NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri May 22, 2015 11:18 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:20 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 947
Location: Columbus, OH
I thought I would try to break down the relative percentage values that each school's athletic program brings toward the total television value of the league. I tried to to factor in things like elite football status, media market, and geographic overlap. Let me know how you all feel about these approximations.

Florida St-- 15%
Miami-- 10%
Georgia Tech-- 10%
Boston College-- 10%
Clemson-- 8%
Virginia Tech-- 7%
UNC-- 6%
UVA-- 6%
Pitt-- 6%
Notre Dame-- 5%
NC State-- 5%
Louisville-- 5%
Syracuse-- 4%
Duke-- 2%
Wake Forest-- 1%

My reasoning is to try to determine the impact of the loss of a member or members from the league.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:05 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:23 am
Posts: 247
ACC is the 2nd best FBS conference!

At least according to Jimbo ;)

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/f ... -post.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 11:20 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1636
Something's not clear with the ACC. Swofford came out and said the ACC is "pushing legislation as a matter of principle" regarding divisions and the CCG. Really, the agenda is about "principle"? Isn't the 12-team rule also about "principle'? Swofford's remarks contradict what B12 Commissioner Bowlsby said about a week earlier pertaining to the ACC may be planning on going to three divisions. Swofford commented, on the three division matter, that it is "not something we're discussing at all at this point. It just isn't." So, the ACC, with the B12, are proposing new governance legislation to implement divisional and CCG deregulation, but they have not bothered to discuss at all how that may impact divisional structures and what changes could be considered? If they are wanting this legislation to pass, wouldn't they have a consensus on what to say and how to say it?

What happened?
Was Bowlsby's earlier remarks premature and stealing Swofford's thunder on the ACC?
Did certain schools in the ACC balk about the idea of going to a 3-pod system?
Did Notre Dame tell Swofford somehow to 'stop it now, we are not going to participate with any pod' or join for fb'?
Did Bowlsby and Swofford get messages from other P5 conferences 'we don't like where you're going with this'?
To avoid disruption, does the ACC seek to deny the 3 divisions idea being discussed until it is fully worked out and all members are on-board?

Below are three April 16, 2015 blog articles on the topic that were released:

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/8 ... ion-passes

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... -divisions

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... 31943.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2015 4:12 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2768
Location: Phoenix Arizona
It may be coincidence we have 64 schools in five power leagues and allowing Notre Dame independence. Regardless the current 64 schools could be organized if he conference continue to expand and stop with 16 members.

Each league could then have the four team pods with four schools in each pod. Each power league could then have semi final conference championship game matching the winner of the four pods with those semi winners advancing to the championship conference games that would provide the playoff committee another game to determine the best four teams that reach college football playoffs.

In order to made this happen some leagues will have to loss members and a couple leagues would have to merge.

The Pac 12 or Pac 16 is an easy solution if Texas and Oklahoma decide to abandon the Big 12 and take a couple in state schools.

Pac 16 pods:

Cal, UCLA, Stanford, USC
Oregon, Oregon State, Wash State, Washington
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

The Big Ten could continue expansion down the Atlantic Coast with a twist. Expand with Virginia and Virginia Tech to avoid politics.

Big Ten pods:

Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Illinois, NW, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers,
Ohio State, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech.

The SEC could then take North Carolina and Duke to complete its twist to reach 16.

Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Missouri
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Miss State
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South Carolina, North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky

The ACC and Big 12 would be left with 10 schools in one league and 6 in the other that could simple merger to create a Big 16? Since the old BCS days and the old Big East, only one power schools has been left out in the cold. Temple which was actually boated from the league not currently member of a power league.

New Big 16 with a merged Big 12 and ACC

Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, TCU
Louisville, Iowa State, Pitt, WVU
Syracuse, Boston College, Florida State, Miami
North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech

With this new type of alignment, the power leagues would continue to have their semi final and conference championship games and scheduling would be very much more easy to maintain rivalries in today's geographical challenge leagues.

Each four team pod would play round robin of three games and the other games that count could come from another league pod member of an entirely different power league pod game could count in the standings. For example and Florida State and University of Florida game could count in standings for both the new merged Big 12/ACC and SEC standings.

The four team college football playoff would have more games in the conference championship semi final and finals to aid in determining the best four teams to play for college football championship.

Or


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1636
sec03 wrote:
Swofford commented, on the three division matter, that it is "not something we're discussing at all at this point. It just isn't."

Did certain schools in the ACC balk about the idea of going to a 3-pod system?


To answer the question I posed earlier, there appears little enthusiasm among the ACC's rank and file, to move to a three divisional setup.

