In partnership with CBSSports.com
The place to talk about the Florida State Seminoles
The place to discuss general topics outside of Florida State
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I read with interest Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby's quotes about the discussion between the Big12 and the ACC to form a conference alliance for out of conference scheduling.
Loved it that he referred to it as "friends with benefits".
The message board discussion hasn't really focused on what effect adding a home and away intersectional game with a Big 12 team would do for FSU's home schedule; what it would mean to you to have one away game against a Big 12 team; and whether you think this helps to answer the strength-of-schedule question FSU is working to address.
It would seem to me that if the 10 Big 12 teams played two games against ACC teams (20 intersectional games in total), it would add real value to the ACC television package which predicably would lead to a larger ACC payout than the ACC member schools are receiving right now.
Let's see if we can discuss just the alliance idea without talking about full expansion on this one thread.
Want to play along?
Jerry Kutz is Sr. VP of Seminole Boosters and was co-founder and columnist of the Osceola. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org or 850-644-4612.
BS, won't ever happen.
How much money will it add? That's all that matters.
Its like playing "just the tip" some one will get screwed eventually.
Id love to go to Austin, doubtful Id pay to go anywhere else in B12 country
I hope it happens. My primary concern about us being in the ACC is the lack of revenue the conference seems to be generating relative to the other major conferences. However, I have to imagine a package of intersectional games with the Big 12 would be a step in the right direction toward closing the gap. Plus, playing a team like Texas would dramatically improve our home schedule (especially if we played them in an odd year). Bottom line: I'd support such a deal with the Big 12 because it would mean more $ and more exposure for FSU.
Big 12 would love to have a bowl tie-in in the Southeast ( Florida ) and think maybe the ACC/Big12 could get say the Gator Bowl ? SEC/B1G already had two match ups in Florida work but the third in Jacksonville has not sold many tickets.
Big 12 is playing nice but I do not see both ACC/Big12 around in 10 years ( one or both will have major changes ). Big 12 footprint is to small - ACC footprint is the largest but plays second to SEC in the South and pro football in the North. Texas also wishes to be with better academic schools like Notre Dame , UNC and USC. I can see Texas in the PAC 12 or a re-work ACC/Big12 with Notre Dame in 12 years.
The ACC is a sinking ship that cares nothing about football. They want to pimp FSU for what we can bring them (revenue) and float it to other schools that do little to earn a full piece of the pie.
I don't think anyone would dislike the idea of getting certain Big12 teams on the schedule. Had WVU not cancelled on us, we would have played a current Big12 team each year from 2010-2014. I think the reaction was positive about having WVU on the schedule, and most people seem excited about OSU in 2014.
This begs the question. If these type of games are already being scheduled (FSU v Big12), why would ESPN pay extra for them?
In Dodd's original article about the alliance, he said that TV partners haven't been included on the talks, so I would think that could be a pretty big hurdle to clear.
Addressing the SOS problem, I actually think this alliance would worsen the problem. FSU's problem with SOS is not an OOC scheduling problem. Sure, WVU bailing this year hurt, but its the ACC that is bringing us down in the computer rankings.
The ACC schedules, by far, more BCS programs OOC than any other conference. Teams like Duke are scheduling Bama and Stanford. Virginia has scheduled USC and Oregon. And so on. Our "lower level" teams are being used as resume fodder for the other BCS conferences. If you look at these same "lower level" teams from other BCS conferences, they schedule these type of teams much less frequently.
I feel like the ACC scheduling more Big12 teams is just the ACC scheduling more losses. Sure, some of our teams may win: FSU, Clemson, VT, and some others may get a win, but I imagine if this 20 game package were scheduled, that the ACC would probably go somewhere between 3-17 to 7-13, in my opinion.
To summarize my thoughts about the SOS discussion: The ACC schedules more BCS programs OOC than any other league, and we have the worse SOS problems. I'm not sure how an alliance to have more of these games will help that issue.
