Virginia Tech AD Weaver Talks SEC; Twitter Melts

 @SouthernBoiSB  I'm not sure about that.  I haven't given a lot of thought to it, but it would make sense for everyone in a 2 pod pairing(8 teams) to have to deal with the same format in each year.  Being that the pod pairings would be the de facto divisions and would thus determine the championship game participants.  It wouldn't matter so much for the teams that have neutral site games as long as they are in the same pod. 

All 8 teams have 4 home games one year while the same 8 have 4 away games the next season.  Every time you switch the pairing then you can reset the home and away schedule.  I haven't looked at that on paper, but it makes sense.

 @AllTideUp 

Which do you think sounds more fair:  2 out of each pod gets the 5th game, or the whole pod?  I don't think it would matter to UGA/UF since they (more than likely) will be in the same pod.

 @SouthernBoiSB Everybody else would be in the boat you're talking about unless they started playing neutral site games too.  I think A&M and Arkansas are scheduled to start doing that again so the same scheduling format would apply to them.

How one might handle who gets 4 or 5 home games in a year?  I don't know, haven't thought much about it, but as long as you're working with an even number of teams then there should always be a sensible way to make it work.

 @AllTideUp

What about everybody else?

 @JRsec  @AllTideUp

Do you think they'll have it settled before they have to "redo" their scheduling for the inclusion of ND in fb (like was planned about a month ago)?

My guess would be UConn simply due to CT vrs. KY (not to mention their better known for basketball than football).

Now, would this make others "bolt" out of the ACC?

 @SouthernBoiSB  @AllTideUp No, it means at the time it was posted Cincinnati, Louisville, and UConn had had rumors stating that they were going to the ACC.  Today we know that the ACC will likely only make one offer, possibly Monday, to either Connecticut, or Louisville. 

 @JRsec  @AllTideUp 

So, does that mean they've accepted, or it's an acceptance should the ACC lose more teams in the future?

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB Earlier tonight UConn was rumored to the Big 10.  Since they have also been rumored to have accepted the ACC.  All are said to be joining on Monday.

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB  That would be interesting, but it does seem weird.  All the reports have pointed to Louisville or UConn so I guess I could see them inviting 2 more teams if they fear the eminent loss of another program.  It would seem that UConn would be that other school though unless there are other things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.

Either way, it would seem some sort of ACC/Big East conglomerate would survive as a mid-major conference in the aftermath of any huge shuffling.

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB You may be right.  The hot rumor tonight, which I'm not sure I believe, is that Louisville and Cincinnati have accepted invitations to the ACC.  If so they are pre-filling for future departures.  I can't see UNC, Duke, and UVA lowering their standards for teams ranked in the high 130's and 150's.

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB  When it comes to the PAC 12, I don't see them making any moves further Eastward than the current Big 12 footprint.  Travel for other sports has to be taken into consideration as well so I think ISU is the probably the furthest they are willing to go.  It's easier to set up a stronghold in the old Big 12 country among schools that are already used to playing each other and also not forcing any of your current programs to travel more than necessary.  They'll have to be less selective in the future if they want to hit 20 just by virtue of their base on the West Coast.  A couple of years ago during the "PAC 16" flurry of rumors, they were set to take OK St and Texas Tech in order to land OU and Texas.  The politics of those respective states forced their hand.  They did balk at Baylor and BYU, but ultimately it was Texas' insistence on the LHN that killed that deal.

If the push is on to 20 then I think OK State, TT, Kansas State, and maybe even Houston are on the table for the purposes of either claiming markets or securing the big boys they really need.  I also think schools like New Mexico and one of the Nevada schools would be on the table in that situation.  The more I think about it, BYU is probably left out in this shuffle.  Utah is already claimed by the PAC 12 and that market isn't really that large to begin with.  Also, BYU doesn't really bring the national cache that is often advertised.

For the Midwestern schools(Cincinnati and Louisville) and East Coast schools(Miami), I think they would also be better off to bide their time and wait out one of the other Eastern conferences rather than jumping into the PAC 12.  The money would be better initially, but it will come with a lot of headaches.  And that is assuming the PAC would be interested in them, but I don't think they would approach them.

 @SouthernBoiSB  @AllTideUp 1:  In time for the 2014 unveiling of the SEC network.  2. Probably 16.  There are a variety of factors that could take that number in different directions.  If the Big 10 add two more and stops the teams they will likely take are either Virginia and Georgia Tech, or Virginia and North Carolina.  If that happens it will be open season on all remaining ACC teams.  Virginia and North Carolina are considered to be virtually half of the core of the ACC.  Their leaving will be an unmistakable signal that the ACC will no longer exist.  Virginia Tech would be free to move to the SEC and then either N.C. State or North Carolina will join them.  At that point the Big 10 and SEC will both have their initially stated goals of 16 a piece.  If they both stop then the Big 12 will be free to act.  It has been speculated that they would take Florida State and Clemson, Louisville and Pittsburgh, and possibly N.C. State if the Tar Heels go to the SEC.  B.Y.U., or Connecticut, Cincinnati, Colorado State, or Miami could be their 16th.  Under this scenario everyone essentially stops at 16.

But, if the Big 10, in an effort to attract Notre Dame, chooses to add the schools that the Irish seem to want to be with, Boston College and Syracuse, that means that the 4 conferences of 16 each model is no longer viable.  Under those circumstances the SEC may look to add two more of their own, perhaps Florida State and the N.C. State/North Carolina remainder, or perhaps Florida State and Pittsburgh for a new market and a solid academic addition to the SEC.  If the Big 10 is successful in attracting Notre Dame they will add another to go with them to stop at 20.  Then the SEC would likely add Clemson, and which ever they didn't select when they took F.S.U. (either Pitt, or N.C.State/N. Carolina remainder.  So, predicting the number of future additions beyond 16 just depends on what other conferences, particularly the Big 10, decide to do.  I just feel that most of it they will try to finish by 2014.

Remember the PAC cannot really expand without quality additions from the Big 12.  The Big 12 can't get out of its grant of rights unless 8 teams vote to do so.  And, if that many teams wind up moving the likelihood of going to 20 team conferences is fairly high.  At that point there will be between 6 -8 deserving teams left that could ban together in a lawsuit asking to be included.  That is why I believe 4 of them will wind up in one of our remaining three conferences.  The only conference that could still find a way to profit from those teams is the SEC.  Assume that the PAC won't take Baylor, B.Y.U. and T.C.U. because of their religious affiliations.  And assume that the PAC will not want to take two schools from the states of Kansas and Oklahoma, and that West Virginia is too distant for consideration and you can see that too many good teams might go unselected.  The Big 10 couldn't take four of them because there are potentially on two that could pass the Big 10's academic requirements.  The PAC didn't want them to start with.  That leaves the SEC who could add one of Baylor and T.C.U. to extend their market in Texas into the Dallas Ft.Worth area, Kansas/Kansas State, and Oklahoma State to add two new markets, and West Virginia.  Then it is all over.

There is no answer to 3. that hasn't already been detailed above.

4.  In a conference of 20 we would likely play 10 conference games, 1 game against a PAC opponent, and 1 game against a Big 10 opponent.  But, I already told you about that in answering your question about would Georgia Tech still be able to play Georgia.  If the SEC ever did really have 24 teams then there would be likely 12 conference games with no outsider competition, or 11 conference games with only 1 against either a PAC or Big 10 school.

 @JRsec  @AllTideUp 

So, #1:  when do you think the next expansion will occur;  #2:  @ what number will that expansion increase us to;  #3 the next expansion will occur how much long after;  & #4:  when y'all talk about these 20+ conferences, will ALL games be a conference game (& how many games on the schedule)?

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB Interesting times indeed.  You know that is the first part of a three part Chinese curse.  1.  May you live in interesting times.  (Routine always implies no peril)

              2.  May those in authority take notice of you.  (If you are a slacker that is fatal, if you are too bright that is fatal.)

      3.  May every desire of your heart come true.  (Since we are not all wise it leads to destruction.)

The biggest reason I think U.N.C. goes to the Big 10 is because that is what Virginia will likely do.  We really don't need the Cavaliers, although they are a terrific school.  They are now more Northern than Southern.  Mars Robert wouldn't like that!

I would prefer room to take Clemson and Florida State.  They truly are SEC like teams and fit beautifully with our culture.  But we only get them in a 3 conference of 20 (or plus) teams scenario.  The 20 team format I drew up for the SEC would be one that would maximize all three tiers of income.  I totally agree Tech would do well to go to the Big 10.

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB Yeah, I think Georgia Tech is an easier addition for the B1G because the SEC wouldn't want them outside of a 24-32 team league situation.  Similar to why the B1G wouldn't want Pitt.  And GT would be thrilled to get into that league.

As far as how everything else shakes out, I think it all comes down to what UNC and UVA do as they seem to be the only programs that the B1G and SEC would fight over right now.  Whatever decision they make will tell us a lot.

Louisville could be a sleeping giant and I wouldn't mind having them in the SEC, but that doesn't seem feasible right now.  I have to wonder if the Big 12's GOR agreement will hold up.  Some seem to think it won't if it's tested in court.  I wonder if they make a play for some more schools in the next round? 

West Virginia would also be a good addition to the SEC if the leagues start growing exponentially.  Interesting times to live in.

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB All valid points!

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB Sorry, add Georgia Tech instead of UConn in the Big 10 South and that should be about right.  

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB   It is an interesting thought on Pitt and I can't say that it would be a horrible choice even if Pitt maintains the status quo.  I didn't know Penn State was under the threat of any further punishments as an institution that is.

My thought on Duke is that while they've got a great basketball program right now and would immediately give the SEC a lot of extra attention there, I think that's about all they've got going for them.  It's certainly a fine school, but so are Tulane, Rice, and a number of others that wouldn't get any consideration especially in light of the market factors.  Here's the way I see it....when we talk about UNC basketball I agree with you that that definitely adds to their value.  Hypothetically speaking though, if UNC basketball went in the crapper for the next 50 years(and I don't think that's likely especially considering their resources and willingness to use them) then UNC would still be a great addition to the SEC for numerous other reasons.  Considering that college basketball doesn't garner the same ratings nationally as even some low level football games we have to temper our expectations as to what any strong basketball program can accomplish on its own.  UNC basketball adds to their value, but it doesn't define it.  If Duke basketball goes in the crapper for the next 50 years then what have we got?  Not much. 

I think it's also much more likely that Duke basketball won't be as relevant when Coack K retires.  Duke probably has a solid history when it comes to the sport, but they weren't an elite program until Coack K showed up about 30 years ago.  It's a match made in heaven for the both of them as Coach K seems to genuinely love the place.  I may be wrong, but I don't think Coach K makes the type of salary that his peers do for the simple reason that he loves Duke.  Their arena holds less than 10K and it seems peculiar that a program with such weight and prosperity wouldn't at least be in the 15-17K range.  Even Tennessee's arena is in the 20K range.  Given that Duke is a small private school that relies on it's national popularity, I'm just not sure they will have the resources or the willingness in the long term to be competitive.  The arena size is one example, but I think a telling one.  If Duke has a gigantic and dedicated fan base in the state of NC then why have they limited themselves to 9K in attendance all these years?  If/when Duke no longer becomes a "cool" program then what happens to their relevance? 

I don't think the comparison to Kentucky is a good one because UK is a large state school and, like UNC, brings a lot to the table even if their athletic programs aren't in the elite category.  It seems like a very big and unnecessary risk to after Duke.

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB I think the PAC East (in a 20 team conference) might look like this:  

East: Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas/Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma,

South:  Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Tech, (one of Miami, B.Y.U., Baylor, or Nevada)

West:  California, U.C.L.A., Colorado, U.S.C., Stanford

North:  Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State 

That gives them 5 new states instead of 3 and gets them into Ohio where a financially backed Cincinnati might be able to at least give the Buckeyes a run for some otherwise uncontested recruits.  I think Cincinnati with PAC backing could be very competitive in a new conference.

It is possible that the Big 10 might pick up Kansas, but I think they would already be at 20:

East:  Boston College, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse

South:  U.Conn, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

North:  Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Purdue

West:  Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Now left out of this alignment are all but one of these:  Miami, B.Y.U., T.C.U., Baylor, West Virginia, Kansas, and Oklahoma State, Wyoming, Colorado State, San Diego State, Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, and New Mexico. 

Kansas and Oklahoma have small markets.  It would be more profitable for the PAC to take only one school from each.  Kansas is more marketable than Kansas State, but Kansas State is good at both football and basketball so that is a plus for meeting two needs of the PAC.  There is nothing wrong with the Cowboys either, but OU would get the nod.  The PAC prefer not to take schools with religious affiliations so Baylor and T.C.U. might not get in.

There are enough teams there that a lawsuit from the larger ones might be forthcoming.  However if 4 or more of them were placed then 64 teams would still be in and maybe the lawsuit could be avoided.  Only 2 schools meet Big 10 requirements, sort of.  Kansas definitely meets Big 10 standards and B.Y.U. does academically but they are private and church affiliated, and not AAU.  That means if anyone was going to go to 24 it might be the SEC.  Baylor or T.C.U. would add the Dallas Ft. Worth market.  Kansas would make Missouri happy as bugs in a rug, West Virginia fits quite nicely up there in the SEC North with Pitt and Virginia Tech, and Oklahoma State gives us another market.  I'm not saying we would, but we are probably the only conference of the three that could go to 24 and make a profit with those teams.

Just something to mull over AllTideUP.

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB  And for these other leagues:Big Ten adds Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, Syracuse, UConn...and maybe one of these days Kansas and Boston College.

