Where we are:

The California Board of Regents is threatening to hold up UCLA's move to the Big 10.

The New Commissioner of the Big 12 says they'll add four more.

The SEC coyly is saying it's content with 16 while the background noise indicates otherwise.

The Big 10 is threatening more additions if UCLA isn't freed to move (which it likely can anyway).

The ACC is in some quarters of their conference nervously watching and in other quarters hunkering behind the GOR.

Meanwhile several commissioners have supported the suggestion of collective bargaining with players which implies a player's union as well as pay for play. And this would be in keeping with Cavanaugh's remarks in the NIL ruling.

And the hooey holding up the CFP expansion (which was the alleged impetus for the Alliance) has now been cleared for an early start. This is acting as a catalyst for Texas and Oklahoma to want to move to the SEC in 2024 and could act as a catalyst for more consolidation among the top conferences.

The general assessment of the California Board of Regents is that they are likely trying to find a way to encourage the Big 10's inclusion of Cal in these upcoming moves. Cal is in major debt and any kind of bump in revenue from a move would be beneficial.

Perhaps the issue will be partial payments to schools whose value doesn't add to the Big 10's projected payouts. If so, and if the Big 10 and PAC 12 schools agree to utilize disproportionate revenue distributions in order to go ahead and include a greater expansion to the West this could easily accelerate consolidation at the top.

Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California could round the Big 10 out at 20 schools, or you might see Colorado, Arizona, and Utah (all AAU) come on board with them. I suppose at this juncture the Big 10 would make a play for Notre Dame again and if the Irish were still a nyet that Kansas could round out their 24, or it could be a surprise from either the ACC or SEC.

The Big 12 would be poised to pick up Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State as all of them add to their mean revenue numbers. A California school like San Diego State would make sense as well. Perhaps this is what Yormark will be looking at as his four Westward additions?

So where could this lead:

Does the SEC sit still? I doubt it. Do they raid the ACC? Well, I wouldn't call it that. I think they would simply merge with unequal revenue in place, but that merger could see some shuffling and with the combined scheduling it would essentially hold the divisional structures of each conference intact but would be used for greater scheduling mobility which would help to balance the football heavy SEC, while augmenting the ACC hoops brand and all Spring and minor sports as the old boundaries of OOC would vanish opening up new, and more interesting match ups.

The combined scheduling would still give the ACC a boost in markets and viewership which should result in a modest to more reasonable increase in revenue.

The 15 ACC schools and 16 SEC schools could be augmented with Central and South Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, and West Virginia and depending upon which school heads to the Big 10 as #24 you could see a selection of schools considered for the 36th slot.

With 24 schools in the Big 10 all that would be needed to give the Big 10 access to Texas would be a scheduling alliance with the new Big 12 and should that conference consist of the 3 PAC remnants San Diego State, B.Y.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Houston, possibly Kansas, or possibly a Fresno or Boise, or perhaps even a Tulane the resulting 2 leagues would be balanced at 36 each and all old rivalries still viable, especially for PAC schools.

What you would see emerge is a Super 2 (Two Leagues) in which the Big 10 would stand at 24, the SEC and ACC at 18 each and the Big 12 at a name fitting 12 but each comprising two leagues of 36 schools. This allows for the flexibility of the unequal revenue distributions, an academic alliance consistency within the Big 10, broader regional play in the Southeast, and access to Texas for the Big 10 without having to compromise its academic identity.

It also takes the best of the current G5 and incorporates them into the leagues and could help close the playoffs and system to just the new Super Two Leagues.

If all games are played within those 2 Leagues the networks benefit in product quality, rivalries are restored which were lost, and the North South dynamic still drives viewership.

Should both leagues be comprised of 6 divisions each of 6 schools for the purposes of play and scheduling then the divisional champs would become the 12 playoff entrants and in an expanded playoff of 16 four at large schools (2 per League) could be added to the field. Just under a quarter of the schools would see playoff action annually.

The money and manageability both improve. Cross League play could provide access to California and Florida for the respective leagues.