Miami (FL) fans discussing the subject matter.

https://www.canesinsight.com/threads/87 ... c1b5962791

Clemson-focused article suggesting Clemson/FSU unlikely to be shifted to separate divisions

http://thetandd.com/sports/shifting-tig ... f0a1f.html

Power ranking the ACC's 2015 cross-division schedules:

http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/04/powe ... schedules/

2015 ACC predictions (fb):

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports ... 51606.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 17, 2015 1:20 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 445
What is the ACC's motive to request CCG deregulation? They've already said they are not moving to a pod system and they want to keep their divisions. They can re-organize their divisions without deregulation. They are not doing this simply for the freedom to change, while declaring not wanting to do so. Something's up that is not clear and yet to be made public. It may relate to the efforts to implement the ACC network. It could be about having the flexibility to feature more marquee match-ups for TV. Little has been disclosed, particularly recently, on the progress of establishing the ACC network. This promised future enactment was particularly emphasized in consoling FSU among others.

Notre Dame (Swarbrick) has been active in the CCG deregulation issue though it would not directly pertain to them since they are not a fb conference member. Perhaps ND's interest is to keep CCGs' from being elevated in frequency and importance. Or, ND wants to be a selection option for future ACC CCGs without committing to more regular season ACC games. It's very doubtful ACC schools would allow an exception for ND on this without scheduling an equivalent slate of ACC opponents. Swofford had expressed recently the pod system is not an ACC consideration.

Here is a blog speculating on the motivational reasons why the ACC is pushing for CCG/divisional deregulation:

http://allsportsdiscussion.com/2015/04/ ... egulation/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 11:18 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 947
Location: Columbus, OH
The post-deregulation move that makes the most sense in the ACC would be to go to no divisions. This would give the ACC considerable freedom with scheduling allowing for the preservation of 2-3 key rivalries, more marquee television games, and also allows conference members to play everyone in the league in a 4 year span.

They could possibly even go to a 9 game conference schedule and count games against Notre Dame towards those 9 games.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 11:59 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1280
fighting muskie wrote:
The post-deregulation move that makes the most sense in the ACC would be to go to no divisions. This would give the ACC considerable freedom with scheduling allowing for the preservation of 2-3 key rivalries, more marquee television games, and also allows conference members to play everyone in the league in a 4 year span.

They could possibly even go to a 9 game conference schedule and count games against Notre Dame towards those 9 games.


Yeah, I still think deregulation, if pushed by the ACC, just puts them all on a single line and does away with divisions entirely once it's all said and done, just like in basketball. It'll be the cleanest way to get the best two teams in the conference into the CCG regardless of any head-to-head stuff or other factors. Going with an extra division/"pod-ifying" the conference just goes a bit beyond things and into that realm of a conference semi-final game, and I just don't think that flies with the group (yet).

I think the conference scrapping nine games soon after getting Notre Dame spoke to how ND felt about that number. If the ACC can get Notre Dame to commit its football there, eight's far more digestable. Navy, USC, and Stanford are the locks...fourth game up for grabs. I doubt anything less than eight gets ND anywhere near the CCG, and I think you might see a school take the ACC on legally to make that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 18, 2015 12:12 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1636
louisvillecard01 wrote:
Something's up that is not clear and yet to be made public. It may relate to the efforts to implement the ACC network. It could be about having the flexibility to feature more marquee match-ups for TV. Little has been disclosed, particularly recently, on the progress of establishing the ACC network. This promised future enactment was particularly emphasized in consoling FSU among others.


fighting muskie wrote:
The post-deregulation move that makes the most sense in the ACC would be to go to no divisions. This would give the ACC considerable freedom with scheduling allowing for the preservation of 2-3 key rivalries, more marquee television games, and also allows conference members to play everyone in the league in a 4 year span.


I believe the thought is on track. It has much to do with the ACC Network (ACCN) effort. There's very little being mentioned about it. Bit and pieces of information leaking forth indicate nothing about it is fast-pace. I did see a concern mentioned about overlap, given the extensiveness of the SEC Network which is also a subsidiary with ESPN. The ACC, SEC, and ESPN are probably doing much collaboration on this given ESPN's existing interest in the SECN and the SEC seeking to protect and expand their carriers throughout their domain, which certainly is inclusive of the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida. And all this is headquartered in Charlotte.
ESPN would not be looking for competition between the two; but rather deliver prime match-ups throughout the season during preferred time-slots. The ACC may have been told by ESPN that they need flexibility to deliver more money for improved and preferred head-to-heads they'll have input in scheduling. Thursday night games would be a part of it as well.

What's puzzling about this is that the ACC was not talking-up the ACCN plan during their spring meeting at Amelia Island. Contrast this with how the BIG first, and later the SEC, tooted loudly their horns when their respective networks were at the cusp of being enacted. Also, nothing substantively has been revealed as to how much money is on the table for the ACCN. There's no grab and run with it on the part of the ACC right now.

Here's a public relations piece coming out of Amelia Island. What's curious is that while they are talking positive about changing the ACC's perception of being a national power, they don't even mention the ACCN effort. And perplexing as this may be, it could be the reason why Swofford is being somewhat mum right now on divisions and scheduling.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c ... -post.html


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 71, 72, 73, 74, 75

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group