---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

I know the ACC is doing everything it can to raise the tv revenue, but it's going to be an uphill battle:

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...work-of-its-own

This article states that ESPN is "lukewarm" on the idea. The ACC will need their cooperation to get this thing off the ground.

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

Don't mistake me for someone who believes that it would be easy to make an ACC Network using a third party or a non-major network or that doing so would be an easy undertaking, but renegotiations are two way streets and ESPN realizes this. By bringing Notre Dame to the mix and exchanging Louisville for Maryland, the criteria for renegotiations have been met--they are going to occur. ESPN cares enough about its ACC product to pay $3.6B over the next 15 years. As much as we bemoan the media deal as being 5th in the pecking order, that's still a HUGE investment, the 3rd highest per year from the network's stanpoint. They obviously have interest in ensuring the welfare of the league but they also know that they aren't the only player in this. The ACC only survives if its members are happy. And if a renegotiation is going to occur, it will be mutually beneficial and if not, the ACC has other options.

If the article is right and the conversation is being made about the possibilities of forming an ACC Network, the ACC would be set up to move forward in a big way given its relationship with Raycom. I'm not saying that would be ideal. It wouldn't be and it would be a HUGE risk. But it could be extremely profitable if modeled the same way the BTN is given the population base (140 million) living in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Mass, NC, PA, SC. Plus the effect of Notre Dame fans everywhere... Kind of makes me wonder whether this may have already occured had Syracuse been added instead of VT...

The main problem is ESPN is THE SEC network and they're helping the SEC Start their own network, but they're hesistant to help the ACC...The ACC is counting on ESPN and Notre Dame to save them....uh ESPN only cares about the SEC and Notre Dame only cares about itself.....

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

I know the ACC is doing everything it can to raise the tv revenue, but it's going to be an uphill battle:

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...work-of-its-own

This article states that ESPN is "lukewarm" on the idea. The ACC will need their cooperation to get this thing off the ground.

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

Don't mistake me for someone who believes that it would be easy to make an ACC Network using a third party or a non-major network or that doing so would be an easy undertaking, but renegotiations are two way streets and ESPN realizes this. By bringing Notre Dame to the mix and exchanging Louisville for Maryland, the criteria for renegotiations have been met--they are going to occur. ESPN cares enough about its ACC product to pay $3.6B over the next 15 years. As much as we bemoan the media deal as being 5th in the pecking order, that's still a HUGE investment, the 3rd highest per year from the network's stanpoint. They obviously have interest in ensuring the welfare of the league but they also know that they aren't the only player in this. The ACC only survives if its members are happy. And if a renegotiation is going to occur, it will be mutually beneficial and if not, the ACC has other options.

If the article is right and the conversation is being made about the possibilities of forming an ACC Network, the ACC would be set up to move forward in a big way given its relationship with Raycom. I'm not saying that would be ideal. It wouldn't be and it would be a HUGE risk. But it could be extremely profitable if modeled the same way the BTN is given the population base (140 million) living in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Mass, NC, PA, SC. Plus the effect of Notre Dame fans everywhere... Kind of makes me wonder whether this may have already occured had Syracuse been added instead of VT...

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

ESPN is paying more for the ACC content than the SEC... CBS has first tier rights of the SEC. I think if ESPN could choose which league would be more successful it would be the ACC...it has made more of an investment into the ACC than the SEC.

Which also leads logic that ESPN would do everything to "encourage" UNC/Duke to the SEC

Something people don't talk about, but is true, is that basketball is going to have to carry a lot of the SEC Network's weight

Most quality SEC football program falls to CBS or ESPN

So what's more valuable to the SEC, Duke basketball to the SEC Network or Virginia markets?


---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

The main problem is ESPN is THE SEC network and they're helping the SEC Start their own network, but they're hesistant to help the ACC...The ACC is counting on ESPN and Notre Dame to save them....uh ESPN only cares about the SEC and Notre Dame only cares about itself.....

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

I know the ACC is doing everything it can to raise the tv revenue, but it's going to be an uphill battle:

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...work-of-its-own

This article states that ESPN is "lukewarm" on the idea. The ACC will need their cooperation to get this thing off the ground.