What this avoids is the necessity of segregating realignment by revenue which helps with balance and access to recruiting markets, and thereby it eliminates the necessity of a third conference. With schools in the SEC and Big 10 keeping their earned advantages but splitting post season revenue equally and deliberately assisting the other schools in viewership and markets through scheduling you have more balance top to bottom among these 72 schools than we have now.

And that is the impetus and benefit of making this kind of move.

With everyone we have now plus more of the best G5 included the need to realign would be over. Over each subsequent TV contract, the payouts could slowly be ameliorated until even that advantage is leveled.

Will it happen? It's logical, profitable, and workable, but that doesn't mean it is what will be done.

At worst I still see a Big 10 and SEC of 20 each and two lesser conferences of 16 each. Or 3 conferences of 24, with the third lagging significantly in revenue. But if we want to secure the model well into the future, I will tender what I proffered above for serious consideration. Let's build a structure which will end the upheaval of realignment, work toward equity, and provide a structure which yields most of the CFP participants by a method decided on the field.

I just don’t see an SEC-ACC merger as it’ll lower equal payouts for SEC members.

Now the PAC and ACC could do a merger with divisions to help with travel costs, but that ACC GOR is going to hamper any realignment or exodus from the Atlantic coast schools from jumping to obviously bigger paydays in the SEC or Big Ten. Recent realignment history has taught us that these moves are made on an individual basis; groups of schools don’t jump in mass at the P5 level—all deals are between a conference and an individual school. So even if the ACC could eventually find 8 plus schools to find better homes outside the conference, getting EVERYBODY to agree at the same time feels almost impossible.

Now that UCLA is clear to join the Big Ten, minus some redistribution fees, all eyes are on the PAC to see if they stay together or fall apart. The Big 12 seems bullish on adding some good programs from that region. To me, the the Big 12 can get even two of the “four corner” schools to jump, that’ll make all the other PAC schools reevaluate their futures. Life in a diminished PAC? Join the Big 12? Merge with the ACC? Independence? Drop down or drop out of major football? The Berkeley is in major debt, I’m sure others are too.

(12-18-2022 07:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I just don’t see an SEC-ACC merger as it’ll lower equal payouts for SEC members.

Now the PAC and ACC could do a merger with divisions to help with travel costs, but that ACC GOR is going to hamper any realignment or exodus from the Atlantic coast schools from jumping to obviously bigger paydays in the SEC or Big Ten. Recent realignment history has taught us that these moves are made on an individual basis; groups of schools don’t jump in mass at the P5 level—all deals are between a conference and an individual school. So even if the ACC could eventually find 8 plus schools to find better homes outside the conference, getting EVERYBODY to agree at the same time feels almost impossible.

Now that UCLA is clear to join the Big Ten, minus some redistribution fees, all eyes are on the PAC to see if they stay together or fall apart. The Big 12 seems bullish on adding some good programs from that region. To me, the the Big 12 can get even two of the “four corner” schools to jump, that’ll make all the other PAC schools reevaluate their futures. Life in a diminished PAC? Join the Big 12? Merge with the ACC? Independence? Drop down or drop out of major football? The Berkeley is in major debt, I’m sure others are too.

What part of unequal revenue sharing did you not understand?

(12-18-2022 07:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2022 07:17 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  I just don’t see an SEC-ACC merger as it’ll lower equal payouts for SEC members.

Now the PAC and ACC could do a merger with divisions to help with travel costs, but that ACC GOR is going to hamper any realignment or exodus from the Atlantic coast schools from jumping to obviously bigger paydays in the SEC or Big Ten. Recent realignment history has taught us that these moves are made on an individual basis; groups of schools don’t jump in mass at the P5 level—all deals are between a conference and an individual school. So even if the ACC could eventually find 8 plus schools to find better homes outside the conference, getting EVERYBODY to agree at the same time feels almost impossible.

Now that UCLA is clear to join the Big Ten, minus some redistribution fees, all eyes are on the PAC to see if they stay together or fall apart. The Big 12 seems bullish on adding some good programs from that region. To me, the the Big 12 can get even two of the “four corner” schools to jump, that’ll make all the other PAC schools reevaluate their futures. Life in a diminished PAC? Join the Big 12? Merge with the ACC? Independence? Drop down or drop out of major football? The Berkeley is in major debt, I’m sure others are too.

