“If anything, it’s the opposite,” Bowlsby said. “You can begin to get some advantages without taking on any of the disadvantages (of expansion). It’s one option that allows benefits. It’s kind of like friends with benefits.

We new some kind of tie in

---------------------------------------------
--- flair1 wrote:

“If anything, it’s the opposite,” Bowlsby said. “You can begin to get some advantages without taking on any of the disadvantages (of expansion). It’s one option that allows benefits. It’s kind of like friends with benefits.

---------------------------------------------

I heard the Big 12 puts out

I'm glad someone's finally thinking outside the box.

The Big 36

lumberpack3 wrote: The Big 36

Big 48   says 4 conferences are talking  youre the math guy

roachclip76 wrote: We new some kind of tie in

huh?

johnnyfever wrote:

lumberpack3 wrote: The Big 36

Big 48   says 4 conferences are talking  youre the math guy

Not possible.  P12 - 12, B12 - 10, ACC - 14 = 36, plus ND equal 37.  SEC or Big 12 brings the total to 51.  The 4 conference thing is probably crap - just a cover.  Only the P12, B12 and ACC make any sense.

^right

but wonder if they are talking about forming a new tv network like the BTN?

johnnyfever wrote: ^right

but wonder if they are talking about forming a new tv network like the BTN?

That would be akin the talk several years ago about an ACC/Pac12 channel.

I guess we will have to wait until the Dude or that other moron from Florida tells us what it's all about. 

lumberpack3 wrote:

johnnyfever wrote: ^right

but wonder if they are talking about forming a new tv network like the BTN?

That would be akin the talk several years ago about an ACC/Pac12 channel.

I guess we will have to wait until the Dude or that other moron from Florida tells us what it's all about. 

yep thats what i was thinking about.  If its about a new TV network, wondering if the 4th conference could be the SEC?  Don't think the SEC would be interested an alliance, but then again who knows.

I like it. Could have ACC teams playing the Big 12 and PAC 12 teams. Spreads the brand and tvs across the nation.
Would love to have a home and home against those teams.

The talks about the ACC / SEC bundling their networks would fit into this alliance talk. Not to mention the ties the SEC already has with both conferences with the Sugar Bowl, Orange Bowl and rivalry games.

"Such a partnership would include football and basketball but could be expanded to other sports as well. The agreement could also involve participation between the leagues in bowl games to “share post-season inventory, allowing us more flexibility."

This is something I would like to see.  They could set it up so that bowls are grouped together and the Cotton, Peach, and Holiday could all take turns picking first between ACC 2, Big XII 2, and Pac-12 2.  It would be more exciting than finishing second 5 years in a row and going to the Peach Bowl 5 years in a row.

Wow, Bowlsby leaked that ? !!!!!

'81

Hmm, If the Pac 12/Big 12/ACC/SEC share a single network - is that not something akin to ESPN?

Juardis wrote:

roachclip76 wrote: We new some kind of tie in

huh?

No soap, radio

Not sure I see the Pac-12 involved. They dropped the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that led to the Big Ten feeling the need to add two more schools.


PAC-12 COMMISSIONER LARRY SCOTT:
“After extensive deliberation and consultation with member institutions, television partners and others, the Pac-12 and Big Ten have decided not to pursue the previously announced plans for enhanced scheduling collaboration across all sports at this time. While we continue to value our close relationship, particularly our partnership in the Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 came to the conclusion that it’s in our best interests to maintain our 9-game conference schedule and maximum flexibility in out-of-conference scheduling. Thus, the Pac 12 decided not to lock into the proposed mandatory 12-game schedule in football.”

Don't think any of that has changed, but who knows.

ACC/Big 12/SEC forming some alliance as far as scheduling and bowl tie-ins? Sure, I could see that. Don't see an alliance in regards to a TV Network, however, except for possibly the SEC and ACC working together in distribution of their potential league networks down the road. SEC gets home subscription fees in ACC states, ACC gets home subscription fees in SEC states. Probably a win for SEC with exception of Texas for ACC. A bundle presented by ESPN. You want the ACC Network, you've got to take the SEC Network and vice versa.

wrcwolf wrote: Not sure I see the Pac-12 involved. They dropped the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that led to the Big Ten feeling the need to add two more schools.


