Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC feud with Big 10
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #21
ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 12:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 12:01 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Admittedly I haven't done the math but in this scenario you are only moving 3 programs up to the SEC revenue level & 1 (Texas) up to the B1G level. The new conference only needs to be within 80-85% of the B1G/SEC & it would have a network.

There would be 7 Big 12 schools getting roughly a $10 million raise & 8 ACC programs getting roughly a $15 million raise. Not including Notre Dame who is getting a bulk of their pay from NBC. So that's roughly $70 million for the B12 programs & roughly $120 million for the ACC programs. Add in another $45 million roughly for moving NC, Duke & Virginia up to the SEC pay. That's roughly about a $235 million increase. Take away the roughly $100 million saved by dropping 5 teams out & that gives you roughly $135 million. Toss in another $25 million for ND since they are already getting approximately $5 million from the ACC, for a total of about $160 million. That's approximately $10 million averaged out among the 16 teams in the new conference, that's approximately what they would be making off of the new conference network. That's roughly even money for ESPN/Fox plus they would have the additional revenue from the network for the new conference. Look about right?

Not sure. I was a horrible math student back in the day. LOL!

If you're right though that's around a $160M increase in payouts if you don't count revenue from a new conference network to offset it. It might be revenue neutral, but I don't think it would actually save them any money.

(01-25-2016 12:01 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  You would have 3 16 team conferences plus the PAC 12. The CFP becomes a champ only & no one is left out. The LHN goes away so ESPN is able to cut their losses there as well. That's also 5 less mouths to feed off of the CFP shares, not much but a small bump up. The only possible brokering needed would be to send Missouri to the B1G.

That's actually one of my issues here. I don't think anyone is leaving the SEC, B1G, or PAC. The leagues are too strong and prosperous to lose members.

I'm not sure UNC and company would actually join the SEC. I'm not sure they would join the B1G either for that matter. I'm not sure they even know what they will do until the issue is forced upon them.

All good points. I don't think that NC, Duke or Virginia will make the first move. I'm beginning to believe that JR scenario of stopping at 15 is the next step.
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2016 02:04 AM by Lenvillecards.)
01-25-2016 02:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #22
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-24-2016 11:01 AM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the big 10/sec want to raid the ACC and both leagues f'd over the ACC by not allowing their rule change. I don't think any of the ACC targets, the school's in VA and NC have any interest in joining the big 10/sec no matter the amount of money for spots 15 and 16. What could cause some movement would be for the big 10 or sec to offer 4 spots to the pool of UVA, V tech, UNC, Duke and NC STAte to jump to 18. Or for the big 10/sec to target other ACC school's. I think the big 10/sec could pull FSU which might destabilize the ACC. I think that would be a great pick up for the big 10 but a lousy pickup for the SEC.

Florida St. gets some of the best TV ratings in all of college football.

IMO, FSU and Clemson to the SEC as part of a new Atlantic Division would be pretty sweet for SEC competition and a great move for ratings and revenue.

WEST: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St.
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee
ATLANTIC: FSU, Clemson, UNC/NC State, UVA/Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Vandy

OR

WEST: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
SOUTH: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Alabama, Tennessee
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
NORTH: Florida ST., Clemson, UNC/NCSU, UVA/VTech, Kentucky
01-25-2016 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #23
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 02:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  Florida St. gets some of the best TV ratings in all of college football.

IMO, FSU and Clemson to the SEC as part of a new Atlantic Division would be pretty sweet for SEC competition and a great move for ratings and revenue.

WEST: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St.
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee
ATLANTIC: FSU, Clemson, UNC/NC State, UVA/Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Vandy

OR

WEST: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
SOUTH: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Alabama, Tennessee
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
NORTH: Florida ST., Clemson, UNC/NCSU, UVA/VTech, Kentucky

OR

WEST: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St.
SOUTH: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Clemson, Florida St.
NORTH: Kentucky, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVA, Virginia Tech
01-25-2016 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 02:58 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 11:01 AM)bluesox Wrote:  No doubt the big 10/sec want to raid the ACC and both leagues f'd over the ACC by not allowing their rule change. I don't think any of the ACC targets, the school's in VA and NC have any interest in joining the big 10/sec no matter the amount of money for spots 15 and 16. What could cause some movement would be for the big 10 or sec to offer 4 spots to the pool of UVA, V tech, UNC, Duke and NC STAte to jump to 18. Or for the big 10/sec to target other ACC school's. I think the big 10/sec could pull FSU which might destabilize the ACC. I think that would be a great pick up for the big 10 but a lousy pickup for the SEC.

Florida St. gets some of the best TV ratings in all of college football.

IMO, FSU and Clemson to the SEC as part of a new Atlantic Division would be pretty sweet for SEC competition and a great move for ratings and revenue.

WEST: Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St.
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee
ATLANTIC: FSU, Clemson, UNC/NC State, UVA/Virginia Tech, Kentucky, Vandy

OR

WEST: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
SOUTH: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Alabama, Tennessee
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
NORTH: Florida ST., Clemson, UNC/NCSU, UVA/VTech, Kentucky

I like that Atlantic division but got a chuckle out of you putting both Vanderbilt and Kentucky in that division, at least for football. What an SEC welcoming committee! Two of our all time cream puffs!
01-25-2016 05:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #25
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-24-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Prying A&M out of the Big 12 was such a move and it has weakened the position of Texas. Attempting a deal with the SEC that would offer the ACC key brands to expand, but would cost them N.C. State and Virginia Tech was another attempt to break up the voting strength of the six schools in the beltway states. Denying expansion candidates to the PAC is another form of this same strategy. Only with the case of the PAC withholding brands and markets curtails the desire of anyone to offer full carriage of the PACN. It does however allow FOX and ESPN to cherry pick the games they want to air from their leased rights.

Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.
01-25-2016 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 06:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-24-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Prying A&M out of the Big 12 was such a move and it has weakened the position of Texas. Attempting a deal with the SEC that would offer the ACC key brands to expand, but would cost them N.C. State and Virginia Tech was another attempt to break up the voting strength of the six schools in the beltway states. Denying expansion candidates to the PAC is another form of this same strategy. Only with the case of the PAC withholding brands and markets curtails the desire of anyone to offer full carriage of the PACN. It does however allow FOX and ESPN to cherry pick the games they want to air from their leased rights.

Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.

Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.
01-25-2016 06:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #27
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.

Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.

My only thought on VT being hesitant would is based on what their then AD said about the possibility of moving to the SEC. He said they would be appreciate but would most likely politely decline. I thought that was a weird thing to say in public rather than the typical 'non-denial denial' that officials usually give when they are about to go back on their word.

He apparently also cited travel concerns which I found odd as most of the ACC is stretched out farther than the SEC with the exception of the coterie of NC schools.
01-25-2016 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #28
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 07:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.

Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.

My only thought on VT being hesitant would is based on what their then AD said about the possibility of moving to the SEC. He said they would be appreciate but would most likely politely decline. I thought that was a weird thing to say in public rather than the typical 'non-denial denial' that officials usually give when they are about to go back on their word.

He apparently also cited travel concerns which I found odd as most of the ACC is stretched out farther than the SEC with the exception of the coterie of NC schools.

Damage control. UNC had already screwed up the deal. What was he supposed to say?
01-25-2016 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,969
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 144
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #29
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 07:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.

Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.

My only thought on VT being hesitant would is based on what their then AD said about the possibility of moving to the SEC. He said they would be appreciate but would most likely politely decline. I thought that was a weird thing to say in public rather than the typical 'non-denial denial' that officials usually give when they are about to go back on their word.

He apparently also cited travel concerns which I found odd as most of the ACC is stretched out farther than the SEC with the exception of the coterie of NC schools.

Damage control. UNC had already screwed up the deal. What was he supposed to say?

Why would VT need UNC's permission to switch conferences? I want to say that the original deal was to expand to 16 with A&M, OU, VT and UNC but I'm sure I'm wrong.
01-25-2016 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,900
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #30
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 08:43 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 07:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Quick question, back when the SEC and VT supposedly had talks at the Greenbrier, did Frank Beamer have any input or was he a non-factor in the decision? Also, what were some of VT's concerns or issues about switching conferences back then? Thanks.

Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.

My only thought on VT being hesitant would is based on what their then AD said about the possibility of moving to the SEC. He said they would be appreciate but would most likely politely decline. I thought that was a weird thing to say in public rather than the typical 'non-denial denial' that officials usually give when they are about to go back on their word.

He apparently also cited travel concerns which I found odd as most of the ACC is stretched out farther than the SEC with the exception of the coterie of NC schools.

Damage control. UNC had already screwed up the deal. What was he supposed to say?

Why would VT need UNC's permission to switch conferences? I want to say that the original deal was to expand to 16 with A&M, OU, VT and UNC but I'm sure I'm wrong.

The deal was N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & a school to be named to the ACC. That school was later known to be N.D. A&M & Missouri plus those two would take the SEC to 16. Maryland had not left the ACC at the time of the proposal. Those four minus N.C. State and Virginia Tech would bring the ACC to 16. That's why I posted the other thread about 2 conferences that could have been.

North Carolina screwed up the whole deal when they realized that minus Virginia Tech & N.C. State that they would lose the controlling votes in the conference. Texas and 3 would equal UNC along with Duke, Wake & Virginia. Since FSU, Georgia Tech & Miami would likely side with Texas there goes control of the ACC. So, ....they reneged.
01-25-2016 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #31
RE: ACC feud with Big 10
(01-25-2016 09:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 08:43 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 07:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 07:45 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-25-2016 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Beamer like Bowden in '91 expressed concerns over the difficult schedule in the SEC. But that comment was well before the meeting at the Greenbriar and not associated with that particular meeting. The meeting was at the administration level and at the time both parties were exchanging the particulars on finances, facilities requirements, etc. It was not reported that Virginia Tech was pleased or displeased with anything. At the time it was more perfunctory, or at least that is what I was told.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say they would have been excited about the revenue and concerned about their fit. But the impression I got was that the whole thing was network driven and everyone was following through on an arranged deal, a deal U.N.C. killed.

My only thought on VT being hesitant would is based on what their then AD said about the possibility of moving to the SEC. He said they would be appreciate but would most likely politely decline. I thought that was a weird thing to say in public rather than the typical 'non-denial denial' that officials usually give when they are about to go back on their word.

He apparently also cited travel concerns which I found odd as most of the ACC is stretched out farther than the SEC with the exception of the coterie of NC schools.

Damage control. UNC had already screwed up the deal. What was he supposed to say?

Why would VT need UNC's permission to switch conferences? I want to say that the original deal was to expand to 16 with A&M, OU, VT and UNC but I'm sure I'm wrong.

The deal was N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC; Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & a school to be named to the ACC. That school was later known to be N.D. A&M & Missouri plus those two would take the SEC to 16. Maryland had not left the ACC at the time of the proposal. Those four minus N.C. State and Virginia Tech would bring the ACC to 16. That's why I posted the other thread about 2 conferences that could have been.

North Carolina screwed up the whole deal when they realized that minus Virginia Tech & N.C. State that they would lose the controlling votes in the conference. Texas and 3 would equal UNC along with Duke, Wake & Virginia. Since FSU, Georgia Tech & Miami would likely side with Texas there goes control of the ACC. So, ....they reneged.

Pure speculation on your part JR. State hardly ever sided with Carolina and Va. Tech hadn't been in the conference long enough to show voting tendencies or make alliances, and why in the world would FSU, Tech, and Miami side with Texas? Makes a good story though.
01-25-2016 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.