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

Don't mistake me for someone who believes that it would be easy to make an ACC Network using a third party or a non-major network or that doing so would be an easy undertaking, but renegotiations are two way streets and ESPN realizes this. By bringing Notre Dame to the mix and exchanging Louisville for Maryland, the criteria for renegotiations have been met--they are going to occur. ESPN cares enough about its ACC product to pay $3.6B over the next 15 years. As much as we bemoan the media deal as being 5th in the pecking order, that's still a HUGE investment, the 3rd highest per year from the network's stanpoint. They obviously have interest in ensuring the welfare of the league but they also know that they aren't the only player in this. The ACC only survives if its members are happy. And if a renegotiation is going to occur, it will be mutually beneficial and if not, the ACC has other options.

If the article is right and the conversation is being made about the possibilities of forming an ACC Network, the ACC would be set up to move forward in a big way given its relationship with Raycom. I'm not saying that would be ideal. It wouldn't be and it would be a HUGE risk. But it could be extremely profitable if modeled the same way the BTN is given the population base (140 million) living in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Mass, NC, PA, SC. Plus the effect of Notre Dame fans everywhere... Kind of makes me wonder whether this may have already occured had Syracuse been added instead of VT...

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

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

---------------------------------------------
--- rock06 wrote:




Which also leads logic that ESPN would do everything to "encourage" UNC/Duke to the SEC

Something people don't talk about, but is true, is that basketball is going to have to carry a lot of the SEC Network's weight

Most quality SEC football program falls to CBS or ESPN

So what's more valuable to the SEC, Duke basketball to the SEC Network or Virginia markets?


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

Great question rock06. My impression (which is admittedly worthless) is that the state of Virginia is more valuable than Duke basketball, mainly because football is a larger revenue generator than basketball. Landing UVA or VT would provide network revenue for the entire state.

However, one thing to consider is that down the road there is a chance that the so-called super-conferences might break away from the NCAA. And if that really does happen, basketball could become much, much more valuable. If the SEC is planning on that scenario, Duke might very well be the preferred target over the state of Virginia.

I still don't think 16 is necessarily the magic number.

If the SEC is smart, they'll take UNC, UVA, and Duke.
Duke has value for inventory, brand name, and the most publicized rivalry in sports. UNC-UK, UNC-Duke, Duke-UK would immediately be headliners during basketball season.
Duke's alumni base also reaches into the Northeast, without requiring the addition of a geographically north school.
Duke creates a second private school that would quickly be paired with Vandy should there be rivalry games.

If 18 teams:

East: UNC, UVA, Duke, USCe, UGA, UF, Tenn, Vandy, UK
West: LSU, TAMU, Arky, Mizzou, Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, KU?

If 20, add two of Oklahoma, Texas, Maryland, FSU, WVU.

I think it is likely we could still see 4 leagues, but the fourth league will be a combination of the Big East, ACC, and B12 leftovers.

I like the way you think Heel2k. If it were me instead of Slive, I'd try to do exactly what you laid out with one difference. If taking UNC/Duke is a must for a better b-ball conference, and taking a Virginia school is still necessary then yes the SEC has to go past 16. So why not bite the bullet and take UNC/Duke/UVA/VT leaving two more spots on the way to 20. Then go ahead and grab Louisville for basketball to field these rivalries: UNC/Duke, UNC/UK, Duke/UK, UK/UL, Duke/UL, UNC/UL. That would utterly rule southern basketball forever! It also would leave one more spot open for whomever to round out 20.


---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

I still don't think 16 is necessarily the magic number.

If the SEC is smart, they'll take UNC, UVA, and Duke.
Duke has value for inventory, brand name, and the most publicized rivalry in sports. UNC-UK, UNC-Duke, Duke-UK would immediately be headliners during basketball season.
Duke's alumni base also reaches into the Northeast, without requiring the addition of a geographically north school.
Duke creates a second private school that would quickly be paired with Vandy should there be rivalry games.

If 18 teams:

East: UNC, UVA, Duke, USCe, UGA, UF, Tenn, Vandy, UK
West: LSU, TAMU, Arky, Mizzou, Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, KU?

If 20, add two of Oklahoma, Texas, Maryland, FSU, WVU.

I think it is likely we could still see 4 leagues, but the fourth league will be a combination of the Big East, ACC, and B12 leftovers.

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

You could round out to 20 by adding Kansas! Now your basketball matchups between UNC, Dook, Kensucky, Louisville, Florida and Kansas would be legendary!

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


I like the way you think Heel2k. If it were me instead of Slive, I'd try to do exactly what you laid out with one difference. If taking UNC/Duke is a must for a better b-ball conference, and taking a Virginia school is still necessary then yes the SEC has to go past 16. So why not bite the bullet and take UNC/Duke/UVA/VT leaving two more spots on the way to 20. Then go ahead and grab Louisville for basketball to field these rivalries: UNC/Duke, UNC/UK, Duke/UK, UK/UL, Duke/UL, UNC/UL. That would utterly rule southern basketball forever! It also would leave one more spot open for whomever to round out 20.


---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

I still don't think 16 is necessarily the magic number.

If the SEC is smart, they'll take UNC, UVA, and Duke.
Duke has value for inventory, brand name, and the most publicized rivalry in sports. UNC-UK, UNC-Duke, Duke-UK would immediately be headliners during basketball season.
Duke's alumni base also reaches into the Northeast, without requiring the addition of a geographically north school.
Duke creates a second private school that would quickly be paired with Vandy should there be rivalry games.

If 18 teams:

East: UNC, UVA, Duke, USCe, UGA, UF, Tenn, Vandy, UK
West: LSU, TAMU, Arky, Mizzou, Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, KU?

If 20, add two of Oklahoma, Texas, Maryland, FSU, WVU.

I think it is likely we could still see 4 leagues, but the fourth league will be a combination of the Big East, ACC, and B12 leftovers.

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

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

Vandy is decent in Basketball also.

---------------------------------------------
--- Gio4Heismann wrote:

You could round out to 20 by adding Kansas! Now your basketball matchups between UNC, Dook, Kensucky, Louisville, Florida and Kansas would be legendary!

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


I like the way you think Heel2k. If it were me instead of Slive, I'd try to do exactly what you laid out with one difference. If taking UNC/Duke is a must for a better b-ball conference, and taking a Virginia school is still necessary then yes the SEC has to go past 16. So why not bite the bullet and take UNC/Duke/UVA/VT leaving two more spots on the way to 20. Then go ahead and grab Louisville for basketball to field these rivalries: UNC/Duke, UNC/UK, Duke/UK, UK/UL, Duke/UL, UNC/UL. That would utterly rule southern basketball forever! It also would leave one more spot open for whomever to round out 20.


---------------------------------------------
--- Heel2K wrote:

I still don't think 16 is necessarily the magic number.

If the SEC is smart, they'll take UNC, UVA, and Duke.
Duke has value for inventory, brand name, and the most publicized rivalry in sports. UNC-UK, UNC-Duke, Duke-UK would immediately be headliners during basketball season.
Duke's alumni base also reaches into the Northeast, without requiring the addition of a geographically north school.
Duke creates a second private school that would quickly be paired with Vandy should there be rivalry games.

If 18 teams:

East: UNC, UVA, Duke, USCe, UGA, UF, Tenn, Vandy, UK
West: LSU, TAMU, Arky, Mizzou, Miss, MSST, Auburn, Bama, KU?

If 20, add two of Oklahoma, Texas, Maryland, FSU, WVU.

I think it is likely we could still see 4 leagues, but the fourth league will be a combination of the Big East, ACC, and B12 leftovers.

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

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

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

that may be so, but the SEC dosent even pretend to care about athletics, which would not fit the normal look of them

---------------------------------------------
--- rock06 wrote:




Which also leads logic that ESPN would do everything to "encourage" UNC/Duke to the SEC

Something people don't talk about, but is true, is that basketball is going to have to carry a lot of the SEC Network's weight

Most quality SEC football program falls to CBS or ESPN

So what's more valuable to the SEC, Duke basketball to the SEC Network or Virginia markets?


---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

The main problem is ESPN is THE SEC network and they're helping the SEC Start their own network, but they're hesistant to help the ACC...The ACC is counting on ESPN and Notre Dame to save them....uh ESPN only cares about the SEC and Notre Dame only cares about itself.....

