(07-06-2022 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:29 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'd generally disagree with both points.

While there is stability in being unwanted, it's also what makes the Big 12 a poor destination. No one wants to be there. So I'm not sure it's much of a selling point to say no one will leave if you also have to say no one will care that you are here. The "allure" of the Big 12 seems vastly overstated.

As for the ACC's Grant or Rights, yes it's probably the biggest hinderance on schools with options. With the possible exception of Miami, the old Big East schools don't really have much in the way of options. But, neither do schools like Wake Forest or probably NC State and so forth. I also think the list of schools that the Big 10 or SEC REALLY wants is very short, much shorter than most posters here imply. And while the inability to leave does "hurt" those schools, I'm not sure how eager those schools are to leave. Take UNC. Does it really need to leave? It's a basketball school first and that sport can do just fine "as is". So maybe it's not pushing for a change.

But yes, the Grant of Rights hurts the "best" schools most. But that's not irony, that's literally the point of the Grant of Rights. To prevent the more lucrative schools from leaving. No noe really care if Wake signs the GoR. It was schools like Clemson and UNC that people cared about. And those schools knew what signing a GoR would mean.

I agree that the allure of the nB12 is being overstated around here and on social media. IMO, the current nPAC, sans USC and UCLA, is still considerably more valuable than the nB12. That said, I think it plausible that latter's third-level stability could appeal to scared PAC schools who fear an even worse fate. They could be stampeded towards the nB12.

Second, I agree that Miami doesn't neatly fit the "Big East" narrative I described. That is why I focused more on the Big East teams added in 2011. They are possibly valuable to the SEC or B1G. Possibly.

Third, I think the reason schools sign a GOR is because they believe it will benefit them, which includes the strongest teams with options. I'm not sure it is to keep the more lucrative schools from leaving, because then the lucrative schools wouldn't sign. Yes, the lesser schools want one to keep the lucrative schools from leaving and thus stabilizing a situation they like. But why would the lucrative schools sign for that reason?

Why would a North Carolina sign a GOR in 2012 or 2016? They were a valuable school for the SEC or B1G at that time. Speculating, I would say they signed because they wanted to keep the ACC intact and get the most money out of the TV deal. At that time, the money gap wasn't so great, and they liked having their little fiefdom in the ACC. So they were willing to make it harder for themselves to leave to secure a situation they liked.

Ditto for Texas and Oklahoma signing the B12 GOR in 2012. They too liked running their own conference (rather than being equals in the SEC or PAC) and again, the money gap wasn't big at the time.

But, things didn't work out the way they (the lucrative schools) thought, thus my original post. A GOR only hurts the best schools most if things don't work out the way the best schools thought they would. In this case, the ACC's acquisition of the Big East schools didn't bring in big money, and the 2010 deal they had signed turned out to not keep up with what the B1G and SEC were making. Ditto for the 2012 deal the B12 signed. That IMO is irony, and it does lead them to being trapped in their own web.

All IMO, of course.

Quo, the GORs in the B12 and ACC were the result of mistrust created between FOX and ESPN which were co-owners of B12 T1 & T2 rights when ESPN tried to back door key B12 properties into the SEC and ACC respectively and FOX was helping to bankroll the theft of Maryland. So, no honor among thieves meant they each approved locking up their acquisitions until, well, a moment like now when they appear to be setting up a P2 and both want the CFP and Tourney money and may have, you know, agreed to pursue self-interest together, which is a nice way to say collude. So, the GOR's which kept them from stealing from each other now give each a great deal of power in shaping the future. My point being it was not Texas and UNC seeking to be bound to a fiefdom, but ESPN and FOX finding a sweet way to try to put them on house arrest until they could be properly monetized.

Quibble. I think the Maryland drama, ending with the Big Ten taking Maryland and Louisville, signalled that the Big Ten and SEC both shook the ACC tree as hard as they could, but Maryland was the only apple to fall--the six core Tobacco Road / Virginia schools hung together. (I can't remember if I had sourcing on that, or if it was simply my own firm conviction. Alas, google doesn't summon my old CSNBBS posts the way it used to)

(07-06-2022 12:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Quibble. I think the Maryland drama, ending with the Big Ten taking Maryland and Louisville, signalled that the Big Ten and SEC both shook the ACC tree as hard as they could, but Maryland was the only apple to fall--the six core Tobacco Road / Virginia schools hung together. (I can't remember if I had sourcing on that, or if it was simply my own firm conviction. Alas, google doesn't summon my old CSNBBS posts the way it used to)

You are correct. The Tobacco Road schools like each other and the ACC has a unique cultural footprint primarily based on basketball and a tight geographic proximity

With the growing money difference nothing is sacred but there is a reason the ACC was the toughest conference to break

(07-06-2022 12:47 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Quibble. I think the Maryland drama, ending with the Big Ten taking Maryland and Louisville, signalled that the Big Ten and SEC both shook the ACC tree as hard as they could, but Maryland was the only apple to fall--the six core Tobacco Road / Virginia schools hung together. (I can't remember if I had sourcing on that, or if it was simply my own firm conviction. Alas, google doesn't summon my old CSNBBS posts the way it used to)

You are correct. The Tobacco Road schools like each other and the ACC has a unique cultural footprint primarily based on basketball and a tight geographic proximity

With the growing money difference nothing is sacred but there is a reason the ACC was the toughest conference to break

But do we have sourcing on it? The way I remember it, there was a week or so of prisoner's dilemma where UVA had to worry that UNC would go to the Big Ten, UNC had to worry that Duke would go to the SEC etc. Then there was a meeting or series of calls among the six VA-NC ACC schools that they would stick together. (This was when it was all about TV network footprint and/ or Gentlemen's Agreement, so Clemson and FSU weren't attractive to the SEC.)

It's crazy how fast things can change in a decade.

(07-06-2022 12:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:29 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'd generally disagree with both points.

While there is stability in being unwanted, it's also what makes the Big 12 a poor destination. No one wants to be there. So I'm not sure it's much of a selling point to say no one will leave if you also have to say no one will care that you are here. The "allure" of the Big 12 seems vastly overstated.

As for the ACC's Grant or Rights, yes it's probably the biggest hinderance on schools with options. With the possible exception of Miami, the old Big East schools don't really have much in the way of options. But, neither do schools like Wake Forest or probably NC State and so forth. I also think the list of schools that the Big 10 or SEC REALLY wants is very short, much shorter than most posters here imply. And while the inability to leave does "hurt" those schools, I'm not sure how eager those schools are to leave. Take UNC. Does it really need to leave? It's a basketball school first and that sport can do just fine "as is". So maybe it's not pushing for a change.

But yes, the Grant of Rights hurts the "best" schools most. But that's not irony, that's literally the point of the Grant of Rights. To prevent the more lucrative schools from leaving. No noe really care if Wake signs the GoR. It was schools like Clemson and UNC that people cared about. And those schools knew what signing a GoR would mean.

I agree that the allure of the nB12 is being overstated around here and on social media. IMO, the current nPAC, sans USC and UCLA, is still considerably more valuable than the nB12. That said, I think it plausible that latter's third-level stability could appeal to scared PAC schools who fear an even worse fate. They could be stampeded towards the nB12.

Second, I agree that Miami doesn't neatly fit the "Big East" narrative I described. That is why I focused more on the Big East teams added in 2011. They are possibly valuable to the SEC or B1G. Possibly.

Third, I think the reason schools sign a GOR is because they believe it will benefit them, which includes the strongest teams with options. I'm not sure it is to keep the more lucrative schools from leaving, because then the lucrative schools wouldn't sign. Yes, the lesser schools want one to keep the lucrative schools from leaving and thus stabilizing a situation they like. But why would the lucrative schools sign for that reason?

Why would a North Carolina sign a GOR in 2012 or 2016? They were a valuable school for the SEC or B1G at that time. Speculating, I would say they signed because they wanted to keep the ACC intact and get the most money out of the TV deal. At that time, the money gap wasn't so great, and they liked having their little fiefdom in the ACC. So they were willing to make it harder for themselves to leave to secure a situation they liked.

Ditto for Texas and Oklahoma signing the B12 GOR in 2012. They too liked running their own conference (rather than being equals in the SEC or PAC) and again, the money gap wasn't big at the time.

But, things didn't work out the way they (the lucrative schools) thought, thus my original post. A GOR only hurts the best schools most if things don't work out the way the best schools thought they would. In this case, the ACC's acquisition of the Big East schools didn't bring in big money, and the 2010 deal they had signed turned out to not keep up with what the B1G and SEC were making. Ditto for the 2012 deal the B12 signed. That IMO is irony, and it does lead them to being trapped in their own web.

