Unconquered

How much money will it add? That's all that matters.

Id love to go to Austin, doubtful Id pay to go anywhere else in B12 country

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.

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.

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.

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.

When they announce how much more money this brings to FSU I will be able to form an opinion

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 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.

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.