PAC-12 COMMISSIONER LARRY SCOTT:
“After extensive deliberation and consultation with member institutions, television partners and others, the Pac-12 and Big Ten have decided not to pursue the previously announced plans for enhanced scheduling collaboration across all sports at this time. While we continue to value our close relationship, particularly our partnership in the Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 came to the conclusion that it’s in our best interests to maintain our 9-game conference schedule and maximum flexibility in out-of-conference scheduling. Thus, the Pac 12 decided not to lock into the proposed mandatory 12-game schedule in football.”

Don't think any of that has changed, but who knows.

ACC/Big 12/SEC forming some alliance as far as scheduling and bowl tie-ins? Sure, I could see that. Don't see an alliance in regards to a TV Network, however, except for possibly the SEC and ACC working together in distribution of their potential league networks down the road. SEC gets home subscription fees in ACC states, ACC gets home subscription fees in SEC states. Probably a win for SEC with exception of Texas for ACC. A bundle presented by ESPN. You want the ACC Network, you've got to take the SEC Network and vice versa.

Unless of course the ACC adds a team from the State of Texas.

How many of you would be upset to find Texas as a partial member of the ACC? 

Texas and ND as partial members sounds pretty good to me! Would do wonders for our TV revenue.

If they were to join as a partial member the question would be do we go to 16 full members or stay at 14?

virus420 wrote: Texas and ND as partial members sounds pretty good to me! Would do wonders for our TV revenue.

If they were to join as a partial member the question would be do we go to 16 full members or stay at 14?

Actually there is no such thing as a "partial" ACC member.  I don't know who started using that term.  It's wrong.  It's not accurate.  A number of ACC schools don't participate in certain sports.  ND will be a full member in 2014/15.  They just won't play but 5 football games unless something changes to encourage them to play more. 

I take it from your question - do we go to 18 total members, 16 of which play a full football schedual.  I guess that's possible.  If the ACC has ND and Texas, even with just 6 football games, getting a 17th and 18th should be easy.  

I would think under a scenario like that, the top three candidates would be Penn State, Kansas and Navy.  What would have to happen as a practical matter is that an 18 team ACC would have to split into nearly discreete divisions for the purpose of football.

WRC,

I have never disagreed with any post you've made, but I assure you that the PAC 12 IS/WILL be involved !!!  Sorry that I cannot comment further at this time, Sir.

'81

wrcwolf wrote: Not sure I see the Pac-12 involved. They dropped the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that led to the Big Ten feeling the need to add two more schools.


PAC-12 COMMISSIONER LARRY SCOTT:
“After extensive deliberation and consultation with member institutions, television partners and others, the Pac-12 and Big Ten have decided not to pursue the previously announced plans for enhanced scheduling collaboration across all sports at this time. While we continue to value our close relationship, particularly our partnership in the Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 came to the conclusion that it’s in our best interests to maintain our 9-game conference schedule and maximum flexibility in out-of-conference scheduling. Thus, the Pac 12 decided not to lock into the proposed mandatory 12-game schedule in football.”

Don't think any of that has changed, but who knows.

ACC/Big 12/SEC forming some alliance as far as scheduling and bowl tie-ins? Sure, I could see that. Don't see an alliance in regards to a TV Network, however, except for possibly the SEC and ACC working together in distribution of their potential league networks down the road. SEC gets home subscription fees in ACC states, ACC gets home subscription fees in SEC states. Probably a win for SEC with exception of Texas for ACC. A bundle presented by ESPN. You want the ACC Network, you've got to take the SEC Network and vice versa.

A year ago, I'd say no.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen, assuming they'd have a similar arrangement as ND. Adding Texas is the only thing that would secure the future of the ACC. The money they'd bring in would make it so impossible for anyone to leave.

It'd make sense for Texas too. Right now their brand is exclusive to Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. That's it. The ACC would expand that to the entire east coast.

ACC baseball would be sick. ;)

---------------------------------------------
--- lumberpack3 wrote:

How many of you would be upset to find Texas as a partial member of the ACC? 

---------------------------------------------

lumberpack3 wrote:

johnnyfever wrote:

lumberpack3 wrote: The Big 36

Big 48   says 4 conferences are talking  youre the math guy

Not possible.  P12 - 12, B12 - 10, ACC - 14 = 36, plus ND equal 37.  SEC or Big 12 brings the total to 51.  The 4 conference thing is probably crap - just a cover.  Only the P12, B12 and ACC make any sense.

So all the talk about 4 16-team superconferences breaking away from the NCAA is just talk?
Yes, I'm serious. And not nearly as informed.

