(11-07-2014 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-07-2014 01:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 06:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 01:30 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You touch upon something that seems quite lost upon many jhawk. Imagine the combination of ESPN, the SEC and WVU in regards to pushing the SEC brand up into the Beltway. It isn't about how much clout WVU has in that area right now. It is about how much clout they would have after having the ESPN propaganda machine working in that direction as well as having the SEC brand backing them.

It seems to me to be a case of folks having a lack of vision in regards to what ESPN and the SEC could do with WVU.

H! the exact thing applies to the ACC and the B1G.
Right now the ACC and the B1G each are about equal in viewership in the NE. The ACC on the back of Notre Dame and the B1G on the broad shoulders of Penn State.
The ACC could use WVU as an old "eastern indy" to help "top" the B1G in the NE market. Of course the opposite is true and the B1G could bury the ACC in the NE with the inclusion of West Virginia.
I think that there is a real possibility that Delany's next move (if it is to 16) would be a play for a combination of West Virginia and KENTUCKY. It is what I would do.
Knowing that Kansas would not likely join the SEC, the B1G could swing back around and pick up Kansas and Missouri if they decided to go to 18.
Bill Stewart appears to have been correct when he stated that one of the three (ACC, SEC, or the B1G) would pick up West Virginia before realignment was over.

Look, I am going to assume you are being truthful in that you actually believe this. Generally we try not to troll each other here and this is coming from someone who loves to troll folks over on the main forum. To think though that the Big Ten would go with West Virginia and Kentucky....you don't understand the Big Ten perspective. I get it if you think it is a good idea but your perspective is very much different from the Big Ten perspective.

I have actually made mention in the past about how West Virginia in the Big Ten makes good sense in an athletic perspective. One East team and one West team would make for an easy division between four divisions. The combo of Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers and West Virginia is pretty sweet. I don't see it happening though and Kentucky just doesn't fit, sorry.

If the ACC was willing to take WVU though and if they were insistant on getting WVU instead of a third Texas program then I definitely could see it. I know JR will say no way to what I am about to say but ECU is a strong candidate for the one single G5 program that is left to get into the P5(P4). We all know the SEC desperately wants into North Carolina. If the ACC felt more strongly about continuing to counter the Big Ten in the Beltway then getting West Virginia is a very strong move for the ACC.

ECU to the SEC is as crazy of a conversation piece as UConn to the Big Ten is.

I believe both are strategic moves.
Can you really explain Rutgers and Maryland?

You are correct in that I really don't understand the Big Ten perspective, but I do understand marketing and dynamics. West Virginia in the hands of the ACC or the SEC could do more damage to the B1G from a market standpoint than the embarrassment of the B1G for taking them in.
And Kentucky? Ego trip for Delany (he was able to get an ACC school, could he snag a SEC school too)? Attempt to keep up with the new ACC in hoops? A school that would look like a B1G school if the academics were just a little bit better? Looks good on the map? Pushes the borders of the Big Ten out to give the core schools a little breathing room? Take your pick.
If I were Delany and if I were going to 18 it would be with Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia.

If Delany wanted an SEC school his most likely candidate to try for (outside of perhaps Missouri) would be Vanderbilt. But really do you believe that his ego is driving the decisions to take Maryland and Rutgers? I don't. He was building a bridge to Virginia and trying to isolate Syracuse.

Face it the grand slam for the Big 10 at 18 would be Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, and Notre Dame. The three run homer would be the same but replacing Notre Dame with Syracuse. Any of those two combinations nails down the Northeast and Beltway and maximizes the eyeballs. Maryland was not an attempt to raid a school from the ACC. It was an attempt to destabilize it. Nebraska was not an attempt to raid the Big 12. It was an obvious target that extended the footprint of the Big 10. And moreover if Delany had wanted Missouri they were ready. He passed, and for good reason. The Big 10 already had the St.Louis and Kansas City markets. There were more eyeballs and money to be made by taking Rutgers. It is a game of markets and money in which his rules dictate AAU status and preferably large state schools. He bent the rules for Nebraska. He will ignore the "large state" and "state" part to land Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. And I keep mentioning Duke because I don't see North Carolina going anywhere without them.

JR, Vanderbilt does not fit the profile of a Big Ten school (it does not really fit the profile of a SEC school either).
Vanderbilt does fit the profile of the ACC where it could join with the six private schools and the 5 other publics that act and function like privates.

UVa, Dook and Carolina will fight just as hard to stay out of the SEC and B1G as Notre Dame will to keep their football program independent. I understand what Delany views as "pie in the sky", what said is actually doable.
I do believe that West Virginia holds the balance of power for the battle of the hearts and eyeballs of northeastern college football fans which is why either the ACC or the B1G will hold their nose and eventually make the call to Morgantown.

After giving the Big 12 situation considerable thought I think that if it appears that the Big 12 is indeed going to be the target, rather than the ACC, and if it appears that the ACC is the one that will be secured, then I think the SEC needs to consider doing what it takes to lock that region down. Let West Virginia go to the ACC. Then take Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and either Iowa State, Baylor or Texas Tech (depending upon who Texas required) and move to 20. If Texas Tech and T.C.U. could wangle a PAC invitation that would be the way to go.

But I say this simply if the ACC is rock solid and no further realignment was expected. My reasoning is that if state schools are divided then Kansas, perhaps Oklahoma and perhaps Texas will go to the Big 10 and the SEC misses out on some of the best prospects. However by taking their state brothers I think you cement those states and the flagships for the SEC.

(11-10-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  After giving the Big 12 situation considerable thought I think that if it appears that the Big 12 is indeed going to be the target, rather than the ACC, and if it appears that the ACC is the one that will be secured, then I think the SEC needs to consider doing what it takes to lock that region down. Let West Virginia go to the ACC. Then take Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and either Iowa State, Baylor or Texas Tech (depending upon who Texas required) and move to 20. If Texas Tech and T.C.U. could wangle a PAC invitation that would be the way to go.

But I say this simply if the ACC is rock solid and no further realignment was expected. My reasoning is that if state schools are divided then Kansas, perhaps Oklahoma and perhaps Texas will go to the Big 10 and the SEC misses out on some of the best prospects. However by taking their state brothers I think you cement those states and the flagships for the SEC.

I do admire your tenacity and I take heart that after your....idealistic scenario, you come back with something a little more grounded in reality.

Getting that 20 team line up would be terrible for the SEC. If the SEC did that, do you think the other conferences would allow any rule changes? Enjoy your two ten team divisions.

This is the problem with the southern mentality. Even one of your best thinking members here has a problem with playing well with others. You create these contests in your heads that you have to win even when they don't exist. The Major Conferences really aren't working that hard against each other. If the SEC was, Slive wouldn't just be sitting back this entire time while letting his expansion prospects come to him.

While all those schools may at times have issues with Texas, they have history with Texas and they would be outsiders entering the SEC. They would all absolutely gather together in a voting block. The people of the SEC that actually make decisions would never allow Texas to have such a coalition within the SEC.


I will say in your favor though that it speaks highly for you that you are now moving more into reality with this realization that the Big 12 is the target and the ACC will be saved.

(11-10-2014 07:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  After giving the Big 12 situation considerable thought I think that if it appears that the Big 12 is indeed going to be the target, rather than the ACC, and if it appears that the ACC is the one that will be secured, then I think the SEC needs to consider doing what it takes to lock that region down. Let West Virginia go to the ACC. Then take Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and either Iowa State, Baylor or Texas Tech (depending upon who Texas required) and move to 20. If Texas Tech and T.C.U. could wangle a PAC invitation that would be the way to go.

But I say this simply if the ACC is rock solid and no further realignment was expected. My reasoning is that if state schools are divided then Kansas, perhaps Oklahoma and perhaps Texas will go to the Big 10 and the SEC misses out on some of the best prospects. However by taking their state brothers I think you cement those states and the flagships for the SEC.

I do admire your tenacity and I take heart that after your....idealistic scenario, you come back with something a little more grounded in reality.

Getting that 20 team line up would be terrible for the SEC. If the SEC did that, do you think the other conferences would allow any rule changes? Enjoy your two ten team divisions.

This is the problem with the southern mentality. Even one of your best thinking members here has a problem with playing well with others. You create these contests in your heads that you have to win even when they don't exist. The Major Conferences really aren't working that hard against each other. If the SEC was, Slive wouldn't just be sitting back this entire time while letting his expansion prospects come to him.

While all those schools may at times have issues with Texas, they have history with Texas and they would be outsiders entering the SEC. They would all absolutely gather together in a voting block. The people of the SEC that actually make decisions would never allow Texas to have such a coalition within the SEC.


I will say in your favor though that it speaks highly for you that you are now moving more into reality with this realization that the Big 12 is the target and the ACC will be saved.

That's not what I said. I said "if" the ACC was clearly protected and solid "then" we need to consider how to land the top money makers of the Big 12 and the scenario proposed would do it. That said, I agree about the voting block issues and the Longhorn poison. I also agree that for the most part the Big 10 and SEC have been purposefully avoiding each other's interests. And if there is a conclusion to this I still don't rule the ACC out of bounds. There is great money to made from a compromise there. Unfortunately, there isn't much room for compromise with the Big 12 as you well know. Hence the stalemate. So let Texas and Oklahoma have a great football conference built around them after the Big 10 and SEC both take about 4 ACC schools each. It is actually a solution that works, works profitably for all, and works well for FOX, but for ESPN to a much larger degree. We'll see.

(11-10-2014 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-10-2014 07:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  After giving the Big 12 situation considerable thought I think that if it appears that the Big 12 is indeed going to be the target, rather than the ACC, and if it appears that the ACC is the one that will be secured, then I think the SEC needs to consider doing what it takes to lock that region down. Let West Virginia go to the ACC. Then take Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, and either Iowa State, Baylor or Texas Tech (depending upon who Texas required) and move to 20. If Texas Tech and T.C.U. could wangle a PAC invitation that would be the way to go.

But I say this simply if the ACC is rock solid and no further realignment was expected. My reasoning is that if state schools are divided then Kansas, perhaps Oklahoma and perhaps Texas will go to the Big 10 and the SEC misses out on some of the best prospects. However by taking their state brothers I think you cement those states and the flagships for the SEC.

I do admire your tenacity and I take heart that after your....idealistic scenario, you come back with something a little more grounded in reality.

Getting that 20 team line up would be terrible for the SEC. If the SEC did that, do you think the other conferences would allow any rule changes? Enjoy your two ten team divisions.

This is the problem with the southern mentality. Even one of your best thinking members here has a problem with playing well with others. You create these contests in your heads that you have to win even when they don't exist. The Major Conferences really aren't working that hard against each other. If the SEC was, Slive wouldn't just be sitting back this entire time while letting his expansion prospects come to him.

While all those schools may at times have issues with Texas, they have history with Texas and they would be outsiders entering the SEC. They would all absolutely gather together in a voting block. The people of the SEC that actually make decisions would never allow Texas to have such a coalition within the SEC.


I will say in your favor though that it speaks highly for you that you are now moving more into reality with this realization that the Big 12 is the target and the ACC will be saved.

That's not what I said. I said "if" the ACC was clearly protected and solid "then" we need to consider how to land the top money makers of the Big 12 and the scenario proposed would do it. That said, I agree about the voting block issues and the Longhorn poison. I also agree that for the most part the Big 10 and SEC have been purposefully avoiding each other's interests. And if there is a conclusion to this I still don't rule the ACC out of bounds. There is great money to made from a compromise there. Unfortunately, there isn't much room for compromise with the Big 12 as you well know. Hence the stalemate. So let Texas and Oklahoma have a great football conference built around them after the Big 10 and SEC both take about 4 ACC schools each. It is actually a solution that works, works profitably for all, and works well for FOX, but for ESPN to a much larger degree. We'll see.

I'd like to kick a little dust in the air on this one.

I think the ACC is rock solid. Let's say the anchor football school, FSU, leaves for the SEC and for kicks, brings VT with them. I don't think the ACC schools throw up their hands and say the conference is toast and everyone needs to find a new home. They all chose to sign a GOR because they wanted to be together, and at least some of them clearly had options to go elsewhere. Without FSU, ACC football drops a notch, but they would still have competitive teams that their fans will want to watch and have the possibility from time to time to knock off the big guys. And, most importantly, they still have the best Bball conference and that helps keep them together.

Contrast that with the Big 12. If Texas leaves, the conference is done. Big 12 teams acted primarily out of fear that the conference might fold if Texas left. They dutifully lined up to sign the GOR when Texas asked because many of them were scared ****less that if Texas left they would not find a home elsewhere. Heck, some of the schools offered outsized revenue to Texas to keep the conference alive. Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and ATM decided to control their own fate and join other conferences. Next time around, the Big 12 will face the same situation, with potentially the PAC, BIG and SEC all courting some combination of Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas and ISU to secure their future by joining a different conference. The Big 12 can't exist with only Texas as the anchor, and despite current on field success, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State are not heavyweights

There really are no great expansion candidates for the Big 12 that would add enough gravitas to the conference to enable it to survive a Texas defection. That's why I think the key to the future is Texas deciding that it prefers to control its own destiny by making a deal with the ACC/ND/FSU - call it a merger, a new conference, whatever - rather than potentially watch another set of top Big 12 teams get picked off when the GORs are up. That solution allows Texas to save face, keep a substantial part of the conference together and not potentially go down with the Big 12 ship.

(11-11-2014 01:50 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I'd like to kick a little dust in the air on this one.

I think the ACC is rock solid. Let's say the anchor football school, FSU, leaves for the SEC and for kicks, brings VT with them. I don't think the ACC schools throw up their hands and say the conference is toast and everyone needs to find a new home. They all chose to sign a GOR because they wanted to be together, and at least some of them clearly had options to go elsewhere. Without FSU, ACC football drops a notch, but they would still have competitive teams that their fans will want to watch and have the possibility from time to time to knock off the big guys. And, most importantly, they still have the best Bball conference and that helps keep them together.

I disagree. The ACC and B12 are both on shaky ground. The ACC, without a network is in a financially weak position going forward compared to the other 4 power conferences and the B12 is hurt by it's regression to a small, more regional conference. I'll believe the ACC network is going to happen when they start buying back their T3 like the SEC did. Until then it is just ESPN sweet nothings to keep them holding on.

An ACC without FSU and VT could survive (most schools are BB before FB), but they are probably looking at being left out of the power conferences getting the bulk of the money when the next playoff contract is signed and they are looking at much lower T1 and T2 contracts without those schools, especially FSU. FSU and VT are the schools that have kept the ACC in the football news for the most part during the last couple decades. Half of the ACC at this time are former Big East schools who have not been there all that long. If FSU and VT (or Clemson) left, they would jump on any offers coming from another power conference if they cared about making competitive money. The ACC's athletic department revenue on average and median are the lowest of the P5 and heavily subsidized. The financial gap would be just too large to compete well against their regional SEC and B1G competitors.

Contrast that with the Big 12. If Texas leaves, the conference is done. Big 12 teams acted primarily out of fear that the conference might fold if Texas left. They dutifully lined up to sign the GOR when Texas asked because many of them were scared ****less that if Texas left they would not find a home elsewhere. Heck, some of the schools offered outsized revenue to Texas to keep the conference alive. Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and ATM decided to control their own fate and join other conferences. Next time around, the Big 12 will face the same situation, with potentially the PAC, BIG and SEC all courting some combination of Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas and ISU to secure their future by joining a different conference. The Big 12 can't exist with only Texas as the anchor, and despite current on field success, Baylor, TCU, Kansas State are not heavyweights

You are wrong about the B12 GoR, but that is the common perception. The GoR was actually proposed by MU and it was a way for Texas and OU to demonstrate that they were committing to the conference after all the looking around they did during the previous couple years. It was a last ditch attempt to keep MU in the conference (MU used the excuse it was not long enough). It had nothing to do with fear from the smaller schools. The smaller schools actually gained because it locked in Texas and OU to the B12, provided some stability for those schools for another decade or so, and the networks paid an extra million or so per school each year for it. There was no downside for the smaller schools. Only KU had options by itself and lost anything by signing it (option to move easily to another conference) and they had a political anchor to leaving a viable B12 in KSU. None of the rest could move on their own.

Texas could anchor a conference on it's own. They are a better anchor than FSU (ACC) or USC (PAC) who solely anchor conferences in FB. I have seen estimates Texas provides like 50% or more of the B12 revenue on it's own. However, it is unlikely they would want to if OU (their biggest rival) leaves, especially if KU left as well (B1G OU/KU raid scenario). Plus, Texas is already uncomfortable with the fall in academic stature of the B12 (7 AAU down to 3 AAU) and Kansas leaving would drop that to 2 AAU schools. Likely Texas takes a couple Texas schools (likely Baylor and TCU) to the ACC at that time as a partial member (ala ND) with the 2 Texas schools as full members they play each year.

Texas gets most of what it wants out of the B12 and is king. It's good to be king (look at UNC in the ACC) and worth sacrificing some dollars to remain king. If they get back to winning under Strong they will be very happy. That is why I have been banging the drum that OU really is the key piece to destroying the B12. They are the school least happy with the conference and have multiple options if they are willing to ditch OSU, especially if they pair with KU (or even WVU for the SEC). That pair gets into pretty much any conference they want. OU has been talking to other conferences behind the scenes seriously, they wanted UL instead of WVU, they still want expansion to 12. The only thing they got that they wanted was a 4th Texas school, which bit them in the rear as TCU is hurting their DFW recruiting. The Sooner network helped settle them down for now and given FOX some control to offset ESPN/Texas, but the fans still are not excited about the B12. Once OU leaves (and probably KU as well), Texas as to decide whether to anchor an athletically, and perhaps academically depleted conference (if AAU KU leaves) or go another direction. They are Texas so they might get pissed and try to show they can hold a conference together on their own, but it is more likely they select an option that kills the B12.

There really are no great expansion candidates for the Big 12 that would add enough gravitas to the conference to enable it to survive a Texas defection. That's why I think the key to the future is Texas deciding that it prefers to control its own destiny by making a deal with the ACC/ND/FSU - call it a merger, a new conference, whatever - rather than potentially watch another set of top Big 12 teams get picked off when the GORs are up. That solution allows Texas to save face, keep a substantial part of the conference together and not potentially go down with the Big 12 ship.

I have been saying for awhile to watch ND and Texas, once the ACC and B12 GoR are about to expire. I think there is a good chance if those conferences have survived until then that those 2 schools put together a new conference so they can lose much of the duplication of markets and weaker schools that both conferences have. Gives ND the perfect excuse to join a conference, if they feel they must as well. Easier to sell the loss of independence.

To demonstrate why the ACC is in weak financial shape (and shows how much weaker financially PAC schools are than people realize) if they get no network or lose a money school like FSU this is a partial post I made on the Ohio State scout board regarding who can afford stipends:

From this article. Worth reading.

Percentage of Publics making a profit (Revenue minus subsidies minus expenses) :

B1G = 5/13 = 38%; 45% without RU/UMD
ACC = 0/8 = 0%
B12 = 5/8 = 63%
SEC = 8/13 = 62%
PAC = 2/12 = 17%

Athletic department Revenue minus subsidies minus expenses
1 Ohio State $23,612,978
2 Alabama $21,377,437
3 Oklahoma $21,358,108
4 Texas $18,883,901
5 Florida $18,593,745
6 Oregon $17,930,985
7 Michigan $12,239,982
8 LSU $12,145,380
9 Kansas $10,523,506
10 Kansas State $8,645,452
11 Texas A&M $8,252,345
12 Arkansas $5,611,468
13 Washington $5,526,960
14 Nebraska $5,249,732
15 Missouri $4,515,874
16 Texas Tech $2,610,828
17 Michigan State $2,426,782
18 Mississippi State $2,401,801
19 Indiana $1,501,254
20 Kentucky $1,450,017
21 West Virginia -$256,382
22 Iowa -$494,287
23 South Carolina -$1,150,687
24 Florida State -$1,250,052
25 Iowa State -$1,701,229
26 Mississippi -$1,757,355
27 Clemson -$1,786,346
28 Army -$1,809,124
29 Georgia -$2,021,692
30 NC State -$2,187,085
31 Purdue -$2,248,610
32 UCLA -$2,627,405
33 Mississippi Valley State -$2,821,442
34 Coppin State -$2,841,826
35 Illinois -$2,854,991
36 New Orleans -$2,958,136
37 California -$3,206,245
38 Southern -$3,667,227
39 Jackson State -$3,759,290
40 Auburn -$3,761,388
41 Nicholls State -$4,215,256
42 Louisiana-Monroe -$4,310,393
43 Virginia Tech -$4,440,171
44 North Carolina Asheville -$4,489,075
45 Alcorn State -$4,618,066
46 Maryland-Eastern Shore -$4,706,375
47 Savannah State -$4,762,591
48 Wisconsin-Green Bay -$4,780,597
49 VMI -$4,806,916
50 McNeese State -$5,095,089
51 Grambling State -$5,204,238
52 Chicago State -$5,275,634
53 Wisconsin -$5,377,457
54 Alabama A&M -$5,396,160
55 Arkansas-Pine Bluff -$5,728,503
56 Arkansas-Little Rock -$5,760,584
57 Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne -$5,772,240
58 Penn State -$5,985,736
59 Florida A&M -$6,175,320
60 Southern Illinois Edwardsville -$6,183,872
61 Minnesota -$6,242,029
72 Arizona -$7,069,123
73 Louisville -$7,104,013
105 Georgia Tech -$8,997,538
109 North Carolina -$9,098,018
127 Arizona State -$10,046,641
129 Oklahoma State -$10,223,965
139 Oregon State -$10,987,336
142 Tennessee -$11,123,471
145 Washington State -$11,450,578
164 Utah -$12,904,369
165 Virginia -$12,918,432
177 Colorado -$15,090,588
178 Maryland -$15,122,744
230 Rutgers -$46,996,697

Much depends on accounting practices, facilities improvements, conference changes, etc. and this list will change from year to year. So a school that is usually profitable may be shown losing money, but for the most part schools on the list consistently show up here, especially at the top. Privates not included. Edited out some non P5 to make this post fit, see article for entire list.

Most PAC, B1G, and ACC schools would see increased profitability if they cut back on the number of non-revenue sports they offer. The B12 and SEC offer much fewer non-revnue sports and it has resulted in stronger AD departments on the average. I think you will see more sports cut going forward to offset additional costs of athlete compensation.

Here is an excellent article that includes private schools and has some great data (important for the ACC). Some public schools moved up or down compared to here, but more than useful just for the private data included


Notre Dame is included in the ACC stats here which is kind of silly since the sport that drives their revenue is not in the ACC. UL in AAC still.

P5 Total Athletic revenue by school:

jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

South Carolina is an SEC school. Look, 85% of the money generated by the conference comes from football. Did you know that the top money makers in the ACC are the following: Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke and N.C. State? Did you know the top attendance leaders in football are: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State and that the rest annually fall below 50,000? Should there be an exodus of football first schools it is not inconceivable that the football contract of the ACC would fall by 30 to 50% depending upon whether or not such a move would also cause the Irish to seek another haven.

Economic disparity is greatest for the ACC. Potential to close the disparity gap is the lowest for the next 6 years in the ACC. It remains to be seen what sanctions will be levied upon U.N.C., but should they receive post season bans in basketball, Syracuse (presently under investigation) receive post season bans in basketball, and Florida State (being investigated on title IX violations) receive post season bans in football and baseball the non performance of those top schools in those respective sports could violate the GOR. If Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, and Clemson leave (and Georgia Tech would take that opportunity as well and quite possibly Miami) then you don't have enough earning potential left for the rest to stay viable, especially if Syracuse and U.N.C. remain suspended from tourney action. Duke would become the sole standard bearer.

I'm sorry but you assessment of what happens to the ACC with the loss of football first schools is grossly optimistic.

There is much yet to be seen unveiled in the ACC's future. Hence, Texas and OU wait. And it is much more profitable to build a football conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to build one around North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia.

(11-12-2014 12:32 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  To demonstrate why the ACC is in weak financial shape (and shows how much weaker financially PAC schools are than people realize) if they get no network or lose a money school like FSU this is a partial post I made on the Ohio State scout board regarding who can afford stipends:

From this article. Worth reading.

Percentage of Publics making a profit (Revenue minus subsidies minus expenses) :

B1G = 5/13 = 38%; 45% without RU/UMD
ACC = 0/8 = 0%
B12 = 5/8 = 63%
SEC = 8/13 = 62%
PAC = 2/12 = 17%

Athletic department Revenue minus subsidies minus expenses
1 Ohio State $23,612,978
2 Alabama $21,377,437
3 Oklahoma $21,358,108
4 Texas $18,883,901
5 Florida $18,593,745
6 Oregon $17,930,985
7 Michigan $12,239,982
8 LSU $12,145,380
9 Kansas $10,523,506
10 Kansas State $8,645,452
11 Texas A&M $8,252,345
12 Arkansas $5,611,468
13 Washington $5,526,960
14 Nebraska $5,249,732
15 Missouri $4,515,874
16 Texas Tech $2,610,828
17 Michigan State $2,426,782
18 Mississippi State $2,401,801
19 Indiana $1,501,254
20 Kentucky $1,450,017
21 West Virginia -$256,382
22 Iowa -$494,287
23 South Carolina -$1,150,687
24 Florida State -$1,250,052
25 Iowa State -$1,701,229
26 Mississippi -$1,757,355
27 Clemson -$1,786,346
28 Army -$1,809,124
29 Georgia -$2,021,692
30 NC State -$2,187,085
31 Purdue -$2,248,610
32 UCLA -$2,627,405
33 Mississippi Valley State -$2,821,442
34 Coppin State -$2,841,826
35 Illinois -$2,854,991
36 New Orleans -$2,958,136
37 California -$3,206,245
38 Southern -$3,667,227
39 Jackson State -$3,759,290
40 Auburn -$3,761,388
41 Nicholls State -$4,215,256
42 Louisiana-Monroe -$4,310,393
43 Virginia Tech -$4,440,171
44 North Carolina Asheville -$4,489,075
45 Alcorn State -$4,618,066
46 Maryland-Eastern Shore -$4,706,375
47 Savannah State -$4,762,591
48 Wisconsin-Green Bay -$4,780,597
49 VMI -$4,806,916
50 McNeese State -$5,095,089
51 Grambling State -$5,204,238
52 Chicago State -$5,275,634
53 Wisconsin -$5,377,457
54 Alabama A&M -$5,396,160
55 Arkansas-Pine Bluff -$5,728,503
56 Arkansas-Little Rock -$5,760,584
57 Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne -$5,772,240
58 Penn State -$5,985,736
59 Florida A&M -$6,175,320
60 Southern Illinois Edwardsville -$6,183,872
61 Minnesota -$6,242,029
72 Arizona -$7,069,123
73 Louisville -$7,104,013
105 Georgia Tech -$8,997,538
109 North Carolina -$9,098,018
127 Arizona State -$10,046,641
129 Oklahoma State -$10,223,965
139 Oregon State -$10,987,336
142 Tennessee -$11,123,471
145 Washington State -$11,450,578
164 Utah -$12,904,369
165 Virginia -$12,918,432
177 Colorado -$15,090,588
178 Maryland -$15,122,744
230 Rutgers -$46,996,697

Much depends on accounting practices, facilities improvements, conference changes, etc. and this list will change from year to year. So a school that is usually profitable may be shown losing money, but for the most part schools on the list consistently show up here, especially at the top. Privates not included. Edited out some non P5 to make this post fit, see article for entire list.

Most PAC, B1G, and ACC schools would see increased profitability if they cut back on the number of non-revenue sports they offer. The B12 and SEC offer much fewer non-revnue sports and it has resulted in stronger AD departments on the average. I think you will see more sports cut going forward to offset additional costs of athlete compensation.

I can only speak for the subsidies to the Athletic department at Carolina. These subsidies come from The Educational Foundation (aka, The Rams Club). Since 1938 the Educational Foundation has borne the cost of every scholarship of every Carolina athlete. The projected cost for the 2014-2015 school year is $15.8M and will rise during the 2017-2018 school year to $21.1M.

(11-12-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

South Carolina is an SEC school. Look, 85% of the money generated by the conference comes from football. Did you know that the top money makers in the ACC are the following: Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke and N.C. State? Did you know the top attendance leaders in football are: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State and that the rest annually fall below 50,000? Should there be an exodus of football first schools it is not inconceivable that the football contract of the ACC would fall by 30 to 50% depending upon whether or not such a move would also cause the Irish to seek another haven.

Economic disparity is greatest for the ACC. Potential to close the disparity gap is the lowest for the next 6 years in the ACC. It remains to be seen what sanctions will be levied upon U.N.C., but should they receive post season bans in basketball, Syracuse (presently under investigation) receive post season bans in basketball, and Florida State (being investigated on title IX violations) receive post season bans in football and baseball the non performance of those top schools in those respective sports could violate the GOR. If Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, and Clemson leave (and Georgia Tech would take that opportunity as well and quite possibly Miami) then you don't have enough earning potential left for the rest to stay viable, especially if Syracuse and U.N.C. remain suspended from tourney action. Duke would become the sole standard bearer.

I'm sorry but you assessment of what happens to the ACC with the loss of football first schools is grossly optimistic.

There is much yet to be seen unveiled in the ACC's future. Hence, Texas and OU wait. And it is much more profitable to build a football conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to build one around North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia.

JR, FYI during Butch Davis' tenure as head football coach Carolina averaged 5,000 more fans per game than State has capacity.

(11-12-2014 09:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

South Carolina is an SEC school. Look, 85% of the money generated by the conference comes from football. Did you know that the top money makers in the ACC are the following: Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke and N.C. State? Did you know the top attendance leaders in football are: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State and that the rest annually fall below 50,000? Should there be an exodus of football first schools it is not inconceivable that the football contract of the ACC would fall by 30 to 50% depending upon whether or not such a move would also cause the Irish to seek another haven.

Economic disparity is greatest for the ACC. Potential to close the disparity gap is the lowest for the next 6 years in the ACC. It remains to be seen what sanctions will be levied upon U.N.C., but should they receive post season bans in basketball, Syracuse (presently under investigation) receive post season bans in basketball, and Florida State (being investigated on title IX violations) receive post season bans in football and baseball the non performance of those top schools in those respective sports could violate the GOR. If Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, and Clemson leave (and Georgia Tech would take that opportunity as well and quite possibly Miami) then you don't have enough earning potential left for the rest to stay viable, especially if Syracuse and U.N.C. remain suspended from tourney action. Duke would become the sole standard bearer.

I'm sorry but you assessment of what happens to the ACC with the loss of football first schools is grossly optimistic.

There is much yet to be seen unveiled in the ACC's future. Hence, Texas and OU wait. And it is much more profitable to build a football conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to build one around North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia.

JR, FYI during Butch Davis' tenure as head football coach Carolina averaged 5,000 more fans per game than State has capacity.

The data I was drawing on is only about 2 years old now (2012 season). So I looked up the reported numbers for 2013:
Clemson: 82,048
Florida State: 75,421
Virginia Tech: 63,999
Miami: 53,837 (the Florida game at the pro stadium drew 76,000 plus which bumped their average considerably)
N.C. State: 53,178
North Carolina: 51,500 (congratulations you broke 50,000 but still finished behind N.C. State)

(11-12-2014 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 09:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

South Carolina is an SEC school. Look, 85% of the money generated by the conference comes from football. Did you know that the top money makers in the ACC are the following: Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia Tech, Duke and N.C. State? Did you know the top attendance leaders in football are: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State and that the rest annually fall below 50,000? Should there be an exodus of football first schools it is not inconceivable that the football contract of the ACC would fall by 30 to 50% depending upon whether or not such a move would also cause the Irish to seek another haven.

Economic disparity is greatest for the ACC. Potential to close the disparity gap is the lowest for the next 6 years in the ACC. It remains to be seen what sanctions will be levied upon U.N.C., but should they receive post season bans in basketball, Syracuse (presently under investigation) receive post season bans in basketball, and Florida State (being investigated on title IX violations) receive post season bans in football and baseball the non performance of those top schools in those respective sports could violate the GOR. If Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, and Clemson leave (and Georgia Tech would take that opportunity as well and quite possibly Miami) then you don't have enough earning potential left for the rest to stay viable, especially if Syracuse and U.N.C. remain suspended from tourney action. Duke would become the sole standard bearer.

I'm sorry but you assessment of what happens to the ACC with the loss of football first schools is grossly optimistic.

There is much yet to be seen unveiled in the ACC's future. Hence, Texas and OU wait. And it is much more profitable to build a football conference around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to build one around North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia.

JR, FYI during Butch Davis' tenure as head football coach Carolina averaged 5,000 more fans per game than State has capacity.

The data I was drawing on is only about 2 years old now (2012 season). So I looked up the reported numbers for 2013:
Clemson: 82,048
Florida State: 75,421
Virginia Tech: 63,999
Miami: 53,837 (the Florida game at the pro stadium drew 76,000 plus which bumped their average considerably)
N.C. State: 53,178
North Carolina: 51,500 (congratulations you broke 50,000 but still finished behind N.C. State)

oops! my bad, the wuffies drew better than my records indicated.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/35...ce-numbers

2
10:00
AM ET
By ESPN.com staff | ESPN.com
2023COMMENTS238EMAILPRINT
The NCAA this month released its attendance report for the 2011 season, and Sports Business Journal recently released three-year averages for each conference. It should come as no surprise that Clemson, Florida State and Virginia Tech were the league leaders, in that order. Overall, according to the NCAA's numbers, here's how the ACC stacked up in 2011 compared to the rest of the country's accumulated attendance (of course you have to take into account stadium size, and the difference in number of home games):

No. 15 Clemson (547,635)
No. 16 Florida State (544,893)
No. 28 Virginia Tech (397,398)
No. 32 NC State (394,008)
No. 33 North Carolina (392,000)
No. 39 Miami (340,576)
No. 41 Georgia Tech (337,622)
No. 43 Virginia (335,582)
No. 51 Maryland (296,484)
No. 65 Wake Forest (223,769)
No. 68 Boston College (214,255)
No. 79 Duke (170,748)

Because of the differences in stadium size and number of home games, though, it's probably more beneficial to measure within the league, and look at whether attendance has increased or fallen off at each respective program. The Sports Business Journal's three-year snapshot helps do that:

Clemson
2011 78,234
2010 77,469
2009 75,793
Florida State
2011 77,842
2010 71,270
2009 74,345
Virginia Tech
2011 66,233
2010 66,233
2009 66,233
NC State
2011 56,287
2010 56,877
2009 56,422
North Carolina
2011 56,000
2010 58,250
2009 56,607
Miami
2011 48,654
2010 52,575
2009 47,551
Georgia Tech
2011 48,232
2010 48,232
2009 51,584
Virginia
2011 47,940
2010 45,459
2009 47,986
Maryland
2011 42,355
2010 39,168
2009 44,452
Boston College
2011 35,709
2010 38,369
2009 35,716
Wake Forest
2011 31,967
2010 30,474
2009 31,791
Duke
2011 24,393
2010 28,750
2009 26,314

Here is the report for all of the BCS conferences

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journ...dence.aspx


Thursday, November 13, 2014 | 9:25 AM EST

Search
Log In
SportsBusiness Daily
SportsBusiness Global
SportsBusiness Journal
Conferences & Events
Advertise
Subscribe
College & University Program
Research Guide Live
Share
SBJ / January 2-8, 2012 / Conference attendance by school
SBJ Sections
Coast to CoastColleges






Conference attendance by school

Font Size Resize Small Resize Normal Resize Large | Print | Share |
This chart lists school-by-school average football attendance for the last three seasons.
ACC
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Clemson 78,234 77,469 75,793
Florida State 77,842 71,270 74,345
Virginia Tech 66,233 66,233 66,233
N.C. State 56,287 56,877 56,422
North Carolina 56,000 58,250 56,607
Miami 48,654 52,575 47,551
Georgia Tech 48,232 46,449 51,584
Virginia 47,940 45,459 47,986
Maryland 42,355 39,168 44,452
Boston College 35,709 38,369 35,716
Wake Forest 31,967 30,474 31,791
Duke 24,393 28,750 26,314
BIG TEN
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Michigan 112,179 111,825 108,933
Ohio State 105,231 105,278 105,261
Penn State 101,427 104,234 107,008
Nebraska 85,267 85,664 85,888
Wisconsin 79,813 79,862 80,109
Michigan State 74,078 73,556 74,741
Iowa 70,585 70,585 70,214
Illinois 49,548 54,188 59,545
Minnesota 47,714 49,513 50,805
Purdue 45,225 48,063 50,457
Indiana 41,380 41,953 41,833
Northwestern 33,442 36,449 24,190
BIG EAST
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Notre Dame* 80,795 80,795 80,795
West Virginia 56,532 56,325 57,317
Louisville 48,538 50,648 32,450
Pittsburgh 46,003 52,165 53,446
South Florida 44,550 40,849 52,553
Rutgers 43,761 46,195 49,113
Syracuse 40,504 40,064 39,043
Connecticut 36,668 38,248 38,229
Cincinnati 32,293 35,067 33,957
*Notre Dame is a football independent

BIG 12
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Texas 100,524 100,654 101,175
Texas A&M 87,183 82,477 76,800
Oklahoma 85,161 84,738 84,778
Missouri 62,095 61,540 64,120
Oklahoma State 57,229 50,812 53,719
Texas Tech 55,347 57,108 50,249
Iowa State 53,647 45,395 46,242
Kansas State 49,030 49,816 46,763
Kansas 42,283 44,851 50,581
Baylor 41,368 40,043 36,306
PAC-12
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Southern Cal 74,806 79,907 84,799
Washington 62,531 66,264 64,356
Oregon 59,344 59,398 58,544
Arizona State 59,007 47,943 48,556
UCLA 56,644 60,376 64,547
Colorado 50,355 46,864 50,088
Stanford 49,997 40,042 41,436
Arizona 48,953 55,408 52,555
Utah 45,149 45,459 45,155
Oregon State 42,420 45,509 42,328
California 37,657* 57,873 59,472
Washington State 28,791 24,532 25,909
*Cal played this season’s home games in AT&T Park.

SEC
SCHOOL 2011 2010 2009
Alabama 101,821 101,821 92,012
Tennessee 94,642 99,781 99,220
LSU 92,868 92,718 92,489
Georgia 92,613 92,746 92,746
Florida 89,061 90,511 90,635
Auburn 85,792 86,087 84,614
South Carolina 79,131 76,668 75,369
Arkansas 66,990 68,932 65,112
Kentucky 60,007 66,070 69,594
Mississippi 56,488 55,898 55,767
Mississippi State 55,949 54,999 53,792
Vanderbilt 32,873 33,269 35,015
Source: Schools, NCAA

Return to top
Related Topics:
Research and Ratings

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

We do agree on a lot of things, except I think the ACC is more vulnerable than you think. The biggest reason is financial. Part of the reason they got that GoR through was the promise Swofford made that they would get a network (without it I think FSU never signs). If that network does not materialize (and Swofford basically sad recently not to hold your breath) the ACC will be well behind the B12 and PAC in revenue in a few years and not even close to the 2 strongest conferences in the B1G and SEC. This is bad news for the ACC as the B1G and SEC are it's strongest competitors. Look at the profitability and revenue lists I provided. The ACC has schools that desperately need more athletic revenue. If they ever get the ACC network off the ground then the B12 is the dead man walking, most likely. If they don't get a network they have as many, or more, worries than the B12.

I think either FSU or UNC leaving would kill the ACC as a power conference as well because they likely take at least one other school with them, would cause a substantial loss in TV value, and likely start a chain reaction of defections. UNC is the gravity holding the ACC together (like Texas in the B12) if they left it falls apart. In your example, if UVA and UNC left for the B1G then VT/NCST leave the next day for the SEC and then the southern ACC schools all leave for the B12 a couple weeks later. If UVA/UNC left for the SEC then VT, outside of not having AAU, fits the B1G mold perfectly and gives the VA market, AAU Duke would be great to get the NC market and a national BB brand, AAU GT would give the GA market, and FSU gives a national FB brand and the FL market and recruiting the B1G would love. The B1G probably takes 2 out of those 4 (or maybe all four), and the best of the rest go to the B12. FSU currently has fewer options due to the SEC having UF and the lack of AAU (B1G), and a current conference revenue deficit that is not wide enough to spur a move to the B12, but if they get the right offer they could leave for any of the SEC/B1G/B12. FSU probably takes at least one other solid FB program with them (Clemson, GT, or Miami) and perhaps more if they move. Both conferences have 2 schools whose loss kills the conference IMO. For the B12 they are Texas and Oklahoma. For the ACC they are UNC and FSU. The ACC does have the wild card of ND possibly joining in full to stabilize the conference if there are defections, but it is extremely unlikely.

The B12 would probably still exist if several schools are left behind as the B12 brand is greater than any G5 conference. The remains would just invite G5 schools and continue to use the B12 brand, but would no longer be a power conference. The same would happen to the ACC if the right schools left.

I definitely agree with you on the ND/UT deal possibly happening, and have been pounding that drum for awhile. I think that is the out for ND to sell it's fan base on a loss of independence. Gets rid of the less valuable and/or duplicate market schools for the networks. Saves the schools that matter most in the ACC and B12 from giving up some or a lot of power in another conference and from falling behind the B1G and SEC financially. It might also get Cincinnati a spot as they would get the new conference into OH, and the new conference would probably be built with a conference network in mind (limited duplication).

Anyway great discussion the last few days.

(11-13-2014 10:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

We do agree on a lot of things, except I think the ACC is more vulnerable than you think. The biggest reason is financial. Part of the reason they got that GoR through was the promise Swofford made that they would get a network (without it I think FSU never signs). If that network does not materialize (and Swofford basically sad recently not to hold your breath) the ACC will be well behind the B12 and PAC in revenue in a few years and not even close to the 2 strongest conferences in the B1G and SEC. This is bad news for the ACC as the B1G and SEC are it's strongest competitors. Look at the profitability and revenue lists I provided. The ACC has schools that desperately need more athletic revenue. If they ever get the ACC network off the ground then the B12 is the dead man walking, most likely. If they don't get a network they have as many, or more, worries than the B12.

I think either FSU or UNC leaving would kill the ACC as a power conference as well because they likely take at least one other school with them, would cause a substantial loss in TV value, and likely start a chain reaction of defections. UNC is the gravity holding the ACC together (like Texas in the B12) if they left it falls apart. In your example, if UVA and UNC left for the B1G then VT/NCST leave the next day for the SEC and then the southern ACC schools all leave for the B12 a couple weeks later. If UVA/UNC left for the SEC then VT, outside of not having AAU, fits the B1G mold perfectly and gives the VA market, AAU Duke would be great to get the NC market and a national BB brand, AAU GT would give the GA market, and FSU gives a national FB brand and the FL market and recruiting the B1G would love. The B1G probably takes 2 out of those 4 (or maybe all four), and the best of the rest go to the B12. FSU currently has fewer options due to the SEC having UF and the lack of AAU (B1G), and a current conference revenue deficit that is not wide enough to spur a move to the B12, but if they get the right offer they could leave for any of the SEC/B1G/B12. FSU probably takes at least one other solid FB program with them (Clemson, GT, or Miami) and perhaps more if they move. Both conferences have 2 schools whose loss kills the conference IMO. For the B12 they are Texas and Oklahoma. For the ACC they are UNC and FSU. The ACC does have the wild card of ND possibly joining in full to stabilize the conference if there are defections, but it is extremely unlikely.

The B12 would probably still exist if several schools are left behind as the B12 brand is greater than any G5 conference. The remains would just invite G5 schools and continue to use the B12 brand, but would no longer be a power conference. The same would happen to the ACC if the right schools left.

I definitely agree with you on the ND/UT deal possibly happening, and have been pounding that drum for awhile. I think that is the out for ND to sell it's fan base on a loss of independence. Gets rid of the less valuable and/or duplicate market schools for the networks. Saves the schools that matter most in the ACC and B12 from giving up some or a lot of power in another conference and from falling behind the B1G and SEC financially. It might also get Cincinnati a spot as they would get the new conference into OH, and the new conference would probably be built with a conference network in mind (limited duplication).

Anyway great discussion the last few days.

One reason I think the ACC is more stable is that I don't really see the ACC teams' commitment to winning national football championships, other than FSU. I get the sense that the tobacco road schools are happy just playing each other and having a league together. The newer additions up north are mostly refugees from conferences that are weaker or have disbanded, so they seem just happy to be in a respectable conference. Aside from FSU, my sense is that the ACC schools are very comfortable with not being, or trying to be, top dog in football, so if their conference gets left out of the national playoffs most, if not all years, that's probably OK for everyone except FSU. For Texas and Oklahoma, of course, national championships are what they shoot for and if they felt the Big 12 wasn't a big enough stage for them, they would do something about it .

Financially some of the ACC teams may want to shoot for the bigger bucks available in the SEC or BIG, as Maryland did, and certainly a sufficient number of departures could kill the conference. A jailbreak of UVA, UNC, GT and FSU to the BIG (Delany's wet dream scenario) would be devastating and, as you point out, be quickly followed by VT/NC State going to the SEC.

I don't see that happening, though. ND is the wild card for the ACC. There's too much bad blood between ND and the BIG for ND to join. ND won't go west because of travel issues for their non-football teams, nor will they go full south to the SEC for academic reasons and because that's not where their alumni live. The Big 12 could be an option, but the east coast and the ACC are the best option, with ND alumni all along the coast. If the ACC beings to show cracks, I think ND props it up and becomes a full member because ND in its heart of hearts knows that its days as in independent are numbered.

(11-14-2014 02:05 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 10:52 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(11-12-2014 08:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  jhawk, I think your arguments actually support my scenario more than yours although I agree with much of what you say.

For starters, let's agree on the obvious: the SEC, BIG and PAC are survivors under any scenario and Big 12 and ACC are the potentially unstable conferences.

The Big 12 is more unstable because a single member, Texas, has the power to decide whether the conference survives or dies. If Texas decides to leave, the conference disbands. Two other schools, Oklahoma and Kansas, have the power to force Texas' hand because if they decide to leave, Texas alone may not have the ability to keep the conference intact because, at this point, there are not enough quality replacements for OK and KU. Yes, there are other good schools in the Big 12, but if Texas leaves, or OK & KU leave the conference doesn't have enough geographic diversity or national name brands to remain viable. In that sense, I agree with you that OK is a key player in the Big 12's future survival.

In contrast, no single member can kill the ACC nor does any small group of teams have the ability decimate the conference. FSU's departure would hurt but the conference would survive. Even a UVA/UNC move to the BIG or SEC would not kill the ACC. It has a much broader geographic reach, with teams like Syracuse, Pitt, South Carolina and Miami, who would still remain and that geographic breadth, with fairly good teams, would still garner a fairly nice TV contract, just not SEC/BIG size.

All of this will be moot, of course, when ND, Texas and FSU announce the formation of a new conference.

We do agree on a lot of things, except I think the ACC is more vulnerable than you think. The biggest reason is financial. Part of the reason they got that GoR through was the promise Swofford made that they would get a network (without it I think FSU never signs). If that network does not materialize (and Swofford basically sad recently not to hold your breath) the ACC will be well behind the B12 and PAC in revenue in a few years and not even close to the 2 strongest conferences in the B1G and SEC. This is bad news for the ACC as the B1G and SEC are it's strongest competitors. Look at the profitability and revenue lists I provided. The ACC has schools that desperately need more athletic revenue. If they ever get the ACC network off the ground then the B12 is the dead man walking, most likely. If they don't get a network they have as many, or more, worries than the B12.

I think either FSU or UNC leaving would kill the ACC as a power conference as well because they likely take at least one other school with them, would cause a substantial loss in TV value, and likely start a chain reaction of defections. UNC is the gravity holding the ACC together (like Texas in the B12) if they left it falls apart. In your example, if UVA and UNC left for the B1G then VT/NCST leave the next day for the SEC and then the southern ACC schools all leave for the B12 a couple weeks later. If UVA/UNC left for the SEC then VT, outside of not having AAU, fits the B1G mold perfectly and gives the VA market, AAU Duke would be great to get the NC market and a national BB brand, AAU GT would give the GA market, and FSU gives a national FB brand and the FL market and recruiting the B1G would love. The B1G probably takes 2 out of those 4 (or maybe all four), and the best of the rest go to the B12. FSU currently has fewer options due to the SEC having UF and the lack of AAU (B1G), and a current conference revenue deficit that is not wide enough to spur a move to the B12, but if they get the right offer they could leave for any of the SEC/B1G/B12. FSU probably takes at least one other solid FB program with them (Clemson, GT, or Miami) and perhaps more if they move. Both conferences have 2 schools whose loss kills the conference IMO. For the B12 they are Texas and Oklahoma. For the ACC they are UNC and FSU. The ACC does have the wild card of ND possibly joining in full to stabilize the conference if there are defections, but it is extremely unlikely.

The B12 would probably still exist if several schools are left behind as the B12 brand is greater than any G5 conference. The remains would just invite G5 schools and continue to use the B12 brand, but would no longer be a power conference. The same would happen to the ACC if the right schools left.

I definitely agree with you on the ND/UT deal possibly happening, and have been pounding that drum for awhile. I think that is the out for ND to sell it's fan base on a loss of independence. Gets rid of the less valuable and/or duplicate market schools for the networks. Saves the schools that matter most in the ACC and B12 from giving up some or a lot of power in another conference and from falling behind the B1G and SEC financially. It might also get Cincinnati a spot as they would get the new conference into OH, and the new conference would probably be built with a conference network in mind (limited duplication).

Anyway great discussion the last few days.

One reason I think the ACC is more stable is that I don't really see the ACC teams' commitment to winning national football championships, other than FSU. I get the sense that the tobacco road schools are happy just playing each other and having a league together. The newer additions up north are mostly refugees from conferences that are weaker or have disbanded, so they seem just happy to be in a respectable conference. Aside from FSU, my sense is that the ACC schools are very comfortable with not being, or trying to be, top dog in football, so if their conference gets left out of the national playoffs most, if not all years, that's probably OK for everyone except FSU. For Texas and Oklahoma, of course, national championships are what they shoot for and if they felt the Big 12 wasn't a big enough stage for them, they would do something about it .

Financially some of the ACC teams may want to shoot for the bigger bucks available in the SEC or BIG, as Maryland did, and certainly a sufficient number of departures could kill the conference. A jailbreak of UVA, UNC, GT and FSU to the BIG (Delany's wet dream scenario) would be devastating and, as you point out, be quickly followed by VT/NC State going to the SEC.

I don't see that happening, though. ND is the wild card for the ACC. There's too much bad blood between ND and the BIG for ND to join. ND won't go west because of travel issues for their non-football teams, nor will they go full south to the SEC for academic reasons and because that's not where their alumni live. The Big 12 could be an option, but the east coast and the ACC are the best option, with ND alumni all along the coast. If the ACC beings to show cracks, I think ND props it up and becomes a full member because ND in its heart of hearts knows that its days as in independent are numbered.

Look guys, what if the Big 10 stiffs ESPN (not likely but what if?). The whole strategy could take a bizarrely positive turn for the Big 12. Let's say that the SEC and Big 12 both move to 20 at that point. ESPN owns the LHN and SECN and 100% of the ACC. If spurned by the Big 10 they could make it tough on FOX and secure the futures of all of their top properties. Here's how:

SEC:
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Baylor, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Big 12:
Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Tulane, West Virginia
Iowa State, Cincinnati, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas
Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Wake Forest, Virginia

T.C.U., Texas Tech, New Mexico, and Nevada to the PAC?

The point is by combining schools that ESPN owns 100% with the Big 12 they still cut overhead by sharing a T1 & T2 obligation with FOX but they morph the LHN into a heckuva network that still nets the Longhorns 15 million a year, but does so also for all of the conference members. Academics are significantly upgraded. Athletics are strengthened in hoops and football. Duplicated footprint schools are brokered out and voila a Big 12 that makes sense and between that Big 12 and the SEC FOX and the Big 10 are halted. The Big 12 keeps its partnership with the SEC and the cross conference rivalries go through the roof. Content abounds. Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Iowa State, Tulane, and Texas are all AAU.

Meanwhile the SEC gets a second Texas school, adds 4 states with nearly 25 million viewers and gains a presence in South Florida.

If the B1G stiffs ESPN.....then it's on.

ESPN will move Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12 and they will invite BYU.
Florida State will move to the SEC.
Kentucky, West Virginia and Notre Dame join the ACC.
40 teams aligned in a 12, 12 16 configuration, marketed together will bury anything the B1G and PAC could ever put on TV. Two great football conferences spread out over three time zones. The best basketball conference ever assembled. Plus baseball, soccer, women's softball, track, lacrosse, you name it......it's the best. Intersectional play between the three would be like bowl season and the final four wrapped into one.

(11-14-2014 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the B1G stiffs ESPN.....then it's on.

ESPN will move Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12 and they will invite BYU.
Florida State will move to the SEC.
Kentucky, West Virginia and Notre Dame join the ACC.
40 teams aligned in a 12, 12 16 configuration, marketed together will bury anything the B1G and PAC could ever put on TV. Two great football conferences spread out over three time zones. The best basketball conference ever assembled. Plus baseball, soccer, women's softball, track, lacrosse, you name it......it's the best. Intersectional play between the three would be like bowl season and the final four wrapped into one.

Delany won't stiff ESPN. He'll play ESPN and Fox off against one another to get the maximum value and in the end divide the pie up in a way that keeps both networks interested and competing with each other.

I also don't necessarily see ESPN having the power to dictate the result JR lays out. That's a lot of presidents, trustees, donors and alumni support to line up to make it happen. ESPN has lots of power, of course, but the schools will not fall in line just because ESPN says jump.