ADVERTISEMENT

Expansion article: WVU one of top choices for ACC or SEC

..it's 'too'... ...a mistake you made more than once in this thread.

I'm sure it'll all work out for you.
 
..it's 'too'... ...a mistake you made more than once in this thread.

I'm sure it'll all work out for you.


I have been very lucky in life. Living the dream actually. Watching the Pens game and posting Perfect grammar on a college opinion site really is t a priority to me. But if that's what you need to feel good about yourself have at it.
 
I'm enjoying the Pens game too. (Ouch CGJ just scored)...

I'm not the grammar police...but if you're gonna endlessly dick on others maybe you should consider avoiding making 5th grade grammar errors.
 
I'm enjoying the Pens game too. (Ouch CGJ just scored)...

I'm not the grammar police...but if you're gonna endlessly dick on others maybe you should consider avoiding making 5th grade grammar errors.



What does grammar and being a dick to the dicks on this site have to do with each other?
 
SEC would be the choice if that choice ever come up. WVU is a better fit for the SEC than several of the schools that are already in the SEC. WVU, KY an TN should be playing each other. Besides the SEC playing in Morgantown would help WVU and SEC recruiting.

A SEC conference division with Ky, Tennessee, uSC Florida and WVU would make sense. Also would make for a interesting schedule.

Although I understand the argument about ACC and the pre-existing rivalries of sPitt and VT.

We can speculate and give opinions about possible conference expansion(s) but it's too far in the future to be accurate and is not of immediate concern.
 
If Texas and OU bailed we likely join the AAC with KU, KSU, TCU, ISU, and Baylor. Texas and OU would likely have in state politics dictate they take TT and OSU wherever they go
 
If Texas and Oklahoma get out of the Big 12 that means Texas Tech and Oklahoma State will leave as well, now where those 4 schools could go is a up for debate but after those 4 schools from an athletic standpoint WVU is very desirable and could land in a better conference
 
I think the Big 12 is a good cultural fit for Wvu unfortunately its not a great geographical fit. I would like to see us in a conference closure to home with more natural rivalries. We haven't played pitt in football or basketball for years and people still use the eat sh$t pitt references. If we were to leave the big 12 today I doubt anyone would be saying eat sh$t Baylor, K state, Oklahoma five years down the road.
 
The problem with the Big 12 is that they need to expand but other than BYU, Houston, Boise State who are good candidates for expansion? I think the league breaks up unless they move soon.
 
Wow the ACC must really want to water down its football. None of those potential teams listed are good. K-State would dominate all those schools in football. I guess the ACC wants to follow the B1G as they let in two great football schools in Maryland and Rutgers and watered down the league. None of the schools the Big XII was considering added such in the way of football with the possible exception of BYU.
 
Thread is not an official expansion thread without the signature of Buckanieer.
 
When I read articles like this I have wonder who behind the scenes continues to stir the conference expansion crap? ESPN? The pro playoff group that knows the current format with 5 conferences is causing conflict? ACC? SEC? Or, is Texas and OU doing this?

my bet is ESPN

ESPN LOL!!!
Or some nobody that is praying for some hits on his blog
 
Wow the ACC must really want to water down its football. None of those potential teams listed are good. K-State would dominate all those schools in football. I guess the ACC wants to follow the B1G as they let in two great football schools in Maryland and Rutgers and watered down the league. None of the schools the Big XII was considering added such in the way of football with the possible exception of BYU.


Man you're goofy haha!!! You post like he is representing the ACC factually. Geez some of you guys are amazingly dumb. The Big12 considered a list like that. The other 4 P5s look to the Big12 for their next program.
 
The problem with the Big 12 is that they need to expand but other than BYU, Houston, Boise State who are good candidates for expansion? I think the league breaks up unless they move soon.

I think that's the biggest obstacle to BIG XII expansion. The complete lack of a quality P5 or even a top G5 program that isn't locked up with punitive contracts are scarce.

Honestly speaking, nothing is going to occur until the current TV and media rights contracts are expired. None of the BIG XII members will have a opportunity to leave until 2025. Also remember Texas has the LHN which is a hindrance to Texas moving out of the BIG XII.
 