No way is any Big12 going to play 2 ooc games against the ACC when they have 10 conference games
ESPN would conceivably pony up for the games because the right ACC-Big 12 match-ups would draw a lot more viewers than an alternative non-conference game. Thus, FSU-Texas is a lot more valuable than, say, FSU-Nevada.
I understand your point about the ACC's strength of schedule, but we won't be as dependent on the conference's strength of schedule if we schedule better non-conference opponents. Adding Texas or Oklahoma to a schedule that will already include Clemson, Florida, Louisville, and Miami would all but guarantee FSU a spot in the playoffs if we finished with one loss or fewer.
Would a scheduling alliance with the Big 12 cure everything that ails the ACC? No. But to me, it's definitely more attractive than the status quo.
It would be a good thing, but it doesn't even come close to the elation we would have if we left.
They'd only have to play one game against the ACC. There are 10 teams in the Big 12 (9 games), so playing one non-conference game against an ACC team would still give them 2 other non-conference games.
For FSU, this all the earmarks of putting a bandaid on a knife wound.
When they announce how much more money this brings to FSU I will be able to form an opinion
I understand the supposed value of FSU vs. UT or OU. My point is that FSU has already voiced a desire to do this type of scheduling on our own. As the OP said, FSU is working to address the SOS issue and would likely schedule similar match-ups without this alliance. ESPN already owns the right to those games, why would they pay more for what they already own.
Further, FSU is one of the few ACC teams that would actually provide value to this alliance. It would just be another revenue stream that FSU would provide the lion's share of value, and split with the rest of the ACC. Or is ESPN going to pony up for Syracuse vs. Baylor, or Wake Forest vs. Texas Tech?
Maybe if ESPN allowed the teams from each matchup to get money relative to the ratings received.
My only concern is that there are only two programs that really interest us and both are booked up through the rest of the decade.
Glad the Big 12 talk is subsiding - that would have been a massive mistake. If all hell breaks loose, they can be our safety net, but other than that, no thanks.
I get your point, but potential games such as Clemson-Oklahoma, Miami-Oklahoma State, and Virginia Tech-West Virginia would have real value, too. I think it's fairly clear that those games won't happen if additional compensation isn't part of the deal, so while it's true that ESPN could theoretically refuse to increase the value of the contract, taking that position would cost them viewership and money that they'd otherwise have.
It's true that FSU wouldn't receive it's "fair share" of the new money, but we'd get more than we're receiving right now. If switching conferences isn't an option (and for the purposes of this thread it isn't), then the next best thing is doing whatever else we can to increase our revenue stream.
I understand, and I think we should try and get revenue wherever we can. I just think that this is just ESPN trying to keep the ACC together by giving more money for something they already own.
So why doesn't ESPN just pay us more money, and skip the dog and pony show.
same here. I do not see the financial advantage. Schools schedule who they want to now without any alliance. I thought the mighty fighting Irish was agreeing to five games and that is supposed to come to the ACC rescue. I am against any further entangling alliance involving the ACC.
I am fine with whatever brings in more money. If we can renegotiate the contracts, add a network, get 3-rd tier back and negotiate what you speak of, things will be looking up. Ideally another conference would be best, but that doesn't seem like a n option, so lets make the most of our current situation.
I'm all for it, I love big OOC games.
While I am not arguing against your point, I will point out this is not the stance by those who want FSU to move to the Big 12 for a more attractive schedule.
They talk about Texas Tech, Baylor, KState as powers. They point to Texas Tech being #1 a few years ago for a few weeks while ignoring BC was #2 a few years ago. No one seems to remember what K-State is like when Bill Snyder isn't the coach. Seems like Oklahoma State could be in the same boat as Texas Tech was when Leach was there. A top 25ish team that may have an exceptional season from time to time, but they aren't a juggernaut like some Big 12 proponents like to point out.
I like the idea of the alliance moreso than joining the Big 12.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports