*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

Status
Not open for further replies.

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,414
65,629
113
LA LA Land
When they say 4 teams, they really mean 8. The first round of the playoffs will be the conference championships. Then you are down to 4 winners, then a championship game. 4 conferences will be 14-16 teams play in pods of 7/8 and have a division winner that they send to their conference championship (round 1 of the playoffs). The 4 winners go to the winners BCS games (rd. 2), losers can play in the losers BCS Jan 1 games. Then on Jan 8th there is a national championship (rd 3) game. This way you keep the bowl games, you get an 8 team playoff and only add 1 game to the season and that only affects 2 teams.

There are strong forces on both sides of wanting conference champs only vs. top 4 teams in a BCS type ranking.

It's not looking great for the ACC either way being the clear 5th wheel. With champs only they'd have to hope in the years they have a decent champ that there's an upset in one of the 4 better conferences.

If it's top 4 BCS ranking only, I already pointed out they'd only get in once a decade using the last ten years of results as a guide.

I'm only saying this because there's more to long term ACC success than if this TV deal is great or just average. If they end up as an afterthought in the new 4 team playoff it won't matter how much today's contract is worth because they'll fade into obscurity. Their hope is to keep the football schools they have, hope the results on the field improve, and that it doesn't become an issue of 4 conferences feeding 4 spots.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,414
65,629
113
LA LA Land
Would it cost them more to play in the Big 12 because of higher traveling expenses? I don't have time to calculate the mileages, but just by eye-balling it, it looks Clemson and FSU would have significantly longer distances to travel on average, particularly Clemson.

FSU's athletic budget is nearly $87 million, and Clemson's athletic budget is nearly $61 million. If it costs more to play in the Big 12, it seems like it might take a bigger economic carrot for those schools to make the switch, unless there is more than economics driving a desire to switch.

FSU already has long trips to Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College. I'm not sure it would be that much different for them. BC and Cuse are actually in their division and two of the furthest trips possible. Maryland in their division is not close either.

They're not really an ideal geographic fit for anywhere but the SEC. If they brought Clemson (and GT or Miami) with them it would probably be a wash if divisions can be mostly geographic.

Clemson seems like they'd travel quite a bit more in the Big 12 though and the new ACC teams aren't as far from them, but they're the team stirring the rumor mill the most so who knows.
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,437
74,060
113
Ankeny
If there is one thing we have learned, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Yep. At this point i believe that discussions at very least have taken place. If nothing ends up coming from it its because FSU\Clemson decided against the option, but i think its definitely a real prospect.
 

cyhiphopp

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 9, 2009
33,266
14,537
113
Ankeny
Is there any value to ACC basketball?

Value to whom?
Does ACC B-Ball have value to Clemson and FSU? I don't think it does too much.

Clemson and FSU know their bread is buttered by Football and they know they are falling behind the other big conferences in the TV deal arms race. FSU is having financial trouble and really needs an influx of TV money to keep up with SEC teams that constantly compete for the same recruits.

I think ACC B-Ball actually hurts the ACC with Clemson and FSU. Those schools know that the ACC will continue to be a B-Ball first conference for the most part. Clemson and FSU may feel they are better served in a conference that is pushing football more than b-ball. You have to think the VaTech has the same feelings.
 

im4cyclones

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2010
3,937
671
113
Ames, IA
Would it cost them more to play in the Big 12 because of higher traveling expenses? I don't have time to calculate the mileages, but just by eye-balling it, it looks Clemson and FSU would have significantly longer distances to travel on average, particularly Clemson.

FSU's athletic budget is nearly $87 million, and Clemson's athletic budget is nearly $61 million. If it costs more to play in the Big 12, it seems like it might take a bigger economic carrot for those schools to make the switch, unless there is more than economics driving a desire to switch.

One of the sites linked a few pages ago had the distances of FSU to each school in B12 vs. ACC. No significant differences. Then he listed stadium capacities, Sagarin ratings, and athletic budgets for each school. The B12 was favorable overall in most cases.
 

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
75,414
65,629
113
LA LA Land
If there is one thing we have learned, where there is smoke, there is fire.

Clemson fans are starting to sound A LOT like A&M fans did when they got the rabid dog salivation of changing conferences no matter what.

Just about any ESPN story on realignment will have people with "tigers" in their names posting things like "CLEMSON TO BIG 12 in 2013! BANK ON IT!" Their own boards seem to be wildly pro-Big 12 as well.

Haven't noticed it as much from FSU, I think FSU feels like they have more to lose being a clear marquee football program in their current conference. FSU would probably stay tight lipped until it's a done deal and a done deal that dwarfs whatever they'd have in the ACC.
 

snowcraig2.0

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 2, 2007
12,527
10,327
113
47
Cedar Rapids, IA
I agree. But for someone like me who is addicted to realignment, it is a good time. Kinda like letting a alcoholic loose in the Coors Brewery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.