Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

ACC ACC ACC

24

Comments

  • coronabruin
    coronabruin Member Posts: 1,491
    edited February 2023
    Get rid of the conferences. Four 10 team leagues with promotion/relegation. Bottom two in each league go down. Top 4 play in a 16 team playoff hosted by the rotting corpse of the old major bowl games. Non-league games with lower divisions are BANNED.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,270
    I for one believe this bored would relish being a member of the Ass Clown Conference.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • huskyhooligan
    huskyhooligan Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,930 Swaye's Wigwam
    creepycoug said:

    dnc said:

    I doubt anything comes of it and it's worse geographically than joining the B10. But the B10 doesn't look like an option. I'd take this for sure.

    Keeps us financially viable long enough to stay relevant until the chinevitable downsizing to Yella's 32 team league. You just gotta make that cut.

    I'd do it. DeBoer owning Cristobal would be fun.












    @creepycoug

    One would think such a bi-coastal conference would be re-named. Hey, what about the Bi-Coastal Athletic Conference?

    Would help the left-coast schools by becoming more normalized destinations for the highly valued southeastern US recruiting grounds.
    Are we? officially Bi-curious now? 'Officially' being the key word here. Not that it hasn't been clear most are for a long time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Canadawg
    Canadawg Member Posts: 5,298
    Playing an away game cross country would be a pretty big disadvantage compared to most existing conferences. See the SoCal schools in 2024
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,270
    Canadawg said:

    Playing an away game cross country would be a pretty big disadvantage compared to most existing conferences. See the SoCal schools in 2024

    Yeah while I would prefer this over the Big 12 (largely cause the B12 added a bunch of crap after UT/OU left, should have just taken the 8 remaining B12 and 8 from the P12 to make 1 league, but UCLA/USC timing fucked us) if the ACC goes to 20 including ND, 5 P12 schools being a part of that forces 2 road trips to ACC sites per year (8 game schedule assumed, playing all 4 other west coast teams). For non-football that is big pile of travel. Oregon would have it rough since it's not like there are nonstop flights from their Methed out city to ACC sites.

    Notre Dame joining full time would have some future schedules to fix. ND's 3 consistent games are USC, Furd and Navy, though Furd/ND haven't finalized their 2025 and beyond series. 8 game ACC including Furd, plus games vs USC and Navy, gives ND two more games to schedule each year against whoever they want.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • theknowledge
    theknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,633 Founders Club
    whlinder said:

    Canadawg said:

    Playing an away game cross country would be a pretty big disadvantage compared to most existing conferences. See the SoCal schools in 2024

    Yeah while I would prefer this over the Big 12 (largely cause the B12 added a bunch of crap after UT/OU left, should have just taken the 8 remaining B12 and 8 from the P12 to make 1 league, but UCLA/USC timing fucked us) if the ACC goes to 20 including ND, 5 P12 schools being a part of that forces 2 road trips to ACC sites per year (8 game schedule assumed, playing all 4 other west coast teams). For non-football that is big pile of travel. Oregon would have it rough since it's not like there are nonstop flights from their Methed out city to ACC sites.

    Notre Dame joining full time would have some future schedules to fix. ND's 3 consistent games are USC, Furd and Navy, though Furd/ND haven't finalized their 2025 and beyond series. 8 game ACC including Furd, plus games vs USC and Navy, gives ND two more games to schedule each year against whoever they want.
    I'm not positive but I think the ACC is at 14 schools right now without ND. Adding UW/UO/Stan/Cal/ND only brings them up to 19. Who's the fifth WC team? WSU/OSU/SDSU in a battle Royale as I'd assume the corner schools would jump to the B12 at any sniff of ACC expansion west?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,270
    edited February 2023
    theknowledge said:

    whlinder said:

    Canadawg said:

    Playing an away game cross country would be a pretty big disadvantage compared to most existing conferences. See the SoCal schools in 2024

    Yeah while I would prefer this over the Big 12 (largely cause the B12 added a bunch of crap after UT/OU left, should have just taken the 8 remaining B12 and 8 from the P12 to make 1 league, but UCLA/USC timing fucked us) if the ACC goes to 20 including ND, 5 P12 schools being a part of that forces 2 road trips to ACC sites per year (8 game schedule assumed, playing all 4 other west coast teams). For non-football that is big pile of travel. Oregon would have it rough since it's not like there are nonstop flights from their Methed out city to ACC sites.

