PonyFans.com

From the "If both the Big 12 and the ACC were publicly traded companies" question:

"But to me, that [Big 12] is no longer a power conference. What defines a power conference to me is a league that has programs in it that recruit/spend with the best of them, and right now the ACC is the only conference of the two that possesses that."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5559375/2024/06/13/recruiting-ohio-state-transfer-portal/

Once you're done giggling, feel free to express your thoughts on the matter.

Webmaster wrote:From the "If both the Big 12 and the ACC were publicly traded companies" question:

"But to me, that [Big 12] is no longer a power conference. What defines a power conference to me is a league that has programs in it that recruit/spend with the best of them, and right now the ACC is the only conference of the two that possesses that."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5559375/2024/06/13/recruiting-ohio-state-transfer-portal/

Once you're done giggling, feel free to express your thoughts on the matter.

The analysis is correct. Minus OU and UT, the Big 12 is much closer to the original AAC than it is to the current ACC. The issue for the ACC is whether it can withstand the current onslaught form evil woke Disney to destroy it so its most valuable pieces can be given the the now evil SEC. Doing so requires walking a tightrope.

That above does not mean that I see no real value in the Big 12. As I have said here before, I think the best ACC move for the long term future is to find a sugar daddy who wants Major Conference college sports and wants to buy into ESPN by agreeing to show a whole bunch of ACC stuff if the ACC adds to inventory via expansion. I think the fairly recent talk about Utah wanting to get into the ACC comes from that kind of exploration by the ACC and entities that would love to show a lot of college sports (like Amazon and Apple). I think that an expanded ACC that adds Utah, Arizona, Arizona St would have much added value to a new network in that having 5 from the Pac would allow for weekly Friday night games of both revenue sports played in either MST or PST. Plus, all those schools are large state schools that are AAU. I also have said here that I like the value of Baylor, TCU, and TTU if added to the ACC. Having 4 TX schools would give the ACC a nice position around TX. I also like the value of Cincinnati in the ACC for its geography (close to both Louisville and Pitt) and for the fact that OH is always the #5 state in terms of football D1 player production.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That needs to be on a banner flown over the stadiums on gameday in Fort Worth, Waco and Houston

Big XII is being proactive in the college football game of survival

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footb ... e-sponsor/

If it turns out the ACC does look to expand, I pray we do everything in our power to blackball baylor and the little froggies. I have a long memory, as we all should. Karma is a b****.

Graceland Tar Heel wrote: Minus OU and UT, the Big 12 is much closer to the original AAC than it is to the current ACC. The issue for the ACC is whether it can withstand the current onslaught form evil woke Disney to destroy it so its most valuable pieces can be given the the now evil SEC. Doing so requires walking a tightrope.

If the ACC loses FSU and Clemson the conference becomes very comparable to the Big XII as a football conference. Both become basketball driven at that point

ShantyBoy wrote:If it turns out the ACC does look to expand, I pray we do everything in our power to blackball baylor and the little froggies. I have a long memory, as we all should. Karma is a b****.

Don't forget Tech.

BIGHORSE wrote:

ShantyBoy wrote:If it turns out the ACC does look to expand, I pray we do everything in our power to blackball baylor and the little froggies. I have a long memory, as we all should. Karma is a b****.

Don't forget Tech.

Yes, thanks, I forgot about them. But in my defense, that’s pretty easy to do.

Was it ever a power conference? It certainly had two marquee programs in OU and UT, but the rest of the league was middle of the pack, at best.

Is there ANY scenario that would provide FSU, Clemson whatever they need to be content in the ACC?

Expansion with the Southern PAC schools now stuck in an insurance league - would that produce enough new revenue? What about title sponsorship, or as suggested above the involvement/investment of a new network?

If the money gap could be narrowed, it might be good for all involved. Or maybe there is just too much bad blood, or the "we're better than you" crowd has taken over.

I agree with the article, and have written some similar things. You take Texas and OU away, along with all the others who have left over the years, and there isn't that much left. It is an MWC/AAC/PAC hybrid league. And look at the teams being designated as likely champions in 2004 - Utah, KU, KSU, AZ, and even lowly Is U is picked before all the TX/OK B12 teams and G5 newbies!

Its time we make the Power 3 a reality.

Graceland Tar Heel wrote:

Webmaster wrote:From the "If both the Big 12 and the ACC were publicly traded companies" question:

"But to me, that [Big 12] is no longer a power conference. What defines a power conference to me is a league that has programs in it that recruit/spend with the best of them, and right now the ACC is the only conference of the two that possesses that."

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5559375/2024/06/13/recruiting-ohio-state-transfer-portal/

Once you're done giggling, feel free to express your thoughts on the matter.

The analysis is correct. Minus OU and UT, the Big 12 is much closer to the original AAC than it is to the current ACC. The issue for the ACC is whether it can withstand the current onslaught form evil woke Disney to destroy it so its most valuable pieces can be given the the now evil SEC. Doing so requires walking a tightrope.

That above does not mean that I see no real value in the Big 12. As I have said here before, I think the best ACC move for the long term future is to find a sugar daddy who wants Major Conference college sports and wants to buy into ESPN by agreeing to show a whole bunch of ACC stuff if the ACC adds to inventory via expansion. I think the fairly recent talk about Utah wanting to get into the ACC comes from that kind of exploration by the ACC and entities that would love to show a lot of college sports (like Amazon and Apple). I think that an expanded ACC that adds Utah, Arizona, Arizona St would have much added value to a new network in that having 5 from the Pac would allow for weekly Friday night games of both revenue sports played in either MST or PST. Plus, all those schools are large state schools that are AAU. I also have said here that I like the value of Baylor, TCU, and TTU if added to the ACC. Having 4 TX schools would give the ACC a nice position around TX. I also like the value of Cincinnati in the ACC for its geography (close to both Louisville and Pitt) and for the fact that OH is always the #5 state in terms of football D1 player production.

Think you're on to something with Utah and ASU...they really did NOT want to join the Big 12. Would be an excellent move to bring in those schools + UofA to the ACC. I have to believe this private equity naming rights issue cannot sit well with some of these schools. Yormark would agree to the 'WWE Big 12' or 'Hooters Big 12' if it meant more $$ to his pocket.

Maybe that should be "Big Hooters 12"? I'd bet the ACC could raid Tech, TCU, and Baylor. Not sure about Utah, Arizona, Houston etc. since they probably out laid the big bucks to get to the Big Smelve.

PlanoStang wrote:Maybe that should be "Big Hooters 12"? I'd bet the ACC could raid Tech, TCU, and Baylor. Not sure about Utah, Arizona, Houston etc. since they probably out laid the big bucks to get to the Big Smelve.

I think the ACC leadership may finally have figured out how wisely to play the conference expansion game. It is based on football, but not on football wins. All league play has the exact same number of losses as they do wins. The big matter is TV fans. So that means that if you cannot add schools that already have large TV fan bases, you must add schools that can secure football talent and then grow its TV fans base. That is most easily down when the school is located in a area filled with football talent and with a history of deep interest in football.

SMU and DFW, for example. Boston is an almost opposite to that, and NY, the entire state, is not much better.

The other important factor in growing TV fans base is school size. That one hurts SMU but it makes schools like Utah, Arizona and Arizona St very valuable to the ACC because the ACC has so many smaller schools. AAU state schools with more than 40K students are what the ACC needs. Plus, Arizona and ASU both have huge numbers of students from CA and alums living in CA. Having them thus would help secure the ACC in CA. The numbers are not as high for Utah but Utah has many more CA students than it did before the 21st century.

AS for the TX schools in the Big 12: SMU plants the ACC in TX, specifically the extremely important DFW TV market. That can be grown to give the SACC major clout across that TV market by adding TCU, also located there, TTU (the largest number of TTU grads living in any TGV market is DFW), and Baylor 0- located just south of DFW.

But for the ACC to pull that off, there must be an investor wanting major college sports that is able to get Disney to cooperate by selling roughly half its ACC rights. Amazon and Apple both want more live sports, including college, and both have the resources. But is Disney to focused on destroying the ACC to deliver its most valuable schools to the SEC? On the other hand, Disney really needs a cash infusion.

SMUguy wrote:Was it ever a power conference? It certainly had two marquee programs in OU and UT, but the rest of the league was middle of the pack, at best.

How many times was UO mauled in postseason competion post 2000?
"Marquee"? You jest.