All IMO, of course.

Quo, the GORs in the B12 and ACC were the result of mistrust created between FOX and ESPN which were co-owners of B12 T1 & T2 rights when ESPN tried to back door key B12 properties into the SEC and ACC respectively and FOX was helping to bankroll the theft of Maryland. So, no honor among thieves meant they each approved locking up their acquisitions until, well, a moment like now when they appear to be setting up a P2 and both want the CFP and Tourney money and may have, you know, agreed to pursue self-interest together, which is a nice way to say collude. So, the GOR's which kept them from stealing from each other now give each a great deal of power in shaping the future. My point being it was not Texas and UNC seeking to be bound to a fiefdom, but ESPN and FOX finding a sweet way to try to put them on house arrest until they could be properly monetized.

Quibble. I think the Maryland drama, ending with the Big Ten taking Maryland and Louisville, signalled that the Big Ten and SEC both shook the ACC tree as hard as they could, but Maryland was the only apple to fall--the six core Tobacco Road / Virginia schools hung together. (I can't remember if I had sourcing on that, or if it was simply my own firm conviction. Alas, google doesn't summon my old CSNBBS posts the way it used to)

The SEC didn't shake anything, ESPN had a deal going with Deloss Dodds and needed room in the ACC to make it happen. The SEC was scrambling to sell NC State and less so Va Tech when the plug got pulled. ESPN controlled all of that. FOX was behind Maryland and it stunned Bristol and Tobacco Road.

At that time the SEC's position on the ACC was that a healthy was the best buffer against Big 10 expansion.

(07-06-2022 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 12:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:29 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'd generally disagree with both points.

While there is stability in being unwanted, it's also what makes the Big 12 a poor destination. No one wants to be there. So I'm not sure it's much of a selling point to say no one will leave if you also have to say no one will care that you are here. The "allure" of the Big 12 seems vastly overstated.

As for the ACC's Grant or Rights, yes it's probably the biggest hinderance on schools with options. With the possible exception of Miami, the old Big East schools don't really have much in the way of options. But, neither do schools like Wake Forest or probably NC State and so forth. I also think the list of schools that the Big 10 or SEC REALLY wants is very short, much shorter than most posters here imply. And while the inability to leave does "hurt" those schools, I'm not sure how eager those schools are to leave. Take UNC. Does it really need to leave? It's a basketball school first and that sport can do just fine "as is". So maybe it's not pushing for a change.

But yes, the Grant of Rights hurts the "best" schools most. But that's not irony, that's literally the point of the Grant of Rights. To prevent the more lucrative schools from leaving. No noe really care if Wake signs the GoR. It was schools like Clemson and UNC that people cared about. And those schools knew what signing a GoR would mean.

I agree that the allure of the nB12 is being overstated around here and on social media. IMO, the current nPAC, sans USC and UCLA, is still considerably more valuable than the nB12. That said, I think it plausible that latter's third-level stability could appeal to scared PAC schools who fear an even worse fate. They could be stampeded towards the nB12.

Second, I agree that Miami doesn't neatly fit the "Big East" narrative I described. That is why I focused more on the Big East teams added in 2011. They are possibly valuable to the SEC or B1G. Possibly.

Third, I think the reason schools sign a GOR is because they believe it will benefit them, which includes the strongest teams with options. I'm not sure it is to keep the more lucrative schools from leaving, because then the lucrative schools wouldn't sign. Yes, the lesser schools want one to keep the lucrative schools from leaving and thus stabilizing a situation they like. But why would the lucrative schools sign for that reason?

Why would a North Carolina sign a GOR in 2012 or 2016? They were a valuable school for the SEC or B1G at that time. Speculating, I would say they signed because they wanted to keep the ACC intact and get the most money out of the TV deal. At that time, the money gap wasn't so great, and they liked having their little fiefdom in the ACC. So they were willing to make it harder for themselves to leave to secure a situation they liked.

Ditto for Texas and Oklahoma signing the B12 GOR in 2012. They too liked running their own conference (rather than being equals in the SEC or PAC) and again, the money gap wasn't big at the time.