    Notre Dame joining full time would have some future schedules to fix. ND's 3 consistent games are USC, Furd and Navy, though Furd/ND haven't finalized their 2025 and beyond series. 8 game ACC including Furd, plus games vs USC and Navy, gives ND two more games to schedule each year against whoever they want.
    I'm not positive but I think the ACC is at 14 schools right now without ND. Adding UW/UO/Stan/Cal/ND only brings them up to 19. Who's the fifth WC team? WSU/OSU/SDSU in a battle Royale as I'd assume the corner schools would jump to the B12 at any sniff of ACC expansion west?
    Your numbers are right, I was going off an assumed 5th team from the PAC being added to ensure 2 road games within region and an even number of teams in total.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rodmansrage
    rodmansrage Member Posts: 6,377
    theknowledge said:

    whlinder said:

    Canadawg said:

    Playing an away game cross country would be a pretty big disadvantage compared to most existing conferences. See the SoCal schools in 2024

    Yeah while I would prefer this over the Big 12 (largely cause the B12 added a bunch of crap after UT/OU left, should have just taken the 8 remaining B12 and 8 from the P12 to make 1 league, but UCLA/USC timing fucked us) if the ACC goes to 20 including ND, 5 P12 schools being a part of that forces 2 road trips to ACC sites per year (8 game schedule assumed, playing all 4 other west coast teams). For non-football that is big pile of travel. Oregon would have it rough since it's not like there are nonstop flights from their Methed out city to ACC sites.

    Notre Dame joining full time would have some future schedules to fix. ND's 3 consistent games are USC, Furd and Navy, though Furd/ND haven't finalized their 2025 and beyond series. 8 game ACC including Furd, plus games vs USC and Navy, gives ND two more games to schedule each year against whoever they want.
    I'm not positive but I think the ACC is at 14 schools right now without ND. Adding UW/UO/Stan/Cal/ND only brings them up to 19. Who's the fifth WC team? WSU/OSU/SDSU in a battle Royale as I'd assume the corner schools would jump to the B12 at any sniff of ACC expansion west?
    nd is no longer serious about football so i could see them joining the acc.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BleachedAnusDawg
    BleachedAnusDawg Member Posts: 13,210 Standard Supporter
    Big Ten (and, by extension, the ACC) are not happening if Canzano is to be believed. He wrote this the other day once it was learned that the State Legislature bill to tie UW and WSU together was DOA.

    I like that college leadership across the country policed itself on the realignment/expansion front. The conference commissioners were in gridlock over what to do with the College Football Playoff. That caused a lot of unrest. Everyone was jockeying for position.

    The Big Ten snatched USC and UCLA from the Pac-12. The university presidents and chancellors must have hated the instability. Because they took matters into their own hands and quickly approved a proposal that expanded the playoff to 12 teams in 2024.

    Everyone froze.

    Oregon and Washington must have realized they were better off staying in the Pac-12 if they wanted to make the football playoff. A line of Big Ten members pushed back against then-commissioner Kevin Warren’s wish to expand further. There was nowhere for the Ducks and Huskies to go, even if they were willing to take a reduced media-rights distribution.

    One Big Ten AD told me last July: “Oregon and Washington don’t pencil out.”

