I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

"Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC"

Is that a merger? I would suspect that the leftovers would join the B1G or the B12.

The SEC is great in football but horrible in basketball. The ACC is great in basketball and pretty darn good in football. Once some of the ACC basketball games move from CBS to ESPN, people will catch on. A lot of room for ESPN to make more money on basketball.

The questions really comes down to these.....

How many teams would the SEC need to add to become a great Basketball Conference?

How many teams would the ACC need to add to become a great Football Conference?

I could take 1 of yours. You would have to take SEVERAL of ours.

(08-01-2015 08:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The questions really comes down to these.....

How many teams would the SEC need to add to become a great Basketball Conference?

How many teams would the ACC need to add to become a great Football Conference?

I could take 1 of yours. You would have to take SEVERAL of ours.

I don't really see your point. The goal wouldn't be to become a great basketball league. It's not necessary as long as people are watching your games. The SEC is the 3rd most watched basketball league behind the Big Ten and the ACC respectively.

Football wise, the ACC is mediocre just as the SEC is mediocre in bball. None of that really matters though as the teams I listed all have strong fan bases. That's who ultimately watches your games. That's what good content and ratings are all about.

(08-01-2015 05:49 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  "Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC"

Is that a merger? I would suspect that the leftovers would join the B1G or the B12.

Technically, it's not a merger. I just used that word to hammer home the idea of a massive movement rather than that of 1 or 2 teams.

(08-01-2015 08:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The questions really comes down to these.....

How many teams would the SEC need to add to become a great Basketball Conference?

How many teams would the ACC need to add to become a great Football Conference?

I could take 1 of yours. You would have to take SEVERAL of ours.

If the SEC were to add UNC and Dook, it would be a great basketball league.

If ND becomes a full member of ACC football, it most likely will be with a school like Texas as #16. That would make ACC football great, as in the full equal of SEC football.

The only great basketball power that the SEC could get is Kansas, partnered with Oklahoma. As OU also has been to Final Fours, KU+OU would make SEC basketball a much bigger deal.

But I can't see the SEC happy with the KU fan base or administration.

(08-01-2015 09:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 08:06 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The questions really comes down to these.....

How many teams would the SEC need to add to become a great Basketball Conference?

How many teams would the ACC need to add to become a great Football Conference?

I could take 1 of yours. You would have to take SEVERAL of ours.

I don't really see your point. The goal wouldn't be to become a great basketball league. It's not necessary as long as people are watching your games. The SEC is the 3rd most watched basketball league behind the Big Ten and the ACC respectively.

Football wise, the ACC is mediocre just as the SEC is mediocre in bball. None of that really matters though as the teams I listed all have strong fan bases. That's who ultimately watches your games. That's what good content and ratings are all about.

You need to define mediocre. ACC football has had 11 bowl teams the past 2 years. In almost every year, the SEC will have the most NFL draft picks and the ACC 2nd most.

What most people, sports journalists and general fans, tend to do is judge by superficial things. They see Texas vs. OU and assume that Big 12 football must be great top to bottom. They see 110,000 at Michigan Stadium and figure that surely the Big Ten can't be media overhyped and it seems. They see the small school ACC and assume its football surely must be mediocre. After all, if there is no way the Big Ten could ever go 4-0 vs. the SEC on any weekend, it surely is triply impossible that the ACC could go 4-0 vs in state SEC rivals..


Quick, last year, which league had the most OOC Ws over Top 10 teams?

It wasn't the SEC. And it sure as all Hell wasn't the plodding Big Ten, nor the fancy pants Pac, nor the Big 12.

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

(08-01-2015 07:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The SEC is great in football but horrible in basketball. The ACC is great in basketball and pretty darn good in football. Once some of the ACC basketball games move from CBS to ESPN, people will catch on. A lot of room for ESPN to make more money on basketball.

The SEC has won as many basketball national championships in the last 20 or so years as the ACC. What the ACC has is a competitive basketball conference, not a great one over the last 25 years. And Dasville since football accounts for about 85% of the revenue generated the question must be asked instead, "Wouldn't the SEC be better served adding two more football content schools than any basketball content schools?"

From strictly a monetary standpoint the answer to that question is an absolute, "YES!".

Remember if the football first schools of the SEC ever get intentional about building basketball programs, we will out recruit and outspend anything that Duke, Virginia, and U.N.C. are doing. Louisville would feel that crunch as well.

What the ACC needs to hope for is that the SEC remains asleep at the wheel over basketball, because Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Missouri, L.S.U., Alabama, and even occasionally Auburn have all risen in the past to do well enough in that sport as well. Awaken all of those programs and get Georgia on board and even the present SEC would be a legitimate threat to the ACC in hoops.