What part of unequal revenue sharing did you not understand?

I understand unequal revenue sharing. I just don’t see the SEC changing it’s mentality to accommodate it.

From what little has been said from conference sources, there hasn’t been closure statements. Neither has there been declarations of something eminent.

Where is more expansion an immediate or near term goal? The PAC12 is in a difficult situation. The BIG’s “maybe we will, maybe we won’t” messaging is certainly more unsettling for the PAC12.

My personal view that USC-w and UCLA going to the BiG was a reactionary move, given what the SEC did earlier. My prediction, logistically, the BIG expansion result won’t be so smooth following implementation.

With new contracts being negotiated and signed, I expect an expansion pause in the major conferences.

To me, the SEC is the brilliant conference. Adding OU and UT can’t be topped as to incremental additions. I don’t want to see the design disrupted or altered until it has functioned a few years. I have been conservative on most expansion matters, but know broadcast media, NIL, market opportunities, etc., will impact expansion decisions.

I’ve scribbled on paper my fantasy conferences based on symmetry, compatibility, inclusiveness, and thoughts of equity. But there’s no one to sell it to, of course (lol). I doubt anywhere in the system there would be cooperation on that level.

P2? That already exists. How far they go and the number of schools ultimately included, are factors unclear to me. I am not sure there are “fixed” plans by either the SEC or BIG. Decisions may basically be opportunistic.

First, to Odin Frigg:

When Mississippi State makes it to CFP, and I believe that they will, eventually, I believe that it would be a good gesture to put a picture of Coach Mike Leach at the coach's spot on the field, and then declare that they are going to bring him that horizon (Captain Jack Sparrow quote from "Pirates of the Caribbean. " I think Mrs Leach and her family would like that!!

Second, I view Oklahoma as the Villanova of college football and Texas as the Georgetown of college football. I believe that Oklahoma will make the easiest transition to the SEC, while Texas will definitely have plenty of hiccups before they finally get things right.

I don't know where to post this in the forum. Here may be just fine. Where I heard such below will be void of source specification and will omit references to an ACC booster/governance board character from one of the five ACC schools in the Carolinas, surveying a Revolutionary War skirmish site, a pontoon, stripped bass, Duke Energy, and vodka martinis. There's no article. It was dialogue and the one yapper there, was knowledgeable, entertaining, quite cordial, professional, and successful. Note, I don't profess to having insider connections.

It was discussed within the ACC, not clear on the date and format, but within the past year, a proposal to pursue an ACC split, the southern half to be affiliated with the SEC, and the northern half to be affiliated with the BIG. Obviously, the aim was revenue enhancements, along with allowing movement to the P2 for all ACC members. To break the GoR, near all, if not all, have to be satisfied or compensated accordingly.

To the BIG: Notre Dame (no fb partial), Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Duke.

To the SEC: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami-Florida, and Louisville.

The proposed divide/arrangements impacting Virginia and North Carolina schools certainly provided some sensitive and emotional dialogue.

The understanding was that North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke would have permanent scheduling accommodations with certain split counterparts. UNC-Duke, UVA-UNC, etc.

Notre Dame would have "flex" scheduling within the greater BIG per permanent rivalries; ND-USCw for example. No clarity on what ND would really accept.

The message was that the BIG, SEC, ESPN, Fox, etc. were informally aware of the thought/idea, but there was no indication any of those entities endorsed/supported what was being proposed.

Advantages to the SEC: has the fb powerhouses of Clemson & FSU, shuts the BIG out of the deeper south, including Florida & Atlanta. Dominate in North Carolina. SEC can re-organize divisions if it so chooses.

Advantages to the BIG: Land Notre Dame, have the two Virginia schools without the SEC there; gain Duke in North Carolina; dominate upper mid-Atlantic and northeast.

