Fore: a bumpy road ahead in the ACC

[arbitragegls]

The recent partnership of the SEC/Big 12 in football as well as the B1G/Pac12 football partnership may cause concerns for ACC teams. Let's look at basketball only:
1. Does the B1G/ACC bball tourney keep going or does the B1G and Pac12 get together in bball too
2. Does the SEC/BE bball tourney keep going or does the SEC and Big 12 get together in bball too
3. Is there a partner in either bball or football for the ACC

It almost seems that the landscape is quickly evolving to four (4) 16 team super conferences. If this shaping of partnerships continue, what does the ACC conference do and which ACC teams remain in the ACC? What is the step 'Cuse may take because being patient may not be the optimal action? What do you think?

 

[PeteCalvin]

The Big 12 is as stable as Texas. I would not want to be in bed with Texas. They could decide to do anything at any time. If this thing goes to 16 team conferences, I can't see Texas staying with Big 12 teams over PAC 12 teams, long term. Current contracts mean nothing.

 

[007]

The Big 12 is as stable as Texas. I would not want to be in bed with Texas. They could decide to do anything at any time. If this thing goes to 16 team conferences, I can't see Texas staying with Big 12 teams over PAC 12 teams, long term. Current contracts mean nothing.

If this does go to 16 team super conferences, the Big 12 will one of the Super 4, along with SEC, PAC 12, and BiG. Texas isn't going anywhere, IMO.

 

[normaliswear]

If this does go to 16 team super conferences, the Big 12 will one of the Super 4, along with SEC, PAC 12, and BiG. Texas isn't going anywhere, IMO.

Wrote a post on the football board about this. But in short, if it goes to four 16 team conf and the Big 12 isn't destroyed, where does the Pac 12 pull schools from?

 

[Guinness]

Hard to believe the ACC is staring down the possibility of following the BE down the tubes. Really have to believe and hope that the ACC can pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Hard to believe the ACC is staring down the possibility of following the BE down the tubes. Really have to believe and hope that the ACC can pull a rabbit out of it's hat.

Won't happen for 2 reasons - 1. you don't have mixed membership and unequal revenue sharing in the ACC; and 2. if ESPN destroyed both the Big East and the ACC, it would leave them without a top tier league for their 7 PM timeslots. Too many programming hours to fill to only have major conferences in the Deep South and the Midwest, and too many eyeballs on the East Coast who just don't care about LSU-Auburn or Iowa-Ohio State in basketball.

Yes, yes, yes i know it's all about football, but the same arguments hold true, unless it is a certain few teams that are playing.

 

[arbitragegls]

Here is a blog and link that I feel is pretty much straight on and interestinly written by a Syracuse grad who is now fully in the ACC. I have been following John for a year now and his ACC convos is informative. In today's blog he gives reasons why the ACC isnt done yet...enjoy and let's hope he is right on most of his points--I think points 2 and 3 are most believeable. What do you think?
http://atlanticcoastconvos.com/2012...big-12-deal-doesnt-bring-on-superconferences/

 

[RandygoCuse]

Personally, I feel the move to the ACC is better for us than it is for the ACC. Obviously, regarding basketball, this is a strong move for both parties. But I don't know what we bring in terms of football. I don't feel as if we have a big following in the northeast. I'm not sure what our ratings were like during the McNabb era, but even if they were strong, it will be a while before we are back at that point. Having said all that, who knows if us being weak in football harms the ACC or is simply a neutral move? After all, UConn wouldn't bring any more klout (football wise) and Notre Dame isn't coming anytime soon.