    We saw the mess the UC Regents inherited on the UCLA front. It was a no-win situation. The hearings felt futile. The Bruins were already packed and turning out the lights. They weren’t going to reverse course and tip toe back.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LebamDawg
    LebamDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,786 Swaye's Wigwam
    https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-eyes-further-conference-expansion-after-reaching-early-exit-agreement-with-texas-oklahoma/

    Maybe we? could buy our way into the B12 since they want to expand...

    especially after this bombshell of no TV contract https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/104349/its-not-over-for-the-pac-10#latest
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    LebamDawg said:

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-eyes-further-conference-expansion-after-reaching-early-exit-agreement-with-texas-oklahoma/

    Maybe we? could buy our way into the B12 since they want to expand...

    especially after this bombshell of no TV contract https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/104349/its-not-over-for-the-pac-10#latest

    Buy our way in, wtf? They'd take us in a heartbeat. So far we have resisted the idea because the vast majority of that conference sucks ass.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BleachedAnusDawg
    BleachedAnusDawg Member Posts: 13,210 Standard Supporter
    dnc said:

    LebamDawg said:

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-eyes-further-conference-expansion-after-reaching-early-exit-agreement-with-texas-oklahoma/

    Maybe we? could buy our way into the B12 since they want to expand...

    especially after this bombshell of no TV contract https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/104349/its-not-over-for-the-pac-10#latest

    Buy our way in, wtf? They'd take us in a heartbeat. So far we have resisted the idea because the vast majority of that conference sucks ass.
    PAC and Big 12 merge, East/West divisions. Much better than doing an ACC thing.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sandra6
    Sandra6 Member Posts: 151
    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    Big Ten (and, by extension, the ACC) are not happening if Canzano is to be believed. He wrote this the other day once it was learned that the State Legislature bill to tie UW and WSU together was DOA.

    I like that college leadership across the country policed itself on the realignment/expansion front. The conference commissioners were in gridlock over what to do with the College Football Playoff. That caused a lot of unrest. Everyone was jockeying for position.

    The Big Ten snatched USC and UCLA from the Pac-12. The university presidents and chancellors must have hated the instability. Because they took matters into their own hands and quickly approved a proposal that expanded the playoff to 12 teams in 2024.

    Everyone froze.

    Oregon and Washington must have realized they were better off staying in the Pac-12 if they wanted to make the football playoff. A line of Big Ten members pushed back against then-commissioner Kevin Warren’s wish to expand further. There was nowhere for the Ducks and Huskies to go, even if they were willing to take a reduced media-rights distribution.

    One Big Ten AD told me last July: “Oregon and Washington don’t pencil out.”

    We saw the mess the UC Regents inherited on the UCLA front. It was a no-win situation. The hearings felt futile. The Bruins were already packed and turning out the lights. They weren’t going to reverse course and tip toe back.

    So Washington and Oregon "didn't pencil out", but Maryland and Rutgers penciled out? WTF?

    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,270
    Houhusky said:

    Sandra6 said:

    I really hope that we leave Stanford and Cal behind. They're the two schools responsible for the PAC demise, and nobody in San Francisco watches their teams.

    In 1990, Stanford and Cal rejected the additions of Texas and Texas A&M. In 2010-11, Stanford and Cal ended up sabotaging the the talks with Texas and Oklahoma.

    Whether we go to the Big 10 or the ACC, I want the hell out of the PAC, and I want to leave Stanford and Cal behind.

    In college I knew one of the girls who helped launch the whole husky stadium sustainability nonsense... She actively hated not just football but all sports and claimed they were an extension of white westernized patriarchal power structures or some shit. She unironically told me that UW football doing poorly was a good thing because it decreased people driving cars to a pointless game.

    Its probably only got worse... Im not sure there big difference between Cal, Stanford and UW, and if there is there wont be 10 years from now.

    I would get some schadenfreude from the destruction of the retarded Pac12 except I know that there's a lot of people working in these schools that get glee from sawing off the branch they are sitting on.
    JFC. I mean, the decrease in driving is probably not wrong, but I would love to know from someone like that what brings them joy and meaning in life. Like what’s the fucking point of being alive to her?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rodmansrage
    rodmansrage Member Posts: 6,377
    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sandra6
    Sandra6 Member Posts: 151
    edited February 2023
    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?



    I’m extremely skeptical that cable companies are seriously gorging NJ and NYC customers because of Rutgers’ preserve in the Big 10, even if the Big Ten dreamed that would happen when they invited Rutgers. There would have to be some interest in the region to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you think if the Big Ten added Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly be willing to charge their customers out their ears.)

    And since Washington has more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington bring more cable households than Maryland does?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sandra6
    Sandra6 Member Posts: 151
    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?

    I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)

    And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rodmansrage
    rodmansrage Member Posts: 6,377
    Sandra6 said:

    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?

    I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)

    And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
    you're shocked cable companies are gorging their customer base?!?!?! im sure the rest of your poast was great, or maybe it sucked, irregardless its a mute point because i stopped reading after the bold.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,082 Founders Club
    Sandra6 said:

    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?

    I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)

    And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
    Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sandra6
    Sandra6 Member Posts: 151
    edited February 2023
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    Sandra6 said:

    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?

    I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)

    And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
    Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.


    You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.


    People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • theknowledge
    theknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,633 Founders Club
    Doogles said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    dnc said:

    LebamDawg said:

    https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-eyes-further-conference-expansion-after-reaching-early-exit-agreement-with-texas-oklahoma/

    Maybe we? could buy our way into the B12 since they want to expand...

    especially after this bombshell of no TV contract https://hardcorehusky.com/discussion/104349/its-not-over-for-the-pac-10#latest

    Buy our way in, wtf? They'd take us in a heartbeat. So far we have resisted the idea because the vast majority of that conference sucks ass.
    PAC and Big 12 merge, East/West divisions. Much better than doing an ACC thing.
    The B12 lost their 2 biggest dogs.

    You can't call yourself a power football conference without one blue blood.

    Washington needs to step up to the plate. Time to Be the big Dawg
    That's why Oregon and UW join the B12. Both are higher ceilings than what they've got in football but the B12 offers a higher floor than the P12. TCU, Baylor, KState, UC, UCF, Houston, all recently offer better football than Colorado, WSU, Stan, Cal, UA. Basketball money is substantially better in the B12 as well. 6-9 teams in the tournament every year> 2-4. Kansas,Texas Tech and Oregon State all seem to be on the upswing in football and ASU is a mystery. Utah is the only consistently redeeming thing outside the NW in the P12 and that says all you need about "our" brand. GTFO sooner than later.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinder
    whlinder Member Posts: 5,270
    Sandra6 said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    Sandra6 said:

    rodmansrage said:

    Sandra6 said:



    PS Even if you go by some mindless "tv market" perspective, Washington is a more populated state than Maryland. And that's before you even consider how nobody in Maryland gives a shit about Maryland football.

    thats basically what happened, neither of those programs have a football program worth a shit. but, you could get the big 10 network on those cable providers, those cable providers would charge their customers, and then those cable providers could raise their carriage fees. same with adding buttgers, they suck, but you bring in the big 10 network into ny/nj/philly population.

    to the bolded point, as mentioned above, i agree, but does anyone in the state of washington give a shit about washington football?

    I am extremely skeptical of the idea that cable companies are seriously gorging NYC and NJ customers because of Rutger’s presence in the Big Ten, even though I’m sure that was the Big Ten’s dream when they invited Rutgers. There has to be at least some minimal interest in a local team in order to justify raising carriage fees. (Unless you seriously think that if the Big Ten invited Rice, then Houston cable providers would suddenly start gorging customers for the BTN.)

    And since the state of Washington actually had more people than Maryland, wouldn’t Washington actually bring more cable subscriptions to the BTN than Maryland does?
    Rutgers and Maryland aren't just about their respective literal geographic borders. It's the East Coast media markets they are a part of which are much bigger. Pretending otherwise is like pretending UConn basketball is only relevant in Connecticut.


    You really think Rutgers and Maryland are relevant outside Maryland and NJ? They’re barely even relevant in Maryland and NJ, forget about outside those states.


    People in NYC really look down on NJ for in case you’re not aware-it’s pretty bizarre that anybody would think New Yorkers would seriously root for the state university of New Jersey.
    Except the B1G is relevant in the markets they’re in. B1G programming is constantly on in bars in the DC Metro. ACC content? Only when it’s on ESPN nationally.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter