Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Panjandrum]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Honestly, we're better off with our pro rata increase and selling our rights regionally to maximize profits.  We can hope that a Big 12 championship game, increased bowl eligible teams, and more corporate sponsorship would help offset the increased two shares.  We probably would see a cut, but it wouldn't be dramatic.  Maybe less than a million a year per team.  Maybe.

The contract that we are currently under says if we add two teams, there is no splitting of the pot, at all. If we add two, we get two additional shares as a conference and through what you listed more money as a team as well. If we add four, then we start splitting shares and the way it was packaged with the CCG and SEC/Sugar Bowl tie-in (those 2 were estimated $80MM) plus additional bowls we would be even most years unless we didn't fill our bowl allotment AND missed a team in the playoff (like last year, yay!).

I remember this distinctly when it happened during grant of rights and bringing in WVU and TCU...there was great discussion about Louie but the ? was who was the 4th so we stopped at 2 thinking we could add Louie and 3 from the ACC...which is why the ACC scrambled and signed GOR.

My understanding was that the ESPN/Fox contract granted pro rata for the T1/T2 TV deals, but that doesn't cover the rest of the conference money getting distributed between bowls, NCAA tournament money, playoff money, etc.

That's why folks were against adding teams.  If we added, there would be a decrease in payout that a CCG wouldn't necessarily overcome.  Otherwise, we would have probably already added two and then added a CCG because that would have been an additional $1 million (or so) a year to everyone on top of a pro rata increase.

[Dr Rick Daris]

in the history of my entire life on earth, i have never seen anyone that thoroughly enjoys something as much as pan enjoys conference realignment talk. Not a judgment, just an observation.

[meow meow]

in the history of my entire life on earth, i have never seen anyone that thoroughly enjoys something as much as pan enjoys conference realignment talk. Not a judgment, just an observation.

he's probably typed more words in this thread than I've typed my entire life

[pissclams]

in the history of my entire life on earth, i have never seen anyone that thoroughly enjoys something as much as pan enjoys conference realignment talk. Not a judgment, just an observation.

dax & ku

[Blackcats]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Honestly, we're better off with our pro rata increase and selling our rights regionally to maximize profits.  We can hope that a Big 12 championship game, increased bowl eligible teams, and more corporate sponsorship would help offset the increased two shares.  We probably would see a cut, but it wouldn't be dramatic.  Maybe less than a million a year per team.  Maybe.

The contract that we are currently under says if we add two teams, there is no splitting of the pot, at all. If we add two, we get two additional shares as a conference and through what you listed more money as a team as well. If we add four, then we start splitting shares and the way it was packaged with the CCG and SEC/Sugar Bowl tie-in (those 2 were estimated $80MM) plus additional bowls we would be even most years unless we didn't fill our bowl allotment AND missed a team in the playoff (like last year, yay!).

I remember this distinctly when it happened during grant of rights and bringing in WVU and TCU...there was great discussion about Louie but the ? was who was the 4th so we stopped at 2 thinking we could add Louie and 3 from the ACC...which is why the ACC scrambled and signed GOR.

My understanding was that the ESPN/Fox contract granted pro rata for the T1/T2 TV deals, but that doesn't cover the rest of the conference money getting distributed between bowls, NCAA tournament money, playoff money, etc.

That's why folks were against adding teams.  If we added, there would be a decrease in payout that a CCG wouldn't necessarily overcome.  Otherwise, we would have probably already added two and then added a CCG because that would have been an additional $1 million (or so) a year to everyone on top of a pro rata increase.

Nooooo. ESPN, and Fox especially, wanted 12 teams and incentivized us to do so. They wanted the content. FS1 wanted the extra game. We didn't do it initially because we pussyfooted around, weren't aggressive and didn't get who we wanted. There was so much moaning about TCU and politicos getting involved because Louie didn't get in on the first round we crap the bed.

This is probably a good time to remind you that during this time my aunt was a Fellow at ND (their board of regents). ND had interest in doing the same deal with the B12 that they settled on with the ACC. B12 was their first choice!! The follow on was Pitt if I remember correctly. WVU wasn't real excited about that, the senators from KY were throwing a crap fit and Texas threw out the idea that if ND was going to be independent for football, why couldn't they.. It was such a crap show the conference decides to take a breath and not add anyone for 12 months. The rest was history. ND and Pitt to the ACC, ACC knowing that ND, Pitt and Louie had shown interest in B12 pulls GOR vote on shitty contract to lock in FSU, Clem and new non voting members.

And here we are talking about Houston. rough ridin' B12.

[HerrSonntag]

I've always thought Colorado State would be a good pickup, but I didn't realize how small-timey college sports are in the centennial state.  Like, CU and CSUs fanbases combined wouldn't even make the upper half of the fanbases in the existing big 12.  I guess if you can't roll it, hike it, or shred it in Colorado, no one cares.

[Panjandrum]

in the history of my entire life on earth, i have never seen anyone that thoroughly enjoys something as much as pan enjoys conference realignment talk. Not a judgment, just an observation.

It's just fascinating to me.  I know it's unbecoming.  It just is what it is.

[mocat]

Panj, wow. Your words per post is just astonishing

[MakeItRain]

Let's do Colorado state and Utah state

Utah State is likely the worst of the schools being tossed around.  Colorado State wouldn't be bad, tho.

Colorado State is an interesting candidate, but they screw up the potential divisions and balance.

In the 12 team model, everyone wants competitive balance.  But you have to make sure a few things happen:

1) You can't break rivalry games
2) Texas and OU don't want to play certain teams twice.  OU and UT only want the RRR, OU only wants Bedlam once.
3) You most likely need a format where all of the Texas schools play each other, for the most part

If we went to the 12 team model, my guess is that we'd do the Pac-12 zipper where we split the Texas schools in half and then play nine conference games with two protected cross-division.  That means the following.  Let's just say we take Memphis instead of Houston...

West:
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State

East:
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Memphis
Iowa State

From a competitive standpoint, these would be "balanced" divisions.  Baylor, TCU, and WVU will keep this division competitive while Cincy and Memphis could potentially provide depth.  You split Kansas and ISU so you have one bottom feeder on each side.  In the west, OU/UT provide the marquee names while KSU/OSU/Tech provide the competitive middle.  That sets up potential Texas/OU games with WVU or TCU/Baylor in the title game.

If you employ the zipper, you can have Texas/Tech play Baylor/TCU every year.  OU can play WVU every year, ISU can get Kansas and Kansas State, and KU/KSU can both get ISU.  Essentially, for the power teams like UT and OU, through the protected scheduling of seven games in this model, can potentially have the same schedule we do now if we expand.  The last two games would flex every year based on matchups that the conference and schools can decide upon.  If we want to match up good teams that may produce higher ratings, we can do that. If we want better teams to have an easier path to an undefeated season (i.e. what the SEC does), we can do that, too.

Now, Colorado State kind of screws that up because you have to put them in the West.  So, does that mean KU or KSU goes East?  The same question could be asked of BYU.  No matter what, we won't go back to North/South divisions.  There will be no Texoma division again.  TV partners won't want it, half of the conference won't want it, etc.

Also, by taking two eastern teams, and extending the GOR out past 2025, there is a chance you can outlast the ACC GOR, and if FSU gets jumpy, you have options.  You can put them in the East with another ACC team that may want to leave (i.e. Louisville), and move Iowa State back to the West, or you can get FSU, lump them in the East, and then go extend an invitation to BYU, Colorado State, Houston, etc. and put them in the West.  Or you can move Iowa State back to the West and pull in UCF or something with FSU in the East to give them a closer, regional travel partner, and we could have two schools in Florida.

Going East first gives the Big 12 options going forward.  Whatever we do, we need to do it with the potential thought/option of easily pulling in and integrating Florida State at some point, because they are really the only school of value that has a realistic chance of jumping to a new conference.  As we extend out over the next decade, the financial divide between what they have and what all of the regionally located SEC schools have will be significant, and they're already struggling, financially.  Unless some major windfall happens there, they may have no choice but to entertain options about ten years from now.  And they definitely have enough of a following that they could get a really, really nice T3 deal via Fox Sports Florida.

This is rough ridin' outrageously long and I only read the divisions but Iowa State would likely freak the eff out about this and rightfully so.

Speaking of Iowa State, has it been discussed that they are the most Big teny school in the Big 12? They have thirty six freaking thousand students, they play in a 60,000+ football stadium and a 15,000+ basketball stadium, and have AAU status that doesn't appear to be fleeting.

[Panjandrum]

Panj, wow. Your words per post is just astonishing

I can write in volume very quickly.

[8manpick]

Let's do Colorado state and Utah state

Utah State is likely the worst of the schools being tossed around.  Colorado State wouldn't be bad, tho.

Colorado State is an interesting candidate, but they screw up the potential divisions and balance.




Now, Colorado State kind of screws that up because you have to put them in the West.  So, does that mean KU or KSU goes East?  The same question could be asked of BYU.  No matter what, we won't go back to North/South divisions.  There will be no Texoma division again.

Leaders / Legends and the SEC East Missouri Tigers say we can do whatever the eff we want (geographically) with divisions and new teams.

[scottwildcat]

Let's do Colorado state and Utah state

Utah State is likely the worst of the schools being tossed around.  Colorado State wouldn't be bad, tho.

Colorado State is an interesting candidate, but they screw up the potential divisions and balance.

In the 12 team model, everyone wants competitive balance.  But you have to make sure a few things happen:

1) You can't break rivalry games
2) Texas and OU don't want to play certain teams twice.  OU and UT only want the RRR, OU only wants Bedlam once.
3) You most likely need a format where all of the Texas schools play each other, for the most part

If we went to the 12 team model, my guess is that we'd do the Pac-12 zipper where we split the Texas schools in half and then play nine conference games with two protected cross-division.  That means the following.  Let's just say we take Memphis instead of Houston...

West:
Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas
Kansas State

East:
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Memphis
Iowa State

From a competitive standpoint, these would be "balanced" divisions.  Baylor, TCU, and WVU will keep this division competitive while Cincy and Memphis could potentially provide depth.  You split Kansas and ISU so you have one bottom feeder on each side.  In the west, OU/UT provide the marquee names while KSU/OSU/Tech provide the competitive middle.  That sets up potential Texas/OU games with WVU or TCU/Baylor in the title game.

If you employ the zipper, you can have Texas/Tech play Baylor/TCU every year.  OU can play WVU every year, ISU can get Kansas and Kansas State, and KU/KSU can both get ISU.  Essentially, for the power teams like UT and OU, through the protected scheduling of seven games in this model, can potentially have the same schedule we do now if we expand.  The last two games would flex every year based on matchups that the conference and schools can decide upon.  If we want to match up good teams that may produce higher ratings, we can do that. If we want better teams to have an easier path to an undefeated season (i.e. what the SEC does), we can do that, too.

Now, Colorado State kind of screws that up because you have to put them in the West.  So, does that mean KU or KSU goes East?  The same question could be asked of BYU.  No matter what, we won't go back to North/South divisions.  There will be no Texoma division again.  TV partners won't want it, half of the conference won't want it, etc.

Also, by taking two eastern teams, and extending the GOR out past 2025, there is a chance you can outlast the ACC GOR, and if FSU gets jumpy, you have options.  You can put them in the East with another ACC team that may want to leave (i.e. Louisville), and move Iowa State back to the West, or you can get FSU, lump them in the East, and then go extend an invitation to BYU, Colorado State, Houston, etc. and put them in the West.  Or you can move Iowa State back to the West and pull in UCF or something with FSU in the East to give them a closer, regional travel partner, and we could have two schools in Florida.

Going East first gives the Big 12 options going forward.  Whatever we do, we need to do it with the potential thought/option of easily pulling in and integrating Florida State at some point, because they are really the only school of value that has a realistic chance of jumping to a new conference.  As we extend out over the next decade, the financial divide between what they have and what all of the regionally located SEC schools have will be significant, and they're already struggling, financially.  Unless some major windfall happens there, they may have no choice but to entertain options about ten years from now.  And they definitely have enough of a following that they could get a really, really nice T3 deal via Fox Sports Florida.

This is rough ridin' outrageously long and I only read the divisions but Iowa State would likely freak the eff out about this and rightfully so.

Speaking of Iowa State, has it been discussed that they are the most Big teny school in the Big 12? They have thirty six freaking thousand students, they play in a 60,000+ football stadium and a 15,000+ basketball stadium, and have AAU status that doesn't appear to be fleeting.

I don't think it has been discussed, but has any P5 conference besides us added a new member that is from a state that the is already represented in their conference pre expansion? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TownieCat]

The ACC added VA Tech and Miami, not sure if that counts. Otherwise no.

[Panjandrum]

The ACC added VA Tech and Miami, not sure if that counts. Otherwise no.

I wouldn't count that, but yeah, you're right.