---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:

I know the ACC is doing everything it can to raise the tv revenue, but it's going to be an uphill battle:

www.cbssports.com/collegefootb...work-of-its-own

This article states that ESPN is "lukewarm" on the idea. The ACC will need their cooperation to get this thing off the ground.

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

Don't mistake me for someone who believes that it would be easy to make an ACC Network using a third party or a non-major network or that doing so would be an easy undertaking, but renegotiations are two way streets and ESPN realizes this. By bringing Notre Dame to the mix and exchanging Louisville for Maryland, the criteria for renegotiations have been met--they are going to occur. ESPN cares enough about its ACC product to pay $3.6B over the next 15 years. As much as we bemoan the media deal as being 5th in the pecking order, that's still a HUGE investment, the 3rd highest per year from the network's stanpoint. They obviously have interest in ensuring the welfare of the league but they also know that they aren't the only player in this. The ACC only survives if its members are happy. And if a renegotiation is going to occur, it will be mutually beneficial and if not, the ACC has other options.

If the article is right and the conversation is being made about the possibilities of forming an ACC Network, the ACC would be set up to move forward in a big way given its relationship with Raycom. I'm not saying that would be ideal. It wouldn't be and it would be a HUGE risk. But it could be extremely profitable if modeled the same way the BTN is given the population base (140 million) living in Florida, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Mass, NC, PA, SC. Plus the effect of Notre Dame fans everywhere... Kind of makes me wonder whether this may have already occured had Syracuse been added instead of VT...

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

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

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

For all of those who think UNC and UVA to the SEC, where do NC State and VT end up? B1G will not take them. They add no value to the Big12. Unless they can find a home, UNC and UVA are not going to the SEC. Also, SEC is fine with VT and NC State. SEC will not take 2 schools from the same state.

Delany and Slive both want in NC and Virginia. The pieces of the puzzle only go together one way:

SEC takes NC State and VT
B1G takes UVA and UNC (and GT and FSU and ND and ?).

Big 12 will take NCeSt and VT. They're natural rivals for WVU, in so many ways.

---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

Big 12 will take NCeSt and VT. They're natural rivals for WVU, in so many ways.

---------------------------------------------
Good to see there's at least one Carolina alumnus left on this thread. The rest must be Financial Analysts from Wheeling and Akron!

I agree. Like I said before, taking Duke and UNC doesn't help out recruiting footprint like taking UNC and VA. They won't take both, and if they want to keep the UNC-Duke rivalry going, they can schedule it every year OOC anyway.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

For all of those who think UNC and UVA to the SEC, where do NC State and VT end up? B1G will not take them. They add no value to the Big12. Unless they can find a home, UNC and UVA are not going to the SEC. Also, SEC is fine with VT and NC State. SEC will not take 2 schools from the same state.

Delany and Slive both want in NC and Virginia. The pieces of the puzzle only go together one way:

SEC takes NC State and VT
B1G takes UVA and UNC (and GT and FSU and ND and ?).

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

---------------------------------------------
--- ChancellorHouse wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- therabidrev wrote:

Big 12 will take NCeSt and VT. They're natural rivals for WVU, in so many ways.

---------------------------------------------
Good to see there's at least one Carolina alumnus left on this thread. The rest must be Financial Analysts from Wheeling and Akron!

---------------------------------------------
Add Lincoln, Nebraska

The Pac 12 & B1G networks with the awesome payouts both have a GOR as its foundation.

The reason the B12, with drastically less viewers in its footprint than the ACC, has better TV deals is because of its GOR.

This ACC Network talk is just nonsense until a Grant of Rights is signed. Every day that goes by without one being signed is a solid indication of what to expect this off-season.

---------------------------------------------
--- TuxedoYoda wrote:

The Pac 12 & B1G networks with the awesome payouts both have a GOR as its foundation.

The reason the B12, with drastically less viewers in its footprint than the ACC, has better TV deals is because of its GOR.

This ACC Network talk is just nonsense until a Grant of Rights is signed. Every day that goes by without one being signed is a solid indication of what to expect this off-season.

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

If Texas and Oklahoma wanted to go to the Pac-12, or if Kansas wanted to go to the Big Ten, the GOR won't stop them. It's just another damages clause that has no relation to the actual damages caused by a school leaving. Like an exit fee, it's an impediment but not a bar.