Man you're goofy haha!!! You post like he is representing the ACC factually. Geez some of you guys are amazingly dumb. The Big12 considered a list like that. The other 4 P5s look to the Big12 for their next program.
Im surprised you haven't check out the Easter egg basket Grier thread there is possibilities to educate the homers in that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
the big 12 is closer to the SEC and B1G 10 in conference revenues more than the acc and pac

1. B1G
2. SEC
3. Big 12 + Tier 3 Rights


4. ACC
5. PAC

WVU is receiving close to $30.0 million from the conference from tier 1 and tier 2 media packages. but what every news article fails to mention is that WVU is receiving $6.7 million annually from IMG. WVU is receiving close to $37.0 million this year. of course that's not texas money where they receive $15.0 million a year for the Long Horn Network, but still it is more than Iowa State, Baylor and TCU. OK and KS have more in their tier 3 deals than us.

The ACC's package, which includes Tier 1, 2 and 3 is receiving $21.0 million this year, per annum per school.

The PAC 12 is receiving something comparable, but they have their own conference network, which brings each team less than $1.0 million in tier 3 revenue.

Think on this for a second - WVU is making more money from TV revenues than Florida State, Clemson, UCLA and USC.

So if ESPN restructures the ACC's deal to include UConn or Cincinnati, they may get a marginal bump per annum per school. And I have seen some grumblings about the ACC Network being an internet-based only channel in 2019. As we all know, espn is losing more and more subscribers each month. And the ACC only has ESPN contracts.

why would wvu take a pay cut?
 
Last edited:
the big 12 is closer to the SEC and B1G 10 in conference revenues more than the acc and pac

1. B1G
2. SEC
3. Big 12 + Tier 3 Rights


4. ACC
5. PAC

WVU is receiving close to $30.0 million from the conference from tier 1 and tier 2 media packages. but what every news article fails to mention is that WVU is receiving $6.7 million annually from IMG. WVU is receiving close to $37.0 million this year. of course that's not texas money where they receive $15.0 million a year for the Long Horn Network, but still it is more than Iowa State, Baylor and TCU. OK and KS have more in their tier 3 deals than us.

The ACC's package, which includes Tier 1, 2 and 3 is receiving $21.0 million this year, per annum per school.

The PAC 12 is receiving something comparable, but they have their own conference network, which brings each team less than $1.0 million in tier 3 revenue.

Think on this for a second - WVU is making more money from TV revenues than Florida State, Clemson, UCLA and USC.

So if ESPN restructures the ACC's deal to include UConn or Cincinnati, they may get a marginal bump per annum per school. And I have seen some grumblings about the ACC Network being an internet-based only channel in 2019. As we all know, espn is losing more and more subscribers each month. And the ACC only has ESPN contracts.

why would wvu take a pay cut?

Several inaccuracies.

Everybody gets Tier 3 money, not just Big 12 schools. The IMG deal you cite for West Virginia is all inclusive. In other words, it includes TV, Radio, multimedia, etc. If you want to make an accurate comparison, you have to do one of two things. You either have to subtract out just the TV portion of the IMG deal, or you have to add in Tier 3 for other schools.

The ACC makes more than $21 million a year per team. This has been documented several times. Starting this year, the ACC will get an increased payout from ESPN, until the conference network goes online in 2019. From there, they will get payouts from the conference network.

The network channel isn't going to be internet only. ESPN and the ACC have already contracted out to start a broadcast network. Pen has already been put to paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pitt4Life34
They are also in big television markets and that's what the Big 10 wanted when they added them.
And that line of thinking seems to be a recessive thought. Many are saying that the future of cable TV as we have known it is history. Newer technologies are (and will be) replacing the current mode of watching TV (sports on particular). The number of hypothetical TV watchers will be a mode of calculation as outdated as the Dodo bird.
 
the big 12 is closer to the SEC and B1G 10 in conference revenues more than the acc and pac

1. B1G
2. SEC
3. Big 12 + Tier 3 Rights


4. ACC
5. PAC

WVU is receiving close to $30.0 million from the conference from tier 1 and tier 2 media packages. but what every news article fails to mention is that WVU is receiving $6.7 million annually from IMG. WVU is receiving close to $37.0 million this year. of course that's not texas money where they receive $15.0 million a year for the Long Horn Network, but still it is more than Iowa State, Baylor and TCU. OK and KS have more in their tier 3 deals than us.

The ACC's package, which includes Tier 1, 2 and 3 is receiving $21.0 million this year, per annum per school.

The PAC 12 is receiving something comparable, but they have their own conference network, which brings each team less than $1.0 million in tier 3 revenue.

Think on this for a second - WVU is making more money from TV revenues than Florida State, Clemson, UCLA and USC.

So if ESPN restructures the ACC's deal to include UConn or Cincinnati, they may get a marginal bump per annum per school. And I have seen some grumblings about the ACC Network being an internet-based only channel in 2019. As we all know, espn is losing more and more subscribers each month. And the ACC only has ESPN contracts.

why would wvu take a pay cut?



When you mention the ACC adding UCONN or Cincinnati your post becomes irrelevant jibberish. You realize the ACC owns the east coast from Boston all the way down to Miami? If ESPN monies go down the tube Big12 loses again. Big12 is at very least unstable. There is this Texas/Oklahoma problem for WVU. As in the minute one leaves the WVU gravy train ends. So WVU wouldn't take a pay cut because they are dumb. They would take a step back to assure future steps forward.
 
And that line of thinking seems to be a recessive thought. Many are saying that the future of cable TV as we have known it is history. Newer technologies are (and will be) replacing the current mode of watching TV (sports on particular). The number of hypothetical TV watchers will be a mode of calculation as outdated as the Dodo bird.



Hey I have a Dodo bird. There's nothing outdated about them. Mine is super cool!!!
 
The ACC does not own the East Coast. With Penn State Maryland and Rutgers owning PA, MD, NJ/NY I would say the BIG owns a big chunk
 
And that line of thinking seems to be a recessive thought. Many are saying that the future of cable TV as we have known it is history. Newer technologies are (and will be) replacing the current mode of watching TV (sports on particular). The number of hypothetical TV watchers will be a mode of calculation as outdated as the Dodo bird.
As long as wvu continues to flounder in the Big 12 which is easily the weakest power 5 conference. Any chance of getting into another power 5 conference has gone the way of the DoDo But someone who continually lies like yourself wouldn't have a clue about that one.
 
As long as wvu continues to flounder in the Big 12 which is easily the weakest power 5 conference. Any chance of getting into another power 5 conference has gone the way of the DoDo But someone who continually lies like yourself wouldn't have a clue about that one.
As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.
 
As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.
The lie i am referring to is about something else which i have already called him out on. as for you I don't take anything you say really seriously. I prefer posters who have a clue and you have proven on many occasions that you don't qualify in that area.
 
As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.

Well, this is the problem. The only reason all this expansion was happening was for TV money. Without additional money, there isn't any incentive for a conference to expand.
 
The lie I am referring to is about something else, which I have already called him out on. As for you I don't take anything you say really seriously. I prefer posters who have a clue and you have proven on many occasions that you don't qualify in that area.
Thanks for opening your mouth and removing all doubt. You must have mistaking thought I care what you think of me. Outside of a few Marshall and Pitt trolls, no one on this forum cares what you think. Just saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hbeacheer
Perhaps, but it may result in implosion also.

There isn't a perhaps about it. The reason for conference expansion was for TV money. Plain and simple. If the money dries up, conferences aren't going to switch from taking Rutgers and Maryland to taking Boise St or Houston. If the money dries up, they simply aren't taking anybody at all. In other words, TV losing subscribers doesn't benefit anyone looking to move up or switch conferences.
 
There isn't a perhaps about it. The reason for conference expansion was for TV money. Plain and simple. If the money dries up, conferences aren't going to switch from taking Rutgers and Maryland to taking Boise St or Houston. If the money dries up, they simply aren't taking anybody at all. In other words, TV losing subscribers doesn't benefit anyone looking to move up or switch conferences.
Implosion is the most likely result. You act like I want a new conference.
 
Implosion is the most likely result. You act like I want a new conference.

Here is what led to this discussion:
If Wvu wants a chance in the Big 10 or Sec it needs to step it up in football. Going better than 7-5 only once every 5 years isn't going to cut it in those leagues

Well, the big 10 just added rutgers and maryland so that's not exactly true.

And that line of thinking seems to be a recessive thought. Many are saying that the future of cable TV as we have known it is history. Newer technologies are (and will be) replacing the current mode of watching TV (sports on particular). The number of hypothetical TV watchers will be a mode of calculation as outdated as the Dodo bird.

As long as wvu continues to flounder in the Big 12 which is easily the weakest power 5 conference. Any chance of getting into another power 5 conference has gone the way of the DoDo But someone who continually lies like yourself wouldn't have a clue about that one.

