CSNbbs

Because it's time to shift the paradigm.

Big Ten's new deal triples TV payouts. The article provides details, but the B1G is going to increase their revenue for 1st and 2nd Tier by roughly a factor of 3. That's before BTN and other conference payouts. The numbers may end up getting revised down a bit, but that's not the point.

I'm annoyed by this. It's not just about conference rivalry, that much is obvious. I'm annoyed by the fact that a league with an inferior fan base, inferior ratings, and an inferior product is getting more money from ESPN than we are.

We get about $150M per year for a lot more content than what the B1G will be giving Disney. I could be off on the number a little bit as this article implies we got a bump after the renegotiation in 2014.

Still, the B1G is getting more cash for less product. Not only that, they got a short term deal which ultimately means they will get yet another raise before we've seen a single one. True enough though that the market may demand that one be more modest.

It's true that the full potential of the SECN has yet to be realized and that will close the gap a bit when it finally does. The BTN, absent any new major additions, has pretty much peaked. As it stands though, the SECN will need to double it's profits from last year just to get level with the B1G's 1st and 2nd Tier revenue. Again, that's before BTN revenue is added to the pot. The other conference payouts will be roughly the same between the 2 leagues.

I realize that most of the B1G's raise comes from FOX. I really don't care about that as FOX tends to overspend for everything these days. What I care about is our media partner giving us the business.

What's potentially concerning here is that ESPN might very well give in to the B1G raiding the ACC in a few years. If the B1G is too important to ESPN to allow them to find another suitor then they are too important to turn down when the beast gets hungry again. Of course, that means the SEC could get some of those schools as well, but what difference does it make if the B1G is going to get favored status at the negotiating table? If Jim Delaney can plop down and demand a raise any old time then some of the more valuable ACC properties will certainly be tempted by that.

Something is wrong here. Someone has messed up. I'm not sure who though. Was it someone at the SEC who didn't demand we get paid what we're worth? Or was it ESPN that stuck a finger in the eye of the league because they could? I don't know about everyone else, but I value loyalty. Loyalty should be rewarded, not taken advantage of.

So I propose 2 potential courses of action:

1. Go to ESPN and bust a few heads.

2. Say "screw ESPN" and start crafting a future where we dictate to the media companies rather than being dictated to.

Option 2 involves taking ACC properties that ESPN refuses to pay us for. Why? Because ESPN needs them. Why not wreck the ACC if we're not going to get a premium price for our content under the current Power conference structure? This is what I mean by shifting the paradigm.

The reason I have always advocated for going to 24 is not because I think the value of the market additions would increase the payouts of the current contract no matter how large we grow. The reason I advocate for that is simply supply and demand. The more content under one roof, the more leverage our league has when at the negotiating table. Turn down our asking price and we take a whole heck of a lot of content elsewhere. ESPN can't afford to do that. No network can afford to lose that much. Paradigm shifted.

So I say take 10 schools from the ACC and gut the sucker. Take who you need to take and if ESPN doesn't want to pay for it right now, that's fine. Someone else will down the line. Either that or ESPN loses the core of its content at a later date. Supply and demand. The public demands college athletics, we supply college athletics. Networks are the middle men. There's no good reason for them to be running the show other than university presidents have allowed it to be so.

Hey AllTideUp, what if no one is willing to pay a premium price? What are we stuck with then? We're stuck with more robust academic associations. We're stuck with a league that exposes each school in multiple parts of the country where the current exposure is limited. We're stuck with splitting a greater portion of NCAA tournament money. We're stuck with a content base that allows us to capitalize on the coming streaming model rather than being more dependent on a major outlet to simply hold the rights of our content as a division of a broader package.

It's entirely possible we don't get the serious bump in money for 1st and 2nd Tier rights. It's also possible we blow the doors off our competitors. If we have to live with slightly smaller payouts in the short term in order to achieve the paradigm shift in the long term then I don't see a problem with that. At worst, we'll be no worse off than our current position.

Am I overreacting here? Or is my annoyance with ESPN justified?

If the SEC wants to open up its contracts, it can go to 9 conference games or expand its membership.

Sec and B1G are sitting pretty in terms of fees from rights. If you are a PAC 12 school, be mad that you are not maximizing funds. The ACC and B12 are in the middle. Be happy you,re not a G5 member who are having their contract payouts reduced.

There is only one reason for the SEC to move to 24 and that is to solidly own the Southeast in all regards. Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, and Miami, and Georgia Tech all join the SEC. Then we all make more than the Big 10. They never get a foothold in the South and we have a region of the country that is the richest in talent, with the most rabid fans, all buying the network. BTW we would also have enough AAU schools to challenge the Big 10 and surpass the PAC in membership. If we started a Southern consortium and invited Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and Emory it would be tough to match.

IMO we need to be united. The only reason the Big 10 wants into the South has nothing to do with football or sports. The population has shifted and congressional seats will flip. In the latter half of this century the lobby for research dollars for the region will go up. Their precious CIC will lose influence and to keep control of they want to split key Southern states by the split allegiances of congressmen.

Congress can't give them the grants, but Congress writes the requirements and advanced knowledge of what is being considered by congressional members on the right committees sure helps. That's why the want into North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia. They're desperate!

(06-22-2016 09:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]There is only one reason for the SEC to move to 24 and that is to solidly own the Southeast in all regards. Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Duke, Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, and Miami, and Georgia Tech all join the SEC. Then we all make more than the Big 10. They never get a foothold in the South and we have a region of the country that is the richest in talent, with the most rabid fans, all buying the network. BTW we would also have enough AAU schools to challenge the Big 10 and surpass the PAC in membership. If we started a Southern consortium and invited Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and Emory it would be tough to match.

IMO we need to be united. The only reason the Big 10 wants into the South has nothing to do with football or sports. The population has shifted and congressional seats will flip. In the latter half of this century the lobby for research dollars for the region will go up. Their precious CIC will lose influence and to keep control of they want to split key Southern states by the split allegiances of congressmen.

Congress can't give them the grants, but Congress writes the requirements and advanced knowledge of what is being considered by congressional members on the right committees sure helps. That's why the want into North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia. They're desperate!

That's an aspect of my vision as well. I really don't see a downside here, even if we didn't get premium media payouts. There are a lot of positives brought about by uniting the region.

(06-22-2016 05:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]If the SEC wants to open up its contracts, it can go to 9 conference games or expand its membership.

Sec and B1G are sitting pretty in terms of fees from rights. If you are a PAC 12 school, be mad that you are not maximizing funds. The ACC and B12 are in the middle. Be happy you,re not a G5 member who are having their contract payouts reduced.

Well, I'm thankful not to be in the shoes of some, but I also don't like being taken for granted. I was feeling a lot better about our money situation until the B1G got a disproportionate raise.

It's kind of like when you're working in a cubicle next to a guy who is now making more money than you for doing less work. Oh, and if he sticks around then he's going to get another raise in a couple of years just because...

If we weren't competing with the B1G over the same time slots and exposure then I wouldn't be particularly worried about it, but ESPN's part in it all has me salty.

For the record, I do think we should go to 9 conference games.

(06-22-2016 09:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2016 05:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]If the SEC wants to open up its contracts, it can go to 9 conference games or expand its membership.

Sec and B1G are sitting pretty in terms of fees from rights. If you are a PAC 12 school, be mad that you are not maximizing funds. The ACC and B12 are in the middle. Be happy you,re not a G5 member who are having their contract payouts reduced.

Well, I'm thankful not to be in the shoes of some, but I also don't like being taken for granted. I was feeling a lot better about our money situation until the B1G got a disproportionate raise.

It's kind of like when you're working in a cubicle next to a guy who is now making more money than you for doing less work. Oh, and if he sticks around then he's going to get another raise in a couple of years just because...

If we weren't competing with the B1G over the same time slots and exposure then I wouldn't be particularly worried about it, but ESPN's part in it all has me salty.

For the record, I do think we should go to 9 conference games.

I have frequently referred to the NCAA basketball tournament, and some of the bowl contracts as Yankee Welfare. Last year the SEC was second in basketball ratings behind the ACC. The Big 10 was 3rd. The SEC outdraws them in college football by leaps and bounds. Either we need to fire our leadership or hold ESPN accountable for the intentional misappropriation of funding in a manner skewed to benefit the Big 10 when their metrics don't come close to meriting the difference.

But that said in spite of their huge projected TV revenue gains we should still out earn them in total revenue by an average of 5 million per school and that doesn't include the bump the SECN will give for a full year's operation without any additional overhead coming out of the funds.

The biggest mistake the SEC has made IMO. Was allowing a playoff to happen. This is exactly what the Big 10 and PAC 12 needed to catch up with the SEC in football.

We need to walk away from the college football playoff system. We need to basically create an agreement with the ACC to create our own bowl system.

(06-22-2016 10:01 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2016 09:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-22-2016 05:18 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]If the SEC wants to open up its contracts, it can go to 9 conference games or expand its membership.

Sec and B1G are sitting pretty in terms of fees from rights. If you are a PAC 12 school, be mad that you are not maximizing funds. The ACC and B12 are in the middle. Be happy you,re not a G5 member who are having their contract payouts reduced.

Well, I'm thankful not to be in the shoes of some, but I also don't like being taken for granted. I was feeling a lot better about our money situation until the B1G got a disproportionate raise.

It's kind of like when you're working in a cubicle next to a guy who is now making more money than you for doing less work. Oh, and if he sticks around then he's going to get another raise in a couple of years just because...

If we weren't competing with the B1G over the same time slots and exposure then I wouldn't be particularly worried about it, but ESPN's part in it all has me salty.

For the record, I do think we should go to 9 conference games.

I have frequently referred to the NCAA basketball tournament, and some of the bowl contracts as Yankee Welfare. Last year the SEC was second in basketball ratings behind the ACC. The Big 10 was 3rd. The SEC outdraws them in college football by leaps and bounds. Either we need to fire our leadership or hold ESPN accountable for the intentional misappropriation of funding in a manner skewed to benefit the Big 10 when their metrics don't come close to meriting the difference.

But that said in spite of their huge projected TV revenue gains we should still out earn them in total revenue by an average of 5 million per school and that doesn't include the bump the SECN will give for a full year's operation without any additional overhead coming out of the funds.

I'm comforted a little bit by the growth potential of the SECN and our edge in other areas, but it's the principle of the thing. We shouldn't have to rely on that to stay ahead. Perhaps ESPN thinks we should be satisfied with that and so they have no problem bumping up the B1G to a relatively equal platform. Maybe they want greater parity in the sport to facilitate their own interests...I don't know.

If our numbers were inferior to that of the B1G then I wouldn't have a problem with all this, but I'm a capitalist and I believe in merit-based pay. One ought to be paid what they're worth and not on the basis of some arbitrary scale.

I don't mind so much sharing revenue from the standpoint of the NCAA's postseason endeavors. What bothers me about that is the fact that the NCAA owns it. The conferences could take control of the tournaments and not only make more money for themselves, but could probably optimize the overall revenue. The NCAA is as inefficient a bureaucracy as there is. They shouldn't be operating multi-billion dollar entities in the first place. If the leagues took control then they could at least implement a few cost cutting measures or restructure the bidding process and make more money that way.

I understand the NCAA needs money to operate, but I think those funds should be generated from fees from the member schools rather than the way it's done now.

Some will probably look at what I'm saying and lament that it's a symptom of the way money has corrupted college athletics. There is probably some truth to that. I don't really like worrying about money, but it makes the world go around. We have to be realistic about that. And again, I'm not really upset that the B1G is now raking in more TV money than we are. I'm upset that ESPN was complicit in it.

I'd set it up this way.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech

East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

North: Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami

I'd include Wake just to ensure the cooperation of the old guard ACC schools. The benefit for many of these ACC schools is that they get to stay together and make more money rather than having to choose between the two. Being that the number would be 24, taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville. That is, of course, unless Notre Dame wants in. Then we'd have to reevaluate. I'm saying that because I'm not even sure UK would want Louisville in, but I could be wrong.

Football: Play 5 within your division, play one each from the other division on a rotating basis, and take two permanent rivals from any other division. That's 10 conference games...5 home and 5 away. Hold conference semi-finals for the championship. Refuse to participate in any bowl that is not co-owned with another conference. Cut out the middle men there.

Basketball: Realign divisions if need be and play rivals twice. Play a total of 28 league games because those are the only ones the fans care about anyway. Leave room for some preseason tournaments or big OOC match-ups. Hold a 16 team single elimination conference tournament at rotating sites.

(06-23-2016 03:14 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I'd set it up this way.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech

East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

North: Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami

I'd include Wake just to ensure the cooperation of the old guard ACC schools. The benefit for many of these ACC schools is that they get to stay together and make more money rather than having to choose between the two. Being that the number would be 24, taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville. That is, of course, unless Notre Dame wants in. Then we'd have to reevaluate. I'm saying that because I'm not even sure UK would want Louisville in, but I could be wrong.

Football: Play 5 within your division, play one each from the other division on a rotating basis, and take two permanent rivals from any other division. That's 10 conference games...5 home and 5 away. Hold conference semi-finals for the championship. Refuse to participate in any bowl that is not co-owned with another conference. Cut out the middle men there.

Basketball: Realign divisions if need be and play rivals twice. Play a total of 28 league games because those are the only ones the fans care about anyway. Leave room for some preseason tournaments or big OOC match-ups. Hold a 16 team single elimination conference tournament at rotating sites.

This !

"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

Read my post. I included Louisville. Why? They add content value. Wake adds nothing, no content value, no inkling of a new market, no crowds, nothing.

Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M
Rice
Missouri
Arkansas
LSU
Tulane
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Vanderbilt
Tennessee
Kentucky
Louisville
West Virginia
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
North Carolina
Duke
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Florida
Florida State

28 schools. All Southern AAU schools, southern border state schools, and all major southern flagships

(06-23-2016 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

4) JR agrees with me!

Read my post. I included Louisville. Why? They add content value. Wake adds nothing, no content value, no inkling of a new market, no crowds, nothing.

JR that was a quote from Tide in post 10. Obviously I agree with you.

(06-23-2016 08:34 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2016 06:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

4) JR agrees with me!

Read my post. I included Louisville. Why? They add content value. Wake adds nothing, no content value, no inkling of a new market, no crowds, nothing.

JR that was a quote from Tide in post 10. Obviously I agree with you.

I know that. I was just showing that I was in agreement with you. I posted just in case you missed it.

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

I completely get what you're saying and I don't disagree with you.

In a vacuum, I would pick Louisville in a heartbeat. In the context of a 24 team league, I didn't think the lack of content from Wake would make much of a difference. Whoever is #24 would only be bringing 1/24th of content. My concept on this is that the large amount of content would demand a response from the networks rather than the current way of doing things where the value of a market or the value of a specific program would shift the needle. I included Wake because I figured the NC schools would want it.

I have no issue with 28. It should accomplish the same exact thing and it would be even better with UT and OU along although I don't know if it would be possible to break that league without taking a much larger number.

How about this?

Full on merger with the current ACC. If ND wants to go all in then we'll make a spot for them. It's nice and neat that way.

(06-23-2016 03:14 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]I'd set it up this way.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

Central: Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Virginia Tech

East: Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson

North: Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami

I'd include Wake just to ensure the cooperation of the old guard ACC schools. The benefit for many of these ACC schools is that they get to stay together and make more money rather than having to choose between the two. Being that the number would be 24, taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville. That is, of course, unless Notre Dame wants in. Then we'd have to reevaluate. I'm saying that because I'm not even sure UK would want Louisville in, but I could be wrong.

Football: Play 5 within your division, play one each from the other division on a rotating basis, and take two permanent rivals from any other division. That's 10 conference games...5 home and 5 away. Hold conference semi-finals for the championship. Refuse to participate in any bowl that is not co-owned with another conference. Cut out the middle men there.

Basketball: Realign divisions if need be and play rivals twice. Play a total of 28 league games because those are the only ones the fans care about anyway. Leave room for some preseason tournaments or big OOC match-ups. Hold a 16 team single elimination conference tournament at rotating sites.

Kentucky is just 1 vote. In a massive realignment ,the league wants the Best schools available in All sports, and especially ones that are self solvent in Athletics with a great fan base and facilities that also have lots of Hotel and restaurant choices for visiting fans of the other schools .

(06-24-2016 12:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

I completely get what you're saying and I don't disagree with you.

In a vacuum, I would pick Louisville in a heartbeat. In the context of a 24 team league, I didn't think the lack of content from Wake would make much of a difference. Whoever is #24 would only be bringing 1/24th of content. My concept on this is that the large amount of content would demand a response from the networks rather than the current way of doing things where the value of a market or the value of a specific program would shift the needle. I included Wake because I figured the NC schools would want it.

I have no issue with 28. It should accomplish the same exact thing and it would be even better with UT and OU along although I don't know if it would be possible to break that league without taking a much larger number.

How about this?

Full on merger with the current ACC. If ND wants to go all in then we'll make a spot for them. It's nice and neat that way.

I see where you are coming from but I disagree & not just because it's Louisville. I would consider taking Memphis or UCF before taking WF. One of the problems with the ACC is having to many NC teams, just like the Big 12 has to many Texas teams. There isn't a legitimate reason to carry that problem over to the SEC. I'm not saying that Louisville should be or would be a lock in this scenario as there would be several quality candidates in addition to Louisville & WF.

I like the merger idea, having the SEC challenge the B1G in the northeast. Having Pitt, Syracuse & BC on board strengthens the lure for ND. That would give the SEC a strong advantage in the northeast, especially if WV or UCONN were brought in. (Take both with Cincinnati & encroach on their territory?) 30 (or 32) is a large number though but the SEC would be dominant in the south & on the east coast while having a strong advantage in the northeast. The B1G would obviously respond by merging with the B12 & likely the PAC. There's your P2. That's why I suggested Texas & Oklahoma as well. I would suggest leaving out NC State & WF & bring in Texas & Oklahoma instead.

(06-24-2016 09:36 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-24-2016 12:10 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-23-2016 05:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]"taking Wake won't make much of a difference content wise as opposed to a school like Louisville."

1) What's the logic in this statement? Who do you think FSU, Clemson, VT, GT, Tennessee, Auburn & others would rather play? Why couldn't NC, Duke & NC State play WF OOC? Why not take Tulane & Rice with WF then to keep the B1G out of Louisiana & Texas? Louisville athletic budget is 3rd in the ACC, counting ND.

2) After Louisville latest expansion of PJCS it will have a capacity of 65,000, 100% chair back. WF football stadium has a capacity of 31,500 which includes bleachers.

3) Since the city of Louisville (Jefferson County) consists of roughly 1/3 of the state population (voters) I think the governor would put immense pressure on UKentucky. The games could become mandatory, which was threatened in the past, in which case it would be in their best interest to have Louisville included. With Mitch McConnell the political power would weigh heavily in Louisville favor.

3) Why not 28? Take FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia, NC State & Louisville from the ACC along with ND, Texas, Oklahoma & either Kansas or WF.

Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, SC, Clemson, GT

NC, Duke, Virginia, VT, NC State, Louisville, Kentucky

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Vanderbilt

ND, Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas

I completely get what you're saying and I don't disagree with you.

In a vacuum, I would pick Louisville in a heartbeat. In the context of a 24 team league, I didn't think the lack of content from Wake would make much of a difference. Whoever is #24 would only be bringing 1/24th of content. My concept on this is that the large amount of content would demand a response from the networks rather than the current way of doing things where the value of a market or the value of a specific program would shift the needle. I included Wake because I figured the NC schools would want it.

I have no issue with 28. It should accomplish the same exact thing and it would be even better with UT and OU along although I don't know if it would be possible to break that league without taking a much larger number.

How about this?

Full on merger with the current ACC. If ND wants to go all in then we'll make a spot for them. It's nice and neat that way.

I see where you are coming from but I disagree & not just because it's Louisville. I would consider taking Memphis or UCF before taking WF. One of the problems with the ACC is having to many NC teams, just like the Big 12 has to many Texas teams. There isn't a legitimate reason to carry that problem over to the SEC. I'm not saying that Louisville should be or would be a lock in this scenario as there would be several quality candidates in addition to Louisville & WF.

I like the merger idea, having the SEC challenge the B1G in the northeast. Having Pitt, Syracuse & BC on board strengthens the lure for ND. That would give the SEC a strong advantage in the northeast, especially if WV or UCONN were brought in. (Take both with Cincinnati & encroach on their territory?) 30 (or 32) is a large number though but the SEC would be dominant in the south & on the east coast while having a strong advantage in the northeast. The B1G would obviously respond by merging with the B12 & likely the PAC. There's your P2. That's why I suggested Texas & Oklahoma as well. I would suggest leaving out NC State & WF & bring in Texas & Oklahoma instead.

Is Wake really worthy of inclusion in this league? No, but there could be political implications of leaving them out. Not that the state of NC would have the authority to go to bat for a private school, but that the other NC schools seem awfully attached to them. In much the same way we are attached to Vanderbilt. I could be wrong of course. If the other NC schools are willing to leave Wake behind then it's a moot issue.

I'd certainly love UT and OU to be a part of it, just not sure we could only pry 2 or 3 schools from the Big 12. The ACC is easier to work with because:

1. Geographically, we already overlap and have a history of playing each other in a variety of sports. In the early part of the 20th century, in fact, we were actually one conference.

2. There are more properties worth taking in the ACC than the Big 12 so breaking the former by taking so many partners could be accomplished fairly easily with little risk. We might have to take as many as 8 Big 12 schools to accomplish the same feat and they just don't have that many that bring something to the table.

3. The new markets available from the ACC schools are much larger than the ones available in the Big 12.

4. We already have the same media partner across the board so there's no odd contract situation to work through. Everybody could be on the same page from day one.