Texas, ACC Have Had Preliminary Discussions
by Akula Wolf on Sep 13, 2011 1:44 PM EDT
Email
PrintAccording to this report from the Austin American-Statesman, the ACC has been in contact with Texas:
A high-ranking Texas source said that the ACC has been in contact with Texas, but added that talks hadn't progressed to a mature phase. In fact, the source wasn't sure what other schools the ACC would look to add besides Texas.
Don't take that to mean it won't work.
The ACC is willing to talk about a unique conference format that has intrigued Texas. Instead of divisions, the conference could be divided into four pods, with each pod containing four teams, to aid scheduling.
So don't completely fall asleep on the ACC, although Texas would probably prefer it bring along at least one partner, probably Texas Tech.
(hat tip: Team Speed Kills)
So I guess this isn't a completely crazyballs scenario. Also according to this report, Oklahoma isn't interested in preserving the Big XII, and if Texas were to join the Pac-X, they could not "retain the [Longhorn Network] as is" because the league is starting its own network. That could prove the sticking point that opens the door for the ACC. God I hate this. I hate all of it.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Does anyone else think it would be better to have all 9-team conferences?
What was so wrong with the old ACC? Nine team conferences allow for each team to play each other, and allows for four home and four away games. I miss that old format. It felt like you actually got a true conference champion that way.
nothing was wrong with it
Unless you count “wasn’t going to be financially competitive with the rest of the country’s leagues.” But from a scheduling standpoint, I agree it couldn’t be beaten. That’s one of the main things I lament with this superconference stuff. We go to sixteen teams and on the football side, at least, it might as well be two separate conferences.
I think it will, eventually, get to that.
I wonder if these teams/schools realize that they essentially have to play another game to get to the national title now. It used to be, run the table in your nine team conference, and then you’re in the championship game. Now, you have to play another defacto playoff game.
Because it's two extra games, two extra chances for a loss.
What’s the benefit of going 12-0, being ranked first in the BCS, then having to play a playoff just for your conference championship (which you basically won outright)? Because of this format, you’ve now lost the conference championship, a shot at the national championship, and all potentially to a team you already beat.
But, that being said… if it’ll bring in more money, then that’s where we’re going because $wofford is all about it.
personally, i like the semi-finals/finals mini-tournament idea
Sounds like fun to me. And the flip side to the 12-0 situation is a team that wins its pod with 1 loss and uses the next two games to bolster its SOS enough to reach the BCS championship game. That’s never been a possibility before. But you know coaches will be complaining out the ass if they have to play two games to win a conference title while the other BCS leagues only have one game.
I never understood why
the number “12” was chosen as the arbitrary number of teams a conference needed to have in order to hold a conference title game. Why not 10?
Imagine an ACC with VT-UVA-MD-NCSU-UNC-Duke-Wake-Clem-GT-FSU. That’s a pretty kickass conference, IMO; certainly in basketball and not too shabby in football.
My understanding is that there was no set-in-stone rule previously that required conferences to move to 12 in order to get the title game…it just sort of “was,” and everybody grew to accommodate this random number.
Just a random thought I’ve had before and again during all this conference brouhaha.
www.riddickandreynolds.com
by RiddickAndReynolds on Sep 13, 2011 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Four pods is intriguing
BC/VT/UVa/Md
NCSU/UNC/Duke/Wake
GaT/Clemson/FSU/Miami
UT/TT/OU/OSU – esp. if TAMU follows through on SEC move
nothing in this mess is for sure, though that seems most likely
The article says OU is preparing to formally apply for admission to the Pac-12, and it’s generally assumed Ok State would go with them. The Pac-12 could reject their overtures, I guess, but I wonder if they’d then look to the SEC before the ACC.
Pretty sure you're right about that.
I think they’re using the ACC as a bargaining chip for discussions with the Pac-12/14/16
Yea like that would ever happen
Having the big 4 together. That would make sense, Swoff isn’t that bright.
by riddickfield on Sep 13, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I think pod scheduling would be likely in a Pac-16 as well
Northwest: Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California: Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA
Mountain/Desert: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado
Plains: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
But the Longhorn Network will be a serious sticking point for Texas. The Pac-12 will have regional networks, which will be shared by two teams. Texas would have to re-format their network and include Texas Tech in it.
