NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

UIEightyThree wrote: tarheel, you may very well be right, but

obviously the fact that the ACC has been so fluid with additions and now a defections, is a valid reason to think there is trouble just below the surface. I think the B12 has successfully stabilized their situation, and there has been plenty of speculation regarding the future of FSU & Clemson with a possible move to the B12. If that happens, then I think the ball gets rolling downhill. They may be waiting to see how Md's exit fees get handled. But the loss of those two schools puts a big hurt on the football side of things, and at that point, I think the walls crumble .

edit:  The B12 cant ignore the championship game money for long.   The sooner they go to 12 they can get that on the books.  That is why I think the next move involves them and two ACC schools

Given everything I've read and heard on this subject, my guess is the Big Ten would go after UVa then UNC, but they may do it in a way that they get either both or neither.  I would be surprised if they got Virginia and then the Tarheels say no thanks.

Academically, these two schools are a great fit which would make the university presidents very happy.

tarheel2677 wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

I can't speak for ACC fans as a whole, but I certainly am not whistling past the graveyard.  I fully recognize the possibility that there will be more defections from the ACC, and that the ultimate end-game could be the end of the ACC as we know it.  I've just not yet made the leap that it's a foregone conclusion and I certainly don't think it's as simple as the B1G and SEC deciding how they're going to split the ACC pie.

Maryland was low-hanging fruit for the B1G.  Due to poor management of their athletic department for years, the Terps were desperate to make a quick cash grab to bail themselves out of trouble.  Not every ACC school is in similar shape and I think most if not all remaining ACC schools wish to keep the conference together if at all possible.  I don't know if it's possible, but I do believe that is the sentiment of the remaining ACC members.

As it stands now, the ACC is inching towards being a viable football conference with the additions of ND (partial member for now that will play 5 ACC games a year) Louisville (just stomped an SEC power in a bowl game) a solid Pitt program with potential, an emerging Clemson (just beat an SEC power) FSU is on the way back up, and there are other ACC programs, including my beloved Heels, that are headed steadily in the right direction.  Right now the ACC's TV revenues lag behind the other BCS conferences, but there is no way to know if that will always be the case.  If they can survive long enough, I think they'll be in a good position to negotiate a much stronger broadcast rights deal the next time around.

Maybe so.  I would really prefer to have three open slots right now rather than two (and leave Rutgers out).  Rutgers was a 25 ft three point shot.  You can get them at any time.  I think that if we were sitting at 13 with Maryland you would have schools jockeying for position. 

UIEightyThree wrote:


There is nothing to indicate the powers that be are doing this incorrectly, and the B1G is the most profitable conference due in large part to current leadership .   Yet you are convinced we rushed to get the latest two additions?   Me?  I am willing to give current leadership time to put the two remaining pieces in place.   Once that is done,  I think the latest additions will make alot of sense.

IrishTerryConklin wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

Even if the Big Ten and/or SEC could just come in and take who they want (I think the SEC has a better chance of doing so) I doubt they would work together to destroy the ACC as that isn't their goal.  Their goal would be to get the best programs/schools and since both would probably have similar targets neither will make any moves that will help the other comparatively more than they help themself.

TheHallofDoon wrote:

Maybe so.  I would really prefer to have three open slots right now rather than two (and leave Rutgers out).  Rutgers was a 25 ft three point shot.  You can get them at any time.  I think that if we were sitting at 13 with Maryland you would have schools jockeying for position. 

UIEightyThree wrote:


There is nothing to indicate the powers that be are doing this incorrectly, and the B1G is the most profitable conference due in large part to current leadership .   Yet you are convinced we rushed to get the latest two additions?   Me?  I am willing to give current leadership time to put the two remaining pieces in place.   Once that is done,  I think the latest additions will make alot of sense.

aberger wrote: I don't think you are right.  The SEC additions were Missouri (who we supposedly passed on) and Texas A & M, who I have never seen any article linked that showed the Big 10 had any interest.  The Big 10 has added Nebraska, Maryland & Rutgers.  I have never seen any article showing that the SEC had interest in those schools.

The remaining schools that the Big 10 supposedly has interest in (in no particular order) are UVA, GT, NC and ND.  Again, I have seen no articles linking SEC interest in those schools.  The only ACC school I have seen interest from the SEC is NC State.

Again, who really knows what is going on, but it seems as though the SEC and Big 10 have no overlapping in interest in ACC or any other schools.

IrishTerryConklin wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

Even if the Big Ten and/or SEC could just come in and take who they want (I think the SEC has a better chance of doing so) I doubt they would work together to destroy the ACC as that isn't their goal.  Their goal would be to get the best programs/schools and since both would probably have similar targets neither will make any moves that will help the other comparatively more than they help themself.

TheHallofDoon wrote:

Maybe so.  I would really prefer to have three open slots right now rather than two (and leave Rutgers out).  Rutgers was a 25 ft three point shot.  You can get them at any time.  I think that if we were sitting at 13 with Maryland you would have schools jockeying for position. 

UIEightyThree wrote:


There is nothing to indicate the powers that be are doing this incorrectly, and the B1G is the most profitable conference due in large part to current leadership .   Yet you are convinced we rushed to get the latest two additions?   Me?  I am willing to give current leadership time to put the two remaining pieces in place.   Once that is done,  I think the latest additions will make alot of sense.

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

I can't speak for ACC fans as a whole, but I certainly am not whistling past the graveyard.  I fully recognize the possibility that there will be more defections from the ACC, and that the ultimate end-game could be the end of the ACC as we know it.  I've just not yet made the leap that it's a foregone conclusion and I certainly don't think it's as simple as the B1G and SEC deciding how they're going to split the ACC pie.

Maryland was low-hanging fruit for the B1G.  Due to poor management of their athletic department for years, the Terps were desperate to make a quick cash grab to bail themselves out of trouble.  Not every ACC school is in similar shape and I think most if not all remaining ACC schools wish to keep the conference together if at all possible.  I don't know if it's possible, but I do believe that is the sentiment of the remaining ACC members.

As it stands now, the ACC is inching towards being a viable football conference with the additions of ND (partial member for now that will play 5 ACC games a year) Louisville (just stomped an SEC power in a bowl game) a solid Pitt program with potential, an emerging Clemson (just beat an SEC power) FSU is on the way back up, and there are other ACC programs, including my beloved Heels, that are headed steadily in the right direction.  Right now the ACC's TV revenues lag behind the other BCS conferences, but there is no way to know if that will always be the case.  If they can survive long enough, I think they'll be in a good position to negotiate a much stronger broadcast rights deal the next time around.

The problem for the ACC is that those schools it is proposing to add - Louisville, Pittsburgh - while OK football programs, add very little from a television market standpoint.  Losing Maryland and its weight in the Baltimore-Washington DC corridor hurt more than those two schools help.

And ND isn't part of the ACC in football any more than they were part of the Big Ten when they preferrentially played several Big Ten teams on their schedule.

The ACC and Big 12 only reach mega-conference stability in the emerging football world when the two essentially merge to form one 16 school conference that can be treated as a near equal of a 16 team Big Ten or SEC.

tarheel2677 wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

tarheel2677 wrote: No offense intended to anyone, least of all the original poster here, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why people continue to treat this WVU blogger as if he/she knows anything.

At this point, it's at least as likely that the ACC survives as it is that there is a complete implosion, and it's highly unlikely that anything happens either way until the Maryland/ACC lawsuit plays out.

I'm still waiting on the press conference announcing GT to the Big Ten that was "imminent"...6-8 weeks ago.

I agree with your assessment of our WVA friend, but any ACC fan who isn't seriously worried about the eventual dissolution of the ACC - sooner or later - is, IMO, whistling past the graveyard.

Once the Big Ten and SEC decide how they are going to divide up UVA, Virginia Tech, UNC, and NC State (the additions which make sense for both conferences), the ACC is over.

I can't speak for ACC fans as a whole, but I certainly am not whistling past the graveyard.  I fully recognize the possibility that there will be more defections from the ACC, and that the ultimate end-game could be the end of the ACC as we know it.  I've just not yet made the leap that it's a foregone conclusion and I certainly don't think it's as simple as the B1G and SEC deciding how they're going to split the ACC pie.

Maryland was low-hanging fruit for the B1G.  Due to poor management of their athletic department for years, the Terps were desperate to make a quick cash grab to bail themselves out of trouble.  Not every ACC school is in similar shape and I think most if not all remaining ACC schools wish to keep the conference together if at all possible.  I don't know if it's possible, but I do believe that is the sentiment of the remaining ACC members.

As it stands now, the ACC is inching towards being a viable football conference with the additions of ND (partial member for now that will play 5 ACC games a year) Louisville (just stomped an SEC power in a bowl game) a solid Pitt program with potential, an emerging Clemson (just beat an SEC power) FSU is on the way back up, and there are other ACC programs, including my beloved Heels, that are headed steadily in the right direction.  Right now the ACC's TV revenues lag behind the other BCS conferences, but there is no way to know if that will always be the case.  If they can survive long enough, I think they'll be in a good position to negotiate a much stronger broadcast rights deal the next time around.

The problem for the ACC is that those schools it is proposing to add - Louisville, Pittsburgh - while OK football programs, add very little from a television market standpoint.  Losing Maryland and its weight in the Baltimore-Washington DC corridor hurt more than those two schools help.

And ND isn't part of the ACC in football any more than they were part of the Big Ten when they preferrentially played several Big Ten teams on their schedule.

The ACC and Big 12 only reach mega-conference stability in the emerging football world when the two essentially merge to form one 16 school conference that can be treated as a near equal of a 16 team Big Ten or SEC.

The Big Ten's ace in the hole in all this is the Big Ten Network not overwhelmingly superior football.  It's a good football conference but all of us are lagging WAY behind the SEC.  If the hypothetical scenario you propose (a virtual merging of the Big 12 and ACC) were to come to fruition, that would easily be the 2nd best overall football conference in the nation.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, West Virginia, Kansas State, Louisville, Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech would be the top football programs in such a hypothetical mega-conference and that is easily the #2 football conference.  In fact, that would rival the SEC in terms of overall conference depth.

aberger wrote: I think you underestimate Delany.  He has been ahead of the curve compared to every other conference commissioner.  The reality in every sports league is that tv revenue is growing by leaps and bounds.  Nebraska was added to the Big 10 because of its football pedigree, and loyal fans.  Rutgers and Maryland were clearly added (IMO) because of their tv markets.

If you are going to look at expansion from a tv market point of view, Atlanta and Charlotte seem to make sense for adding viewers.  When the Big 10 signs a new contract in 2017 for tv rights, those numbers are going to be based upon tv sets, not football records.  Delany is going to reel in a monster deal in that year.  The only school that he would take that doesn't open a new tv market would be ND.

Look at the revenues from these other schools.  GT is bleeding money as are a lot of schools.  Joining the Big 10 or the SEC immediately boosts the bottom line substantially.  I really think that the Big 10 will add two more schools and sign a billion dollar a year contract in 2017.  1 billion divided by 16 schools makes the offer to join very hard to turn down.

TheHallofDoon wrote:

Maybe so.  I would really prefer to have three open slots right now rather than two (and leave Rutgers out).  Rutgers was a 25 ft three point shot.  You can get them at any time.  I think that if we were sitting at 13 with Maryland you would have schools jockeying for position. 