Also, another thing to consider is that, aside from A&M and Pitt, no school that's moved has shared a state with another P5 conference school.  And no school has been relegated to a G5 conference based on that movement.  For example, the movement of A&M to the SEC allowed TCU to move to the Big 12, which gave the state five P5 schools instead of four.

Thus far, this is who moved:

ACC: Syracuse, Pitt (Shares with Penn State, but no one was relegated)
Big Ten: Maryland, Rutgers
SEC: Missouri, A&M
Pac12: Colorado, Utah
Big 12: West Virginia, TCU

When you start talking about movement, especially from the Big 12 to a different conference, there has been no precedent set where a school was allowed to leave at the potential relegation of another.  So, if OU or KU got jumpy, thus far, there are no examples that a shared board of regents or a state legislature wouldn't intervene to save the other school.  I mean, Hell, the KBOR issued a statement for the Big 12 to strongly consider Wichita State for inclusion as a partial member when all Hell was breaking loose.

[Panjandrum]

This is rough ridin' outrageously long and I only read the divisions but Iowa State would likely freak the eff out about this and rightfully so.

Speaking of Iowa State, has it been discussed that they are the most Big teny school in the Big 12? They have thirty six freaking thousand students, they play in a 60,000+ football stadium and a 15,000+ basketball stadium, and have AAU status that doesn't appear to be fleeting.

If they did freak out, what would they do about it?  I'm not trying to be glib, but seriously, what are their other options?

Putting ISU and KU in the same division is a bad idea for competition reasons.  If they went East, maybe, maybe they'd be more competitive?

Also, trips to Morgantown and Cincy are shorter, distance wise, than trips to Austin and Lubbock.  If you protected games against Kansas and KSU, you could argue that they'd be in a more geographically friendly configuration than they're currently in today.

And I'm not even getting into basketball right now, so I wouldn't worry about that impacting their games there if that's what you think they may be concerned about.

[CyberToothCat]

Also, another thing to consider is that, aside from A&M and Pitt, no school that's moved has shared a state with another P5 conference school.  And no school has been relegated to a G5 conference based on that movement...

Cincinnati and UConn may take offense to this. The Big East was a "power" conference for football with auto access to the BCS. Now those two schools have basically no avenue to make it to the playoffs.

[CyberToothCat]

The contract that we are currently under says if we add two teams, there is no splitting of the pot, at all. If we add two, we get two additional shares as a conference and through what you listed more money as a team as well. If we add four, then we start splitting shares and the way it was packaged with the CCG and SEC/Sugar Bowl tie-in (those 2 were estimated $80MM) plus additional bowls we would be even most years unless we didn't fill our bowl allotment AND missed a team in the playoff (like last year, yay!).

I remember this distinctly when it happened during grant of rights and bringing in WVU and TCU...there was great discussion about Louie but the ? was who was the 4th so we stopped at 2 thinking we could add Louie and 3 from the ACC...which is why the ACC scrambled and signed GOR.

The "TV" contract supposedly says there will be no dilution of shares if we expend to 12 teams.

However, the league's cut of the playoff money will not increase... the same pot will be split 12 ways instead of 10. The league's cut of NCAA tourney money will be split 12 ways instead of 10. Revenue from the Big 12 basketball tourney will be split 12 ways instead of 10. The revenue from the league's corporate sponsors (ie, Phillips 66) will be split 12 ways instead of 10. Etc, etc.

Of the $2X million we get from the league each year, only 65%-ish comes from the TV contract. The rest comes from all of our other sources. If the Big 12 adds two teams, K-State's share of the TV money will not change, but our share of all the other revenue sources will be smaller. Overall, we would see a decrease in distribution from the league*.



* Unless we add the right teams... such as FSU, ND, etc. And the chances of that are essentially zero.

[MakeItRain]

The ACC added VA Tech and Miami, not sure if that counts. Otherwise no.

I wouldn't count that, but yeah, you're right.

Also, another thing to consider is that, aside from A&M and Pitt, no school that's moved has shared a state with another P5 conference school.  And no school has been relegated to a G5 conference based on that movement.  For example, the movement of A&M to the SEC allowed TCU to move to the Big 12, which gave the state five P5 schools instead of four.

Thus far, this is who moved:

ACC: Syracuse, Pitt (Shares with Penn State, but no one was relegated)
Big Ten: Maryland, Rutgers
SEC: Missouri, A&M
Pac12: Colorado, Utah
Big 12: West Virginia, TCU

When you start talking about movement, especially from the Big 12 to a different conference, there has been no precedent set where a school was allowed to leave at the potential relegation of another.  So, if OU or KU got jumpy, thus far, there are no examples that a shared board of regents or a state legislature wouldn't intervene to save the other school.  I mean, Hell, the KBOR issued a statement for the Big 12 to strongly consider Wichita State for inclusion as a partial member when all Hell was breaking loose.

It absolutely counts, it's in the era of big television contracts and they were added to bring clout and screens to the conference, of course they count.

[CyberToothCat]

I can't remember if I've posted this on here before and I don't feel like looking to see.

My ideal scenario:

 * The ACC is feeling the pinch from having way less revenue than either of their two neighboring league's... SEC and Big Ten.
 * There are rumblings within the league that FSU and Clemson are looking around and that the SEC may be receptive to the idea.
 * NC State and Va Tech are also receiving significant interest from the SEC.
 * To avoid being left behind in a dramatically weakened league, UNC and UVA make the preemptive move of jumping to the SEC.
 * The Big Ten scoops up Syracuse and Pitt to solidify their status as the only relevant league in the New England area.

The Big 12 then works with the ACC remnants to form a pair of 9 team leagues. The two leagues would be separate entities, but would have scheduling agreements for football and basketball to make sure SOS remains competitive. The Big 12 cedes WVU to the ACC as part of this process.

New Big 12: UT, TT, TCU, BU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU
New ACC: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC St, Va Tech, WVU, Duke and Lville.

Both conferences have eight conf games plus at least one game against the rival league. For bball, both leagues play 16-game regular seasons, plus at least two games against the rival league. Notre Dame remains independent for football. They can go back to the Big East for all other sports.

Geography stays sane. Rivalries remain intact. The only screwed programs are Wake and BC, which have a combined total of 12 fans.

[scottwildcat]

I can't remember if I've posted this on here before and I don't feel like looking to see.

My ideal scenario:

 * The ACC is feeling the pinch from having way less revenue than either of their two neighboring league's... SEC and Big Ten.
 * There are rumblings within the league that FSU and Clemson are looking around and that the SEC may be receptive to the idea.
 * NC State and Va Tech are also receiving significant interest from the SEC.
 * To avoid being left behind in a dramatically weakened league, UNC and UVA make the preemptive move of jumping to the SEC.
 * The Big Ten scoops up Syracuse and Pitt to solidify their status as the only relevant league in the New England area.

The Big 12 then works with the ACC remnants to form a pair of 9 team leagues. The two leagues would be separate entities, but would have scheduling agreements for football and basketball to make sure SOS remains competitive. The Big 12 cedes WVU to the ACC as part of this process.

New Big 12: UT, TT, TCU, BU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU
New ACC: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC St, Va Tech, WVU, Duke and Lville.

Both conferences have eight conf games plus at least one game against the rival league. For bball, both leagues play 16-game regular seasons, plus at least two games against the rival league. Notre Dame remains independent for football. They can go back to the Big East for all other sports.

Geography stays sane. Rivalries remain intact. The only screwed programs are Wake and BC, which have a combined total of 12 fans.

Lol that will never happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IPA4Me]

something has gone horribly wrong if we are ever in the same conference as Houston.

Houston and Cincinnati are coming.

My house is two hours from UC arena. This would make me very happy.

[Panjandrum]

The ACC added VA Tech and Miami, not sure if that counts. Otherwise no.

I wouldn't count that, but yeah, you're right.

Also, another thing to consider is that, aside from A&M and Pitt, no school that's moved has shared a state with another P5 conference school.  And no school has been relegated to a G5 conference based on that movement.  For example, the movement of A&M to the SEC allowed TCU to move to the Big 12, which gave the state five P5 schools instead of four.

Thus far, this is who moved:

ACC: Syracuse, Pitt (Shares with Penn State, but no one was relegated)
Big Ten: Maryland, Rutgers
SEC: Missouri, A&M
Pac12: Colorado, Utah
Big 12: West Virginia, TCU

When you start talking about movement, especially from the Big 12 to a different conference, there has been no precedent set where a school was allowed to leave at the potential relegation of another.  So, if OU or KU got jumpy, thus far, there are no examples that a shared board of regents or a state legislature wouldn't intervene to save the other school.  I mean, Hell, the KBOR issued a statement for the Big 12 to strongly consider Wichita State for inclusion as a partial member when all Hell was breaking loose.

It absolutely counts, it's in the era of big television contracts and they were added to bring clout and screens to the conference, of course they count.

The climate was different ten years ago.  There were no conference networks, and that's been a huge driver.  Then, it was about Tier 1 TV dollars and getting a title game, but the valuation in T1, T2, and T3 rights have dramatically changed.  Grants of rights are now common, and they weren't back then.  So, the "rules" have changed.  Not a lot, but enough that you can't say what was relevant then is still as relevant now.

[Panjandrum]

I can't remember if I've posted this on here before and I don't feel like looking to see.

My ideal scenario:

 * The ACC is feeling the pinch from having way less revenue than either of their two neighboring league's... SEC and Big Ten.
 * There are rumblings within the league that FSU and Clemson are looking around and that the SEC may be receptive to the idea.
 * NC State and Va Tech are also receiving significant interest from the SEC.
 * To avoid being left behind in a dramatically weakened league, UNC and UVA make the preemptive move of jumping to the SEC.
 * The Big Ten scoops up Syracuse and Pitt to solidify their status as the only relevant league in the New England area.

The Big 12 then works with the ACC remnants to form a pair of 9 team leagues. The two leagues would be separate entities, but would have scheduling agreements for football and basketball to make sure SOS remains competitive. The Big 12 cedes WVU to the ACC as part of this process.

New Big 12: UT, TT, TCU, BU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU
New ACC: Miami, FSU, GT, Clemson, NC St, Va Tech, WVU, Duke and Lville.

Both conferences have eight conf games plus at least one game against the rival league. For bball, both leagues play 16-game regular seasons, plus at least two games against the rival league. Notre Dame remains independent for football. They can go back to the Big East for all other sports.

Geography stays sane. Rivalries remain intact. The only screwed programs are Wake and BC, which have a combined total of 12 fans.

Lol that will never happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ACC is like the new Big East, but they pretend to play football and get paid for it.

It's a glorified basketball and lacrosse league, and they really could care less.  Like, 2 or 3 schools actually care that they they make nearly ten million less, annually, than each of our schools via conference payout.

I mean, at a minimum, at last count, we brought in about $7 million more via conference payout than North Carolina.  However, it's enough to run a relatively competitive football program, great basketball programs, and all of their games are on ESPN/2/U.  I think they're legitimately satisfied, for the most part.

Florida State and Louisville are the outliers.  FSU is the big state school with the elite football program that has to measure itself against UF.  It's a huge part of their university identity.  If the ACC puts them at a financial and competitive disadvantage more often than not over the next decade, they may look to move.  Louisville is like the ultimate mercenary; they'll go where they get the best deal.  If we had a bunch of their regional rivals (i.e. Cincy, Memphis, and WVU), and a more competitive football environment, plus a big monetary bump year over year, they'd listen.  They'd absolutely listen.

But GT, Clemson, etc., they're in the ACC.  They want to be aligned with UNC, UVA, Duke, Wake, BC, etc. 

I think if FSU and Louisville were to bolt, and the conditions during the next round of playoff negotiations force ND to join a conference, the ACC would be more than happy to ditch FSU and Louisville and bring in Notre Dame and UConn or Navy to round out at 14 and stand pat.

[mocat]

Amazing

[kst8cat]

The ACC added VA Tech and Miami, not sure if that counts. Otherwise no.

I wouldn't count that, but yeah, you're right.

Also, another thing to consider is that, aside from A&M and Pitt, no school that's moved has shared a state with another P5 conference school.  And no school has been relegated to a G5 conference based on that movement.  For example, the movement of A&M to the SEC allowed TCU to move to the Big 12, which gave the state five P5 schools instead of four.

Thus far, this is who moved:

ACC: Syracuse, Pitt (Shares with Penn State, but no one was relegated)
Big Ten: Maryland, Rutgers
SEC: Missouri, A&M
Pac12: Colorado, Utah
Big 12: West Virginia, TCU

When you start talking about movement, especially from the Big 12 to a different conference, there has been no precedent set where a school was allowed to leave at the potential relegation of another.  So, if OU or KU got jumpy, thus far, there are no examples that a shared board of regents or a state legislature wouldn't intervene to save the other school.  I mean, Hell, the KBOR issued a statement for the Big 12 to strongly consider Wichita State for inclusion as a partial member when all Hell was breaking loose.

I thought Nebraska moved to the Big 10.