In other words, we don't really have to have anything that the ACC offers other than academics. Proper utilization of our resources will help us to attain whatever our goals may be. But, with the ACC unless you get Texas and Notre Dame it would take a helluva a lot more than 1 football brand to revive your dead last viewership, or your arguably last position in strength.

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

You would, of course, establish the combined conference offices in Greensboro.

(08-02-2015 02:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

You would, of course, establish the combined conference offices in Greensboro.

The conference office should stay in the geographic center, Birmingham. The two network offices would be Charlotte and Dallas.

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

Are you wanting this discussion to be just SEC fantasy, or do you have an interest in how ACC officials and longtime fans think?

You as a typical SEC fan see schools like Wake as superfluous, and we scoff at any conference wanting Miss St.

Many fans have no idea about the Big 12's origins in that they assume it was the Big 8 expanding to 12. It was actually a brand new conference with a new charter all its own and 12 charter members. Any 'merger' between the SEC and ACC would necessarily require the same, and while old line ACC schools would see the logic of dumping all or most of the new schools not in the South, they also would start by saying that some SEC schools also must go.

That is the reality. The people who run the ACC and UNC and UVA and Dook - that is exactly how they are. The people who run Clemson University take endless pride in the fact the only non-flagship state university in the country that across the board higher ranked academically than its state's flagship is Clemson. The people who run Clemson University do not see their school as like Mississippi State. They see it as more like UNC with an Ag college.

I grew up in TN, and my entire family is SEC: Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas. I know the SEC inside out. I have been to more football games in more SEC stadiums that in ACC stadiums. I was in Vaught-Hemingway the week after Chuckie Mullins broke his neck against Vandy, watching normally nuts and classless LSU fans donate wads of cash to the fund that would pay for Mullins' care.

What you do not seem to grasp s how ACC people think and feel. It is not the way SEC people think. In some ways, it is closer to how Ivy League sports administrators think, and more so it is how Notre Dame people think.

(08-02-2015 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 02:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

You would, of course, establish the combined conference offices in Greensboro.

The conference office should stay in the geographic center, Birmingham. The two network offices would be Charlotte and Dallas.

Birmingham? In that case, we will talk of this "merger" no more. If the SEC is not willing to join us on our terms, there will be no merger!

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

It's disappointing to see a distinguished moderator treat a guest of great renowned in such a manner.

(08-02-2015 03:41 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

Are you wanting this discussion to be just SEC fantasy, or do you have an interest in how ACC officials and longtime fans think?

You as a typical SEC fan see schools like Wake as superfluous, and we scoff at any conference wanting Miss St.

Many fans have no idea about the Big 12's origins in that they assume it was the Big 8 expanding to 12. It was actually a brand new conference with a new charter all its own and 12 charter members. Any 'merger' between the SEC and ACC would necessarily require the same, and while old line ACC schools would see the logic of dumping all or most of the new schools not in the South, they also would start by saying that some SEC schools also must go.

That is the reality. The people who run the ACC and UNC and UVA and Dook - that is exactly how they are. The people who run Clemson University take endless pride in the fact the only non-flagship state university in the country that across the board higher ranked academically than its state's flagship is Clemson. The people who run Clemson University do not see their school as like Mississippi State. They see it as more like UNC with an Ag college.

I grew up in TN, and my entire family is SEC: Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas. I know the SEC inside out. I have been to more football games in more SEC stadiums that in ACC stadiums. I was in Vaught-Hemingway the week after Chuckie Mullins broke his neck against Vandy, watching normally nuts and classless LSU fans donate wads of cash to the fund that would pay for Mullins' care.

What you do not seem to grasp s how ACC people think and feel. It is not the way SEC people think. In some ways, it is closer to how Ivy League sports administrators think, and more so it is how Notre Dame people think.

And that is why a merger is roughly out of the question. A joint bundled network, scheduling agreements, and a partnering for bowl pairings is about the best we could do IMO. The SEC, while far from being totally on the same page, is nevertheless more harmonious than at any time in my nearly 5 decades of going to the games and holding season tickets. That being the case even while integrating 4 reasonably new schools into the conference is astounding.

There is only 1 Ivy League and 3 service academies, M.I.T. and Cal Tech and outside of that every other conference's boasts about academics is like playing king of the hill on a cow patty. Anyone whose arrogance is predicated upon insisting they are at the pinnacle of the cow patty will only cause problems. So no thanks.

By the way Woad I've lived in multiple states, have been in 47 of the 48 contiguous, 3 provinces in Canada, Mexico, Europe and the Middle East. I got my masters at an elite private AAU university, and am well aware of Dukies and Chapel Hill. One of my dearest friends was CMO at a big pharma company based in Raleigh/Durham.

But caught up in the hubris is a much bigger and attainable goal of a Southern cross conference research consortium that would be extremely beneficial to the region of not for the delusion and selfishness involved with parties in each conference.

