One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

(10-20-2017 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

This is always fun. What about splitting these 36 into 2 conferences of 18 where they play their "rivals" with an ACC/SEC rival in the other conference they play annually?

This isn't perfect by any means, but its interesting.

SEC
Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, Missouri, Mississippi St
Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami
North Carolina St, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, Louisville, West Virginia, Boston College

ACC
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi
Auburn, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, LSU
North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

(10-20-2017 03:57 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

This is always fun. What about splitting these 36 into 2 conferences of 18 where they play their "rivals" with an ACC/SEC rival in the other conference they play annually?

This isn't perfect by any means, but its interesting.

SEC
Texas A&M, TCU, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, Missouri, Mississippi St
Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida St, Miami
North Carolina St, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, Louisville, West Virginia, Boston College

ACC
Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi
Auburn, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, LSU
North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kentucky, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Uh, no! We are where we are for reasons dating back to the 30's & 40's. N.C. State might like to be out from under UNC's shadow and Va Tech is a relatively new addition to the ACC. So moving those two would be a small price to pay for Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

With WVU and TCU in the SEC you till have the major rivalries for crossover.

Missouri/Kansas
Texas A&M/Texas
West Virginia/Pitt
Virginia Tech/Virginia
T.C.U./Texas Tech
N.C.State/North Carolina
Arkansas/Oklahoma
Mississippi State/Oklahoma State

Iowa State could simply keep Iowa.

So it still works without disrupting history and traditions even more.

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

What an excellent idea. You're close really close.......you are almost there...with just a few tweeks we will be really close, really close
Since the SEC doesn't do well with privates, how about we substitute TCU for Texas Tech for starters and I think I can sell my folks IF we can substitute Missouri for Oklahoma State.

That gives us:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, TCU.

and gives you:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M


This is something we could consider.

(10-20-2017 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

What an excellent idea. You're close really close.......you are almost there...with just a few tweeks we will be really close, really close
Since the SEC doesn't do well with privates, how about we substitute TCU for Texas Tech for starters and I think I can sell my folks IF we can substitute Missouri for Oklahoma State.

That gives us:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, TCU.

and gives you:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M


This is something we could consider.

Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I don't believe his story for another reason: the ACC was interested in blocking any additional competitors in the East and there were rumors that they would flip State Penn and perhaps keep Maryland, thereby shutting off the Big Ten. So it could be argued that RU/MD was a defensive move by the Big Ten, although there are other reasons those two schools fit the conference, like more recruiting territory and student population. Even Delany mentioned about how the Big Ten was "being surrounded" at one point during an interview with Dennis Dodd.

(10-20-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

I do think the SEC has the greater leverage now, although with Disney not wanting further disruptions in its sports portfolio I wonder if they would something to avoid opening things up for their competitors. Maybe keeping the Big 12 chugging along would be preferable to granting one conference too much leverage. The other thing is that the Altice deal made the ACCN actually more viable than thought because Altice's properties include systems in Brooklyn, Bronx, Long Island and New Jersey. My older sister has Optimum at her place. That's where the ACC wanted to be seen. The Big Ten is already there with BTN. Finally, the Grant of Rights extension has made acquiring new schools too expensive for prospective buyers. A lot can happen between now and 2036. To me, that ship has effectively sailed.

In a note of irony, Notre Dame hockey has the B1G logo painted on the ice and on their uniforms. Perhaps a fitting epitaph.

(10-21-2017 03:15 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-11-2017 04:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This will never happen. It's another preposterous troll on your part.

You who say that Clemson would stay true to Carolina blue and yet in another breath you relegate them to obscurity with the small privates and small state schools expect anyone to believe either of these positions of yours?

Florida State will not abandon the Southeast to play in the Big 10 unless the SEC simply didn't want them, and that is not the case. I could see Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech in the Big 10, but in Tech's case only if the SEC wasn't interested and there is a greater chance of that than there is for our lack of interest in F.S.U..

I also think your donors and those at N.C. State would put up a fight. It would be a horribly polarizing political issue for your state. So I'm even dubious about that claim.