---------------------------------------------
--- BamainCarolina wrote:

Buckeye, you have just lost all credibility. Mississippi and Louisiana are not different from the Midwest?

---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

I have too and i have family in ms and la.....its not different....the east and ne is different....but thats not the midwest....... again im not sure what people mean in terms of general mindset....how so?

A couple of other things....noone runs the b10......ask anyone....noone does....all schools are equal....and alot of the rwason si...is its not just about athletics....which is why the administration of any school would pick the b10 over every conference except the ivy....which is an athletic conference as well...but its obviously much more than that....and so is the b10.

As for not fitting in....i dont buy that...unc, ga tech, and uva are much more like the b10 than the sec....they realize football is second to academics. Texas is the same way...the academics would join in seconds.....but the athletics dept wont for various reason....even notre dame would have joined if the academics had there way...but give up on notre dame joining...its not gonna happen unless they absolutely have to.


---------------------------------------------
--- rock06 wrote:



I've lived in both the south & Midwest as well & there's a definite difference

But it's a general mindset more than one specific, tangible thing


---------------------------------------------
--- buckeye4573 wrote:

What does southern mean? You say yall....act like the civil war isnt over? Or you like fried foods?

I disagree... the south and midwest are very conservative culturally....the north is a bit more cosmopolitan.....im a buckeye that moved to tn and didnt see much difference....you had conservatives and liberals in both places....but a higher percentage of conservatives in tn

---------------------------------------------
--- BamainCarolina wrote:

No, I actually don't believe that Duke will go to the SEC with UNC or anybody else.

I honestly don't know what UNC's administration will do here. I really don't. But I think that UNC would be much more likely to go to the SEC in tandem with UVA than with any other school.

It is anecdotal to be sure, but in perusing UNC's boards and even UVA's boards, it does not appear that the fanbases of either school are excited about the B1G. Most seem to have expressed a preference for the SEC if the choice is between the two. Does that mean anything? I don't know.

Both schools are probably less Southern than they used to be. So what? They are both still more Southern than any school in the B1G.


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

I honestly think that UNC, Duke, and UVa want to stick together (tradition, geography, academics, non-revenue sports). Right now, it sounds like only the ACC and the Big Ten are offering that.



---------------------------------------------
--- BamainCarolina wrote:

If any ACC schools are going to the B1G, I can see GT and Duke going there.

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

You hope that because you don't think Duke would go with UNC to the SEC, meaning UNC is less likely to go. But why wouldn't UVa go to the Big Ten? UVa more and more associates with DC. A move to the SEC would be a move away, while a move to the Big Ten is a move toward it.

I don't think UVa--or UNC for that matter--are as (deep) Southern as many people on this board would like to believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buckeye is aware of population trends. There's been a huge influx of Cajuns into Ohio and Michigan, I gair-on-tee it. And they make passable gumbo and jambalaya.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

If Texas and Oklahoma wanted to go to the Pac-12, or if Kansas wanted to go to the Big Ten, the GOR won't stop them. It's just another damages clause that has no relation to the actual damages caused by a school leaving. Like an exit fee, it's an impediment but not a bar.

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

You may very well be right about that. But it hasn't been tested yet in court to see how exactly it would get resolved. So on that basis alone it appears to be more of a deterent than the exit fee, which has repeatedly been negotiated down by teams relocating between conferences.

---------------------------------------------
--- DeadeyeDirk wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:

If Texas and Oklahoma wanted to go to the Pac-12, or if Kansas wanted to go to the Big Ten, the GOR won't stop them. It's just another damages clause that has no relation to the actual damages caused by a school leaving. Like an exit fee, it's an impediment but not a bar.

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

You may very well be right about that. But it hasn't been tested yet in court to see how exactly it would get resolved. So on that basis alone it appears to be more of a deterent than the exit fee, which has repeatedly been negotiated down by teams relocating between conferences.

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

Have exit fees even been tested in court? Settlement after a suit is filed but before the claims are actually litigated doesn't qualify as "tested in court."