The PAC 12 will probably have to be less selective in the future if 20 becomes a goal.  Texas and OU would be musts....OK State, Texas Tech, maybe even Iowa State.  You might see schools like UNLV or BYU get consideration and they're bound to have to take one more Texas school...TCU or Baylor.

 @AllTideUp  @SouthernBoiSB I don't really disagree with much of what you say, but want to note a couple of things.  Duke is upgrading their football.  I almost hate to put this in print, but if we continue to add mid-level teams with a couple of potential contenders we need the balance of another bottom dweller to balance things out.  We would essentially be adding another Kentucky.  They are great for the conference.  We all like it when the Cats get a little more competitive in football, but we depend upon them to keep us relevant in hoops.  Duke would do the same.  N.Carolina would too!  But if one of them doesn't go to the Big 10 we might get asked to take all three.  Either way N.Carolina is the pick, but Duke with N.C. State isn't bad either.

As for Pitt I would urge you to consider the following, (it works for Cincinnati too although I don't desire them in the SEC).  Pittsburgh is the decidedly number 2 team in the state of Pennsylvania........right now.  Penn State has been hammered by sanctions and could even lose their right to offer any kind of scholarships, athletic or scholastic, due to their human rights violations in connection with the Sandusky mess.  Even if they don't lose those scholarship rights they are a severely damaged product.  And one, that Pitt could easily overtake with the right backing.  The state of Pennsylvania might well rally around the Panthers if they should land in the SEC.  SEC opponents would certainly boost the attendance in Pittsburgh and it opens a great state for recruiting O linemen and defensive backs and linebackers.  The Panthers could sweep all Pennsylvania cities in market preference within a decade.  That's a bet I wouldn't mind taking.  There is still some who believe the Big 10 will drop Penn State all together if the all scholarships are prohibited by federal injunction.  This may be our only opportunity to score this big on Big 10 soil.  If Penn State is dropped the Panthers will surely be in the Big 10.  Just something to think about.

 @JRsec  @SouthernBoiSB  I could see it all ending up in 3 separate 20-team leagues.  There are a lot of competing and varied priorities among all the interested parties and wherever the sweet spot in the middle of all those priorities is...that's what going to happen.  Not sure what that is yet though.

The SEC?  6 more teams that I think are realistic and would make it work:  FSU, Clemson, UNC, NC State, UVA, and VT.  I know Duke has been tossed around as a viable option, but given the economics of it I just don't think Duke is a good idea in the long term.  Their alumni base and ultimately the committed fan base is very small.  They're a great school, but are they willing to invest in football just to keep up and what will their basketball program(their bread and butter) look like when Coack K is gone?  They have a lot of bandwagon fans nationally, but a very small arena and the football program is basically nonexistent.  The same goes for Wake in the department of 'potential.'  I think UNC and NC State are the only viable products in that state.

I think the politics will ultimately keep the in-state pairings of UNC/NC State along with UVA/VT together.  Not that all 4 have to be in the same conference, but if 2 of those schools go to the B1G then it's a very legitimate fear that the other 2 schools "left behind" will surely end up in the SEC and will then far surpass their in-state rivals athletically.  Even if the politicians could secure a soft landing spot for all these schools does that then mean the B1G favorites would take a chance on leaving their "little brothers" behind.  Remaining connected to the Sun Belt states(growth states) will have to be a consideration in any long term decision.  The economic factors and demographic factors have to be seriously considered.  Combine that with the cultural element of remaining within your region.  I can't imagine that very many of those schools important boosters(not Presidents) would want to leave for the B1G.  Maryland was not really a Southern school in any sense of the word so that sort of tug was never a concern.

Pitt might not be a bad choice, but I'm not sure their fan base is really significant enough to ensure the SEC Network gets on in most of PA.  Maybe that will happen in Pittsburgh itself, but Penn State is the big college product in that state.  Pitt's AAU status might be enough to sway some minds, but I'm not sure about that move and for more than just the reason of tradition...having Southern teams in the league.

 @SouthernBoiSB  @uncbare Part 3:  What about Georgia and Georgia Tech?  If Tech goes to the Big 10 and they go to a 20 team conference they will likely have 10 conference games as well.  That leaves each of their teams 1 game to schedule against PAC teams and 1 game to schedule against SEC teams.  The Jackets and Dawgs can schedule that game as their cross conference game between the Big 10 and SEC.  You're covered.  

