USC and UCLA to the Big Ten

[KaiserUEO]

You're in full troll mode now.

absoflukinglootly goddamn no!!!!

you want to realign based on fluckin basketball!!!!!

hellthefluckalo!!! the 1950s-70s are calling.

good lord, we are on page 51 and people still think basketball matters???

 

[Day2]

absoflukinglootly goddamn no!!!!

you want to realign based on fluckin basketball!!!!!

hellthefluckalo!!! the 1950s-70s are calling.

good lord, we are on page 51 and people still think basketball matters???

I'm talking about what's realistic. You've said it yourself, the ACC is clueless. They're not going to do any westward expansion, they're going to cling to the GOR. At least eight ACC teams will be gone by 2036. The seven remnants will need to scramble to survive.

And you can't merge with the Pac-12/Big 12 trash because it's not financially sustainable. It's one thing to ask USC and UCLA to travel to Rutgers or PSU. It's another to ask WSU/OSU to travel to Duke or Pitt.

 

[Phillymoose]

Big XII is sitting prettier than ACC. If B1G wants more, their target should be Cal, Standord, Oregon, Washington and Colorado. PAC12 leftovers have no option to merge into Big XII, including Arizona, Arizona St, Utah at least, maybe even Washington St and Oregon St. The latter two could go to Mountain West. ACC has reached maximal capacity without any worthy target in the region.

And that's just it - and why the 'prisoner's dilemma' metaphor is a really good one. You don't want to be sitting pretty. If any of the schools you aggregate are too pretty, then your whole conference is vulnerable. The SEC and B1G have their pencil necks assessing schools based on the bottom line they deliver to the media payouts. That's it. They are not going to expand just for the sake of expansion - and I don't think they give a poop (any longer) about reputation, history, academics or any of that. Just cold hard $$ - and it is qualitatively different than ACC expansion was back in the day. ND is obviously a winning piece, but I'd say every other school not currently in those conferences (or heading there soon) is a question mark. There are no 'no brainers' left - and it really comes down to the formulas the SEC and B1G use in their assessment. This is also not to say their assessments are similar - they are likely wholly different, in terms of what they value.

So, does the ACC really go through all the trouble of creating the ACC/PCC bi-coastal conglomerate, negotiate a solid media deal, only to have the B1G see that UW, in fact, actually has the value they are looking for? They will just be poached down the road, and you are back to instability and fear.

IMO - there really isn't much the ACC can do, or should do, right now. Accept that any school offered will jump. Don't cry about it or point fingers because everyone wants on to the same life raft. I personally think that there is room for a 2nd tier conference that prides itself on old school traditions, regional rivalries and academic standards- and it can attract a certain type of student athlete - especially when there continue to be crossover games against the mega-factories on the schedule. No use howling at the moon for something most of us don't even want, and was never in the cards anyway.

 

[dasher]

Why don’t you think the ACC should be proactive in adding the best Pac 12 and Big 12 programs and markets, including, for instance, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and two Texas schools? That could be the western division. Why should the ACC sit back and leave the poaching to the Big 12? We have the GOR.

Oh, we can. I just don't think it changes anything for the positive for the ACC. Maybe Cinn and WVU. Kansas would help in hoop. But no one cares about hoop. Except all of the fans.

 

[Sherman20]

Our competition here is not the SEC or the B10. They’re going to do what they do. Our competition is the B12. We want to be firmly at #3, and that means being in position to reinforce ourselves once the SEC and/or B10 pilfer a couple (few?) teams. Those conferences may have gleaned everything from the PAC and B12 that they covet. Once they set their sights on the ACC we want to be in position to remain #3.

And I no longer want to hear the “academics” argument. The conferences don’t care about academic$.

Academics do matter, actually, at least to some extent, especially for the top tier conferences like the B1G. As the conference expansion guru Frank the Tank always says: You need to think like a university President, not like a fan, when thinking about these moves. TV money and markets rule the day but academic prestige and research does factor into who gets called.

 

[dasher]

absoflukinglootly goddamn no!!!!

you want to realign based on fluckin basketball!!!!!

hellthefluckalo!!! the 1950s-70s are calling.

good lord, we are on page 51 and people still think basketball matters???

Crazy. There was even an idiot that thought the ACC should just let schools walk from the GOR without collecting hundreds of millions on the way out the door.

 

[Sherman20]

Oh, we can. I just don't think it changes anything for the positive for the ACC. Maybe Cinn and WVU. Kansas would help in hoop. But no one cares about hoop. Except all of the fans.

But we need to shore up the conference. The ACC won’t be in that top tier but Syracuse is better off if the ACC survives than if it implodes.

 

[Chip]

Is there a scenario where, because of timing, the big winners of expansion end up being Houston, BYU, Cincy, UCF and the big losers are Oregon State, Washington State, Stanford and Cal? Maybe even Washington and Oregon?

What a crazy new world we live in.

