Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
..it's 'too'... ...a mistake you made more than once in this thread.
I'm sure it'll all work out for you.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
Im surprised you haven't check out the Easter egg basket Grier thread there is possibilities to educate the homers in that one.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 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?
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.They are also in big television markets and that's what the Big 10 wanted when they added them.
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?
the pac 12 will be the first conference to break up.
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.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.
Anyone who knows anything about football knows they made a sitcom about the big 12 conference. Its called The walking dead.Super dumb post! Congrats man!
As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.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.
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.
As the number of cable subscribers plummet, one has wonder where eerdoc lied. Perhaps your agenda has warped your sense of reality.
Perhaps, but it may result in implosion also.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.
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.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.
Perhaps, but it may result in implosion also.
Implosion is the most likely result. You act like I want a new conference.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.
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.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.
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.
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.