But, things didn't work out the way they (the lucrative schools) thought, thus my original post. A GOR only hurts the best schools most if things don't work out the way the best schools thought they would. In this case, the ACC's acquisition of the Big East schools didn't bring in big money, and the 2010 deal they had signed turned out to not keep up with what the B1G and SEC were making. Ditto for the 2012 deal the B12 signed. That IMO is irony, and it does lead them to being trapped in their own web.

All IMO, of course.

Quo, the GORs in the B12 and ACC were the result of mistrust created between FOX and ESPN which were co-owners of B12 T1 & T2 rights when ESPN tried to back door key B12 properties into the SEC and ACC respectively and FOX was helping to bankroll the theft of Maryland. So, no honor among thieves meant they each approved locking up their acquisitions until, well, a moment like now when they appear to be setting up a P2 and both want the CFP and Tourney money and may have, you know, agreed to pursue self-interest together, which is a nice way to say collude. So, the GOR's which kept them from stealing from each other now give each a great deal of power in shaping the future. My point being it was not Texas and UNC seeking to be bound to a fiefdom, but ESPN and FOX finding a sweet way to try to put them on house arrest until they could be properly monetized.

Quibble. I think the Maryland drama, ending with the Big Ten taking Maryland and Louisville, signalled that the Big Ten and SEC both shook the ACC tree as hard as they could, but Maryland was the only apple to fall--the six core Tobacco Road / Virginia schools hung together. (I can't remember if I had sourcing on that, or if it was simply my own firm conviction. Alas, google doesn't summon my old CSNBBS posts the way it used to)

The SEC didn't shake anything, ESPN had a deal going with Deloss Dodds and needed room in the ACC to make it happen. The SEC was scrambling to sell NC State and less so Va Tech when the plug got pulled.

I'd call that "shaking the tree", adding 2 adjoining states to the SEC Network footprint.

(07-06-2022 11:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 11:21 AM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 11:03 AM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 10:28 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 02:29 PM)Jericho Wrote:  I'd generally disagree with both points.

While there is stability in being unwanted, it's also what makes the Big 12 a poor destination. No one wants to be there. So I'm not sure it's much of a selling point to say no one will leave if you also have to say no one will care that you are here. The "allure" of the Big 12 seems vastly overstated.

As for the ACC's Grant or Rights, yes it's probably the biggest hinderance on schools with options. With the possible exception of Miami, the old Big East schools don't really have much in the way of options. But, neither do schools like Wake Forest or probably NC State and so forth. I also think the list of schools that the Big 10 or SEC REALLY wants is very short, much shorter than most posters here imply. And while the inability to leave does "hurt" those schools, I'm not sure how eager those schools are to leave. Take UNC. Does it really need to leave? It's a basketball school first and that sport can do just fine "as is". So maybe it's not pushing for a change.

But yes, the Grant of Rights hurts the "best" schools most. But that's not irony, that's literally the point of the Grant of Rights. To prevent the more lucrative schools from leaving. No noe really care if Wake signs the GoR. It was schools like Clemson and UNC that people cared about. And those schools knew what signing a GoR would mean.

Regarding the bold... SEC basketball is eating into ACC basketball right now. Imagine what happens when the Big 10 and SEC are making another $50M more than the ACC.

I agree with your larger premise about the growing cancer that is the money gap. However, an SEC school hasn't won the NCAA Tournament since Kentucky did it in 2012. Over the past ten years, teams currently in the ACC have won four (three if you want to exclude Louisville's vacated title). Depending on how you view that Louisville situation, that's greater than or equal to the number of titles won by the collection of teams currently in the new Big East (UConn in 2014, and Nova in 2016 and 2018). I acknowledge that Auburn, Kentucky, Florida, and South Carolina have all made the Final Four in that span but I don't see the SEC surpassing the ACC in basketball. The Big East is just fine with considerably less money than the SEC.

Exactly.

People kid themselves if they think the SEC will ALLOW their basketball programs to do anything to upset the football side of things (and to a lesser extent, their baseball).

SEC culture is football, and baseball. They don't care about hoops like the ACC does.

No question. The SEC has gotten better at hoops, but that requires the schools to make a conscious effort at it. It doesn't come naturally to them - Kentucky excepted, of course.

Football and baseball come naturally.

Once some of these power house football schools start taking it on the chin from too many other powerhouse schools in both the SEC and B1G, they will suddenly hope at least the Basketball team can keep them relevant