That's why I advocate partnerships across conference lines and on far more than just athletics.

(08-02-2015 03:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

It's disappointing to see a distinguished moderator treat a guest of great renowned in such a manner.

Well oh my goodness, I didn't know he was renowned. If he was he should have better sense than to suggest that Auburn (on average one of the top 10 most valuable programs in the nation) be booted from the SEC and use a condescending tone on a board where he is a guest. Mea Culpa.

(08-02-2015 03:41 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

Are you wanting this discussion to be just SEC fantasy, or do you have an interest in how ACC officials and longtime fans think?

You as a typical SEC fan see schools like Wake as superfluous, and we scoff at any conference wanting Miss St.

Many fans have no idea about the Big 12's origins in that they assume it was the Big 8 expanding to 12. It was actually a brand new conference with a new charter all its own and 12 charter members. Any 'merger' between the SEC and ACC would necessarily require the same, and while old line ACC schools would see the logic of dumping all or most of the new schools not in the South, they also would start by saying that some SEC schools also must go.

That is the reality. The people who run the ACC and UNC and UVA and Dook - that is exactly how they are. The people who run Clemson University take endless pride in the fact the only non-flagship state university in the country that across the board higher ranked academically than its state's flagship is Clemson. The people who run Clemson University do not see their school as like Mississippi State. They see it as more like UNC with an Ag college.

I grew up in TN, and my entire family is SEC: Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas. I know the SEC inside out. I have been to more football games in more SEC stadiums that in ACC stadiums. I was in Vaught-Hemingway the week after Chuckie Mullins broke his neck against Vandy, watching normally nuts and classless LSU fans donate wads of cash to the fund that would pay for Mullins' care.

What you do not seem to grasp s how ACC people think and feel. It is not the way SEC people think. In some ways, it is closer to how Ivy League sports administrators think, and more so it is how Notre Dame people think.

I think Clemson people actually see Miss State being very similar to Clemson and in fact Clemson was modelled after Miss State, at Dr. Clemson's request.

Clemson offers engineering and architecture. UNC does not. Miss State at least offers engineering, maybe architecture too. Miss State offers all the liberal arts programs and business programs that UNC does. UNC just get hyped up in the media because a lot of northeastern kids go there because they liked the campus and basketball program and it isn't 'too south'. lol

I don't think Clemson would stay in ACC if it is a fact UNC and Duke run the conference. They don't have anymore votes than any other program does.

It is true that a lot of UNC/Duke people in the conference look down on agricultural colleges, which are basically biology / life science majors with a lot of research applications. NEver understood the contempt for ag programs. Agriculture is kind of important. lol

I would argue NC State is much better college at undergrad levle because they have engineeringn and architecture. UNC is one of the few large publics not to offer engineering. It may be the only one now, UGA used to be the other but they have one now.

(08-02-2015 04:40 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 03:41 PM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:34 AM)WoadBlue Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 04:20 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I've batted around a few ideas with fans over the years, JRsec among them.

As far as what the best way is for ESPN to protect their current properties and free up money and space for investment in other leagues, there is a simple answer. It's a bit unwieldy, but simple nonetheless.

That would be a de facto merger of the SEC and ACC. The SEC is the strongest league of course and has a long history of association with members of the ACC. Most of these schools were once in the same league actually. The old Southern Conference of the early 1900s didn't break up until 1932 when a faction of schools broke off and formed the SEC. The ACC came several years later and a few of those old schools left behind faded into obscurity. It was a massive league and doomed to failure for its geographic girth if nothing else.

Today is a new day. The money is better than ever. Travel is easier than ever. League stability is more important than ever. The SEC is more than stable, that's not the problem. The problem is the ACC has some long term issues to be concerned about and there are serious questions as to just how profitable an ACC Network could be. Will it fill the gap for major programs like Florida State? Or would its launch simply delay the inevitable.

Some say schools like FSU and Clemson would be better suited in the Big 12 with the additional earning power. Even if it happened, I don't see it lasting in the long term. There's a lot of dead weight in the ACC though so remaining with that league has its own set of problems.

How much does the ACC benefit from chasing Texas? The travel, the issue of adding another alpha dog and historical troublemaker? On the other hand, does the core of the ACC really want to separate? There is a common culture there among many schools.

Easiest answer? Take 10 ACC schools and move them to the SEC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, and Notre Dame if they're willing to come...Miami if not.

The remainder of the ACC are some of the weaker programs that don't warrant as much money. The likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake Forest would be better suited in other leagues. Their primary value is their basketball content and that simply doesn't pay the bills for ESPN like football can. Part of the problem with the ACC contract is paying schools like this equal value.