As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.
So here's the bottom line. If TV money dries up, Houston isn't getting into the Big 12, West Virginia isn't getting into the Big Ten, etc. If the argument is that adding Rutgers and Maryland was a mistake, it wasn't. A) The Big Ten got the money they wanted out of the deal. If implosion happens, everybody is in the same boat, so the Big Ten doesn't get hurt either way. B) If implosion happens, these supersized conferences would be trimming fat either way. If it's not Rutgers/Maryland, it would be Minnesota/Purdue, etc.

You don't want another conference, that's fine. The problem is, you and the other poster are falling into the classic mistake of misinterpreting future developments by assuming the present as a baseline construct.
 
Here is what led to this discussion:

So here's the bottom line. If TV money dries up, Houston isn't getting into the Big 12, West Virginia isn't getting into the Big Ten, etc. If the argument is that adding Rutgers and Maryland was a mistake, it wasn't. A) The Big Ten got the money they wanted out of the deal. If implosion happens, everybody is in the same boat, so the Big Ten doesn't get hurt either way. B) If implosion happens, these supersized conferences would be trimming fat either way. If it's not Rutgers/Maryland, it would be Minnesota/Purdue, etc.

You don't want another conference, that's fine. The problem is, you and the other poster are falling into the classic mistake of misinterpreting future developments by assuming the present as a baseline construct.

I realize it is impossible for you to not go into full a-hole mode, but you argue the same response no matter if it is relevant or not. I don't necessary disagree with you about expansion but you seem to be in total denial about there being less subscribers to TV and sports channels. Yes revenue will fall. Yes this will affect expansion. Most likely it will result in implosion which may be in the best interest to the student athlete.
 
I realize it is impossible for you to not go into full a-hole mode, but you argue the same response no matter if it is relevant or not. I don't necessary disagree with you about expansion but you seem to be in total denial about there being less subscribers to TV and sports channels. Yes revenue will fall. Yes this will affect expansion. Most likely it will result in implosion which may be in the best interest to the student athlete.

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not "in denial" about there being fewer subscribers. I haven't even mentioned that, and it has nothing to do with my argument. What I'm telling you is, if the TV market as we know is blows up, then college football is going to change radically. Some of the other posters (maybe not you) have this idea that college football will still be basically the same as it is now, just you can stream games and get them a la carte, instead of watching ESPN or Fox.

Well, no, that isn't going to happen. Without the backing of major corporations like ESPN and Fox, the days of having basically all the games televised/streamed/whatever are over. Going it alone is not effective (see the Pac 12 network). There simply won't be that many games available for viewing, because only a handful of them would generate enough revenue to support production and broadcast.

I'm not arguing about the reality of subscription loss, or the future of cable TV. All I'm doing is responding to people (not necessarily you) who are doing jumping jacks because cable TV will/might implode. I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for.
 
See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not "in denial" about there being fewer subscribers. I haven't even mentioned that, and it has nothing to do with my argument. What I'm telling you is, if the TV market as we know is blows up, then college football is going to change radically. Some of the other posters (maybe not you) have this idea that college football will still be basically the same as it is now, just you can stream games and get them a la carte, instead of watching ESPN or Fox.

Well, no, that isn't going to happen. Without the backing of major corporations like ESPN and Fox, the days of having basically all the games televised/streamed/whatever are over. Going it alone is not effective (see the Pac 12 network). There simply won't be that many games available for viewing, because only a handful of them would generate enough revenue to support production and broadcast.

I'm not arguing about the reality of subscription loss, or the future of cable TV. All I'm doing is responding to people (not necessarily you) who are doing jumping jacks because cable TV will/might implode. I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm just saying, be careful what you wish for.

Like I said, I am not disagreeing with you but the present pace off escalating expenditures is not sustainable anyway. I am joining the ranks of the cable/satellite cutters next month. It is just not worth $2000 a year.
 
Like I said, I am not disagreeing with you but the present pace off escalating expenditures is not sustainable anyway. I am joining the ranks of the cable/satellite cutters next month. It is just not worth $2000 a year.

And that's fine, but you aren't going to get the same content paying less. (Not necessarily you personally, but viewers/sports fans in general).

Relating this back to the original point, the other poster you mentioned is wrong, in that Rutgers and Maryland don't have anything to do with other schools getting into the Big Ten (or another conference), and future developments in the TV industry don't invalidate the Big Ten's decision at the time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT