basketball (great!) and 15 teams in football (still doable).

Inviting a new team doesn't preclude the lawsuit's viability.

SCMatt33
11-28-2012, 06:23 AM
I think Louisville is the right move because like the article said, UConn and Cincy will be their later if we want them. The Big XII could easily grab Louisville as part of an eastward expansion that could see them try to grab some ACC schools. The B1G and SEC are certainly stronger than the B12, but at 14 members each, neither could take enough ACC teams to affect the conferences viability. If the B12 can get in on that, the story could change.

sagegrouse
11-28-2012, 06:24 AM
Wow. As the toast goes, "May you have the good fortune to live in interesting times..." Mission accomplished.
I'm kinda rooting for a vote to "continue deliberating" on Wed. A move right now seems a little rash, knee-jerk following the MD defection. I don't have a big problem with L'ville as they have a great BB tradition and a tremendous (Yum!) new BB facillity, and their FB has been consistently top-25 in recent years; but the academic ranking is very disconcerting. Not that I'm a big fan, but I'm sincerely surprised U-con not getting stronger support given the NYC proximity, etc.

Interesting times.....
:rolleyes:

This is getting a bit unseemly. The argument for Louisville is that it has other conference options, whereas Cincy and UConn do not. Perhaps the Big 12 covets Louisville (there is a lot of coveting going on these days). None of the analogies I can come up with are the least bit favorable to the ACC like "panic party."

sagegrouse

Mike Corey
11-28-2012, 07:06 AM
So the addition of Louisville is going to drag down the ACC academic standard? I question that prima facie....
Louisville has an excellant medical school


Louisville's undergrad is ranked 160th. (The school it is replacing--Maryland--is ranked 58th). Presently, the lowest-ranked school in the U.S. News rankings is N.C. State, at 106.

In the ever-important category of overall research dollars, Louisville comes in at 111th in overall expenditures for research. That would put Louisville ahead of one ACC school, Boston College, which comes in 197th. (BC's undergrad is ranked 31st, however).

Louisville's medical school is ranked 75th by U.S. News. Louisville's med school would not be the lowest-ranked school in the ACC: FSU's is not ranked.

These rankings do not per se mean that Louisville is not an excellent academic institution. It may be, it may not be. I include this information only to show where Louisville would rank within the current members of the ACC.

Mike Corey
11-28-2012, 07:35 AM
My time to edit expired, but one addition: Louisville's 6-year graduation rate and its acceptance rate would both be outliers in the ACC, at 51% and 72.7%.

N.C. State's, by comparison, are at 72% and 52.3%.

The other "new" ACC schools--Pitt at 79% and 57.9%, and Syracuse at 80% and 49.4%--fit in much more snugly to the academic profile of the current league.

Louisville joining the ACC may be the league's only option right now to try and keep UNC and UVa. But let's not pretend that this is a move that makes sense for any reason other than to keep the league together in the future as dictated by football and basketball.

blazindw
11-28-2012, 07:48 AM
My time to edit expired, but one addition: Louisville's 6-year graduation rate and its acceptance rate would both be outliers in the ACC, at 51% and 72.7%.

N.C. State's, by comparison, are at 72% and 52.3%.

The other "new" ACC schools--Pitt at 79% and 57.9%, and Syracuse at 80% and 49.4%--fit in much more snugly to the academic profile of the current league.

Louisville joining the ACC may be the league's only option right now to try and keep UNC and UVa. But let's not pretend that this is a move that makes sense for any reason other than to keep the league together in the future as dictated by football and basketball.

Well said. This is a move to save a conference. Most of the other moves around the nation don't make much sense (had anyone heard of Grand Canyon University before they announced their move to the WAC (http://www.azcentral.com/sports/colleges/articles/20121127grand-canyon-university-join-western-athletic-conference.html?nclick_check=1)?), but they being done to save their respective conferences. The Big East will gain 2 schools next year for football (SDSU and Boise State) that will house all other sports in the Big West.

This is about survival...and it sounds like L'Ville is what the conference thinks it needs to do just that.

ForkFondler
11-28-2012, 07:58 AM
One of the main factors in the U.S. News rankings is the average entrance exam scores (i.e. SAT or ACT) of the freshman class. Schools that have open admissions will rate much better than schools that are more selective. But schools with open or less stringent admissions standards also tend to have higher attrition rates -- many of the marginal students don't survive their first year. Then there is Maryland, which has very high freshman entrance requirements, but then accepts massive numbers of transfer students into the sophomore and junior classes that weren't even close to being eligible as freshman. So, I would not be surprised to learn that the quality of the students who actually graduate from Louisville, Cincinnati, or even West Virginia are comparable to those who graduate from Maryland.