The Big 12 wouldn't be entitled to any more compensation than what would put them in the position they would have occupied but for a team leaving. Since the Big 12 doesn't get a school's money if the school is in the conference, what is the basis for giving the school's money to the Big 12 if the school is not in the conference? Good luck arguing that something the Big 12 would never have gotten is a good measure of its actual damages.

It's no less of a penalty than an exit fee. It's just there to act as a deterrent by adding risk of uncertainty and the cost of litigation.

This thread still going on and on? I'll say we all just stay put here in the ACC as it is with louisville comeing things are looking up! but as stated before if it all hits the fan unc to the SEC! end of story

---------------------------------------------
--- Cartarheels wrote:

This thread still going on and on? I'll say we all just stay put here in the ACC as it is with louisville comeing things are looking up! but as stated before if it all hits the fan unc to the SEC! end of story

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

This thread will never die, unless it hits 100 pages.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinchesterBUCK wrote:

For all of those who think UNC and UVA to the SEC, where do NC State and VT end up? B1G will not take them. They add no value to the Big12. Unless they can find a home, UNC and UVA are not going to the SEC. Also, SEC is fine with VT and NC State. SEC will not take 2 schools from the same state.

Delany and Slive both want in NC and Virginia. The pieces of the puzzle only go together one way:

SEC takes NC State and VT
B1G takes UVA and UNC (and GT and FSU and ND and ?).

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

Slive and Delany are not co-conspirators in this. Each in looking out for No 1.

I agree that the Big 10 wouldn't take NCSU and VT.

But, getting the Big 12 into NC and VA brings nothing? Respectfully disagree. If this is about TV sets, then, NC-VA brings roughly 18M people into Big 12 territory. Thats a lot of TV sets. Exactly the same number as the SEC or B10 would get with UNC-UVA.

NCSU-VT, along with Clemson and FSU, to the Big 12 is not a bad deal at all. Bring in Miami and Cincinnati, and move WVU and Iowa State there to create the Big 12 East. Thats a pretty competitive division right there.

OBTW...when we go to the SEC, State can always go to CUSA with Wake and Duke. We could not care less about where they end up.

Its all speculation anyways, as the ACC is not going anywhere.

---------------------------------------------
--- TuxedoYoda wrote:

The Pac 12 & B1G networks with the awesome payouts both have a GOR as its foundation.

The reason the B12, with drastically less viewers in its footprint than the ACC, has better TV deals is because of its GOR.

This ACC Network talk is just nonsense until a Grant of Rights is signed. Every day that goes by without one being signed is a solid indication of what to expect this off-season.

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

If the GOR such a great thing, why doesn't the SEC have one?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- TuxedoYoda wrote:

The Pac 12 & B1G networks with the awesome payouts both have a GOR as its foundation.

The reason the B12, with drastically less viewers in its footprint than the ACC, has better TV deals is because of its GOR.

This ACC Network talk is just nonsense until a Grant of Rights is signed. Every day that goes by without one being signed is a solid indication of what to expect this off-season.

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

If Texas and Oklahoma wanted to go to the Pac-12, or if Kansas wanted to go to the Big Ten, the GOR won't stop them. It's just another damages clause that has no relation to the actual damages caused by a school leaving. Like an exit fee, it's an impediment but not a bar.

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

You best believe that if Texas wanted out of the Big 12, this 'be all end all' GOR that Yoda keeps banging on about sure as hell would not stop them. Texas looks out for Texas. If they thought the Pac-12 was a better choice, they'd be gone before anybody knew it.

You have it right bamatab. You are a typical southerner. When you visit someone's home you keep a low profile; listen; and learn the lay of the land before you open your mouth. Typical Southern manners....

As for these people who don't consider North Carolina to be "as southern" as say Georgia or Alabama; they truly have no clue about this State and its history.

www.visitnc.com/journeys/artic...civil-war-facts

"While North Carolina was the last of the 11 Southern states to secede, it sent more troops and materials and suffered more losses than any other Southern state."

"More than 125,000 men from North Carolina served in the Confederate Army."

"Around 40,000 North Carolinians were killed over the course of the war."

North Carolina is a southern as it gets despite the number of transplants moving here who want to change it.

Hell will freeze over before UNC joins the Big 10.

We belong in the ACC or the SEC. My preference is the ACC.






---------------------------------------------
--- bamatab wrote:

I've been lurking on your site since the FSU/Big12 talk last year trying to gauge wher your fanbase/alumni stands on which conference you guys would prefer if the ACC continued to lose schools. It is pretty apparent from everything I've read over that time that the majority of the fanbase/alumni would prefer the SEC over the B1G. You guys will definitely have your pick, since you guys are probably the #1 choice for both the SEC & B1G.

I have also been amused at how these B1G fans have come on your board and seem to think that you guys going to the B1G is a foregone conclusion. I doubt very seriously that anyone on this board, or on their schools boards have any idea what is actually going to happen, because it hasn't happened yet. Slive & Delany aren't sitting in some smoke filled room, dividing up the ACC. Could the end result happen like the B1G fans think? Sure it can, but it won't be because Slive and Delany are working hand in hand. Everything I've heard and read points to Slive's goals (if the ACC does implode) are UNC/UVA #1choice, UNC/Duke #1A, UNC/VT #2, and NCST/VT #3. If UNC wants in the SEC, that is where they will end up.

For the UNC fans/alumni that prefer the SEC to the B1G, I would suggest contacting the powers that be at UNC and continue to apply your displeasure in going to the B1G. The pressure from the fansbase/alumni can have a huge effect on the decisions of the PTB. Just look at aTm as an example. The pressure their fanbase put on the PTB at their school definitely had an effect. Same with Mizzou. But if you guys don't continue to voice your opinion, then the PTB could look favorably at the B1G.

I know you guys prefer to keep the ACC intact as is. But if that turns out to not be plausible, continue to keep up the pressure on the PTB at UNC. It isn't a foregone conlusion that you'll be in the B1G, so make your voice heard. Because if the SEC can't have UNC, they will take NCST, and I don't think the majority of you want that to happen.

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

---------------------------------------------
--- unc4life wrote:

You have it right bamatab. You are a typical southerner. When you visit someone's home you keep a low profile; listen; and learn the lay of the land before you open your mouth. Typical Southern manners....

As for these people who don't consider North Carolina to be "as southern" as say Georgia or Alabama; they truly have no clue about this State and its history.

www.visitnc.com/journeys/artic...civil-war-facts

"While North Carolina was the last of the 11 Southern states to secede, it sent more troops and materials and suffered more losses than any other Southern state."

"More than 125,000 men from North Carolina served in the Confederate Army."

"Around 40,000 North Carolinians were killed over the course of the war."

North Carolina is a southern as it gets despite the number of transplants moving here who want to change it.

Hell will freeze over before UNC joins the Big 10.

We belong in the ACC or the SEC. My preference is the ACC.

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

Really? And when UNC joins the SEC, will the South finally be properly reunited, creating the impetus for a second attempt at secession from the United States?

While you're defining yourself by what happened in the 1860s, other North Carolinians are moving forward. North Carolina and Virginia are the center of the "New South," with a banking- and technology-based economy, more out-of-state transplants, and increasingly liberal politics. The North? No. But Alabama? Ha.

I don't know what will happen, but whatever decision is made by the University will be made with a national--global--21st century outlook. You're about 150 years behind. Time to catch up.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:


---------------------------------------------
--- unc4life wrote:

You have it right bamatab. You are a typical southerner. When you visit someone's home you keep a low profile; listen; and learn the lay of the land before you open your mouth. Typical Southern manners....

As for these people who don't consider North Carolina to be "as southern" as say Georgia or Alabama; they truly have no clue about this State and its history.

www.visitnc.com/journeys/artic...civil-war-facts

"While North Carolina was the last of the 11 Southern states to secede, it sent more troops and materials and suffered more losses than any other Southern state."

"More than 125,000 men from North Carolina served in the Confederate Army."

"Around 40,000 North Carolinians were killed over the course of the war."

North Carolina is a southern as it gets despite the number of transplants moving here who want to change it.

Hell will freeze over before UNC joins the Big 10.

We belong in the ACC or the SEC. My preference is the ACC.

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

Really? And when UNC joins the SEC, will the South finally be properly reunited, creating the impetus for a second attempt at secession from the United States?