 

[Day2]

And that's just it - and why the 'prisoner's dilemma' metaphor is a really good one. You don't want to be sitting pretty. If any of the schools you aggregate are too pretty, then your whole conference is vulnerable. The SEC and B1G have their pencil necks assessing schools based on the bottom line they deliver to the media payouts. That's it. They are not going to expand just for the sake of expansion - and I don't think they give a poop (any longer) about reputation, history, academics or any of that. Just cold hard $$ - and it is qualitatively different than ACC expansion was back in the day. ND is obviously a winning piece, but I'd say every other school not currently in those conferences (or heading there soon) is a question mark. There are no 'no brainers' left - and it really comes down to the formulas the SEC and B1G use in their assessment. This is also not to say their assessments are similar - they are likely wholly different, in terms of what they value.

So, does the ACC really go through all the trouble of creating the ACC/PCC bi-coastal conglomerate, negotiate a solid media deal, only to have the B1G see that UW, in fact, actually has the value they are looking for? They will just be poached down the road, and you are back to instability and fear.

IMO - there really isn't much the ACC can do, or should do, right now. Accept that any school offered will jump. Don't cry about it or point fingers because everyone wants on to the same life raft. I personally think that there is room for a 2nd tier conference that prides itself on old school traditions, regional rivalries and academic standards- and it can attract a certain type of student athlete - especially when there continue to be crossover games against the mega-factories on the schedule. No use howling at the moon for something most of us don't even want, and was never in the cards anyway.

The SEC/B1G will poach up to 16 more schools teams over the next several years. I think 14 of those schools teams will be:

Notre Dame
Stanford
Colorado
Oregon
Washington
Arizona
BYU
North Carolina
FSU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech
NC St.

I had ASU and Cal as the last two, but I think Arizona/ASU to the Big 12 will cost ASU. I think Cal's only shot is to go B1G now with Stanford, assuming ND isn't ready to jump. No ASU/Cal opens the door for Miami. And maybe Oklahoma St. buys their way in (i.e. overpay for junior membership).

 

[HRE Otto IV]

But we need to shore up the conference. The ACC won’t be in that top tier but Syracuse is better off if the ACC survives than if it implodes.

It isn't possible to shore up the conference. Adding more schools does nothing to change that.

 

[Toga]

Don't the ACC and ESPN have scheduled or unscheduled look-ins during the contract?

 

[KaiserUEO]

Crazy. There was even an idiot that thought the ACC should just let schools walk from the GOR without collecting hundreds of millions on the way out the door.

the GOR is the dumbest thing on the planet and no one will get 100% of what they think they will.

no one.

not one.

MARK IT DOWN.

renegotiate and survive.

the rest is a waste of time.

keep thinking that what the fans think matters, what the fans actually think is in the football numbers and thats what matters.

 

[ChrisIsCitrus]

Everyone is posting their conference realignment theories, so I figure that I'd post mine. I get that there are a lot of logistics (state-school alliances/conflicts, conference politics, GOR, etc), but I'm conveniently ignoring a lot of them in order to just create something that makes sense to me. I know that it's theoretically possible that the SEC and B1G will expand to large number like 30, though I'm assuming they're all going to target the brands and markets that will add to their collective bottom line and then stop. There aren't enough teams to add to those bottoms lines to go beyond membership of something like 20 to 24.

I have no idea which conference will take which teams, but I'm sure that Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Miami will find a new home. I think that Virginia, Duke (I'm assuming UNC is going to lobby heavily for them to be included with them. They're also very valuable, regardless of football strength) and Virginia Tech get calls as well. In the PAC 12, I think Oregon, Stanford and Washington definitely get invites. Cal, Kansas, NC State, Oklahoma State and maybe Louisville are next up but I think they're on the outside looking in.

We'll be joining a nationwide conference with divisions as follows:

East: West Virginia, Cuse, Pitt, NC State, Louisville or Cinci, UCF, Ga Tech, Wake Forest, Boston College

Midwest: Kansas State, Kansas, Iowa State, Baylor, Houston, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Cinci or Louisville

West: Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Cal, Colorado, BYU & to make the numbers even, SD State wins the Western divison "call-up" sweepstakes.

The scheduling will obviously heavily favor playing teams in each respective division, though I'm calling for something like 6 division games and 2 games against the other divisions in football per year (4 total: 2 home, 2 away), with 2 out of conference games per team as well. Basketball and other sports will obviously heavily favor playing in-division, though there has to be some cross-over in each sport.

The revenue gap between the big 2 and whatever this monstrosity of a conference will be named will be large, though I think the programs in the conference will survive and some will thrive. I'd personally be happy with this arrangement. If i missed any teams, forgive me, this was all off the top of my head.

 

[baggerbob]

Why don’t you think the ACC should be proactive in adding the best Pac 12 and Big 12 programs and markets, including, for instance, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and two Texas schools? That could be the western division. Why should the ACC sit back and leave the poaching to the Big 12? We have the GOR.

They can't because ESPN has the rights, and they aren't going to open the contract.
They want the ACC to implode, so they can pick off the pieces for the SEC.

 

[Chip]

We should add the remaining Pac 12 schools, call the new league the East-West Connection, and this should be our logo.

