Pete Thamel column on realignment (paywall)
- Thread starter HailToPitt725
- Start date
This needs to be abrevated for the "Coastal Elites".
Paclantic Conference since we need to be PC....
No Virginia Tech, WVU, or NC State either. I think those are more or less peer programs. If anything, those three get more fan support.
Again, strategic addition to effectively block the SEC from the only northern recruiting territory….yes, I’m reaching a bit. I’m sure that’s the rationale. They are also prolly trying to have individuals place such a “sucker bet”.
There’s a reason some of these names don’t make much sense. They aren’t good bets 🤣
Believe it or not, some people will bet anything and everything.
Y’all think there will be a Friday afternoon 5:00/6:00 news dump “bomb”?
I’d bet no this week, but in the past, this has been the day/approximate time of major realignment news, etc.
I’d bet no this week, but in the past, this has been the day/approximate time of major realignment news, etc.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I don't know. The folks to the east just flipped a Bama commit so I'm going to guess someone claims the B1G is going to out recruit the SEC, now. Honestly, my timeline goes to sh!t any time the fan base up there wants to brag or complain.
Some of those schools should have no odds as they won’t be considered without a significant change in the B10’s philosophy of having only AAU schools. For example, Cincinnati is not an AAU school.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Cincinnati is sexy because of their success on the field, not because they have coveted attributes elsewhere.
A few years ago it would have been someone else…the folks with the blue turf.
Any of you old timers remember A&P grocery stores? My grandma would only drink their coffee!
Last edited:
One HUGE DIFFERENCE. Before the ACC and PAC12 decided to block the original 12-team format, that format was going to give automatic berths to the 6 highest ranked conference champs. The ACC and Pac12 champs were basically assured of a spot in the playoffs.
You can bet that the new expanded playoff format will not include automatic bids to conference champions. It will take the 12 highest ranked teams - a lot of SEC and Big10 teams will get berths.
That decision by the PAC12 and ACC to block the original 12-team format because their feelings were hurt over Texas and Oklahoma jumping to the SEC, will go down as one of the DUMBEST decisions every in collegiate sports history.
Without ANY doubt. Foolish “leadership”. It shouldn’t be a surprise given the 4 commissioners of those leagues (2 present and 2 former).
It was strictly out of spite and the ACC/PAC had zero reason to ever think they could get OUT into their conferences anyway.
Last edited:
The way the game was played in 2011 (cable subscriptions/market size being King), WVU went to XII pretty much based on on-field performance leading up to that time.
It was merit-based. Cincy pretty much the same thing now. Market/subscriptions still matter but to a lesser degree.
Why would the SEC want Ohio so bad? Wouldn't they be interested in PA as much if not more?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Doesn't matter what the ACC did. The B1G, Pac12, and Rose Bowl folks weren't going to let it happen in its proposed form because it meant the Rose Bowl was going to have to move out of its time slot to accommodate the expanded playoff. And even if it was a dumb decision to go along with it, they still have a seat at the table so nothing was really given up.
How do you know they’re going to have a seat at the table? No one knows yet, correct?
That isn't right. The ACC and the PAC12 wanted conference champions to be guaranteed a spot. The SEC was one of the conferences arguing very strenuously against that, because they didn't want a 9-3 or 8-4 team that wins a conference championship game to "steal" a playoff spot from one of their teams.
Which schools from ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 have the most one million-plus viewer games. You can see why the ACC seems most interested in Washington, Oregon, and Stanford. I could see Cal vs. Utah debate having some merit. If the other PAC-10 school head to the B12; they are just adding more "less" desirable programs.
Of course these numbers are skewed to which teams appeared on the most accessible channels (match-ups and relevance).
Washington St and Okie St are bit surprising to me.
Of course these numbers are skewed to which teams appeared on the most accessible channels (match-ups and relevance).
Washington St and Okie St are bit surprising to me.
Last edited:
no, he’s saying that’s who *he* thinks the ACC should add if it’s going to add.
that’s not the same thing as reporting the ACC is interested in a single team that isn’t ND
I’ve yet to read a single report that the ACC is interested in anybody.
A&P Conference would be great. Concession stands can sell 8 O'Clock coffee and Ann Page fruitcake.
If you have read any of his reporting- He's isn't reporting his opinions without some foundation.
The issue/question is around the GOR if they want to add- meaning it makes financial sense.
Except when he’s just literally giving his opinion.
Which is all he’s doing. He’s not pretending what he is suggesting the ACC-PAC 12 should do, is based on anything he’s hearing from the conferences.
It’s just him being a college football fan and what to him would make the most sense. That’s it.
Speaking of the GOR- do I have it correct that it would *not* open up or need to be re-negotiated if schools are added? I’ve seen some speculation on that but the GOR states the agreement applies to future members as well.
That seems like a bit of mystery with conflicting opinions. New members would need to sign on to the GOR but does that mean the existing members need to resign? Supposedly the ACC is working with ESPN to navigate that point.
I am sure new members would have to sign which would make schools who may have options hesitant (Oregon, Washington). It makes no sense that existing members would have to resign.
Even in a situation where the ACC eventually got enough votes for expansion (and that seems unlikely considering how many teams they have that want out), no team that doesn’t have to, is getting stuck in a conference where the headliners are trying to leave the conference.
Would like Kansas do it? Sure.
But Oregon isn’t locking into a conference an entire country away, when the valuable members are trying to leave it.
Last edited:
From what I could tell, the only reason why they had to sign again in 2016 was to include the ACC Network in the ESPN package. Since they’d only be re-negotiating the member payout and not the package itself, I’d hope existing members wouldn’t need to re-sign because I don’t see that happening.
Everywhere?
Hell, somebody runs to make a new thread or bump a thread with every new report.
Even the Thamel article, for which you clearly don’t have access to based on what you think he’s reporting, is based on that truth.
Hell, somebody runs to make a new thread or bump a thread with every new report.
Even the Thamel article, for which you clearly don’t have access to based on what you think he’s reporting, is based on that truth.
Last edited:
There really isn't any mystery. If you read the document it says absolutely nothing about adding members requiring everyone to sign off again. It does say that any new members are required to sign off on the current document, not a replacement document, the current document, before they can be admitted to the conference.
Oh, got it. So now you believe everything you read when it's just a random person's opinion. Too funny.
Similar threads