 @SouthernBoiSB  @uncbare Part 1:  You know I listed what looks like 4 divisions.  Take the North division and call it pod A, the East division will be pod B, the South division pod C, and the West division pod D.  Let's say you are Pod A.  You play every team in your pod in year #1 of the new conference and you play every team in pod B.  In year two you play every team in your pod, and every team in Pod C.  In year three you play every team in your pod, and every team in Pod D.  At the end of three years you have played everyone.  So you see in each year there are really just two divisions made up of two pods each.  But each year those divisions are made up of different teams.  Four of those teams are the ones in your Pod that  you play every year, and the other 5 that rotate are the 5 from Pod B in year 1, Pod C in year two, and Pod D in year three..  Your tenth game is against your permanent rival.  On years that your permanent rival is in the Pod you are scheduled to play another team is assigned as your tenth game.

Part 2:  Tier one rights are those games that are sold to a network to be shown in their prime time viewing slot.  For the SEC those games belong to CBS and are shown at 3:00 in the afternoon.  Tier 2 rights are those games sold for other time slots on Saturday and shown on cable channels like ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU for the SEC.  Tier 3 rights are those reserved for premium cable channels sold usually in an extra cost cable packages.  The SEC Network will be sold like the Big 10 network is right now.  Those fees are based upon the number of cable households in a state (these are the markets everyone refers to.)  Conferences may make 1.00 per cable household in the states they add teams in.  In a state with 6 million households that's a nice sum of money.

Each team we add, if a desired team nationally like Florida State, adds revenue to our Tier 1 rights.  CBS will pay the SEC more money for a game between Florida State and Georgia for their 3:00 o'clock slot than they would between Duke and Ole Miss.  Considering that the SEC usually has many great teams you can multiply the value of a Florida State, Virginia Tech, or Clemson by the number of really good teams already in the conference.  Florida State may add 1 million a year to the SEC's value in Tier 1.  ESPN would like to air games like Clemson and Tennessee at 6:00 o'clock.  When better teams are added for that time slot they pay more too.  When a team like Virginia Tech is added they not only earn us more for Tier 1 and Tier 2, but they add a new state and so add a lot more money through the cable households in that state.  That is why we prefer teams in states that we do not already have teams in.  But those are getting slim now.  Virginia and North Carolina are two of the bigger prizes out there.  So how does Duke add value?  Basketball.  They are a national brand that would help our conference get noticed during basketball season.  Missouri, Texas A&M, Kentucky, Florida, and Vanderbilt are known nationally.  Arkansas, L.S.U. and Tennessee were once known nationally, but not as much now.  Duke, N.C. State, Florida State, and Pitt could help with our basketball earnings as well as adding either new states or even more football power (Clemson & F.S.U.).  I hope that helps.

 @JRsec  @uncbare 

Okay. but what about UGA's long history against GT.  We don't want to lose that game either.

& what about "B - definition of tier 1/2/3"?

 @JRsec  @uncbare 

2 things:

A.  On the 1st part of your post, I'm more of a visual learner.  Can you give me a little example of what you mean with the pods/scheduling?  Also, keep in mind, I'm pushing not to end SEC's long historied rivalries between schools (nor pushing them to every-other-year status).

B.  For those of us (like me) who don't know what this means:  define "1st tier", "2nd tier", "3rd tier", etc..

 @SouthernBoiSB  @uncbare It is actually much easier.  Consider this alignment:

SEC North:  Clemson, Duke, North Carolina State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech

SEC East:  Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

SEC South:  Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee 

SEC West:  Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Think of these four divisions as half divisions.  Every year you will play the other four teams in your half division and the 5 teams from the division that rotates onto you schedule.  That's 9 conference games.  The 10th conference game will be against your permanent rival.  The other two games will be against teams from the other two conferences (PAC & Big10).  There will be no games against FCS opponents or against teams not in the new three conference upper tier.  So, playing 10 conference games is no big deal.  Everyone will do it in each of the conferences.  Each year there will be 6 home and 6 away games.  

If you examine the groupings you will find that most rivals are contained within the divisional groupings.  The exceptions would obviously be Alabama vs Auburn, Florida State vs Clemson, Tennesse vs Vanderbilt, and Mississippi vs Miss State.  Those would become the permanent rivals.  Everyone else could select a permanent rival not already selected.

Every three years every team in the 20 team conference will have played every other team.  Home and Away's alternate in the next three year cycle.

 @SouthernBoiSB  @uncbare Sorry if I didn't express it clearly.  What I was saying is that even with 20 teams broken down into 4 rotating half divisions you actually can keep the expansion profitable by having 4 regional games rather than just 3.  in such a grouping you maintain most rivalries, stay within a couple of states radius for the core of your games and yet still play all other conference members within a three year rotation of the other half divisions.  It is true that the distances to the other half divisions would alternate in distance, but in 2 out of 3 years you would still be playing only 1 half division away from your own even if like the North Carolina Virginia area, or the Texas A&M area you were on the perimeter of the SEC footprint.

