The ACC teams signed the GOR because at the time, they thought it was their best option. More specifically, I bet a majority of ACC schools signed out of fear that if the GOR was not signed, the ACC could get picked apart by the SEC/B1G/Big 12, and that not necessarily every ACC school would get picked, leaving them possibly to fall back into the hell of the G5.

So in the end, the GOR solidified P5 status for the ACC, which, even though it was correctly perceived to be far from the strongest, most stable, and lucrative P5, was at least clearly a P5.

In short, the GOR was signed moreso to avoid a doomsday scenario than because it promised huge upside potential, though not every school had that as the prime motivation. North Carolina, e.g., signed to solidify the ACC which is their preferred conference, because they never had any fear that if the ACC dissolved they would be left out in the cold in the G5.

In contrast, while FSU also didn't have to be worried much about falling to the G5, since the ACC is not their aspirational conference, they toyed with not signing, because if the ACC fell apart that could open the door to reaching a preferred P5, like the SEC.

(04-26-2015 09:02 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The southern ACC schools could just do what they did in the old Southern conference and retract and recreate a new 12 team ACC that satisfies pretty much everyone:

ACC Coastal

Carolina
Duke
NC State
Wake
Virginia
Virginia Tech

ACC Atlantic

Louisville
West Virginia
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

The basketball schools get a return to their roots of Southern basketball while the football schools get a highly competitive divisions that ensures their SOS and ticket sales every year.

VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

If it's not UConn fans jerking themselves off over how superior they are to everyone else, it's G5 fanboys jerking themselves off over how the ACC and BigXII are going to collapse and invite their schools at the same time. This board is a ******* joke.

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

All those other schools would not bring enough ratings or TV sets to justify inclusion.

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Have to seriously disagree with you here.

The SEC has long wanted into the VA/NC markets because at 20 million people combined, adding those two states are like adding a second Florida to the conference's footprint and we'd be incredibly foolish not to jump at the chance of adding them.

(04-25-2015 04:56 PM)nole Wrote:  "FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.


No they really don't.....I doubt a Syracuse fan has the first clue about the pulse of FSU's fan base.

There are ALWAYS dissenters, but every booster (myself included...since 1991), Tally resident, graduate, etc I know would dance in the street for the SEC.

FSU isn't getting in the SEC...fine, but that doesn't mean the ACC is a fit....it isn't . The ACC has the mindset of the Big East and FSU just doesn't fit there.

We don't belong and our fan base knows it.....our BOT is waking up to the idea they were hoodwinked (their own fault) by Swofford and Barrons BS. More importantly....the idea that the ACC would grow behind what it was in 1991......that won't happen. The ACC will never change it's culture.....it only cares about basketball and it won't change. Football is considered a success if teams are dressed out.


The culture differences won't go away......and the revenue differences are growing....doesn't look good for ACC stability

I'll play ball. How do you feel about being UF's little brother in every way and fighting to finish 4th in your division (of 8) every year? How does a conference championship every 20 years sound?

Are you jazzed about that?

(04-26-2015 01:17 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Have to seriously disagree with you here.

The SEC has long wanted into the VA/NC markets because at 20 million people combined, adding those two states are like adding a second Florida to the conference's footprint and we'd be incredibly foolish not to jump at the chance of adding them.

First, the SEC is "in" those markets, as SEC games are regularly broadcast into both Virginia and North Carolina. E.g., i lived in Northern Virginia, Fairfax, in the late fall of 2011, and I saw every LSU game in the second half of the season with no trouble at all on either ESPN or CBS. Plenty of SEC broadcasts in those states.

Second, If 'getting into' those markets in some more on-the-ground way was so darn crucial to the SEC, they could do so tomorrow by inviting other schools that surely would jump at the offer, for example ECU or VCU. But of course it's not, so they don't.

The SEC wants flagships, and only flagships, and flagships that are dominant football brands, and neither VT nor NCST qualify. In all ways, it would hurt the prestige and stature of the SEC to invite either, and neither would bring in anywhere near enough $$$ to justify their addition. They would be mouths to feed.

UNC or Duke? Invite them in a minute. Huge brand names with national stature. NC State has neither and would mark the SEC as a sorry 2nd banana in the state, and the SEC never accepts 2nd banana in any state, save for Texas, which is like a separate country.

UVA? A closer call, but probably. A real flagship, they boost the prestige of the conference. VT, a technical college buried in the mountains of southwest Virginia? Yes, a bigger football brand than UVA, but their football brand is nothing by SEC standards so no need for them.

(04-26-2015 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I am saying that from a business perspective it should happen. The ACC is heavily over duplicated in the North Carolina market. Their insistence on having 4 North Carolina hogs at the trough is costing absolutely everyone else in the conference the opportunity to expand into Ohio with Cincinnati,or into the Southwest both of which have rabid fan bases and would grow the ACC market by nearly 40 million viewers combined. And face it N.C. State and Virginia Tech are mid level ACC programs at best in one case and at present in the other. As long as that all important in state game remained on the schedule ESPN loses nothing by sending them to the SEC and for their vacancies the ACC gets to look at 3 additions that will bring the conference back to 15 with that other slot left for the Irish. Add Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia and you add 30 million viewers and reconnect your footprint on the Atlantic Coast. You add two brands that far exceed anything you have lost and two brands that might well give the incentive to N.D. to go all in, especially since their addition would mean we now have a P4 and most likely a champs only model for the playoffs.

And Quo 1.30 x 12 x 20 million is more than worth their addition to the SEC. We get .7 in the area now so .60 x 12 x 20 million and there's your net worth. That's 144 million per year divided now by 17 shares. That's 8.4 million per school per year under the current model. So do they add to the NET worth of the SECN? Duh!
Would ESPN make more off of that than they would over leaving redundant schools in the ACC? Absolutely. Would ESPN earn more off Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia to the ACC? Absolutely and they would get to convert the LHN into an ACCN by simply having 800,000 deducted from everyone in the ACCN's NET gain for a network by the remaining years on the LHN's contract. Again a nice plus for the Mouse in reduction of overhead. Leave out WVU and make the addition Cincinnati and you gain even more. So stop and think about what you are saying Quo.

The answer is not only yes, it is emphatically yes. I imagine the folks at ESPN are scratching their heads over Chapel Hill and Duke's reluctance. But that reluctance is born of the fear that with Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the ACC it won't be their conference anymore and it probably won't be. But their reluctance is robbing everyone else of their potential profits and that is what has F.S.U. folks so ticked off.

BTW the total cost to ESPN in additional payout for having V.T. & N.C. State in the SEC would currently be about 8 to 9 million each. So even if you took that out of every SEC schools NET increase you would still have every school in the conference making about 7 million per year more. And think about it from N.C.State and Virginia Tech's standpoint. Their NET increase over the ACC would be about 16 million a year. Do you think they might be interested? And as for those left in the ACC I think they would match those earnings because an ACCN with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and either Cincy or WVU would probably be worth that same 16 million bump within 2 to 3 years.

(04-26-2015 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 09:29 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  VT would have a collective stroke if they got left out of your ACC Atlantic. Miami values the northern jettisoned schools more than all of the remaining schools but FSU. Just put your ACC Atlantic, sans Miami, plus VT, into the SEC.

VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I am saying that from a business perspective it should happen. The ACC is heavily over duplicated in the North Carolina market. Their insistence on having 4 North Carolina hogs at the trough is costing absolutely everyone else in the conference the opportunity to expand into Ohio with Cincinnati,or into the Southwest both of which have rabid fan bases and would grow the ACC market by nearly 40 million viewers combined. And face it N.C. State and Virginia Tech are mid level ACC programs at best in one case and at present in the other. As long as that all important in state game remained on the schedule ESPN loses nothing by sending them to the SEC and for their vacancies the ACC gets to look at 3 additions that will bring the conference back to 15 with that other slot left for the Irish. Add Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia and you add 30 million viewers and reconnect your footprint on the Atlantic Coast. You add two brands that far exceed anything you have lost and two brands that might well give the incentive to N.D. to go all in, especially since their addition would mean we now have a P4 and most likely a champs only model for the playoffs.

And Quo 1.30 x 12 x 20 million is more than worth their addition to the SEC. We get .7 in the area now so .60 x 12 x 20 million and there's your net worth. That's 144 million per year divided now by 17 shares. That's 8.4 million per school per year under the current model. So do they add to the NET worth of the SECN? Duh!
Would ESPN make more off of that than they would over leaving redundant schools in the ACC? Absolutely. Would ESPN earn more off Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia to the ACC? Absolutely and they would get to convert the LHN into an ACCN by simply having 800,000 deducted from everyone in the ACCN's NET gain for a network by the remaining years on the LHN's contract. Again a nice plus for the Mouse in reduction of overhead. Leave out WVU and make the addition Cincinnati and you gain even more. So stop and think about what you are saying Quo.

The answer is not only yes, it is emphatically yes. I imagine the folks at ESPN are scratching their heads over Chapel Hill and Duke's reluctance. But that reluctance is born of the fear that with Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the ACC it won't be their conference anymore and it probably won't be. But their reluctance is robbing everyone else of their potential profits and that is what has F.S.U. folks so ticked off.

BTW the total cost to ESPN in additional payout for having V.T. & N.C. State in the SEC would currently be about 8 to 9 million each. So even if you took that out of every SEC schools NET increase you would still have every school in the conference making about 7 million per year more. And think about it from N.C.State and Virginia Tech's standpoint. Their NET increase over the ACC would be about 16 million a year. Do you think they might be interested? And as for those left in the ACC I think they would match those earnings because an ACCN with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and either Cincy or WVU would probably be worth that same 16 million bump within 2 to 3 years.

It's because we still view conference affiliation from a collegiate perspective.


You could add the New York Yankees to the ACC and it would still be OUR conference.

(04-26-2015 02:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I am saying that from a business perspective it should happen. The ACC is heavily over duplicated in the North Carolina market. Their insistence on having 4 North Carolina hogs at the trough is costing absolutely everyone else in the conference the opportunity to expand into Ohio with Cincinnati,or into the Southwest both of which have rabid fan bases and would grow the ACC market by nearly 40 million viewers combined. And face it N.C. State and Virginia Tech are mid level ACC programs at best in one case and at present in the other. As long as that all important in state game remained on the schedule ESPN loses nothing by sending them to the SEC and for their vacancies the ACC gets to look at 3 additions that will bring the conference back to 15 with that other slot left for the Irish. Add Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia and you add 30 million viewers and reconnect your footprint on the Atlantic Coast. You add two brands that far exceed anything you have lost and two brands that might well give the incentive to N.D. to go all in, especially since their addition would mean we now have a P4 and most likely a champs only model for the playoffs.

And Quo 1.30 x 12 x 20 million is more than worth their addition to the SEC. We get .7 in the area now so .60 x 12 x 20 million and there's your net worth. That's 144 million per year divided now by 17 shares. That's 8.4 million per school per year under the current model. So do they add to the NET worth of the SECN? Duh!
Would ESPN make more off of that than they would over leaving redundant schools in the ACC? Absolutely. Would ESPN earn more off Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia to the ACC? Absolutely and they would get to convert the LHN into an ACCN by simply having 800,000 deducted from everyone in the ACCN's NET gain for a network by the remaining years on the LHN's contract. Again a nice plus for the Mouse in reduction of overhead. Leave out WVU and make the addition Cincinnati and you gain even more. So stop and think about what you are saying Quo.

The answer is not only yes, it is emphatically yes. I imagine the folks at ESPN are scratching their heads over Chapel Hill and Duke's reluctance. But that reluctance is born of the fear that with Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the ACC it won't be their conference anymore and it probably won't be. But their reluctance is robbing everyone else of their potential profits and that is what has F.S.U. folks so ticked off.

BTW the total cost to ESPN in additional payout for having V.T. & N.C. State in the SEC would currently be about 8 to 9 million each. So even if you took that out of every SEC schools NET increase you would still have every school in the conference making about 7 million per year more. And think about it from N.C.State and Virginia Tech's standpoint. Their NET increase over the ACC would be about 16 million a year. Do you think they might be interested? And as for those left in the ACC I think they would match those earnings because an ACCN with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and either Cincy or WVU would probably be worth that same 16 million bump within 2 to 3 years.

It's because we still view conference affiliation from a collegiate perspective.


You could add the New York Yankees to the ACC and it would still be OUR conference.

Thank you Xlance because there you have the whole issue in nutshell. And for the record in business that would make your little core of ACC schools that want to hold onto power a blocking of the business opportunities for ESPN and your other member schools. Good luck with that because either ESPN becomes irate over your impeding corporate profits and product placement that benefits both them and the other member schools and they decide to broker out your parts to places they all are worth more, or the other member schools wait out the GOR and leave you high and dry. One or the other is in your future if you don't allow others to maximize their investments in the ACC.

(04-25-2015 10:54 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 11:05 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:50 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 10:44 AM)omniorange Wrote:  If you have to ask then I can't help you. And since I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either I won't respond to any more posts in this thread around this particular topic.

However, you may want to research how the current ACCIAC, which started as an ACC international student focused consortium morphed into its current version and precisely how long the current model has been in place versus how long the current CIC model has been in place. Let's just say the ACCIAC has some catching up to do and leave it at that though it shouldn't take long precisely due to the limited value of both organizations.

Cheers,
Neil

Founding dates are entirely irrelevant to their operation, and I never said anything about the founding date (without looking I am going to say that the CIC was founded in 1961-1963 - am I right? And, does that somehow magically give me credibility?). What specifically did I say that's wrong?

In my first post on the subject, I said:
"The ACC has a counter to the CIC called the ACCIAC, so the conferences do pretty much the same thing. These conference academic organizations shouldn't be overblown, though."

Now you're calling me wrong and saying "I don't want to continue a discussion about the limited value of either...," meaning you admit that they both exist (my first claim) and that they're tangibly the same thing (my second claim) because if they are of limited value, by definition, they can't have material differences.

So please, once again, what did I say that was wrong? Cite one specific thing.

Okay, once more, and then I am done. You are making the claim of equal value between the two organizations but are now trying to say "founding dates" don't matter. I suspect you truly had no idea about the history of the ACCIAC or its very recent morphing into the current model, but it could be that you were aware and truly simply have a mind block when it comes to this topic.

I will try to put this into context that an SU fan can probably understand. When UConn went 1A football, was their value equal to that of SU's in football? When UConn hired Jim Calhoun was their value equal to that of SU's in basketball? The answer is 'No' in both cases.

Now in terms of the latter, they have now caught up (and most would say have surpassed SU) by proving it on the court, but that took time. Just morphing a consortium that dealt with entirely other issues into one that is trying to align undergraduate research programs can't possibly make it the equivalent of another consortium that has been doing that for decades in terms of overall value at this point in time.

And if you think that it does, then again, I can't help you.

Peace,
Neil

You do realize that you're logic is not internally consistent (i.e. these cannot be immaterial and have material differences in relation to their impact - that is a logical contradiction), and that you are using an arbitrary valuation valuation metric that isn't used in any setting (time - Also, the NPV of SU bball > UConn bball. How you're valuing that differently is...creative).

The fact of the matter is that these organizations aren't significant enough to have material differences, and even if they did, they do 95% of the same things and those things (i.e. pooled purchasing) don't take decades to master. The ACCIAC and the CIC are virtually the same, as is any other conference academic consortium (i.e. the SEC's). In no material way, share, or form are these real differentiators.

If you believe educational institutions can simply come together and magically agree upon vision, mission plan, policies, procedures, goals, objectives, communication plans, etc. than I question your previously stated experience. Singular educational institutions struggle with this on a continuous basis and fail most of the time in achieving it and yet 15 disparate institutions with a lot of diversity will manage to accomplish this in three years time? At least the B1G CIC is very similar in terms of institutional types - the ACC is far more diverse.


Cheers,
Neil

Do you even know what these things do? The meat and potatoes for these things is generic (i.e. pooled purchasing, IT infrastructure, library pooling, study abroad pooling, etc.). It doesn't take years to align incentives. Most of it already exists in organizations that literally comprise hundreds of universities. Don't believe me, though. Walk into *any* university library and ask what resources are at their disposal to order a book not in their library. I can guarantee you that the librarian will start rattling off library alliances. SU shares books with everyone from Ivy's to community colleges. That's how much diversity matters when you establish these alliances. For the most part, these organizations are about as unique as having a campus blue light system. Yeah, they're great, but if you think that there are tangible differences that have material impacts on the schools to which they're attached, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell...

*I chose the pooled library example because that is literally a service that the CIC provides and advertises heavily.

(04-26-2015 02:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 11:18 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  VT would add value to the SEC. FSU would too but in terms of TV contract money, they wouldn't add as much as say NC State since the Pack would bring SECN to a new Top Ten population state of 10 million people while FSU would only improve ratings without adding additional TV sets to the existing contract.

If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I am saying that from a business perspective it should happen. The ACC is heavily over duplicated in the North Carolina market. Their insistence on having 4 North Carolina hogs at the trough is costing absolutely everyone else in the conference the opportunity to expand into Ohio with Cincinnati,or into the Southwest both of which have rabid fan bases and would grow the ACC market by nearly 40 million viewers combined. And face it N.C. State and Virginia Tech are mid level ACC programs at best in one case and at present in the other. As long as that all important in state game remained on the schedule ESPN loses nothing by sending them to the SEC and for their vacancies the ACC gets to look at 3 additions that will bring the conference back to 15 with that other slot left for the Irish. Add Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia and you add 30 million viewers and reconnect your footprint on the Atlantic Coast. You add two brands that far exceed anything you have lost and two brands that might well give the incentive to N.D. to go all in, especially since their addition would mean we now have a P4 and most likely a champs only model for the playoffs.

And Quo 1.30 x 12 x 20 million is more than worth their addition to the SEC. We get .7 in the area now so .60 x 12 x 20 million and there's your net worth. That's 144 million per year divided now by 17 shares. That's 8.4 million per school per year under the current model. So do they add to the NET worth of the SECN? Duh!
Would ESPN make more off of that than they would over leaving redundant schools in the ACC? Absolutely. Would ESPN earn more off Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia to the ACC? Absolutely and they would get to convert the LHN into an ACCN by simply having 800,000 deducted from everyone in the ACCN's NET gain for a network by the remaining years on the LHN's contract. Again a nice plus for the Mouse in reduction of overhead. Leave out WVU and make the addition Cincinnati and you gain even more. So stop and think about what you are saying Quo.

The answer is not only yes, it is emphatically yes. I imagine the folks at ESPN are scratching their heads over Chapel Hill and Duke's reluctance. But that reluctance is born of the fear that with Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the ACC it won't be their conference anymore and it probably won't be. But their reluctance is robbing everyone else of their potential profits and that is what has F.S.U. folks so ticked off.

BTW the total cost to ESPN in additional payout for having V.T. & N.C. State in the SEC would currently be about 8 to 9 million each. So even if you took that out of every SEC schools NET increase you would still have every school in the conference making about 7 million per year more. And think about it from N.C.State and Virginia Tech's standpoint. Their NET increase over the ACC would be about 16 million a year. Do you think they might be interested? And as for those left in the ACC I think they would match those earnings because an ACCN with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and either Cincy or WVU would probably be worth that same 16 million bump within 2 to 3 years.

It's because we still view conference affiliation from a collegiate perspective.


You could add the New York Yankees to the ACC and it would still be OUR conference.

It is true that if the ACC were to shed NC State and VaTech that would open up slots for other schools who would add more value to the league than those two do now. But it's just as true that if the SEC did not add them then those same vacancies would exist in the SEC instead. And the SEC is better suited both geographically and competitively to exploit those vacancies. So, if this becomes a contest between the ACC and SEC to see which one will get to add the value, I know which one my money is on.

(04-26-2015 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 02:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If the SEC ever invited VT or NC State, it would only be after losing say Auburn and Florida to someone, and were desperate for warm bodies. Neither school brings anything to the SEC.

Of course they bring something to the SEC. The question is do they bring enough to more than pay for themselves. If they don't it won't happen.

What do they bring? They bring some part of two new markets with a population equal to 20% of the current SEC footprint. How big a part of that market do they bring? That's a guess. What may be more important is what do they bring to ESPN, since ESPN owns their rights regardless of which conference they are in. So the question becomes do these schools add more to the SEC by joining it than they subtract from the ACC by leaving it.

I look at these questions by trying to apply a formula similar to Einstein's iconic E=m c (squared). (I wish I had a way to put that little "2" above the "c" to show that it was squared.) In my formula this question becomes V = e i (sq). That is, the market value (V) is equal to the number of eyeballs (e) in the target school's market area times the amount of interest (i) the people in the market area have in college football squared.

It's easy enough to say there are 10 million people in North Carolina. But are all of them truly in NC State's market area? Probably not. And there is no way to quantify the degree to which fans in North Carolina are avid football fans or avid Wolfpack fans. We can't quantify it, but most people would probably agree that whatever it is it is less than how avid Alabama fans are in support of either Bama or Auburn. And by how avid for this purpose we mean likely to tune in when they are on TV.

So it comes down to a guess whether having those two schools would attract more eyeballs playing an SEC schedule than they do playing an ACC schedule. My guess is they would. But I'm not the one paying the bill. I don't know what ESPN would think. And I really don't know what those two schools would choose to do if they had a firm offer today to change leagues without penalty. There are a lot of people on this forum who think they know the answer to that question, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not saying it will happen, but I am saying that from a business perspective it should happen. The ACC is heavily over duplicated in the North Carolina market. Their insistence on having 4 North Carolina hogs at the trough is costing absolutely everyone else in the conference the opportunity to expand into Ohio with Cincinnati,or into the Southwest both of which have rabid fan bases and would grow the ACC market by nearly 40 million viewers combined. And face it N.C. State and Virginia Tech are mid level ACC programs at best in one case and at present in the other. As long as that all important in state game remained on the schedule ESPN loses nothing by sending them to the SEC and for their vacancies the ACC gets to look at 3 additions that will bring the conference back to 15 with that other slot left for the Irish. Add Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia and you add 30 million viewers and reconnect your footprint on the Atlantic Coast. You add two brands that far exceed anything you have lost and two brands that might well give the incentive to N.D. to go all in, especially since their addition would mean we now have a P4 and most likely a champs only model for the playoffs.

And Quo 1.30 x 12 x 20 million is more than worth their addition to the SEC. We get .7 in the area now so .60 x 12 x 20 million and there's your net worth. That's 144 million per year divided now by 17 shares. That's 8.4 million per school per year under the current model. So do they add to the NET worth of the SECN? Duh!
Would ESPN make more off of that than they would over leaving redundant schools in the ACC? Absolutely. Would ESPN earn more off Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia to the ACC? Absolutely and they would get to convert the LHN into an ACCN by simply having 800,000 deducted from everyone in the ACCN's NET gain for a network by the remaining years on the LHN's contract. Again a nice plus for the Mouse in reduction of overhead. Leave out WVU and make the addition Cincinnati and you gain even more. So stop and think about what you are saying Quo.

The answer is not only yes, it is emphatically yes. I imagine the folks at ESPN are scratching their heads over Chapel Hill and Duke's reluctance. But that reluctance is born of the fear that with Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame in the ACC it won't be their conference anymore and it probably won't be. But their reluctance is robbing everyone else of their potential profits and that is what has F.S.U. folks so ticked off.

BTW the total cost to ESPN in additional payout for having V.T. & N.C. State in the SEC would currently be about 8 to 9 million each. So even if you took that out of every SEC schools NET increase you would still have every school in the conference making about 7 million per year more. And think about it from N.C.State and Virginia Tech's standpoint. Their NET increase over the ACC would be about 16 million a year. Do you think they might be interested? And as for those left in the ACC I think they would match those earnings because an ACCN with Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and either Cincy or WVU would probably be worth that same 16 million bump within 2 to 3 years.

It's because we still view conference affiliation from a collegiate perspective.


You could add the New York Yankees to the ACC and it would still be OUR conference.

It is true that if the ACC were to shed NC State and VaTech that would open up slots for other schools who would add more value to the league than those two do now. But it's just as true that if the SEC did not add them then those same vacancies would exist in the SEC instead. And the SEC is better suited both geographically and competitively to exploit those vacancies. So, if this becomes a contest between the ACC and SEC to see which one will get to add the value, I know which one my money is on.

Since the issue would be in house so to speak with ESPN and in all likelihood a scheduling partnership would then be agreed upon between the SEC and ACC there are only two reasons for U.N.C. & Duke's recalcitrance. 1. They truly want to hold onto the past. 2. They have their eyes upon some contract perks and special deals looming on the horizon if they can be the first to leave. Normally I would strongly suspect the latter, but in this case the sheer arrogance of the matter is more believable to me.

Face it KenD any new configuration that could equal or exceed the NBC deal, or even approximate it, would make the Irish that much more enticed to toss their little green hat in if it meant finding a way into the CFP. Not wanting such a presence in with old friend Texas simply is about control.

Right now North Carolina and Virginia represent a block of 6 votes out of 15. If Clemson votes with them which they do from time to time that's 7. If Georgia Tech votes with them that's 8. But if they lose Virginia Tech and N.C. State that voting block is forever altered as 4 cannot muster enough power to get Clemson and GA Tech to throw in with them and even if they did they now would be outvoted by the Texas/N.D. block. N.D. wouldn't control Syracuse, Pitt, Miami and B.C. but they would have influence with them. Florida State, Clemson and possibly Georgia Tech would throw in with Oklahoma and Texas. Louisville would be a swing vote. All of the sudden a larger wealthier ACC is no longer North Carolina, Virginia and Duke's ACC. That's the issue.

(04-26-2015 01:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 04:56 PM)nole Wrote:  "FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.


No they really don't.....I doubt a Syracuse fan has the first clue about the pulse of FSU's fan base.

There are ALWAYS dissenters, but every booster (myself included...since 1991), Tally resident, graduate, etc I know would dance in the street for the SEC.

FSU isn't getting in the SEC...fine, but that doesn't mean the ACC is a fit....it isn't . The ACC has the mindset of the Big East and FSU just doesn't fit there.

We don't belong and our fan base knows it.....our BOT is waking up to the idea they were hoodwinked (their own fault) by Swofford and Barrons BS. More importantly....the idea that the ACC would grow behind what it was in 1991......that won't happen. The ACC will never change it's culture.....it only cares about basketball and it won't change. Football is considered a success if teams are dressed out.


The culture differences won't go away......and the revenue differences are growing....doesn't look good for ACC stability

I'll play ball. How do you feel about being UF's little brother in every way and fighting to finish 4th in your division (of 8) every year? How does a conference championship every 20 years sound?

Are you jazzed about that?

Jazzed about playing in front of 90K seat stadiums?

Jazzed about having visiting teams bring 10-15K a game?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't think basketball first on 98% of all decisions, even on football decisions?

Jazzed about having more than 1-2 two teams carry the weight for a 14 team conference?

Jazzed about all members sharing revenue and not having one super rich outlier hoard their cash while we have to carry 4-6 huge dead weight programs?

Jazzed about having a conference that would have our back in things like playoff committees?

Jazzed about a huge reduction in dead weight with the conference were in?

Jazzed about better bowl tie ins?

Jazzed about better revenue?

Jazzed about having our TV network considering the conference we are in something other than 2nd class?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't just sit back and settle for last place?

Jazzed about a conference not solely concerned with a small group controlling the conference for their only concern (basketball)?



Hell yes, I would be jazzed about it. As a 30 year booster and ticket holder.....all the fans I know and speak to would be jazzed as well.


OK, I played as well.

Nole please name your 4-6 deadweights

(04-26-2015 05:20 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 04:56 PM)nole Wrote:  "FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.


No they really don't.....I doubt a Syracuse fan has the first clue about the pulse of FSU's fan base.

There are ALWAYS dissenters, but every booster (myself included...since 1991), Tally resident, graduate, etc I know would dance in the street for the SEC.

FSU isn't getting in the SEC...fine, but that doesn't mean the ACC is a fit....it isn't . The ACC has the mindset of the Big East and FSU just doesn't fit there.

We don't belong and our fan base knows it.....our BOT is waking up to the idea they were hoodwinked (their own fault) by Swofford and Barrons BS. More importantly....the idea that the ACC would grow behind what it was in 1991......that won't happen. The ACC will never change it's culture.....it only cares about basketball and it won't change. Football is considered a success if teams are dressed out.


The culture differences won't go away......and the revenue differences are growing....doesn't look good for ACC stability

I'll play ball. How do you feel about being UF's little brother in every way and fighting to finish 4th in your division (of 8) every year? How does a conference championship every 20 years sound?

Are you jazzed about that?

Jazzed about playing in front of 90K seat stadiums?

Jazzed about having visiting teams bring 10-15K a game?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't think basketball first on 98% of all decisions, even on football decisions?

Jazzed about having more than 1-2 two teams carry the weight for a 14 team conference?

Jazzed about all members sharing revenue and not having one super rich outlier hoard their cash while we have to carry 4-6 huge dead weight programs?

Jazzed about having a conference that would have our back in things like playoff committees?

Jazzed about a huge reduction in dead weight with the conference were in?

Jazzed about better bowl tie ins?

Jazzed about better revenue?

Jazzed about having our TV network considering the conference we are in something other than 2nd class?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't just sit back and settle for last place?

Jazzed about a conference not solely concerned with a small group controlling the conference for their only concern (basketball)?



Hell yes, I would be jazzed about it. As a 30 year booster and ticket holder.....all the fans I know and speak to would be jazzed as well.


OK, I played as well.

You're ignoring my question and thus the reality of the situation. You wouldn't sniff BCS bowls, so the committees are beyond the scope of everything, as are the bowl tie-ins. Sure, your conference funding would be better, but would you be better off for it? I doubt it.

If you joined the SEC, UF would make sure that you were in the SEC west, where you would regularly finish behind Alabama, at least one of LSU and Auburn, and at least one of TAMU and Arkansas. In an average year, you would be 4th in your division (of 8) with 3.5+ losses (assuming that you split with UF). And, that's assuming that recruiting doesn't drop off when you literally have no selling point when compared to UF. What would that do to FSU, and do you *really* want to see it happen? Do you really want 8 wins (or less) seasons half the time?

If you were a Clemson fan and you were telling me that your school would be better off in the SEC, I would believe you. But, FSU is a completely different animal.

I agree that the ACC needs to realign its priorities, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. That's for another thread on another board. I also get that FSU's athletic dept. doesn't function like the rest of the ACC's AD's, save Clemson. But, that's why the ACC is a big value add for FSU - like it or not.

Cincy to the ACC?

(04-26-2015 05:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 05:20 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-26-2015 01:47 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(04-25-2015 04:56 PM)nole Wrote:  "FSU fans generally say they want to be in the SEC, but then when they think about the implications of that move, they back off the ledge.


No they really don't.....I doubt a Syracuse fan has the first clue about the pulse of FSU's fan base.

There are ALWAYS dissenters, but every booster (myself included...since 1991), Tally resident, graduate, etc I know would dance in the street for the SEC.

FSU isn't getting in the SEC...fine, but that doesn't mean the ACC is a fit....it isn't . The ACC has the mindset of the Big East and FSU just doesn't fit there.

We don't belong and our fan base knows it.....our BOT is waking up to the idea they were hoodwinked (their own fault) by Swofford and Barrons BS. More importantly....the idea that the ACC would grow behind what it was in 1991......that won't happen. The ACC will never change it's culture.....it only cares about basketball and it won't change. Football is considered a success if teams are dressed out.


The culture differences won't go away......and the revenue differences are growing....doesn't look good for ACC stability

I'll play ball. How do you feel about being UF's little brother in every way and fighting to finish 4th in your division (of 8) every year? How does a conference championship every 20 years sound?

Are you jazzed about that?

Jazzed about playing in front of 90K seat stadiums?

Jazzed about having visiting teams bring 10-15K a game?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't think basketball first on 98% of all decisions, even on football decisions?

Jazzed about having more than 1-2 two teams carry the weight for a 14 team conference?

Jazzed about all members sharing revenue and not having one super rich outlier hoard their cash while we have to carry 4-6 huge dead weight programs?

Jazzed about having a conference that would have our back in things like playoff committees?

Jazzed about a huge reduction in dead weight with the conference were in?

Jazzed about better bowl tie ins?

Jazzed about better revenue?

Jazzed about having our TV network considering the conference we are in something other than 2nd class?

Jazzed about a conference that doesn't just sit back and settle for last place?

Jazzed about a conference not solely concerned with a small group controlling the conference for their only concern (basketball)?



Hell yes, I would be jazzed about it. As a 30 year booster and ticket holder.....all the fans I know and speak to would be jazzed as well.


OK, I played as well.

You're ignoring my question and thus the reality of the situation.You wouldn't sniff BCS bowls, so the committees are beyond the scope of everything, as are the bowl tie-ins. Sure, your conference funding would be better, but would you be better off for it? I doubt it.

If you joined the SEC, UF would make sure that you were in the SEC west, where you would regularly finish behind Alabama, at least one of LSU and Auburn, and at least one of TAMU and Arkansas. In an average year, you would be 4th in your division (of 8) with 3.5+ losses (assuming that you split with UF). And, that's assuming that recruiting doesn't drop off when you literally have no selling point when compared to UF. What would that do to FSU, and do you *really* want to see it happen? Do you really want 8 wins (or less) seasons half the time?

If you were a Clemson fan and you were telling me that your school would be better off in the SEC, I would believe you. But, FSU is a completely different animal.

I agree that the ACC needs to realign its priorities, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion. That's for another thread on another board. I also get that FSU's athletic dept. doesn't function like the rest of the ACC's AD's, save Clemson. But, that's why the ACC is a big value add for FSU - like it or not.

You state many opinions as facts...which they are not.

You ASSUME that teams in conference with INTENSE competition would have fan bases that aren't interested because they aren't #1 every year. The SEC is your proof it doesn't work like this.


UNTIL the ACC realigns it's priorities, the ACC will not be a stable conference. It is reliving the mistakes of the Big East and FSU will NEVER be comfortable with that.

FSU does NOT fit in the ACC....the fan base knows this....you can't get around this reality.

The ACC is trying to relive the Big East but try to make it work this time.....it won't and the GOR is only a temporary solution to keep the conference together. The FSU fan base (and BOT) naively believed the ACC would change after the GOR was signed.......they see now it was considered more of a chain around FSU's neck than a signal the ACC was going to change.

The ACC is stuck with a very real issue.....football brings in the money and the ACC either doesn't care or refuses to accept that....or both. This will be the end of the ACC as it stands today. Schools will eventually pull a Maryland and get the hell out....the GOR will only hold so long. As we get closer to that ending (albeit it years from now) schools will start to quietly plan to bolt. They won't buy into "studies for networks" or promises for change then.