CSNbbs

(04-13-2021 10:16 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would be a good idea for the big 10 and sec to get large and absorb the other leagues. However, getting agreement on how large and who joins where is impossible. The big 10 could start by jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools and go with 3 divisions of 8, no wash state and Oregon state.

That also under the assumption that those conferences keep their deadweight. If they are going to do that then Rutgers, NW and Vandy would have to go.

(04-13-2021 07:58 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]Nole:

You keep saying that, and I agree.

The problem for the ACC is that the needed "bigger moves" are not realistically available to it.

Notre Dame isn't joining in football. Texas isn't joining either in full or with a "Notre Dame deal".

What do you suggest the ACC do in that case?

You’re assuming the P5 won’t contract to a P4 format with only P4 access to a title game. If that happens and the current ACC isn’t involved Notre Dame will be in the Big Ten. So they’ll need to pick their poison because ND won’t be playing meaningless football in our lifetimes.

Assumptions come and go, with most being fantasy when discussing realignment. The facts are that the ACC is in need of income and they cannot depend upon a collapse of another conference to enhance revenue streams.

The problem is outside of collapse theory the options are limited to add income.

(04-13-2021 07:58 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]Nole:

You keep saying that, and I agree.

The problem for the ACC is that the needed "bigger moves" are not realistically available to it.

Notre Dame isn't joining in football. Texas isn't joining either in full or with a "Notre Dame deal".

What do you suggest the ACC do in that case?

You’re assuming the P5 won’t contract to a P4 format with only P4 access to a title game. If that happens and the current ACC isn’t involved Notre Dame will be in the Big Ten. So they’ll need to pick their poison because ND won’t be playing meaningless football in our lifetimes.

Yes, I am assuming that no P4 champs only playoff occurs.

If it does, ND football will join a conference.

If it doesn't, it won't.

(04-13-2021 10:16 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would be a good idea for the big 10 and sec to get large and absorb the other leagues. However, getting agreement on how large and who joins where is impossible. The big 10 could start by jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools and go with 3 divisions of 8, no wash state and Oregon state.

Let's say CFB goes large and the B10 and SEC absorb everyone to go to a 64+1 league. Is ESPN really going to pay all 65 teams $55-60M/year? Will the teams currently in the SEC and B10 accept a lesser amount so there is no unequal revenue? I doubt Ohio State or Alabama would be happy if their deal goes from $60M/year back down to $45M/year because Washington State and Wake Forest is not deemed worth $60M/year.

(04-13-2021 07:27 AM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 07:03 AM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

Just need to get to three and most will be content. But that is a tall order. The Big 12 lays claim to that for now.

I don’t think it’s a tall order. In fact, we might be already there. For 2018-2019, the revenue for the team is:

For the ACC: $27 million
For the Big 12: $38.8 million (and $37 million for 2019-2020)
For the Pac 12: $30 million

The ACC figure is BEFORE the ACCN because the ACCN didn’t launch then. So if the ACCN bring more then $12m per school, the ACC is already number 3. If the ACC playe the nine conference games, which the Big 12 is already doing, and takes another $3m, it’s very possible that the ACC overtakes the Big 12.

Am I mistaken here?
[/quote]

B1G $54 Million
SEC $45 Million
BIG 12 $37 Million
PAC 12 $30 Million
ACC $27 Million


The issue is no longer trying to get to #3. It is making sure that the #3 spot isn't $20-$30 million behind the P2.

With new B1G and SEC contracts coming....the revenue gap is about to explode again and the ACC is already $27 million behind the B1G.

$3 Million....even $5 million is nice. But neither amount will save the ACC. Bigger moves are needed
[/quote]

I believe the $37 million quoted in the Big 12 is average. They don't get the same 3rd tier rights, the LHN gives UT more than the rest of the conference. Sooner Sports also gives OU an advantage. I'm not saying the other 8 Big 12 schools made as little as the $27M ACC schools made but if you assume Texas and Oklahoma made more than average, someone else made less than average. And the more valuable LHN/Sooner Sports are worth, the bigger the gap and the less the others got.