This is getting too confusing for me!! LOL. We have some who want to know if we would like to know if we would like Texas as a partial member, and then we are told as there is no such thing as a partial member, "not accurate" "don't know whoever started that" because we have some schools now that don't participate in all sports. C'mon man! I love all the sports we have here at NC state, but what we're really talking about here, is the big revenue sports that provide money for the other sports teams, and the university.  Football is king, hands down, basketball also does very well at most schools. Hell I didn't even know, we actually compete in a different conference in Gymnastics, I believe, due to the lack of ACC schools involved.  Sorry, but I see ND in football as a partial member, How can't they be?? Playing 5 games in conference, opposed to all the other teams playing 8. A team playing 5 games can't be involved in playing for the champion of the league.  I realize the revenue resources Texas and ND would bring. It would be huge. Personally I don't like PARTIAL members. It makes us look weak, IMO. We say to them, we would love to have you, but you come in as full members, or at the very least, do so ASAP, if there are some commitments that you have promised to fulfill. Unfortunately integrity doesn't exist much anymore. We don't have to look far, to see that .

packman1981 wrote: WRC,

I have never disagreed with any post you've made, time, but I assure you that the PAC 12 IS/WILL be involved !!!  Sorry that I cannot comment further at this Sir.

'81

wrcwolf wrote: Not sure I see the Pac-12 involved. They dropped the Big Ten/Pac-12 alliance that led to the Big Ten feeling the need to add two more schools.


PAC-12 COMMISSIONER LARRY SCOTT:
“After extensive deliberation and consultation with member institutions, television partners and others, the Pac-12 and Big Ten have decided not to pursue the previously announced plans for enhanced scheduling collaboration across all sports at this time. While we continue to value our close relationship, particularly our partnership in the Rose Bowl, the Pac-12 came to the conclusion that it’s in our best interests to maintain our 9-game conference schedule and maximum flexibility in out-of-conference scheduling. Thus, the Pac 12 decided not to lock into the proposed mandatory 12-game schedule in football.”

Don't think any of that has changed, but who knows.

ACC/Big 12/SEC forming some alliance as far as scheduling and bowl tie-ins? Sure, I could see that. Don't see an alliance in regards to a TV Network, however, except for possibly the SEC and ACC working together in distribution of their potential league networks down the road. SEC gets home subscription fees in ACC states, ACC gets home subscription fees in SEC states. Probably a win for SEC with exception of Texas for ACC. A bundle presented by ESPN. You want the ACC Network, you've got to take the SEC Network and vice versa.

once again interesting!  So Big12 ACC Pac12 are 3 of the 4.  So is SEC the fourth?

This is very interesting and I think a good idea.  Both conferences get the benefit of playing teams outside their geographical region every now and again, but don't have to go through the formality of joining the conference.

Once there are only 4 major conferences, the NCAA is doomed.

lumberpack3 wrote:

virus420 wrote: Texas and ND as partial members sounds pretty good to me! Would do wonders for our TV revenue.

If they were to join as a partial member the question would be do we go to 16 full members or stay at 14?

Actually there is no such thing as a "partial" ACC member.  I don't know who started using that term.  It's wrong.  It's not accurate.  A number of ACC schools don't participate in certain sports.  ND will be a full member in 2014/15.  They just won't play but 5 football games unless something changes to encourage them to play more. 

I take it from your question - do we go to 18 total members, 16 of which play a full football schedual.  I guess that's possible.  If the ACC has ND and Texas, even with just 6 football games, getting a 17th and 18th should be easy.  

I would think under a scenario like that, the top three candidates would be Penn State, Kansas and Navy.  What would have to happen as a practical matter is that an 18 team ACC would have to split into nearly discreete divisions for the purpose of football.

I guess I am looking at this from the football perspective.  I think two additional all sport additions would give us enough football members to implement the pod system in football. The pod system would allow each team to see the others on a much more regular basis and that's really what I care about as that is how you develop tradition, rivalries, etc. (in addition to the extra revenue).  Implementing that system might enable the conference to become more stable than the older conferences mentioned before (old SoCon, etc.) that exceeded 14 teams (aside from political issues). I think other sports basketball, baseball, etc. can maintain the two division setup more effectively than football with 18 teams because you play many more games and would meet more regularly. If those two additional members were some combo of PSU, Kansas or Navy (w/Georgetown as the bball addition) then I think we would be that much stronger as a conference.