In such a rotation you maintain the core of games your fans look forward to every year, and with the 3 other half divisions alternating annually you still have fresh faces coming in every year to keep it interesting.

As far as North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech, if we ever did something like that we need to remember that North Carolina and Duke would earn enough in Tier 1 athletic interest to cover their inability to add to the tier three income.  Virginia Tech is the better, more compelling, athletic addition from Virginia.  They could not cover Virginia, who by itself could not justify and cover their own inclusion through the cache of their athletics.  Pitt on the other hand brings in enough new markets to help cover the deficiency of Virginia in that scenario.  The point I was making is that as a group of six even though three schools share footprints with two others they could earn enough together to justify such a move.  I'm not advocating it, just pointing out that it could be done without losing money.

The other factor is that the research money generated by U.N.C., N.C.State, Duke, and Virginia is well over what their athletic departments generate.  While that money is not shared throughout their conference, their ability to partner with other schools in the conference on funded projects makes their inclusion beneficial to our other research schools in ways not covered under the sports umbrella.  That value counts too!

If we were to go to 20 my preference would be Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Duke, Pitt, Clemson, and F.S.U.  Clemson and F.S.U. enhance tremendously the number of Tier 1 prime pairings and would significantly enhance Tier 1 & 2 value.  They are the #1 & 2 television draws for the present ACC.  They travel very well and their attendance is presently #1 & 2 in the ACC.  Pitt may upset SEC traditionalists, but in most Big 10 scenarios to 20 (which would only be pursued to try to compel Notre Dame to relent to the money and join the Big 10) Pitt is not a choice.  With two Virginia Schools and Kentucky sitting out there in proximity, Pitt is not a reach and would add tremendous new markets to the SEC.  Duke pays for itself and their inclusion is the best way to get the Carolina schools to agree to a move.  If either Duke or U.N.C. agree to move it means that N.C. State has to be accounted for.  The Pack would have the lowest academic ranking in the Big 10.  Perhaps Delany would take Duke and U.N.C. together, but he would likely be reluctant to do so.  There are other valuable markets he can obtain by only taking 1.  You could say the same for the SEC, but we also want AAU schools and we also want to improve our academic average.  Duke is currently ranked 8th nationally.  That is above some Ivy League schools.  The Big 10 doesn't need basketball strength or academic strength, they need sports acumen.  North Carolina meets their needs a bit better and Duke meets the needs of the SEC a bit better.  And, since the SEC is the conference that could accept both Duke and N.C. State and permit U.N.C. to make an equally valuable move then we are the ones likely to have to take two to make it happen.

Remember, that now matter how a 4 x 16 model plays out the PAC without teams from the Big 12 just can't make 16 pay.  They have a network too and need new markets as well.  The SEC and B1G will run away from the PAC in earning potential if the PAC can't add profitable teams to its footprint, and national brands to its footprint.  Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas would bring national brands to the PAC.

The Big 12 would be the only one of four conferences without plans for a conference network.  The Big 12 opted to develop their own third tier rights privately.  (Big advantage to Texas, it is why they agreed to equal revenue sharing for Tier 1 and 2 in that it still gave them an overwhelming advantage in total income over their conference mates thanks to the 15 million from the Longhorn network.)  Therefore in a four conference model of 16 teams each the Big 12 will attract only those schools passed on by the SEC and Big 10.  Economic inequity will continue to exist in the Big 12, which it doesn't significantly in the other three.  Therefore they will always remain unstable.

It would be easier to move to a three conference 20 team each model (with possibly one of those having 24) and have revenue sharing in all three conferences than it would be to have to realign again in twelve years when teams wanted out of the Big 12 and into the Big 10, PAC, and SEC at the end of their current grant of rights.  It would also close the disparity between the earning potential of the PAC and that of the Big 10, or SEC.  So, that model would each of the Big 3 conferences what they need.  The Big 10 gets East Coast and some Southern markets for the Big 10 Network.  They grow predominantly with teams that fit their profile academically and demographically.  The SEC improves its academics, gains the markets they seek, and maintain a strong well defined footprint.  The PAC adds strength in football and basketball, adds new markets, and gains a Texas recruiting base.  That would bring more balance and security than going to a model with inherent imbalances and inequities.   

 @JRsec  @uncbare 

The trouble I see with over 16 teams is a few things:

1.  Tn. - Ala. - Aub. - UGA - UF

Each of these schools have a long standing rival history between each hyphenated pair.  I don't think any of them want to lose that yearly game.  Miss. St. also has a good history vrs. Ala. as well.

2.  In sync with #1, how are you going to schedule games between 20/24 teams that it's not taking FOREVER for a rematch?  In the current 6-1-1 format, it will take 5-7 years for some schools to meet again.  Just think of adding another 6-10.

