(04-17-2023 09:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Once the GOR expires, the biggest winner of the pro rata clause might be someone like Duke. Duke's value on its own would never get in to the SEC, but pro rata allows the SEC to bring the full Duke/UNC rivalry into the fold. Also gives SEC teams an extra win (which there will be less of with Texas/Oklahoma/future adds) without losing money on the deal.

I've read that Duke is likely to be left behind. SEC primary candidates would be:

1. Notre Dame
2. Clemson
3. FSU

While the B1G covets:

1. Notre Dame
2. UNC
3 Virginia

Academically, both UNC and Duke fit the B1G better than the SEC while Clemson and FSU are better aligned, both academically and geographically, with the SEC. There is only one school in the B1G that isn't an AAU school, Nebraska. However, Nebraska was an AAU school when it first joined.

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

I have heard from someone I trust who has connections to a couple of people in an SEC school athletic department that the SEC will go all out for Clemson and FSU. Their interest in Miami is tepid and they have no interest in Georgia Tech. If the SEC adds just 2 schools, then I see the B1G doing the same. Even if Notre Dame stays indy, in that scenario I see the ACC surviving the loss of 4 football school and backfilling with schools from the B12.

Still, there are many good options for both conferences when the ACC GOR is terminated, which is why I don't see the B1G taking any more western schools. The B1G got the big prize in LA there.

I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

(04-17-2023 11:51 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

Has such a private-to-public transition ever occurred other than Temple? I know that some public institutions have gone private (Tulane comes to mind).

I would imagine that the state of Florida would just choose to invest in the public institutions they already have in place rather than turn a private school public... and I'm not sure that the Miami BOT would choose to go public, either.

(04-17-2023 10:40 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:07 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... that kicks in next year per Bret McMurphy from the Action Network:

"In 2020, the SEC signed a 10-year media rights deal with ESPN worth around $300 million. The deal starts in 2024 and includes a pro rata clause requiring ESPN to pay the SEC the same amount per school for any new members, sources said."

LINK (12-12-22): Oklahoma, Texas Gaining Momentum to Leave Big 12, Join SEC Early in 2024

This clause seems to have flown a bit under the radar (at least on this message board), but how might it impact any expansion decisions by Greg Sankey and his braintrust?

From the cheap seats, it sure seems like an ace in the hole (as well as a great negotiating tool) for the SEC commissioner, particularly when some have long insisted "the TV money won't be there to add School A or School B. So therefore it's a no go."

This quote last summer from from Sankey wrt to further expansion seems worth remembering:

"We don’t feel pressured to just operate at a number. But we’ll watch what happens around us and be thoughtful but be nimble.”

Pro rata is great, but only applies to this TV deal. If new adds don't bring in the bucks on the next one, they won't add them. The # of schools which work with that in mind gets much smaller. Pro rata makes it easier for now, but really does nothing as to who they would take. The schools who add value, add value. those who don't....Don't.

Florida State would be a homerun addition in either the SEC or Big Ten.

The Thousand-Pound Gorilla in the room is still Notre Dame. Does a destabilized ACC force ND to change conferences?

Depends on if they have a solid non-fb home.

I don't think it forces them out of independence. Either a raided ACC or possibly moving non-FB to the Big 12 would preserve independence.

A raided ACC still likely has 6-8 of the original gang including likely non-FB stalwarts like Syracuse and others if it holds together.

A Big 12 non-fb membership would have plenty of solid non-fb options.

The Big East would be an emergency option only as they don't help with bowl tie ins.

(04-17-2023 11:51 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

That's an interesting idea. The University of Cincinnati did something similar a few decades ago. It used to be supported publicly by the City of Cincinnati but then became a full state school funded by Ohio. The change saved the university and dramatically altered its trajectory for the better.

(04-17-2023 11:06 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:19 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:49 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  It handles the biggest portion of the money. Other revenue streams would go down per-school unless the newbies took less which they have every reason to agree to do.

Explain por favor

In their 2018-2019 990 tax filing the SEC had two primary revenue streams broken out as summaries for many smaller items.
1- The TV/Radio rights Fees (which we'd expect to see rise pro-rata)
2- Postseason Events (which may not)

In the 2018-2019 year (most recent non-COVID impacted year) #1 totaled 477M in total and #2 totaled 209M.

They also had smaller sources like 5.9M in investment income, 7.8M royalties, etc that got to a total of 720.6M as a total sum.

Group 2 is likely their share of NCAA tournament funds, playoff money, SEC title game, SEC tournament, etc that would likely lose per-school revenue as the new members may not grow the total.

For instance that 209 would need to grow 14.9M for each additional member to avoid that portion of the revenue being split to a lower per-school share.

Now this doesn't mean addition with a TV pro rata wouldn't make sense or be possible- it would be. But as I mentioned above it would likely need new members to take a smaller cut at least initially to keep current members from losing some revenue per-school from group B despite group A getting proportionately bigger.

990's found- https://beta.candid.org/profile/8001584?...conference

Thanks

(04-17-2023 11:33 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

You may be right but there is an argument that what GA Tech would add is outweighed by what they would cost: a net loss of viewership.

With that said, if I were the SEC commissioner I would have to wonder "who cares if the B10 brings GA Tech into the fold? They barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things; let's add Louisville instead, a proven revenue generator who has won on the field and on the courts much more so."

I suspect that if moves are made by the SEC, they will target UNC, Clemson, Florida State and Miami first. After that, they would go after UVA, Virginia Tech, Duke and... Louisville or NCSU.

NCSU has a rabid fanbase. For some reason, they've not had the revenues that Louisville has enjoyed over the years but they easily have the 2cd largest fanbase in NC (and it's not even close).

Maybe JRSEC is right and they would go after Kansas, too. We'll find out in due time.

Sounds like many of us have UNC and FSU are the clear Top 2 (ND aside) for the SEC. I struggle to decide on the order for #3-6.
3. Clemson. Obviously a great football brand and a perfect cultural fit. But they already have USCe and are low risk in terms of a B1G invite or causing damage. I can't really justify them in this spot other than feeling that in order for this reorg to happen...the Tigers need to be in the initial wave.
4. NCSU or Duke. This one's a coin flip to me. I'd lean Duke (basketball and and a needed easier win for football schools worrying about too many tough games). The NC legislature may feel differently.
5. VT or UVA. I'd go with VT. But UNC/Duke would certainly prefer UVA.
6. Miami. Does the SEC really need a 3rd FL school at this point? The move would seem more defensive than anything. No offense Canes...you're still my favorite big rival and I want you on the schedule forever.
7. GT. They're my alternate and I also wonder if the SEC - save UGA - is okay with the Peach State only having one school in conference. One that's already on top of the football universe. Not sure the Jackets have enough impact/threat for folks to care either way.

(04-17-2023 12:05 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  The Big East would be an emergency option only as they don't help with bowl tie ins.

The value of bowl tie-ins for Notre Dame in a world with a 12-team (or more) CFP will be the same as NIT access for Gonzaga if/when it decides to jump to a higher-profile conference

Zero

(04-17-2023 12:05 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:40 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:07 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... that kicks in next year per Bret McMurphy from the Action Network:

"In 2020, the SEC signed a 10-year media rights deal with ESPN worth around $300 million. The deal starts in 2024 and includes a pro rata clause requiring ESPN to pay the SEC the same amount per school for any new members, sources said."

LINK (12-12-22): Oklahoma, Texas Gaining Momentum to Leave Big 12, Join SEC Early in 2024

This clause seems to have flown a bit under the radar (at least on this message board), but how might it impact any expansion decisions by Greg Sankey and his braintrust?

From the cheap seats, it sure seems like an ace in the hole (as well as a great negotiating tool) for the SEC commissioner, particularly when some have long insisted "the TV money won't be there to add School A or School B. So therefore it's a no go."

This quote last summer from from Sankey wrt to further expansion seems worth remembering:

"We don’t feel pressured to just operate at a number. But we’ll watch what happens around us and be thoughtful but be nimble.”

Pro rata is great, but only applies to this TV deal. If new adds don't bring in the bucks on the next one, they won't add them. The # of schools which work with that in mind gets much smaller. Pro rata makes it easier for now, but really does nothing as to who they would take. The schools who add value, add value. those who don't....Don't.

Florida State would be a homerun addition in either the SEC or Big Ten.

The Thousand-Pound Gorilla in the room is still Notre Dame. Does a destabilized ACC force ND to change conferences?

Depends on if they have a solid non-fb home.

I don't think it forces them out of independence. Either a raided ACC or possibly moving non-FB to the Big 12 would preserve independence.

A raided ACC still likely has 6-8 of the original gang including likely non-FB stalwarts like Syracuse and others if it holds together.

A Big 12 non-fb membership would have plenty of solid non-fb options.