What you suffer from is delusional Carolina schadenfreude. If North Carolina can't get what it wants, or doesn't get the attaboys from the rest of the conference for your feeble attempts to cover up fraud, then you secretly desire an outcome that pokes at all of your detractors. Cuddle up to the Big 10 to spite the SEC, relegate those who haven't always agreed with you to some sub conference, and use the Big 10's academics as an excuse to continue to pat yourselves on the back for centuries of hypocrisy.

The young folks around here may not get it, but Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC were built on the back of tobacco money, and when that failed it became the center for pharmaceutical research. So once you had given the nation lung cancer and raked in the profits from that, then you sought to make millions off of the treatments for the disease you helped to spread. All the while you want to remain to be seen as leaders.
Leaders of what? One crooked industry followed by another? Spare me! The whole rotten core up there needs to be razed. If the average board member here spent more time studying big pharma than sports this wouldn't be a very hospitable environment for those in woad. The financial structure, planned phasing out of drugs for new ones that have been on hold to avoid losing revenue when generics are permitted, the number of pharmaceuticals that hit the market with less than scholarly studies behind their side effects, the dual pricing system for the U.S. versus socialized medicine countries, the list could go on and on.

So the people who brought us lung cancer now peddle expensive pills. Whoopie do!

It's reasonable to assume that North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Notre Dame might one day consider the Big 10. But you are bat crap nuts if you think the SEC would permit F.S.U. to head to the Big 10, or leave Clemson in the lurch.

The future is not solely in markets. The future will be in stimulating those markets into actually watching and because of that branding will become an even bigger driver of revenue than markets.

I don't believe his story for another reason: the ACC was interested in blocking any additional competitors in the East and there were rumors that they would flip State Penn and perhaps keep Maryland, thereby shutting off the Big Ten. So it could be argued that RU/MD was a defensive move by the Big Ten, although there are other reasons those two schools fit the conference, like more recruiting territory and student population. Even Delany mentioned about how the Big Ten was "being surrounded" at one point during an interview with Dennis Dodd.

(10-20-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

I do think the SEC has the greater leverage now, although with Disney not wanting further disruptions in its sports portfolio I wonder if they would something to avoid opening things up for their competitors. Maybe keeping the Big 12 chugging along would be preferable to granting one conference too much leverage. The other thing is that the Altice deal made the ACCN actually more viable than thought because Altice's properties include systems in Brooklyn, Bronx, Long Island and New Jersey. My older sister has Optimum at her place. That's where the ACC wanted to be seen. The Big Ten is already there with BTN. Finally, the Grant of Rights extension has made acquiring new schools too expensive for prospective buyers. A lot can happen between now and 2036. To me, that ship has effectively sailed.

In a note of irony, Notre Dame hockey has the B1G logo painted on the ice and on their uniforms. Perhaps a fitting epitaph.

It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

(10-20-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

What an excellent idea. You're close really close.......you are almost there...with just a few tweeks we will be really close, really close
Since the SEC doesn't do well with privates, how about we substitute TCU for Texas Tech for starters and I think I can sell my folks IF we can substitute Missouri for Oklahoma State.

That gives us:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, TCU.

and gives you:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M


This is something we could consider.

Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

You should be thanking me, under the current circumstances most of my crowd wanted to insist on a Vanderbilt for Louisville swap too, which would actually help your "northern" division quite a bit.
And BTW we aren't begging, because what we have to sell you can't buy anywhere else.

(10-21-2017 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  One possible outcome: Texas and OU to the SEC (for the payout), WVU to the ACC (for the value of the rivalries), and who knows about the rest - maybe the private schools to the ACC and the public to the SEC?

It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

What an excellent idea. You're close really close.......you are almost there...with just a few tweeks we will be really close, really close
Since the SEC doesn't do well with privates, how about we substitute TCU for Texas Tech for starters and I think I can sell my folks IF we can substitute Missouri for Oklahoma State.

That gives us:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, TCU.

and gives you:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M


This is something we could consider.

Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

You should be thanking me, under the current circumstances most of my crowd wanted to insist on a Vanderbilt for Louisville swap too, which would actually help your "northern" division quite a bit.
And BTW we aren't begging, because what we have to sell you can't buy anywhere else.