At this point, I think Texas to the ACC is an actual possibility. If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State bolt to the west, I don’t believe Texas can hold the Big 12 together. Texas has said they’re not interested in the SEC, because they believe their academics are above those of the conference. The B1G will not let Texas keep the LHN. Texas to the Big East is just not going to happen. That leaves the ACC, or possibly football independence with the other sports looking to the ACC for a home.
Dolphins and sharks are natural enemies. Dolphins are like, "Quit eating us," and sharks are like, "Stop smiling all the time, you morons."
Sort-of-daily sort-of-funny sort-of-thoughts at danoftheday.com
that's pretty much what i've taken from all this
If the Big Ten/Pac-12 network issue is truly a deal breaker, the ACC would seem to have a decent shot.
Realistically for Texas
is being a member of the ACC better than being independent, assuming they could get a Notre Dame type deal where they have an exemption that allows them to get in the BCS?
I guess primary argument in favor of conference membership is to support the non-revenue sport and even more so basketball. While UT could easily enough find 12 teams willing to play them in football, filling out a basketball schedule and trying to be competitive would be a challenge.
ND already has to deal with that. Their non-revenue sports are split between a couple of conferences.
question is, would texas be okay with that sort of setup?
And who’d be willing to take them without football? Is there any league other than the Big East that’d be willing to do that?
For football, it is certainly better for Texas to be an independent
For basketball and other sports, conference affiliation is more beneficial. However, I think Texas has more clout in other sports than Notre Dame does which would make scheduling for them easier.
Real Question
Am I wrong to be curious if ND’s status as a private school has anything to do with it? Would UT as a public school have more difficulty going independent?
Right...
I wonder if the independent route would be more difficult as state legislators would present roadblocks as opposed to a private school who once their benefactors are on board, its a go?
by JEOHankins2 on Sep 14, 2011 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Hogwash...
all this is hogwash and gobbily gook. I hate it all.
Pod Set-Up...
IF we went to a 16 team conference (w/ TX & TTU)…I’d prefer it to be in pods for Football & Basketball…
With Football (I think we’d have to go to a 9 game conference schedule) with playing every team in your division once a year…2 in every other division, rotating every year…
With Basketball (18 game schedule), you could play every team in your division twice a year and every other team in the conference once…(not super popular, but makes the most sense geographically)
I read someone suggest adding Kansas & K-State instead of OK & OK-State (since they are looking to the Pac-12 anyway)…Kansas & K-State bring nothing football wise, but (just thinking as a fan here, not the football money) make basketball all that more competitive…
Lastly, the ACC tourny in Basketball would just be a simple 16 team single elimination tourny…no byes…like the NBA, but single elimination…
Football- Maybe just the top two teams? or we’d like a 4-pod playoff but, it’d be unpopular…someone more well versed on this can make a suggestion here…
IF this is the future…I’d rather live with it like this…
I could live with Kansas
We’d be really rolling the dice on K-State though. Not sure they’ll be a solid hoops program long term. I’d rather poach WVU and Pitt from the Big East. Or WVU and Louisville. They feel like better fits culturally and they’re at least competitive in both revenue sports.
I hadn’t even thought about the ACC tournament…gah, what a mess. Of course, the tournament died with the first round of expansion, so I don’t know what I’m lamenting anymore. All of this blows.
Outshine the B1G in Division Names
What if we did get Pitt & WVU along w/ TX & TTU…the division names…
The Yanks: BC, Pitt, WVU, UMD
The Blue Bloods: UVA, Duke, Wake, UNC
The Proletariat: VT, NCSU, GT, Clemson
The Egoists: FSU, The U, TX, & TTU
by JEOHankins2 on Sep 14, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
So . . .
why is 16 the magic number? I have yet to understand the, “16 team conferences are inevitable!” argument, because nobody ever says anything other than, “16 team conferences are inevitable!”
I want 218
one conference. Schedules determined in a live ceremony where names are pulled from a hat.
Why not? Embrace chaos.
by ginger avenger on Sep 14, 2011 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Backing The Pack
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