The Big East would be an emergency option only as they don't help with bowl tie ins.

I doubt that Notre Dame would have issues negotiating bowl tie-ins by themselves.

I can easily envision a scenario where the ACC is torn asunder; Syracuse and Boston College move to football independence, taking their Olympic sports to the Big East along with Notre Dame.

The Big East is strengthened and none of the new additions Olympic sports suffer (with the exception of Notre Dame and Boston College baseball). Notre Dame, Boston College, Syracuse and UConn agree to a scheduling alliance for football.

However, I would expect Syracuse to wind up in the B12. I am not sure about Boston College. What I don't expect to happen is for Notre Dame to join the B12 in any way.

(04-17-2023 11:51 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

There's no room for an on-campus stadium at Miami as it is. Let alone if you want to somehow transform it into another big public school (FL already has enough of them, especially in S. FL). They're already fighting for future institutional/academic space.

Best case is a few miles away. Which is still...off campus. With lots of downsides including not likely being a Hard Rock level stadium. And in an era when stadiums are getting downsized. Shoulda kept the OB!

(04-17-2023 12:00 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:51 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

Has such a private-to-public transition ever occurred other than Temple? I know that some public institutions have gone private (Tulane comes to mind).

I would imagine that the state of Florida would just choose to invest in the public institutions they already have in place rather than turn a private school public... and I'm not sure that the Miami BOT would choose to go public, either.

Rutgers was private before they became the State University of New Jersey.

(04-17-2023 12:18 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:33 AM)Ned Low Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

You may be right but there is an argument that what GA Tech would add is outweighed by what they would cost: a net loss of viewership.

With that said, if I were the SEC commissioner I would have to wonder "who cares if the B10 brings GA Tech into the fold? They barely make a dent in the grand scheme of things; let's add Louisville instead, a proven revenue generator who has won on the field and on the courts much more so."

I suspect that if moves are made by the SEC, they will target UNC, Clemson, Florida State and Miami first. After that, they would go after UVA, Virginia Tech, Duke and... Louisville or NCSU.

NCSU has a rabid fanbase. For some reason, they've not had the revenues that Louisville has enjoyed over the years but they easily have the 2cd largest fanbase in NC (and it's not even close).

Maybe JRSEC is right and they would go after Kansas, too. We'll find out in due time.

Sounds like many of us have UNC and FSU are the clear Top 2 (ND aside) for the SEC. I struggle to decide on the order for #3-6.
3. Clemson. Obviously a great football brand and a perfect cultural fit. But they already have USCe and are low risk in terms of a B1G invite or causing damage. I can't really justify them in this spot other than feeling that in order for this reorg to happen...the Tigers need to be in the initial wave.
4. NCSU or Duke. This one's a coin flip to me. I'd lean Duke (basketball and and a needed easier win for football schools worrying about too many tough games). The NC legislature may feel differently.
5. VT or UVA. I'd go with VT. But UNC/Duke would certainly prefer UVA.
6. Miami. Does the SEC really need a 3rd FL school at this point? The move would seem more defensive than anything. No offense Canes...you're still my favorite big rival and I want you on the schedule forever.
7. GT. They're my alternate and I also wonder if the SEC - save UGA - is okay with the Peach State only having one school in conference. One that's already on top of the football universe. Not sure the Jackets have enough impact/threat for folks to care either way.

I think they go for quality first, not population:
1. FSU
2. Clemson
then
3. UNC
4. UVA
don't see anyone else, but if they did, probably
5. Miami
6a) NCSU; 6b) Duke--but not both
7. Kansas
8. Virginia Tech

(04-17-2023 10:40 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:28 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:07 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  ... that kicks in next year per Bret McMurphy from the Action Network:

"In 2020, the SEC signed a 10-year media rights deal with ESPN worth around $300 million. The deal starts in 2024 and includes a pro rata clause requiring ESPN to pay the SEC the same amount per school for any new members, sources said."

LINK (12-12-22): Oklahoma, Texas Gaining Momentum to Leave Big 12, Join SEC Early in 2024

This clause seems to have flown a bit under the radar (at least on this message board), but how might it impact any expansion decisions by Greg Sankey and his braintrust?

From the cheap seats, it sure seems like an ace in the hole (as well as a great negotiating tool) for the SEC commissioner, particularly when some have long insisted "the TV money won't be there to add School A or School B. So therefore it's a no go."

This quote last summer from from Sankey wrt to further expansion seems worth remembering:

"We don’t feel pressured to just operate at a number. But we’ll watch what happens around us and be thoughtful but be nimble.”

Pro rata is great, but only applies to this TV deal. If new adds don't bring in the bucks on the next one, they won't add them. The # of schools which work with that in mind gets much smaller. Pro rata makes it easier for now, but really does nothing as to who they would take. The schools who add value, add value. those who don't....Don't.

Florida State would be a homerun addition in either the SEC or Big Ten.

The Thousand-Pound Gorilla in the room is still Notre Dame. Does a destabilized ACC force ND to change conferences?

ND would be a home run, FSU is more like a ground rule double with nobody on. It’s a positive outcome, but not guaranteed to move the needle.

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

GT should have stayed in the SEC, they’re not even #1 in Atlanta. They chose Academics instead of Athletics, which is hard to criticize, but they’re not getting into the SEC again unless something weird happens. We're not making defensive moves to "protect the South" from the B1G, we're making aggressive, offensive moves. Texas. OU. A&M. FSU. Clemson. UNC. If we get all 3 of FSU/Clemson/UNC then it's easy to see us bringing in a 4th, but that 4th could be any of UVA, VT, Miami, Duke, NC St, KU or GT b/c they're all in that "big 12/Pac value/mid tier ACC" range. May as well throw Pitt in there, too. Louisville might be the best 4th if they hadn't lost the geographical lottery, but as it stands I think they'll be left out. If the B1G wants small brands to get their toes in the Southern water then they can hoover up as many as they like and watch their per-school revenues plummet. The SEC was worried about their footprint decades ago when they were pretty big but not Huge Fish, but now the new SEC is a Shark, and everyone, including the B1G, should fear us. You want GT and Miami? Ok, we'll just call Michigan and PSU and see how they feel about revenue dilution.

Why would we want to lock in Duke and UVA with GT? That's adding 3 schools with big 12-like value rather than just 1 or 2.

(04-17-2023 01:34 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ND would be a home run, FSU is more like a ground rule double with nobody on. It’s a positive outcome, but not guaranteed to move the needle.

What would an official scorer rule the SEC's decision to bring aboard your Aggies?

Safe on a fielder's choice with no RBI sound about right? :)

(04-17-2023 11:37 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 09:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Once the GOR expires, the biggest winner of the pro rata clause might be someone like Duke. Duke's value on its own would never get in to the SEC, but pro rata allows the SEC to bring the full Duke/UNC rivalry into the fold. Also gives SEC teams an extra win (which there will be less of with Texas/Oklahoma/future adds) without losing money on the deal.

I've read that Duke is likely to be left behind. SEC primary candidates would be:

1. Notre Dame
2. Clemson
3. FSU

While the B1G covets:

1. Notre Dame
2. UNC
3 Virginia

Academically, both UNC and Duke fit the B1G better than the SEC while Clemson and FSU are better aligned, both academically and geographically, with the SEC. There is only one school in the B1G that isn't an AAU school, Nebraska. However, Nebraska was an AAU school when it first joined.

Why would the B1G "covet" UVA? Are they really better than Cal or Stanford? Oregon? Washington? If the B1G manages to snag UNC they could just pair them with Maryland as their rival. Now, if the B1G grabs UW/UO/UNC, then that 4th could be interesting. UVA? VT? Cal? Stanford? Someone else?

The math is really weird for the P2 right now, there are 5 schools that are strong-enough Brands to merit inclusion: UW, UO, UNC, FSU and Clemson. Anyone else is worth about 1/2, up to maybe as much as 2/3 as much, leading to endless speculation. Could we see a 19-18 or 20-17 split? I don't think it comes to that, but it's possible.

(04-17-2023 11:44 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

I have heard from someone I trust who has connections to a couple of people in an SEC school athletic department that the SEC will go all out for Clemson and FSU. Their interest in Miami is tepid and they have no interest in Georgia Tech. If the SEC adds just 2 schools, then I see the B1G doing the same. Even if Notre Dame stays indy, in that scenario I see the ACC surviving the loss of 4 football school and backfilling with schools from the B12.

Still, there are many good options for both conferences when the ACC GOR is terminated, which is why I don't see the B1G taking any more western schools. The B1G got the big prize in LA there.

So you think that the ACC loses FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and ND, then the remainders are still strong enough to pull from the big 12? The leftovers would be:

VT
NC St
Duke
WF
Louisville
Pitt
GT
Miami
Syracuse
BC

That's the old BE with a couple of ACC bottom-feeders thrown in. The nbig 12 has no bottom-feeders, just a robust middle class. By the time the ACC gets cracked, the big 12 will be very close to the ACC on a per-team basis. Take out the top 4 ACC teams (and ND), and they'll be lucky to get $20m a year. The big 12 will take what they want from the remnants of the Pac and ACC, then the leftover leftovers from those 2 rebuild as hybrid g5/P5 Conferences.

(04-17-2023 01:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:24 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The Eastern equivalent to the 4 Corners would be: Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech.

Its hard to imagine a large demand for these teams by the Power 2.

On Georgia Tech

1. Atlanta is Ground Zero for the SEC. Alumni and T-shirt fans are everywhere — and it's easily accessible flight in and flight out for those who want to follow their team on the road

2. GT's excellent academics are a significant plus if you're Greg Sankey and you want to lock in Duke, UVA and (especially UNC). An SEC with Vandy, Texas, UF, UGA and UNC, UVA and Duke provides quite a bit of snob appeal

3. Letting the Bulldogs have GA to themselves while bringing in UT and (likely) FSU and Clemson probably wouldn't sit well with all of Sankey's constituents ... plus that whole "keep the B1G out of ATL/The South" argument

4. Finally ... and it seems to get overlooked, but W's and L's are of course a zero sum game. It's actually a good thing for a conference to add schools with lower profiles (and expectations) that the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and South Carolina will think they can beat on a regular basis. And, thanks to the pro rata clause, it's a really good thing when Sankey doesn't have to short anyone's check to bring in those types of schools

GT should have stayed in the SEC, they’re not even #1 in Atlanta. They chose Academics instead of Athletics, which is hard to criticize, but they’re not getting into the SEC again unless something weird happens. We're not making defensive moves to "protect the South" from the B1G, we're making aggressive, offensive moves. Texas. OU. A&M. FSU. Clemson. UNC. If we get all 3 of FSU/Clemson/UNC then it's easy to see us bringing in a 4th, but that 4th could be any of UVA, VT, Miami, Duke, NC St, KU or GT b/c they're all in that "big 12/Pac value/mid tier ACC" range. May as well throw Pitt in there, too. Louisville might be the best 4th if they hadn't lost the geographical lottery, but as it stands I think they'll be left out. If the B1G wants small brands to get their toes in the Southern water then they can hoover up as many as they like and watch their per-school revenues plummet. The SEC was worried about their footprint decades ago when they were pretty big but not Huge Fish, but now the new SEC is a Shark, and everyone, including the B1G, should fear us. You want GT and Miami? Ok, we'll just call Michigan and PSU and see how they feel about revenue dilution.

Why would we want to lock in Duke and UVA with GT? That's adding 3 schools with big 12-like value rather than just 1 or 2.

You realize that the B1G isn't going to add any schools that Michigan, PSU, and Ohio State aren't fully on board with adding, correct?

(04-17-2023 11:51 AM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  I kind of wonder if Miami would be better served by changing to a public university and amping up enrollment. Say what you want about Florida's politics, the states ongoing support to build a network of great universities is only surpassed by California.

Get an on campus stadium as part of the transition to a public.

Greg Abbot would like a word with you.

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/gov-gr...ston-visit

$1b just for UH. And no wars declared on anybody's faculty senate, either. Florida is in 3rd, and even that's not a guarantee for them going forward.

Miami is better off remaining private instead of becoming the 6th or 7th largest school in the UF system.

Overall spending per state:

Texas: $17.7b - even higher today I'm sure, though I didn't search very hard for the updated number.

The Eighty-fifth Legislature, Regular Session, 2017, appropriated $17.7 billion in All Funds for the 2018–19 biennium to support Texas higher education (Figure 1), excluding employee benefits. This amount is a $154.3 million increase from appropriations for the 2016–17 biennium.

Florida: $7.7b

The budget includes millions for New College, the Hamilton Center and the Adam Smith Center. House leaders are unveiling a $7.4 billion draft budget for higher education in the 2023-24 fiscal year. The budget includes significant spending on apparent efforts to elevate conservative education at Florida universities.

A&M and UT have about $40b to play with in our PUF. Texas is growing faster than Florida both as a % and as a total, and we have thus far refrained from politicizing higher education. There would be enormous pushback from both UT and A&M if any effort was made to do so, and it's hard to get much done in this state if both the Aggies and Longhorns don't want it to happen. So I'd say that I like our current position relative to Florida, and I like our future position relative to Florida even more.