(04-13-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]Nole:

You keep saying that, and I agree.

The problem for the ACC is that the needed "bigger moves" are not realistically available to it.

Notre Dame isn't joining in football. Texas isn't joining either in full or with a "Notre Dame deal".

What do you suggest the ACC do in that case?

Multiple thoughts there:

1) Understand that minor moves won't help. Don't waste critical resources on moves that don't change anything.

2) I don't claim there is a magic bullet...there isn't. But I like two ideas:

A)I think JRsec has offered a solution that makes sense. Cut schools or remove them from the football front. This board and the ACC will scream, but NOTHING the ACC does will keep Wake Forest, etc in big time college football in 20 years. Either Wake goes alone or they drag a few down with them (maybe whole ACC even?). But Wake doesn't survive at this level no matter how much the ACC demands they won't get cut. Don't cut them....fine....but they will be cut by big time college football. Only a matter of time.

B) I have a friend in the FSU media who shares the same take I have on this. His solution is the new Commish needs to form a sort of coalition with PAC, BIG 12, ACC. Reset the TV contracts, use the diverse geographic region to help increase value when possible, and increase power/leverage against the P2, ESPN, NCAA, etc. He feels that is the only chance. Basically the beginning of a mega conference or split from NCAA (which would also bring value not split 330 ways for bball schools like UNC, etc).

(04-13-2021 10:30 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 10:16 AM)bluesox Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would be a good idea for the big 10 and sec to get large and absorb the other leagues. However, getting agreement on how large and who joins where is impossible. The big 10 could start by jumping to 24 with 10 pac 12 schools and go with 3 divisions of 8, no wash state and Oregon state.

Let's say CFB goes large and the B10 and SEC absorb everyone to go to a 64+1 league. Is ESPN really going to pay all 65 teams $55-60M/year? Will the teams currently in the SEC and B10 accept a lesser amount so there is no unequal revenue? I doubt Ohio State or Alabama would be happy if their deal goes from $60M/year back down to $45M/year because Washington State and Wake Forest is not deemed worth $60M/year.

The P2 will never absorb all 65 plus.....many schools just won't make the cut. The ACC is swimming up river on this one....you can't save the low value/low revenue football schools. They will need to step down or they won't be lifted up......6 of one half dozen of the other.

Schmolik
You are thinking in the right direction but miss what T3 is and how it is reported in the Big 12, which is it isn't reported at all. It is the private right of the school and not part of Big 12 distributions like bowl revenue and tourney creds. The Big 12's base pay for media rights (T1 & T2) is split by ESPN and FOX and comes to 37 million as of the 2018-9 season which is the last reported distribution. That figure includes media rights and shared tourney and bowl money. The T3 figure runs under 3 million for 7 of the 10 schools and ESPN+ now holds those and that money is distributed to the school, not the conference, and the contract is with the school, and not the conference. The LHN also owned by ESPN now distributes closer to 17 million as it is on the back half of backloaded contract that averaged 15 million. Oklahoma had a T3 deal with FOX regional networks (the ones that were sold) which was for 7 million roughly but overhead for operational expense came out of that sum so what OU actually receives is unclear. Kansas had/has a T3 with ESPN for around 7 million mostly for basketball product. So you take their base pay for media ~35 million plus tourney and bowl money ~ 37 million and add their T3 individual revenues think between 1.5 million to 3 million for 7 of them, 5 to 6 million for OU after expenses, and about the same for Kansas and now you know about what they are making.

The problem with the assertion that if the ACCN pays out 12 million per school you can catch the Big 12 is that you catch 7 of them, but not the top prizes. The second problem is the most the SECN ever made (2nd or 3rd year) with a subscription base of 78 million nationwide was ~11 million but not quite. The start up year paid 3 million. And since cord cutting began that number has been dropping from the 7 to 8 million it settled to after a monstrous opening to likely around 5 or 6 million now. The BTN suffered losses due to cord cutting that SNL Kagan reported 3 years ago amounted to about 25% of previous revenues. There have been no public reports since.

So I am cautioning that seeing the ACCN as a panacea for revenue issues isn't likely to meet such lofty expectations. The ACCN will pay the same rate as the SECN just averaged differently for in footprint and out of footprint rates. I think 5 million for a full year (non COVID) would be reasonable expectations with 7 as a top. But we'll see. The SEC would not have had almost 3 years in the 43 to 47 million range had the SECN kept pace. Our escalator is the only difference in those years. And nobody knows the COVID season numbers yet and with the IRS extending through may it may be late getting the Equity in Athletics numbers this year.

(04-13-2021 10:12 AM)Ewglenn Wrote: [ -> ]The ACC could look to the Sunbelt on how to run effectively. Cutting members is likely if the ACC wants to survive. There are too many watered down programs in the ACC. Football is king, basketball is nice. Who in the conference keeps value? You don’t need to try and get more money, you need to make sure the money you’re getting isn’t getting divided to programs that aren’t worth it. I think the likely path to more money is getting to 12 teams with ND in the mix. Essentially you would need to boot 3 or 4 schools. I think the likely conference would be this:

Clemson
FSU
ND
GT
VT
UVA
UNC
NCST
Miami
Louisville
Pitt

Then take your pick on the last spot:
Wake
Duke
Syracuse
BC
WVU (my personal choice)

For example, the lets say the ACC gets 35 million per school with the new ACCN. That’s a pool of 490 mil. I would think adding WVU and ND would limit the loss of revenue but let’s say it goes down to 480 mil. That would be 40 mil a piece. That’s conservative as I actually think there would be an increase in revenue.

Well if you take away Wake or Duke or both you still have NC State and UNC to keep the 10 million sets of eyeballs for ACCN in NC. WV would nets us 1.2 million sets of new eyeballs for ACCN. You get rid of BC and you lose 6 million eyeballs in Mass. The 1.2 million eyeballs in WV cant make up for that. You get rid of SU, you lose 20 million sets of eyeballs for the ACCN. The 1.2 million sets of eyeballs in WV is not going to make up for that. if any team is going to be kicked out, that team has to be from NC. Duke brings way too many other intangibles and is far too valuable to be tossed out. But realistically, no team is going to be tossed out.

Everyone knows that the ACC revenue shortage is a case of bad timing during negotiations and that the league is far underpaid. I believe that ESPN wants to see their property to remain strong and stay together. this thing will be worked out.

(04-13-2021 10:23 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 07:58 AM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 07:55 AM)TerryD Wrote: [ -> ]Nole:

You keep saying that, and I agree.

The problem for the ACC is that the needed "bigger moves" are not realistically available to it.

Notre Dame isn't joining in football. Texas isn't joining either in full or with a "Notre Dame deal".

What do you suggest the ACC do in that case?

You’re assuming the P5 won’t contract to a P4 format with only P4 access to a title game. If that happens and the current ACC isn’t involved Notre Dame will be in the Big Ten. So they’ll need to pick their poison because ND won’t be playing meaningless football in our lifetimes.

Yes, I am assuming that no P4 champs only playoff occurs.

If it does, ND football will join a conference.

If it doesn't, it won't.

That's what I believe as well. I also believe if Notre Dame has the choice they will step in and join the ACC over the Big Ten or any other conference. I would assume the USC and Navy games continue and perhaps Miami is brought back as a season ending game in Coral Gables, alternating with USC in LA. Duke and Wake are more than willing to play home games in other cities—they did this with FSU—which would allow ND to continue their barnstorming ways.

So if the P4 does come to fruition, Notre Dame is a HUGE player in destiny.

I have to chuckle at FSU fans complaining when their program is one of the reasons the ACC is making chump change. The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's, which lasted about a decade. I'm not slighting the recent national title, but overall they've been abysmal since the early 2000's, compared to their history that is. They couldn't even hold onto Jim Bob and lost him to a bunch of wannabe brownshirts. Was the ACC sold a bill of goods? Were they fooled into thinking FSU was a legitimate national power and conference flagship when in fact they were entirely dependent on one great coach?

Miami, now I'm looking at you. The ACC was promised the big, bad Canes of the 80's and 90's and instead we get a program that immediately flushes itself into the sewer of mediocrity upon arrival.

Maybe if FSU and Miami actually carried their weight people would take the spotlight off little ole Wake Forest and stop projecting their own program's shortcomings?

(04-13-2021 01:34 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I have to chuckle at FSU fans complaining when their program is one of the reasons the ACC is making chump change. The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's, which lasted about a decade. I'm not slighting the recent national title, but overall they've been abysmal since the early 2000's, compared to their history that is. They couldn't even hold onto Jim Bob and lost him to a bunch of wannabe brownshirts. Was the ACC sold a bill of goods? Were they fooled into thinking FSU was a legitimate national power and conference flagship when in fact they were entirely dependent on one great coach?

Miami, now I'm looking at you. The ACC was promised the big, bad Canes of the 80's and 90's and instead we get a program that immediately flushes itself into the sewer of mediocrity upon arrival.

Maybe if FSU and Miami actually carried their weight people would take the spotlight off little ole Wake Forest and stop projecting their own program's shortcomings?

(04-13-2021 01:34 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I have to chuckle at FSU fans complaining when their program is one of the reasons the ACC is making chump change. The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's, which lasted about a decade. I'm not slighting the recent national title, but overall they've been abysmal since the early 2000's, compared to their history that is. They couldn't even hold onto Jim Bob and lost him to a bunch of wannabe brownshirts. Was the ACC sold a bill of goods? Were they fooled into thinking FSU was a legitimate national power and conference flagship when in fact they were entirely dependent on one great coach?

Miami, now I'm looking at you. The ACC was promised the big, bad Canes of the 80's and 90's and instead we get a program that immediately flushes itself into the sewer of mediocrity upon arrival.

Maybe if FSU and Miami actually carried their weight people would take the spotlight off little ole Wake Forest and stop projecting their own program's shortcomings?

This is so ridiculous, but funny....so I'll play.

1) Carry weight with revenue is about TV ratings. FSU & Miami carry their weight and the entire bottom half of the ACC's weight in TV ratings. Fallen programs no doubt....but take FSU out of the ACC. That ACC payout falls by it's portion X 5 or more.

Again, NOBODY believes FSU isn't a TV draw....its a ridiculous argument.



2) "The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's"

So the 90s weren't good enough?

Best team by decade in CFB history (by Win %)
10s: Bama (123-15, 89.1)
00s: Boise St (112-17, 86.8)
90s: FSU (109-13, 89.3)
80s: Neb (103-20, 83.7)
70s: Bama (103-16-1, 85.8)
60s: Bama (90-16-4, 81.8)
50s: OU (93-10-2, 88.5)
40s: ND (82-9-6, 84.5)
30s: Bama (79-11-5, 83.1)

FSU was in the top 4 for 14 straight years into the early 2000s.

2013 national title

This is one of those deals were you have fun debating someone....but I don't even think you believe the BS you are debating.




Your whole argument is very sensitive and personal. I really like Wake....but they don't add value at this level. That isn't personal...it's reality. You aren't looking at this from a business perspective.....it's the ACC way and way the ACC is @#$@!#.

FSU can suck all day, but they are in a state of 20 million plus, have 42K students, and 400k plus alumni.

TV wants them.

Wake is the 4th team in the state of North Carolina and have 10k students (? if that). TV doesn't care.


IF the ACC and FSU could have the same payout as the WHOLE SEC conference and keep Wake......I would want that. I like Wake....but that isn't the real world.

The ACC has to get past this bizarre mindset where it won't be honest about the situation.

(04-13-2021 02:17 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 01:34 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I have to chuckle at FSU fans complaining when their program is one of the reasons the ACC is making chump change. The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's, which lasted about a decade. I'm not slighting the recent national title, but overall they've been abysmal since the early 2000's, compared to their history that is. They couldn't even hold onto Jim Bob and lost him to a bunch of wannabe brownshirts. Was the ACC sold a bill of goods? Were they fooled into thinking FSU was a legitimate national power and conference flagship when in fact they were entirely dependent on one great coach?

Miami, now I'm looking at you. The ACC was promised the big, bad Canes of the 80's and 90's and instead we get a program that immediately flushes itself into the sewer of mediocrity upon arrival.

Maybe if FSU and Miami actually carried their weight people would take the spotlight off little ole Wake Forest and stop projecting their own program's shortcomings?

This is so ridiculous, but funny....so I'll play.

1) Carry weight with revenue is about TV ratings. FSU & Miami carry their weight and the entire bottom half of the ACC's weight in TV ratings. Fallen programs no doubt....but take FSU out of the ACC. That ACC payout falls by it's portion X 5 or more.

Again, NOBODY believes FSU isn't a TV draw....its a ridiculous argument.



2) "The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's"

So the 90s weren't good enough?

Best team by decade in CFB history (by Win %)
10s: Bama (123-15, 89.1)
00s: Boise St (112-17, 86.8)
90s: FSU (109-13, 89.3)
80s: Neb (103-20, 83.7)
70s: Bama (103-16-1, 85.8)
60s: Bama (90-16-4, 81.8)
50s: OU (93-10-2, 88.5)
40s: ND (82-9-6, 84.5)
30s: Bama (79-11-5, 83.1)

FSU was in the top 4 for 14 straight years into the early 2000s.

2013 national title

This is one of those deals were you have fun debating someone....but I don't even think you believe the BS you are debating.




Your whole argument is very sensitive and personal. I really like Wake....but they don't add value at this level. That isn't personal...it's reality. You aren't looking at this from a business perspective.....it's the ACC way and way the ACC is @#$@!#.

FSU can suck all day, but they are in a state of 20 million plus, have 42K students, and 400k plus alumni.

TV wants them.

Wake is the 4th team in the state of North Carolina and have 10k students (? if that). TV doesn't care.


IF the ACC and FSU could have the same payout as the WHOLE SEC conference and keep Wake......I would want that. I like Wake....but that isn't the real world.

The ACC has to get past this bizarre mindset where it won't be honest about the situation.

These stats are for 2018-9 and for the ACC only:

Gross Total Revenue:
1. Florida State
2. Louisville
3. Miami
4. Clemson

Average Football Attendance:
1. Clemson
2. Virginia Tech
3. Florida State
4. Miami

WSJ Valuations:
1. Clemson
2. Florida State
3. Virginia Tech
4. Georgia Tech

Actual Viewership:
1. Clemson
2. Florida State
3. Miami
4. Virginia Tech

I post these because obviously the Conference is not suffering because of the schools listed above. But the revenue gap is likely affecting the ability of the schools above to compete up to their fullest potential.

The schools listed above are the top 1/4 of the ACC in the statistics that matter most for economic health. They are not lagging.

It was not lost on me that Florida State progressed farther in the Tournament this year as well. I've long believed that schools with solid football revenue would eventually invest in basketball since it is the other revenue sport and that it would pay dividends. I believe it has started to do so. Is it the only factor? Certainly not. Coaching is still major. But it is a strong contributing factor. IMO.

Wake is not going anywhere.

Remeber the OBE conference? When VT was in the Big East in early 2000s, I was wondering why the Big East didn’t drop deadweight basketball teams like Providence or Seton Hall. The Big East didn’t shed a tear when Temple got booted. But that conference had never even considered dropping Providence or Seton Hall. In fact, they actually added more small basketball schools like DePaul.

Why? Beacuse these small Catholic basketball schools were/are the Big East. They were the core members whereas the football schools like WVU or VT were not.

For the ACC, the four NC schools and UVa are the voting block. They are the ACC. If Wake Forest and some other core schools got dropped, and the UNC and UVa lose their political power in the ACC, why would UNC/UVa stay? They would leave for a better paying conference.

(04-13-2021 02:17 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 01:34 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]I have to chuckle at FSU fans complaining when their program is one of the reasons the ACC is making chump change. The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's, which lasted about a decade. I'm not slighting the recent national title, but overall they've been abysmal since the early 2000's, compared to their history that is. They couldn't even hold onto Jim Bob and lost him to a bunch of wannabe brownshirts. Was the ACC sold a bill of goods? Were they fooled into thinking FSU was a legitimate national power and conference flagship when in fact they were entirely dependent on one great coach?

Miami, now I'm looking at you. The ACC was promised the big, bad Canes of the 80's and 90's and instead we get a program that immediately flushes itself into the sewer of mediocrity upon arrival.

Maybe if FSU and Miami actually carried their weight people would take the spotlight off little ole Wake Forest and stop projecting their own program's shortcomings?

This is so ridiculous, but funny....so I'll play.

1) Carry weight with revenue is about TV ratings. FSU & Miami carry their weight and the entire bottom half of the ACC's weight in TV ratings. Fallen programs no doubt....but take FSU out of the ACC. That ACC payout falls by it's portion X 5 or more.

Again, NOBODY believes FSU isn't a TV draw....its a ridiculous argument.

Nobody wants to watch mediocre Noles. How's attendance been in those years?

(04-13-2021 02:17 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]2) "The ACC was promised the Noles of the 80's"

So the 90s weren't good enough?

Best team by decade in CFB history (by Win %)
10s: Bama (123-15, 89.1)
00s: Boise St (112-17, 86.8)
90s: FSU (109-13, 89.3)
80s: Neb (103-20, 83.7)
70s: Bama (103-16-1, 85.8)
60s: Bama (90-16-4, 81.8)
50s: OU (93-10-2, 88.5)
40s: ND (82-9-6, 84.5)
30s: Bama (79-11-5, 83.1)

FSU was in the top 4 for 14 straight years into the early 2000s.

2013 national title

This is one of those deals were you have fun debating someone....but I don't even think you believe the BS you are debating.

I said they kept it up for a decade, did I not? What you're saying doesn't refute my Bowden argument.

(04-13-2021 02:17 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]Your whole argument is very sensitive and personal. I really like Wake....but they don't add value at this level. That isn't personal...it's reality. You aren't looking at this from a business perspective.....it's the ACC way and way the ACC is @#$@!#.

Who is being personal? I want the Noles to be good, because you know, that's why the ACC changed course in the first place.

(04-13-2021 02:17 PM)nole Wrote: [ -> ]FSU can suck all day, but they are in a state of 20 million plus, have 42K students, and 400k plus alumni.

TV wants them.

TV wants them more when they're good. I think we can both agree on that. I also think they should be playing the likes of VaTech, GaTech, and Carolina more often.

The number one sole focus of this football conference should be maximizing the schedule to increase strength of schedule and viewership.

(04-13-2021 03:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Wake is not going anywhere.

Remeber the OBE conference? When VT was in the Big East in early 2000s, I was wondering why the Big East didn’t drop deadweight basketball teams like Providence or Seton Hall. The Big East didn’t shed a tear when Temple got booted. But that conference had never even considered dropping Providence or Seton Hall. In fact, they actually added more small basketball schools like DePaul.

Why? Beacuse these small Catholic basketball schools were/are the Big East. They were the core members whereas the football schools like WVU or VT were not.

For the ACC, the four NC schools and UVa are the voting block. They are the ACC. If Wake Forest and some other core schools got dropped, and the UNC and UVa lose their political power in the ACC, why would UNC/UVa stay? They would leave for a better paying conference.

This has already happened to the Carolina schools and UVA, to a certain extent. Thier political voting power within the league has already diminished now that there are 15 voting members rather then the original 9 voting members, or the 12 voting members. Their 5 votes only represent 30% of the league now, or 5 out of 15 members. I dont know if those schools would ever see themselves in a "Yankee" conference like the BIG. I doubt that those schools would stomach the idea of themselves going to a league like the SEC that doesnt have anywhere near the academic prestige of the ACC.

(04-13-2021 03:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Wake is not going anywhere.

Remeber the OBE conference? When VT was in the Big East in early 2000s, I was wondering why the Big East didn’t drop deadweight basketball teams like Providence or Seton Hall. The Big East didn’t shed a tear when Temple got booted. But that conference had never even considered dropping Providence or Seton Hall. In fact, they actually added more small basketball schools like DePaul.

Why? Beacuse these small Catholic basketball schools were/are the Big East. They were the core members whereas the football schools like WVU or VT were not.

For the ACC, the four NC schools and UVa are the voting block. They are the ACC. If Wake Forest and some other core schools got dropped, and the UNC and UVa lose their political power in the ACC, why would UNC/UVa stay? They would leave for a better paying conference.

Temple was only an affiliate football member with a Villanova problem. Temple had major institutional athletic issues and, after given specific standards to retain their affiliate membership, weren't able to meet them, and perhaps didn't meet them intentionally, and no longer had support from anyone. Seton Hall and Providence were full members; Temple never was.

Additional basketball-only schools were only added to balance out the conference after the post-ACC raid expansion so that the conference could split in half along football-basketball lines, if needed, which it almost did.

But you are right, no full members in any conference are getting voted out.

(04-13-2021 03:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 03:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Wake is not going anywhere.

Remeber the OBE conference? When VT was in the Big East in early 2000s, I was wondering why the Big East didn’t drop deadweight basketball teams like Providence or Seton Hall. The Big East didn’t shed a tear when Temple got booted. But that conference had never even considered dropping Providence or Seton Hall. In fact, they actually added more small basketball schools like DePaul.

Why? Beacuse these small Catholic basketball schools were/are the Big East. They were the core members whereas the football schools like WVU or VT were not.

For the ACC, the four NC schools and UVa are the voting block. They are the ACC. If Wake Forest and some other core schools got dropped, and the UNC and UVa lose their political power in the ACC, why would UNC/UVa stay? They would leave for a better paying conference.

This has already happened to the Carolina schools and UVA, to a certain extent. Thier political voting power within the league has already diminished now that there are 15 voting members rather then the original 9 voting members, or the 12 voting members. Their 5 votes only represent 30% of the league now, or 5 out of 15 members.

Yes but maybe VT is joining the dark side...

(04-13-2021 03:34 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 03:30 PM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2021 03:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote: [ -> ]Wake is not going anywhere.

Remeber the OBE conference? When VT was in the Big East in early 2000s, I was wondering why the Big East didn’t drop deadweight basketball teams like Providence or Seton Hall. The Big East didn’t shed a tear when Temple got booted. But that conference had never even considered dropping Providence or Seton Hall. In fact, they actually added more small basketball schools like DePaul.

Why? Beacuse these small Catholic basketball schools were/are the Big East. They were the core members whereas the football schools like WVU or VT were not.

For the ACC, the four NC schools and UVa are the voting block. They are the ACC. If Wake Forest and some other core schools got dropped, and the UNC and UVa lose their political power in the ACC, why would UNC/UVa stay? They would leave for a better paying conference.

This has already happened to the Carolina schools and UVA, to a certain extent. Thier political voting power within the league has already diminished now that there are 15 voting members rather then the original 9 voting members, or the 12 voting members. Their 5 votes only represent 30% of the league now, or 5 out of 15 members.

Yes but maybe VT is joining the dark side...