 

[WoadBlue]

That's the killer. The writing is on the wall, and everyone sees it. No matter the composition of this proposed 3rd tier conference, there will always be the "prisoner's dilemma" where every member would be stupid not to be quietly vying for admission into the SEC or B1G. Makes for a very uneasy partnership within the conference.

In my opinion, this is has been the case for the last decade or more. Nobody has ever left the B1G or the SEC. They are apex predators. As soon as a team leaves your conference for those greener pastures, you have established yourself as a feeder conference, which the ACC, Big 12, Pac12, AAC / Big East have shown that they are. Anyone in a feeder conference is just waiting to be the "next man up".

there will always be the "prisoner's dilemma" where every member would be stupid not to be quietly vying for admission into the SEC or B1G

That was Big East football. Even as BE football was being formed, Miami was making certain that the ACC office knew that it would join FSU in the ACC the second it had an offer. Once everybody knew that Miami intended to join the ACC ASAP, they also began looking around. Plus, VT and WVU both had wanted to be in the ACC back to its founding.

 

[WoadBlue]

There are not a lot of assets that increase the per school payout. That is true. But there are plenty of schools who add value in other ways and the networks would be willing to pay them at the going rate.

Adding P12 teams will add a bridge and cut travel for USC/UCLA. Is FOX really going to balk at adding Seattle, San Fran, Phoenix, Denver, and Salt Lake City?

Adding ACC Southern teams gets the B1G into those markets and that fertile recruiting ground. Why concede the South to the SEC? The B1G won't have as good of a product without those recruits. Plus, wouldn't FOX want to have games in those markets? It makes sense for the B1G to get into VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL.

It not only makes sense, it is ed of Fox not to force the BT to make the effort. The BT trying to get on top of the SEC needs multiple schools in the South far more than it needs ND.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[CU44SE]

Big 12 making a final play to stay relevant. Has zero % chance of working. Even if you steal 6 PAC 12 schools, once the Big 10 or SEC comes calling for any of them (or any current Big 12 school) they will still jump.

All this does is kill the ACC quicker and make the Big 12 the solid #3 conference after the SEC and Big 10 split away.

Personally I think this is worse news than both Texas and USC moves. Those weekend like conferences. This actually moves a conference ahead of us. We would become the clear number 4. Needed to go after these schools hard in my opinion. Add 9 teams and have an eastern, mid, and western Pods

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[Phillymoose]

The SEC/B1G will poach up to 16 more schools teams over the next several years. I think 14 of those schools teams will be:

Notre Dame
Stanford
Colorado
Oregon
Washington
Arizona
BYU
North Carolina
FSU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Virginia
Virginia Tech
NC St.

I had ASU and Cal as the last two, but I think Arizona/ASU to the Big 12 will cost ASU. I think Cal's only shot is to go B1G now with Stanford, assuming ND isn't ready to jump. No ASU/Cal opens the door for Miami. And maybe Oklahoma St. buys their way in (i.e. overpay for junior membership).

Why would they do that? The schools that they've taken in the past 5 years have all opened up big markets and have had huge fan-bases (TX, Okla, USC, UCLA). Only Okla fails the market test, and I guessing TX dragged them with..

IMO - and I know this goes against common wisdom, is that schools like UNC, UVA and Miami are more valuable than FSU and Clemson. Out West - I see Stanford, Cal and Washington as potentials. As I said, I have my doubts as to whether any of them 'pay for themselves' as an addition to one of the mega-conferences, let alone increasing the overall payout.

And, yes, by those standards it is not outrageous to think that SU has more value than at first would be assumed. Of course you take a spot if offered, and I hope it happens, but definitely not expecting it - nor do I think there is anything to be done about changing the outcome.

 

[Day2]

Why would they do that? The schools that they've taken in the past 5 years have all opened up big markets and have had huge fan-bases (TX, Okla, USC, UCLA). Only Okla fails the market test, and I guessing TX dragged them with..

IMO - and I know this goes against common wisdom, is that schools like UNC, UVA and Miami are more valuable than FSU and Clemson. Out West - I see Stanford, Cal and Washington as potentials. As I said, I have my doubts as to whether any of them 'pay for themselves' as an addition to one of the mega-conferences, let alone increasing the overall payout.

And, yes, by those standards it is not outrageous to think that SU has more value than at first would be assumed. Of course you take a spot if offered, and I hope it happens, but definitely not expecting it - nor do I think there is anything to be done about changing the outcome.

Why would who do what? The mega conferences are expected to expand to 20 teams, possibly 24. That means 16 slots.

 

[nd1973]

The longer this goes the more I believe we aren't moving.

 

[javadoc]

Why would who do what? The mega conferences are expected to expand to 20 teams, possibly 24. That means 16 slots.

All this is a big slow-motion movement from the NCAA and conferences, to a few huge conferences which control their own destiny and separate from the NCAA to form a new league, and then have control over the final additions to the new league (since the NCAA is out of the picture), and then, end game... subdivide the league into units resembling conferences of old.

 

[orange44]

Im not worried about SU. Bunch of nervous nellies.

Do you still feel this way? Seriously, where do you think SU ends up in the grand scheme of things? Appreciate your thoughts.