UIEightyThree wrote:


There is nothing to indicate the powers that be are doing this incorrectly, and the B1G is the most profitable conference due in large part to current leadership .   Yet you are convinced we rushed to get the latest two additions?   Me?  I am willing to give current leadership time to put the two remaining pieces in place.   Once that is done,  I think the latest additions will make alot of sense.

tarheel2677 wrote:

UIEightyThree wrote: tarheel, you may very well be right, but

obviously the fact that the ACC has been so fluid with additions and now a defections, is a valid reason to think there is trouble just below the surface. I think the B12 has successfully stabilized their situation, and there has been plenty of speculation regarding the future of FSU & Clemson with a possible move to the B12. If that happens, then I think the ball gets rolling downhill. They may be waiting to see how Md's exit fees get handled. But the loss of those two schools puts a big hurt on the football side of things, and at that point, I think the walls crumble .

edit:  The B12 cant ignore the championship game money for long.   The sooner they go to 12 they can get that on the books.  That is why I think the next move involves them and two ACC schools

The Big 12 looks stable now, but it wasn't long ago that they were hemorrhaging schools left and right and everyone said the death of that league was a foregone conclusion.  That further strengthens my stance that we should all just slow down a bit here in proclaiming the ACC dead.  If that league can lose Colorado, Nebraska, Mizzou, and Texas A&M, only to stabilize and survive, then the ACC can certainly absorb the loss of Maryland and survive if not improve.  Louisville is an upgrade athletically across the board.

It (conference re-alignment) is the hot topic of the day.  Do I think the dust has completely  settled?  I do not.  Other moves will be made, that is an almost certainty.  Given the road we've already traveled though (Big 12 is a prime example), I just think "wait and see" is the prudent approach.

The Big Ten offices are counting on a synergistic effect with regards to Rutgers.  Rutgers may only deliver some of the important NYC market.  However, with the large number of Big Ten graduates from other schools living in the NYC area, Rutgers influence is expected to provide a critical mass to tip the scales in favor of getting the Big Ten Network as part of a basic sports programming packages in the area - which will boost revenues accordingly.

The Big Ten offices are counting on the combined weight of the all the Big Ten schools, now including Rutgers as the weight which pushes them over the top, to permeate the NYC market.

Notably, IMO, this is also why the Rutgers-NYC situation is different from the often discussed Georiga Tech-Atlanta situation.  I don't believe the Big Ten offices believe (or should believe) that adding Georgia Tech, even in combination with the weight of the other Big Ten schools, is going to warrant cable companies putting the Big Ten Network on basic sports programming packages in the Atlanta market.  They know that the SEC and Georiga rule the market throughout the area and could well work to freeze the Big Ten Network out of such a deal.  If the Big Ten cannot be assured of getting the Big Ten Network included on basic sports programming packages in, at least, the Atlanta area by adding Georgia Tech, there is little reason for them to ever consider extending them an invitation.

rocknhoops wrote:

as for RU and NYC, my educated guess is that BTN has virtually zero chance to flip NYC, and will have it's hands full just flipping NJ.

NUCE1991 wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

as for RU and NYC, my educated guess is that BTN has virtually zero chance to flip NYC, and will have it's hands full just flipping NJ.

You may (or may not) be right, but I guarantee you that is exactly why the Big Ten took Rutgers - to, as you call it, "flip" NYC.  That's the prize that made absorbing Rutgers worthwhile financially.  And at this point, I would trust the business model that the Big Ten is working with.

rocknhoops wrote:

NUCE1991 wrote:

rocknhoops wrote:

as for RU and NYC, my educated guess is that BTN has virtually zero chance to flip NYC, and will have it's hands full just flipping NJ.

You may (or may not) be right, but I guarantee you that is exactly why the Big Ten took Rutgers - to, as you call it, "flip" NYC.  That's the prize that made absorbing Rutgers worthwhile financially.  And at this point, I would trust the business model that the Big Ten is working with.

"trust, but verify".

problem is, everybody is trusting, but no one questioning anything.


and btw, i didn't just speculate that BTN would have trouble flipping NYC on a whim.

if the general leadership and strategic thinking behind all this is based in the same extremely wishful and wildly speculative thought process as assuming BTN can flip NYC because they added RU, then that should be a red flag for everyone, regarding everything that's going down.