I actually think letting Texas and ND stay independent in football might be the best thing for the conference in the long term as it allows those two teams, with hands down two of the best national followings, to stay national in scheduling. I hate to say this, but if TEXAS and ND did join full time it would most likely detract from their national appeal over time as they would play a much less national (vs. regional) slate of games. Those two teams add much more to the mix if they maintain their national (i.e. playing games at USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, etc.) appeal and play a fixed number of games within the ACC.

However, in the end If we just added Texas as a member (football independent of course), I would still be very, very happy with that!!!!

Wonder if the new scheduling/partnership format that Bowlsby mentioned might affect the possibility of Texas in the ACC from occurring?

I actually think letting Texas and ND stay independent in football might be the best thing for the conference in the long term as it allows those two teams, with hands down two of the best national followings, to stay national in scheduling. I hate to say this, but if TEXAS and ND did join full time it would most likely detract from their national appeal over time as they would play a much less national (vs. regional) slate of games. Those two teams add much more to the mix if they maintain their national (i.e. playing games at USC, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, etc.) appeal and play a fixed number of games within the ACC.

-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------

Not true my friend.  Playing 3 games non-conference would theoretically allow ND to keep Navy, rotate mich and mich St every other year and the same with USC/Stanford.

As for Tx they don't really play a national schedule and haven't historically.  But assuming 3 non-conference games allows them to keep Oklahoma and rotate Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU and then play one game in the Pac 12 alliance.

ALL  OF  WHAT  I  JUST  WROTE  IS  SPECULATION  ON  MY  PART.  I CAN NEITHER  CONFIRM  OR  DENY  THE  TRUTH  NOR  FALSEHOOD  OF  IT. SO, PLEASE  DO  NOT  QUOTE  ME  ON THESE  COMMENTS.  MY  ADVISE  IS TO  READ  LUMBERPACK'S POSTS.  MANY OF THEM ARE SPOT ON..

'81

^ ACTUALLY MOST OF THEM ARE SPOT ON !!!

'81

All the doom and gloom ACC OPPPONENTS, PLEASE READ THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE:

http://www.nunesmagician.com/2...yracuse-big-ten

Also, the reader comments following the article are a must read.

Thanks, Fellow ACC Fans  and Loyalists.

'81

Not of the belief that major expansion is on the horizon, but if history is an indication, talk of alliances usually ends up in expansion. The Big East proposed an alliance with the ACC prior to the ACC taking their schools and linked below, the SWC and Big 8 were talking alliance prior to the Big 8 taking the 4 from Texas.

newsok.com/swc-weighs-big-8-al...article/2319646

Under a plan devised by Big Eight commissioner Carl James, the leagues would account for about 15 percent of the nation's televisions and 31 million people.

SWC president James Vick would not confirm or deny that a Big Eight-SWC alliance was discussed, but a league source said it was, The News reported.

A Big Eight-SWC alliance could be a lure to keep Texas and Texas A&M if Arkansas decided to leave for the SEC.
Under James' plan, there would be 16 or 17 teams, North and South divisions and a playoff game to determine the champion in football. The league would control two bowls, the Orange Bowl and the Cotton Bowl.

WRC::

Points well taken. But the Big XII does not have the solidarity nor strength at this time to pull off poaching from the ACC. My goodness, they had to go with lowly WVU just to get back to where they were (numbers-wise). Also I am free to comment that going beyond 16 teams in the ACC is HIGHLY unlikely in the foreseeable future if ever.

'81

You know it just dawned on me that the coaches of Texas's two revenue sports used to be coaches at UNC and NCSU.  Fancy that.

I would love to see any way for NC State to come to Oklahoma... for selfish reasons alone.

SoonerWolf wrote: I would love to see any way for NC State to come to Oklahoma... for selfish reasons alone.

We had a home and home schedualed with OSU but that went away.

lumber a KU fan on one of the boards I read provided some detailed info about KU and KSU being separate but equal ...I can't find said post but that is what I'm going from...the poster could have been full of it so who knows.


The key with Texas is the LHN which, like the ACC, is owned by ESPN. As it stands now, to get any halfway quality games on the LHN, ESPN has had to play chess with FOX as they both share the conference TV rights. That wouldn't be an issue in the ACC. Raycom (ACC Network) can show games in the NY to Miami footprint and LHN (ACC Network) can show whatever the hell they want out there.  This is where Texas being far away actually helps. UT alums living from NY to Miami will then want the LHN which is to both UT and ESPN's benefit.

As for football, UT can play 6 games vs the ACC, just like ND will....with all 7 of their home games being either on ESPN or the LHN (NO FOX). 


I just don't know if UT can leave all the little brothers behind.