Would the SEC and BIG buy this? Doubtful either one would want 14 or 15 ACC schools. What would respective broadcasting partners think and consider for disbursements and contracting?

I have my doubts regardless of how one messaged it.

(01-30-2023 05:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I don't know where to post this in the forum. Here may be just fine. Where I heard such below will be void of source specification and will omit references to an ACC booster/governance board character from one of the five ACC schools in the Carolinas, surveying a Revolutionary War skirmish site, a pontoon, stripped bass, Duke Energy, and vodka martinis. There's no article. It was dialogue and the one yapper there, was knowledgeable, entertaining, quite cordial, professional, and successful. Note, I don't profess to having insider connections.

It was discussed within the ACC, not clear on the date and format, but within the past year, a proposal to pursue an ACC split, the southern half to be affiliated with the SEC, and the northern half to be affiliated with the BIG. Obviously, the aim was revenue enhancements, along with allowing movement to the P2 for all ACC members. To break the GoR, near all, if not all, have to be satisfied or compensated accordingly.

To the BIG: Notre Dame (no fb partial), Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Duke.

To the SEC: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami-Florida, and Louisville.

The proposed divide/arrangements impacting Virginia and North Carolina schools certainly provided some sensitive and emotional dialogue.

The understanding was that North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke would have permanent scheduling accommodations with certain split counterparts. UNC-Duke, UVA-UNC, etc.

Notre Dame would have "flex" scheduling within the greater BIG per permanent rivalries; ND-USCw for example. No clarity on what ND would really accept.

The message was that the BIG, SEC, ESPN, Fox, etc. were informally aware of the thought/idea, but there was no indication any of those entities endorsed/supported what was being proposed.

Advantages to the SEC: has the fb powerhouses of Clemson & FSU, shuts the BIG out of the deeper south, including Florida & Atlanta. Dominate in North Carolina. SEC can re-organize divisions if it so chooses.

Advantages to the BIG: Land Notre Dame, have the two Virginia schools without the SEC there; gain Duke in North Carolina; dominate upper mid-Atlantic and northeast.

Would the SEC and BIG buy this? Doubtful either one would want 14 or 15 ACC schools. What would respective broadcasting partners think and consider for disbursements and contracting?

I have my doubts regardless of how one messaged it.

Nothing wrong with batting around and evaluating ideas. You likely won't get to a desired end if you place yourself in a box.

After all, they apparently explored adding PAC schools which to me, is more far fetched than what you've presented.

I think it's likely a lot of different ideas have been and will be debated until whatever final resolution arrives. Doesn't mean this scenario won't play out, wouldn't mean it does either.

(01-30-2023 07:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-30-2023 05:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I don't know where to post this in the forum. Here may be just fine. Where I heard such below will be void of source specification and will omit references to an ACC booster/governance board character from one of the five ACC schools in the Carolinas, surveying a Revolutionary War skirmish site, a pontoon, stripped bass, Duke Energy, and vodka martinis. There's no article. It was dialogue and the one yapper there, was knowledgeable, entertaining, quite cordial, professional, and successful. Note, I don't profess to having insider connections.

It was discussed within the ACC, not clear on the date and format, but within the past year, a proposal to pursue an ACC split, the southern half to be affiliated with the SEC, and the northern half to be affiliated with the BIG. Obviously, the aim was revenue enhancements, along with allowing movement to the P2 for all ACC members. To break the GoR, near all, if not all, have to be satisfied or compensated accordingly.

To the BIG: Notre Dame (no fb partial), Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Duke.

To the SEC: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami-Florida, and Louisville.

The proposed divide/arrangements impacting Virginia and North Carolina schools certainly provided some sensitive and emotional dialogue.

The understanding was that North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke would have permanent scheduling accommodations with certain split counterparts. UNC-Duke, UVA-UNC, etc.

Notre Dame would have "flex" scheduling within the greater BIG per permanent rivalries; ND-USCw for example. No clarity on what ND would really accept.

The message was that the BIG, SEC, ESPN, Fox, etc. were informally aware of the thought/idea, but there was no indication any of those entities endorsed/supported what was being proposed.

Advantages to the SEC: has the fb powerhouses of Clemson & FSU, shuts the BIG out of the deeper south, including Florida & Atlanta. Dominate in North Carolina. SEC can re-organize divisions if it so chooses.

Advantages to the BIG: Land Notre Dame, have the two Virginia schools without the SEC there; gain Duke in North Carolina; dominate upper mid-Atlantic and northeast.

Would the SEC and BIG buy this? Doubtful either one would want 14 or 15 ACC schools. What would respective broadcasting partners think and consider for disbursements and contracting?

I have my doubts regardless of how one messaged it.

Nothing wrong with batting around and evaluating ideas. You likely won't get to a desired end if you place yourself in a box.

After all, they apparently explored adding PAC schools which to me, is more far fetched than what you've presented.

I think it's likely a lot of different ideas have been and will be debated until whatever final resolution arrives. Doesn't mean this scenario won't play out, wouldn't mean it does either.

Good points, ATU. I look at all this more from a standpoint of curiosity, and maybe less so based on embracing a particular expansion model, with little indication it will happen compatible to my soft vision.

Conglomerate/super-mega models deliver a lot of questions. What’s in the past that is a good reference for comparative purposes?

My viewpoint, the SEC and BIG will do the “pause, then be incremental” routines, be it 5, 10, or 15 year intervals.

A huge swoop adding a big mass of schools at once, doesn’t come across as highly plausible. Really, the pool of very valued prospects outside the current P2 is not extensive, and that includes coast to coast. What’s the number for the P2 combined and preferable add-ons? Perhaps a dozen or so maximum and I won’t say that would be solid.

(01-30-2023 05:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I don't know where to post this in the forum. Here may be just fine. Where I heard such below will be void of source specification and will omit references to an ACC booster/governance board character from one of the five ACC schools in the Carolinas, surveying a Revolutionary War skirmish site, a pontoon, stripped bass, Duke Energy, and vodka martinis. There's no article. It was dialogue and the one yapper there, was knowledgeable, entertaining, quite cordial, professional, and successful. Note, I don't profess to having insider connections.

It was discussed within the ACC, not clear on the date and format, but within the past year, a proposal to pursue an ACC split, the southern half to be affiliated with the SEC, and the northern half to be affiliated with the BIG. Obviously, the aim was revenue enhancements, along with allowing movement to the P2 for all ACC members. To break the GoR, near all, if not all, have to be satisfied or compensated accordingly.

To the BIG: Notre Dame (no fb partial), Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Duke.

To the SEC: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami-Florida, and Louisville.

The proposed divide/arrangements impacting Virginia and North Carolina schools certainly provided some sensitive and emotional dialogue.

The understanding was that North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke would have permanent scheduling accommodations with certain split counterparts. UNC-Duke, UVA-UNC, etc.

Notre Dame would have "flex" scheduling within the greater BIG per permanent rivalries; ND-USCw for example. No clarity on what ND would really accept.

The message was that the BIG, SEC, ESPN, Fox, etc. were informally aware of the thought/idea, but there was no indication any of those entities endorsed/supported what was being proposed.

Advantages to the SEC: has the fb powerhouses of Clemson & FSU, shuts the BIG out of the deeper south, including Florida & Atlanta. Dominate in North Carolina. SEC can re-organize divisions if it so chooses.

Advantages to the BIG: Land Notre Dame, have the two Virginia schools without the SEC there; gain Duke in North Carolina; dominate upper mid-Atlantic and northeast.

Would the SEC and BIG buy this? Doubtful either one would want 14 or 15 ACC schools. What would respective broadcasting partners think and consider for disbursements and contracting?

I have my doubts regardless of how one messaged it.

Most of this seems at least plausible. Only one that really stands out as odd to me is Duke agreeing to split off from both UNC & WF due to the historic rivalries. If they're able to protect both matchups, then that would make sense to me.

(01-30-2023 05:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I don't know where to post this in the forum. Here may be just fine. Where I heard such below will be void of source specification and will omit references to an ACC booster/governance board character from one of the five ACC schools in the Carolinas, surveying a Revolutionary War skirmish site, a pontoon, stripped bass, Duke Energy, and vodka martinis. There's no article. It was dialogue and the one yapper there, was knowledgeable, entertaining, quite cordial, professional, and successful. Note, I don't profess to having insider connections.

It was discussed within the ACC, not clear on the date and format, but within the past year, a proposal to pursue an ACC split, the southern half to be affiliated with the SEC, and the northern half to be affiliated with the BIG. Obviously, the aim was revenue enhancements, along with allowing movement to the P2 for all ACC members. To break the GoR, near all, if not all, have to be satisfied or compensated accordingly.

To the BIG: Notre Dame (no fb partial), Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Duke.

To the SEC: North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami-Florida, and Louisville.

The proposed divide/arrangements impacting Virginia and North Carolina schools certainly provided some sensitive and emotional dialogue.

The understanding was that North Carolina, Virginia, and Duke would have permanent scheduling accommodations with certain split counterparts. UNC-Duke, UVA-UNC, etc.

Notre Dame would have "flex" scheduling within the greater BIG per permanent rivalries; ND-USCw for example. No clarity on what ND would really accept.

The message was that the BIG, SEC, ESPN, Fox, etc. were informally aware of the thought/idea, but there was no indication any of those entities endorsed/supported what was being proposed.

Advantages to the SEC: has the fb powerhouses of Clemson & FSU, shuts the BIG out of the deeper south, including Florida & Atlanta. Dominate in North Carolina. SEC can re-organize divisions if it so chooses.

Advantages to the BIG: Land Notre Dame, have the two Virginia schools without the SEC there; gain Duke in North Carolina; dominate upper mid-Atlantic and northeast.

Would the SEC and BIG buy this? Doubtful either one would want 14 or 15 ACC schools. What would respective broadcasting partners think and consider for disbursements and contracting?

I have my doubts regardless of how one messaged it.

Thanks for sharing.

If the ACC does split well before the GOR expires, it will take some great planning but will probably not find happy Power 2 homes for all.

Sadly, there is not enough value to make this happen. IF the Big Ten won’t expand with Washington and Oregon as they won’t bring value to the B1G to keep payouts the same with USZc and UCLA, then they surely won’t add the entire northern half of the ACC.

KCF51, Murrdcu. et. al.

Good perspectives. I believe certain interests have tried to figure-out how the GoR in the ACC could be rescinded that would become acceptable to near all conference members. Even if a proposal along these lines are advanced, there are no indicators the BIG and the SEC would fully accommodate “all” ACC members. It would be split housing of the current ACC, and no doubt resistance to adding certain schools would be formidable. ESPN, Fox Sports, and additional media perhaps, won’t be generous about all 14(+ND) shifting.

Hanging together in a new conference(s) as a division of seven or so members, and receiving substantially less pay/revenue compared to conference counterparts, is a recipe for turmoil.

The BIG and the SEC may add only schools they really want, and do so whenever the opportunity is ripe. Doubt they will be able to add in mass, then dump the ones they don’t like.

(02-08-2023 07:12 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  KCF51, Murrdcu. et. al.

Good perspectives. I believe certain interests have tried to figure-out how the GoR in the ACC could be rescinded that would become acceptable to near all conference members. Even if a proposal along these lines are advanced, there are no indicators the BIG and the SEC would fully accommodate “all” ACC members. It would be split housing of the current ACC, and no doubt resistance to adding certain schools would be formidable. ESPN, Fox Sports, and additional media perhaps, won’t be generous about all 14(+ND) shifting.

Hanging together in a new conference(s) as a division of seven or so members, and receiving substantially less pay/revenue compared to conference counterparts, is a recipe for turmoil.

The BIG and the SEC may add only schools they really want, and do so whenever the opportunity is ripe. Doubt they will be able to add in mass, then dump the ones they don’t like.

