HRE Otto IV
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 7,826
- Like
- 12,947
To kick out as well I believeIt's not 75% for membership changes, rather 75% to add a new member.
To kick out as well I believeIt's not 75% for membership changes, rather 75% to add a new member.
They haven't missed the tourney since 1989. This century they have never been lower than a 4 seed in the tourney. Kansas's hoop program might be literally the safest bet in sports.Kansas is a wild card. Their football ratings are horrible but a top basketball school. Would it be worth the gamble if the hoop team ever tanked? If it tanked long term they'd essentially be rutgers.
They haven't missed the tourney since 1989. This century they have never been lower than a 4 seed in the tourney. Kansas's hoop program might be literally the safest bet in sports.
Perhaps if ND cares so much they can help the cause by becoming a full ACC member.
That is baloneyIf the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.
If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.
oh my
I think UNC has been consistent in wanting the ACC to remain as true as possible to its original southern roots. Isn't that why they keep opposing expansion? Including against most of the former Big East schools?That's because you are ignorant of ACC history and its present. Everybody but a few old BE types is damning UNC fort not leaving the ACC, for wanting to hang on way past time just to have that power in its old league it cannot have in SEC or BT. Those people know UNC much better than you do.
I don't think ESPN is going to allow the SEC to plunder the ACC and drastically diminish its value during the term of the ACC contract. The gain to the SEC would not be worth the decline of the ACC to them. I don't see Clemson/FSU being at the top of the desired targets of the B1G. They seem to value UNC/UVA higher and a better geographic fit with the eastern presence they are building. So where are Clemson/FSU going in the short term? No good options for them. They should focus on making the ACC better and getting more revenue where they are.If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.
If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.
Yeah, that is baloney. If those schools could break the GOR, they would already have done that. If they ever do leave the ACC, it will have nothing to do with Stanford and Cal either being in the league or not being in the league.That is baloney
This is only partially true. If Ahia St. and USC were 10-1 and 11-0, the NYC metro might be all over it. If its 8-2 Ahia St. vs 6-4 USC, I doubt it too many people would skip Christmas shopping or whatever to tune in.This is all so short sighted yet par for the course for big business minds in this country
This is the only answer.Perhaps if ND cares so much they can help the cause by becoming a full ACC member.
This is only partially true. If Ahia St. and USC were 10-1 and 11-0, the NYC metro might be all over it. If its 8-2 Ahia St. vs 6-4 USC, I doubt it too many people would skip Christmas shopping or whatever to tune in.
The NFL can survive this for many reasons...the northeast is more pro sports centric and everybody plays fantasy football.
Cuse in football draws TV numbers similar to UNC.If the ACC adds Cal, Stanford, and SMU, that is adding 3 schools that have very poor football drawing power. Yes, Stanford draws well when playing ND and SC, like even BC and Wake would. Stanford vs. Wake or BC or Cuse, or Pitt or GT? Nothing. Poor TV numbers.
If the ACC adds that trio, it will only spur FSU and Clemson to leave even sooner.
Yea, coaches might want to just stick to coaching.The more this gets messier, the more I am coming around to what Brian Kelley suggested [even though he murdered a kid, he makes an astute observation].
His idea was to dispense with conferences for football, while keeping them for every other sport. All 65 P5 schools should become independent, as part of one giant conference.
This frees everybody up to play whoever they want, while simultaneously preserving rivalry games. Teams that want to play more regional games can, teams that want to play bigger national games are similarly free to do so without conference scheduling restrictions.
Travel won't be a problem, since football only plays once a week [which isn't true of other sports, hence why regional conferences make more sense].
Problem is, there is no incentive for any P5 team to do this, given that they have guaranteed payouts from conference affiliation, whether they "earn" them or not through on-field performance or by bringing eyeballs to televised games. Well, all teams except for Oregon State and Washington State, apparently.
I like the idea of adding UConn. Gives us a legit basketball rival, a northeast compliment to Duke-UNC in the south.Rumor: UConn willing to pay money and receive no TV revenue for several years to join
The upper crust G5 is getting desperate
But it does nothing for football. This musical chairs of realignment is all about football.I like the idea of adding UConn. Gives us a legit basketball rival, a northeast compliment to Duke-UNC in the south.
You are correct.But it does nothing for football. This musical chairs of realignment is all about football.
Wasn't that Chip Kelly?The more this gets messier, the more I am coming around to what Brian Kelley suggested [even though he murdered a kid, he makes an astute observation].
His idea was to dispense with conferences for football, while keeping them for every other sport. All 65 P5 schools should become independent, as part of one giant conference.
This frees everybody up to play whoever they want, while simultaneously preserving rivalry games. Teams that want to play more regional games can, teams that want to play bigger national games are similarly free to do so without conference scheduling restrictions.
Travel won't be a problem, since football only plays once a week [which isn't true of other sports, hence why regional conferences make more sense].
Problem is, there is no incentive for any P5 team to do this, given that they have guaranteed payouts from conference affiliation, whether they "earn" them or not through on-field performance or by bringing eyeballs to televised games. Well, all teams except for Oregon State and Washington State, apparently.
Wasn't that Chip Kelly?
I think waiting it out for the Big12 GOR to expire and trying to pull
Oklahoma State,
Baylor,
TCU and
West Virginia...
would make for a pretty good ACC and would somewhat withstand the potential loss of FSU, Clemson, UNC and UVA ...
We all know money drives the bus but I'm not convinced that UNC and UVA would want to give up their conference standing by leaving.
Besides the schools above Texas Tech and Kansas St have decent football ratings followed by Cincy. Central Florida appears to be the best G5.
You could go super max and bring them all in with Central Florida.
Kansas is a wild card. Their football ratings are horrible but a top basketball school. Would it be worth the gamble if the hoop team ever tanked? If it tanked long term they'd essentially be rutgers.