It really does come down to what ESPN can gain from a move like this. Here's what they can get:

1) The savings from having to pay the ACC leftovers equal value. Undoubtedly, ESPN will still get content from any remaining schools whether they join the G5 or other major leagues. ESPN will still get a piece of that pie.

2) No need for an ACC Network without an ACC. No further investment needed.

3) Additional content for the SEC Network. Also, you can probably charge a fair bit more for the SECN with all the additional content. From $1.40 to $2 or more? I think it's realistic.

4) Additional content for your primary networks. Here's how you do it with 24 teams instead of 28. The league should be divided into 4 divisions of 6. You play each team in your division annually and that's 5. Then you play then full slate from another division and that's 6 more for a total of 11. Leave the 12th game for an OOC match-up of an FCS team so everyone can take a break. Rotate every couple of years and you can play everyone, even in a 24 team league, twice every 6 years.

Currently, the roster of both leagues gives ESPN a total of 224 football games(minus whatever CBS takes) and an additional 2 or 3 per year featuring Notre Dame. Take 24 teams though and have them play 11 games and you get 264. In addition, most of those 264 will be more valuable because of the quality of the league.

The foundation for everyone to get a raise is there.

5) FOX doesn't enter into the equation. Whatever new money ESPN has to invest in other leagues will be a bonus they have for making such a move. Such a move would actually help ESPN compete with FOX for other content, not hinder them.

Instead, I suggest that Miss St is utterly superfluous, and Auburn is unneeded (too Many Ag schools always breed the worst sort), and Missouri is too much a midwestern state. So the SEC should start the ball rolling by booting those 3.

If you have come to this board to troll I'll boot your butt post haste. But this last comment is simply too ignorant for words. Auburn does have agriculture, but also has a renowned aerospace engineering school, veterinary medicine, architecture, nursing, and education departments.

Missouri has it all and then some.

Mississippi State, like West Virginia and Kentucky, orients its mission around the needs of their state. And none of them have ever been guilty of academic fraud!

Auburn has been consistently either in, or just on the cusp of, the top 10 grossing athletic departments in the nation for the last 20 years. Their isn't one damned program in the ACC that is within spitting distance of them. Missouri is climbing those numbers already. Got it!

Are you wanting this discussion to be just SEC fantasy, or do you have an interest in how ACC officials and longtime fans think?

You as a typical SEC fan see schools like Wake as superfluous, and we scoff at any conference wanting Miss St.

Many fans have no idea about the Big 12's origins in that they assume it was the Big 8 expanding to 12. It was actually a brand new conference with a new charter all its own and 12 charter members. Any 'merger' between the SEC and ACC would necessarily require the same, and while old line ACC schools would see the logic of dumping all or most of the new schools not in the South, they also would start by saying that some SEC schools also must go.

That is the reality. The people who run the ACC and UNC and UVA and Dook - that is exactly how they are. The people who run Clemson University take endless pride in the fact the only non-flagship state university in the country that across the board higher ranked academically than its state's flagship is Clemson. The people who run Clemson University do not see their school as like Mississippi State. They see it as more like UNC with an Ag college.

I grew up in TN, and my entire family is SEC: Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Ole Miss, Arkansas. I know the SEC inside out. I have been to more football games in more SEC stadiums that in ACC stadiums. I was in Vaught-Hemingway the week after Chuckie Mullins broke his neck against Vandy, watching normally nuts and classless LSU fans donate wads of cash to the fund that would pay for Mullins' care.

What you do not seem to grasp s how ACC people think and feel. It is not the way SEC people think. In some ways, it is closer to how Ivy League sports administrators think, and more so it is how Notre Dame people think.

I think Clemson people actually see Miss State being very similar to Clemson and in fact Clemson was modelled after Miss State, at Dr. Clemson's request.

Clemson offers engineering and architecture. UNC does not. Miss State at least offers engineering, maybe architecture too. Miss State offers all the liberal arts programs and business programs that UNC does. UNC just get hyped up in the media because a lot of northeastern kids go there because they liked the campus and basketball program and it isn't 'too south'. lol

I don't think Clemson would stay in ACC if it is a fact UNC and Duke run the conference. They don't have anymore votes than any other program does.

It is true that a lot of UNC/Duke people in the conference look down on agricultural colleges, which are basically biology / life science majors with a lot of research applications. NEver understood the contempt for ag programs. Agriculture is kind of important. lol

When I was a student at Carolina, state law mandated that at least 85% of all of the students come from the state of North Carolina. At that time the percentage rates were different for all of the schools in the UNC system (16 Universities). Since that time the law has been modified to be uniform. It now states that at least 83% of all students at all 16 universities must be residents of North Carolina.
There are a lot of kids from the NorthEast that would like to enroll at UNC, but the competition for that 17% window is fierce.