3.  Bowls history:  will they disappear?  & who is going to what bowl?  With these MEGAconferences, you might have like SEC #15/PAC #15.  Worth it?

 @JRsec  @uncbare 

I am confused by your comments.

On 1 hand, you talk about increasing the conf. size to gain more wealth by having 3 main instead of 4.  But, under the same breath, you talk about travel increasing for all events.  If you add more teams, unless they're all in the same state(s), your conf. geographic footprint will increase forcing everybody to travel (which is reduced by having a smaller/more local conf. geographic footprint).

Look @ it like this:  how much growth will you get from NC/VA schools...versus including Pitt & Miami (greatest travel distance I could think of @ the moment)?

 @uncbare I forgot to address one other point.  20 is really no harder to handle and assimilate successfully than 16.  Both require 4 half divisions (pods) that rotate annually.  Three years is all that is required for every team to play every other in football.  19 conference basketball games is just about perfect.  Home and Homes may even be set up within the pod of 5 to yield 23 conference games if necessary.  The other thing to remember is that those 19 conference games really represent no more than the old conference line up plus the nearby out of conference games that are no longer played because those teams are now in your conference.  Pods of 5 actually permit even more of a regional flavor to the groupings.  The culture of the conference is then made up of the cultures within the four regional groupings.  This flexibility will be essential to long term stability.  With pods of 5 you have greater ease in grouping rivals together for football.  You would have 9 conference games and 1 permanent rival for 10 conference games.  Just 1 more than with 16.

The upper end of the viability of this model is 24.  That model would require at least 11 conference games, and perhaps a full schedule of 12.  It's doable, but pushes the limit.  The greatest objection you hear everywhere to things as they are is that the scheduling of FCS schools or less successful FBS schools for the purpose of just posting extra wins bores the fans and networks and devalues the product.  The pod system allows your school to anticipate games against the same 3 -5 teams per year, but rotates other compelling games from the greater region in and out frequently enough to keep it fresh.  By segregating the regions within the country to play among themselves it only heightens the interest in the playoffs and bowl games.  Too much cross conference play diminishes that interest.  

 @uncbare I agree the ACC is not yet near collapse.  The loss of F.S.U. and Clemson would tip that scale as for as remaining  a significant football conference.  Notre Dame's full participation could yet sway this issue.  However the real factor is financial diparity in the potential and realized revenue for telecasting football.  That issue is not being resolved anytime soon.  In fact the gulf has widened and will likely only continue to do so.  The real issue facing the ACC is that they are undervalued as a football product so they are the target of a hostile takeover where the parts of the ACC are more valuable in other conferences than in their own, by almost a 2 to 1 margin for the top teams.  That is why the ACC's future in precarious.  It is not driven by the Big 10 and SEC but by those who reward them for the action.  Maryland's loss was as significant to the ACC as Nebraska's loss was to the Big 12.  Both cracked the perception of invulnerability and opened the other member's minds to their earning potential elsewhere, and to the mounting vulnerability of waiting too long to make similar moves.  Greed and fear are a powerful combination of emotional factors.  When weighed against need and opportunity sanity can return, but that takes time.  Momentum is on the side of realignment at this point.  That will be a difficult force to halt.

There is another set of unspoken factors at play here in the profitability of a move to 18 or 20.:

1.  The establishment of a new upper tier in the FBS means that it would be possible that all of the projected $475 million could be divided among 3 large conferences instead of 4 and potentially among 60 teams instead of 64.  Cutting out 1 conference share makes an addition or two economically viable in spite of the actual value of the team.  2.  Networks can afford to pay more for the teams in other conferences because of the Tier 1 marketability as opposed to just the cable rights.  The same network does not own all three tiers of the teams in the Big 10 or SEC, but they do own rights to both of their Tier one or Tier two games.  If half of the teams of the former ACC wind up in an expanded Big 10 and half in an expanded SEC they retain essentially the same markets for half of the total investment.  The Big 10 picks up the responsibility for a great deal of the other half.  3.  In the SEC games between Virginia Tech, Duke, North Carolina and 2/3rds of the other SEC teams would be considered compelling for either Tier 1 or 2.  The Big 10 could only claim that against 1/3rd of their teams.  4.  Travel is going to continue to be more expensive.  Traveling crowds are important to many businesses that donate to their schools athletic departments.  Keeping geographical groupings relatively compact is important for holding down expenses.  5.  The research grant revenue of the Triangle teams is significantly higher than football revenue.  That alone should be sufficient reason to consider a grouping of these teams.