I can't believe some of the nonsense that makes its way out on this forum. While you're defining yourself by what happened in the 1860s, other North Carolinians are moving forward. North Carolina and Virginia are the center of the "New South," with a banking- and technology-based economy, more out-of-state transplants, and increasingly liberal politics. The North? No. But Alabama? Ha.

I can't picture any of my classmates at UNC saying anything like this and be serious about it, even the ones who descend from a long line of North Carolinians. And no one who makes any decisions about UNC's conference affiliation will ever share this sentiment, either.

I don't know what will happen, but whatever decision is made by the University will be made with a national--global--21st century outlook. You're about 150 years behind. Time to catch up.

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


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

And only occupied the land for about 150 years before that. After it was stolen from the people who had it for a couple thousand years.

Modern nation states conquered the land they inhabit

---------------------------------------------
--- phatassjungle wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

And only occupied the land for about 150 years before that. After it was stolen from the people who had it for a couple thousand years.

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

Please, stick to football and realignment. Save the political stuff for the ZZL.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

Do you think thats all that being a Southerner is about? Really?

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

Do you think thats all that being a Southerner is about? Really?

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

Why do you think I don't take him seriously? Any comment about "southern" and he ends up trying to take the conversation there.

---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

Do you think thats all that being a Southerner is about? Really?

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

Why do you think I don't take him seriously? Any comment about "southern" and he ends up trying to take the conversation there.

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

I'm not the one quoting Civil War casualty statistics.

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

Do you think thats all that being a Southerner is about? Really?

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

Why do you think I don't take him seriously? Any comment about "southern" and he ends up trying to take the conversation there.

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

I'm not the one quoting Civil War casualty statistics.

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

This is your pattern, are you trying to deny that?

---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- Carolina2009 wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


Why am I not shocked that you totally missed the point and went off on this wild tangent...

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

I wish people in 2013 would stop defining themselves by a 150-year-old decision to secede from the United States.

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

Do you think thats all that being a Southerner is about? Really?

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

Why do you think I don't take him seriously? Any comment about "southern" and he ends up trying to take the conversation there.

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

I'm not the one quoting Civil War casualty statistics.

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

No, you're just the one who took a totally innocuous comment, and, turned it into a mini-rant about TCW. NC has a shared history with the other Southern states that predates TCW by decades.

But, you never stopped to consider that.

---------------------------------------------
--- ShadowSpawne wrote:


This is your pattern, are you trying to deny that?

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

My pattern is to speak out against using the Civil War as a measure of current identity when someone else brings it up. It gets under my skin.

Here's the pattern: (a) Someone says that UNC might join the Big Ten; (b) someone else says it would/should never happen because UNC is a Southern school; (c) someone references the state's standing in the Civil War as evidence of the University's Southern identity; (d) I say that person's an idiot--not because it's not a plausible definition, but because its an ancient way of thinking; (e) eventually it gets back to a discussion of realignment; (f) repeat.

Anyway, as you like to say, you "know my stance." Let's get back on topic and move to step (e).

---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:

No, you're just the one who took a totally innocuous comment, and, turned it into a mini-rant about TCW. NC has a shared history with the other Southern states that predates TCW by decades.

But, you never stopped to consider that.

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

*sigh*

But you should acknowledge that the Civil War is inordinately referenced on this board as a measure of Southern identity. Of course North Carolina has a shared history beyond the Civil War. I never said otherwise. My speaking out against referencing the Civil War doesn't deny the existence of other commonalities.

2009-
You keep talking like a pseudo intellectual and it reeks of smarmy self-righteousness often seen in the far left (politically).

The Civil War/War of North Aggression and the facts surrounding it are very much a part of NC's history and yes, part of its identity.

It ALSO has an identity as a place that is great to live, work, and raise a family. So much so that people from all over keep moving in. That says a lot about the state and the events that shaped it, INCLUDING those that seem to make you uncomfortable.

You should stop pretending to speak out on behalf of some non-existent offended population, and recognize that North Carolina is in the South. People moving here are moving to the South. The fact that they then bring their Northern/Midwestern/Foreign sensibilities doesn't change that they moved to the South. If they don't like it, they should leave.

Carolina is great because it supposedly welcomes all people with a variety of ideas, but yet people like you try to shame people that disagree with your point of view.

Just talk about football and stop being such a preachy d*ckhole.