You have 2 conferences with the same kind of contract with the ESPN. The only difference is the rate paid on the ACCN and SECN which is identical in total between in footprint and out of footprint payouts for subscribers. The ACC's is weighted to in footprint subscribers paying 1 dollar per month for each subscriber and .25 cents per month for out of footprint subscriptions. The SEC gets .90 cents in footprint and .35 cents out of footprint and that works find for us because we have a lot more out of footprint subscribers. The other difference is the contracted amounts.

The facilities are the same and standardized for uplink and broadcast for the networks.

The ACC could simply merge with the SEC if both were willing to honor existing contracted amounts and if ESPN was willing to bump the payouts to Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Miami. The rest could receive their contracted amount. The two contracts would be ameliorated to 2036 expiration lengthening the SEC contract by 2 years and the SEC could likely ask for and get a look in for the year in which the Big 10 renegotiates again.

The association and scheduling flexibility and the dominance of the region would earn more money for all of us via ad rates, more games of interest, and better scheduling for some ACC schools. Added value could be rewarded incrementally to the ACC schools in future contracts raising the lowest slowly as the gap in revenue is eroded away.

This provides security to the SEC as ACC schools would not be jumping to the Big 10 for more revenue, especially if they knew we weren't interested. It adds the schools which do bring us higher content value, and it appeases those in the ACC most likely to bolt. That's 30 schools plus Notre Dame as a partial. In a closed scheduling system perhaps the Irish finally decide to join in full. If not the SEC can pick up Kansas at an in between rate of pay and West Virginia at average ACC compensation and you have 4 divisions of 8 (really functions like a small conference).

There is no violation of a GOR, it is all handled in house by ESPN, and the SEC schools don't have to give up their gains.

(02-08-2023 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 07:12 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  KCF51, Murrdcu. et. al.

Good perspectives. I believe certain interests have tried to figure-out how the GoR in the ACC could be rescinded that would become acceptable to near all conference members. Even if a proposal along these lines are advanced, there are no indicators the BIG and the SEC would fully accommodate “all” ACC members. It would be split housing of the current ACC, and no doubt resistance to adding certain schools would be formidable. ESPN, Fox Sports, and additional media perhaps, won’t be generous about all 14(+ND) shifting.

Hanging together in a new conference(s) as a division of seven or so members, and receiving substantially less pay/revenue compared to conference counterparts, is a recipe for turmoil.

The BIG and the SEC may add only schools they really want, and do so whenever the opportunity is ripe. Doubt they will be able to add in mass, then dump the ones they don’t like.

You have 2 conferences with the same kind of contract with the ESPN. The only difference is the rate paid on the ACCN and SECN which is identical in total between in footprint and out of footprint payouts for subscribers. The ACC's is weighted to in footprint subscribers paying 1 dollar per month for each subscriber and .25 cents per month for out of footprint subscriptions. The SEC gets .90 cents in footprint and .35 cents out of footprint and that works find for us because we have a lot more out of footprint subscribers. The other difference is the contracted amounts.

The facilities are the same and standardized for uplink and broadcast for the networks.

The ACC could simply merge with the SEC if both were willing to honor existing contracted amounts and if ESPN was willing to bump the payouts to Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Miami. The rest could receive their contracted amount. The two contracts would be ameliorated to 2036 expiration lengthening the SEC contract by 2 years and the SEC could likely ask for and get a look in for the year in which the Big 10 renegotiates again.

The association and scheduling flexibility and the dominance of the region would earn more money for all of us via ad rates, more games of interest, and better scheduling for some ACC schools. Added value could be rewarded incrementally to the ACC schools in future contracts raising the lowest slowly as the gap in revenue is eroded away.

This provides security to the SEC as ACC schools would not be jumping to the Big 10 for more revenue, especially if they knew we weren't interested. It adds the schools which do bring us higher content value, and it appeases those in the ACC most likely to bolt. That's 30 schools plus Notre Dame as a partial. In a closed scheduling system perhaps the Irish finally decide to join in full. If not the SEC can pick up Kansas at an in between rate of pay and West Virginia at average ACC compensation and you have 4 divisions of 8 (really functions like a small conference).

There is no violation of a GOR, it is all handled in house by ESPN, and the SEC schools don't have to give up their gains.

JRRsec,

it is good hearing that Sankey said Oklahoma and Texas would officially join the SEC in 2024, a year earlier. Though there are multiple scheduling models being discussed, I like the idea of each conference member having three permanent rivals scheduled in football each season plus a rotation of six teams for every other year. So in two years, each member will have played all the other members at least once in a two year period. That would require of course, playing nine conference games each season.

It seems the conference officials have progressed considerably on an acceptable model and may have it finalized in a couple of months. There may be some grumblings from certain schools, but that is to be expected. I think they can do this in reasonable fashion without being inconsiderate to any particular school.

As to the ACC as it relates to a future association with the SEC, there is one factor I have been thinking about that is not often discussed in terms of assimilation and future scheduling; but it is an important one. What ACC schools would certain SEC schools want to play regularly (maybe yearly) in football, men's and women's basketball, baseball, and other mutually offered sports? Here are some thoughts:

South Carolina: Clemson is a given. South Carolina plays North Carolina with increased frequency. They play again this year (2023) again in Charlotte. Games there are well attended. South Carolina has played NCSU there previously. When USC withdrew from the ACC, the relationship with Duke, and Wake Forest even faster, quickly dwindled to nothing basically. South Carolina would have interest in playing Georgia Tech again, since Atlanta is a convenient destination for fans.

Georgia: Georgia and Clemson are geographically very close and have a history of playing, often delivering competitive, sell-out games. Obviously, Georgia Tech is the yearly in-state rival. Once in awhile, Georgia will play a school from North Carolina as a OOC game.

Tennessee: Tennessee has played Virginia Tech in Bristol. The schools are geographically close. I remember Tennessee having some games with North Carolina in football. I recall a game with Duke years back. Georgia Tech and Tennessee have a history. Clemson and Tennessee are separated by the Smokey Mountains, but are geographically close. That has the potential to be a fierce rivalry.

Kentucky: Kentucky plays Louisville as the in-state rival. Virginia in particularly, and Virginia Tech, would give Kentucky a rival to the east and bit to the southeast. Basketball with UNC, Duke, NCSU, UVA, and perhaps Wake, could be attractive for SEC basketball.

Vanderbilt: Vandy and Wake Forest play often. This has developed into a good rivalry between two academically-oriented private schools. At times, though less frequently, Duke and Vandy play. Playing Georgia Tech on a frequent basis may interest Vandy.

Florida: Florida State is a regular given. Does Florida also want Miami in the SEC? That would be interesting.

Auburn and Alabama: Florida State and Clemson would have appeal if big, 80k+ stadiums, large fan bases, decent proximities, and prior championships, are the priority. Could Georgia Tech rise in revenue and competition to make them attractive again? Miami could be intriguing.

SEC schools to the west: None of the ACC schools are natural rivals. However, there is the potential for some very good intersectional matchups. For example, Mississippi State and NC State recently had a two-game series in football and offered a very compatible matchup. Will Texas be willing to play Pitt in an agreement, for example?

I am speculating of course. JRsec, you mentioned ESPN can facilitate/negotiate/implement an assimilated/brokered deal with the SEC and the ACC that negates the GoR. Pardon my terms, I am trying to be open-ended with the language.

I can see the SEC having some scheduling interests, at varying levels, with 7 to 9 ACC schools. How Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and a couple of others such as Louisville, would fit into a designed scheme from an SEC "membership" perspective is something I haven't digested. Then, how Kansas and Notre Dame may also fit, in different ways, adds to the confusion.

I am wondering who is going to produce the scheduling genius that will make all happy? I've had two years of college calculus, and three advanced University statistics courses, and couple of in-service computer courses, but this exceeds my preparatory skills. The "scheduling flexibility" is the component that stumps me.
Will the SEC schools, as a whole, embrace an extensive accommodation of ACC football scheduling? For basketball, I could perceive such as more desirable, collectively. The ACC is particularly tight, though, when it comes to basketball.

I am not arguing for any assimilated model and am not making a prediction. I have to see a written, proposed design, to study and then react with confidence.