So it is not just about football.  If it were the question would have been absurd.  But there are many factors that have to be weighed in making this kind of decision.  Whether the two Virginia schools figure into that equation is another relevant question.  I have a feeling they are not as tight and that U.V.A. is the one that moves the research needle.  Mentioning Pitt was only out of the fact that their markets may help to cover any drag that an extra Virginia school and North Carolina school might bring.

The biggest negative I see is the one of political power.  I'm not sure the SEC, a rather amicable conference,  would, or could handle that kind of a voting block in their midst.  That would be the strongest objection that would likely go unspoken.

I wasn't suggesting out of a desire to see a wish fulfilled, but rather to hear some feedback.  I totally understand and appreciate yours. 

 @SouthernBoiSB  @uncbare I was asking to find out how tied he thought they were as a group of three from North Carolina, and a group of 5 counting the Virginia schools.  The SEC might be waiting a long time on N.C. State should the University of North Carolina System stonewall for inclusion of U.N.C. and  N.C. State.  The article was about taking pairs.  I was also curious about how tied the two private schools Duke and Wake Forest were to the two public institutions.  Plus people forget that Tier 1 worth can cover the entry of some schools into a conference that possesses another conference school.  In that regard a brand like Florida State does add real value, just not as much as an add from a significant new market.  It is not simply a Tier 3 dimension although that is all the rage.

There is even the distinct possibility that in the near future this new footprint model could be turned on its ear.  If cable networks are encouraged to sell their products a la carte as some proposed legislation would permit, that the payout for the number of cable households in a market will be switched to a payouts by actual subscribers.  Should that change occur more money could be made from schools with national appeal as opposed to those who are just assumed to carry their markets.  The number of actual subscribers for Florida State might well outnumber the number of actual subscribers for the University of Virginia.

Should this paradigm shift in favor of individual selection the Big 10 and SEC could easily find themselves with significant shortfalls on their projections.  In light of that multiple additions from a state, provided that both were national brands would be a bigger payout than merely adding two new medium sized regional markets.  Duke and U.N.C. would wind up paying for their inclusion with greater benefits than Rutgers and Maryland could yield.

Florida State and Clemson under those circumstances could easily out earn N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

I'm not trying to be ridiculous I'm just pointing out that things may not wind up being as certain as the numbers that are being thrown around with the footprint model might indicate. 

 @JRsec  @uncbare Why on earth would the SEC want NC State and Duke and UNC?  Va, Va T, UNC, NCSU would be a no-brainer if the ACC fell apart but I don't think UNC will be in any position to make demands on the SEC that would end up costing all the member institutions $ if the ACC were falling apart.  I have read before that Slive liked Duke and UNC but it was not a quote from Slive.  It makes no sense.  18 is too many.  20 is absurd.  Duke and NCSU offer nothing to the SEC if UNC is availalbe, and they would be if the ACC falls apart.

The only thing is, other teams would have to leave for the wheels to come off and to leave you have to be going somewhere.  They won't be going to the SEC because, theoretically, the SEC would be waiting for UNC and Virginia first.  It will take FSU and Clemson leaving for the Big 12 and I just don't see the upside financially (or competitively)  for them to to that, especially if the $50 million exit fee is binding.

Losing Maryland is not Armageddon.  It's the panic reaction that will kill the conference. 

IF ND decides they have to join full on because their safe place to land and guaranteed football scheduling could be gone otherwise, then MAYBE they go all in.  They need the East.  If all that comes from this is exchanging Maryland for Notre Dame, then Swofford is the winner.  Nice move, Delaney, but checkmate.  I don't think they do that.

 @uncbare  @JRsec 

It would be interesting to see 3 teams from the same state play out in the SEC (most we  have are 2 in any given state).

 @JRsec  @uncbare

So, you'ld have the schools broken down into 2 "teams" = "Football 1st" & "Basketball 1st"?

That could be taken as a joke.....or serious.

 @uncbare If it were to become clear that the ACC was going to suffer significant losses, do you think an SEC offer extended to Virginia, Virginia Tech, N.C.State, U.N.C., and Duke as a package would sway their decision?  According to posts on this site Pitt may even help to make such a package move possible and profitable and close out the SEC with 20 teams, 3 new states, and 5 more AAU additions.  Such a move would halt Big 10 advances just above the Mason-Dixon line.

 @JRsec  @uncbare I pray our administrators will for once not be predictably snobbish and go to the B1G if the ACC falls apart.  We want to play South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee.  NOT Rutgers, Iowa, Minnesota and Northwestern.

Carolina and Kentucky, the two winningest programs in basketball history in the same league.  Awesome!

And Carolina football could at last realize its potential.  Every North Carolina kid would want to play for a North Carolina team in the SEC.