Keep telling yourself that sport. There are three schools in the nation that bring a 1 billion dollar financial impact with them. Texas and Oklahoma are two of them. The truth is X the further we move away from dependence upon the market model the less UNC is worth.

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

(10-21-2017 12:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 10:46 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 08:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2017 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a tough question.

Ideally UT & OU alone is the home run. At least if they insist upon other state schools (TTU & OSU) the prospect is still profitable, just not nearly as much. But the SEC no doubt would prefer the tag along schools to be from different states if it was required (KU & ISU) or (KU & WVU).

It's seldom mentioned on talk boards but there is a ration between the number of states a conference has and their overall success.

For instance the SEC has 14 members in 11 states. The same is true of the Big 10. We each have 3 duplicate schools but each one in both cases is essentially a founding member (Michigan St is the exception).

So the SEC is #1 in Gross Total Revenue, #1 in Business Impact Valuation, #1 in attendance, #2 in TV Revenue, & #1 in ratio of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

The Big 10 is #2 in all of those except TV revenue where their last renewal bumped them above the SEC's current payout.

The Big 12 is the most vulnerable conference because they only occupy 5 states but have 5 duplicate schools in those states.

The PAC 12 is the laggard because they only occupy 6 states and have 6 duplicates

The oddity is the ACC which by correlation should be third in most categories but they are not. You represent 10 states but have 5 duplicate schools.

But the Big 12 is 3rd in every metric because of Texas & Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Kansas. West Virginia has always been believed to have an impact business wise, but the numbers from the WSJ indicate that they are 66th in the FBS in generating business by their sports programs presence.

The PAC is 4th in gross total revenue, 4th in business impact, 4th in attendance, 4th in TV revenue, and tied for last with the ACC for actual ration of actual viewers out of total possible viewers.

What these numbers indicate to me is that first you don't want duplicates unless they
are core members or absolutely necessary. And the only two schools with financial coattails long enough to take second state schools with them are Texas and Oklahoma. Nobody else can. If Duke gets in somewhere else some day it will be on their own steam.

The two commissioners who have done the least are Scott & Swofford. While it's true that Swofford helped cobble together an ACC that has been able to survive so far it is equally true that privates don't generate the business around their programs that publics do.

It's my opinion that the number of privates impacts these numbers severely as well. The SEC and Big 10 each have only 1 private school (Vanderbilt and Northwestern).
The PAC has 2 (Stanford and U.S.C.). The Big 12 has 2 (Baylor and T.C.U.). But the ACC has 5 and a half and one hybrid (Boston College, Duke, Miami, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Wake Forest are privates and Pitt functions as a private but does have State funding).

As a result of this the ACC is dead last in gross total revenue, business impact, attendance, and the ration of actual viewers to total possible viewers.

Now I say this Hokie Mark to point out that the Big 12 is the last possible place from which the ACC can draw more state schools. You'd better figure out how to do it. ESPN might not be able to protect you moving forward like they have heretofore. There will be a lot more players for sports rights in the marketplace.

But all of this is why ESPN tried to get the ACC to add 3 state schools, all national brands and Notre Dame in full at the cost of 2 duplicated states. If that deal had been taken in 2011 we wouldn't be having these discussions today and realignment for the SEC and ACC would have been over.

I still think that kind of a deal could be revisited but it would require sobriety at Chapel Hill and they are still too drunk with their perceived power to see the consequences of their decisions.

IMO the ACC needs to consider offering 6 schools from the Big 12. You need to offer Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas and Iowa State. You need to let N.C. State and Virginia Tech go to the SEC who could pick up T.C.U. and West Virginia to complete the transaction.

The resultant ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech.

The resultant SEC would look like this:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

That's 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12. Texas and Oklahoma play the majority of their games against division foes which comprise 2 to 3 of their home schedule so if they play 2 schools each from the other two divisions a year they rotate through all of the schools every three years play 9 conference games and still have 3 OOC games to play traditional foes of rivals from another conference. Outside of traditional road trips within the present Big 12 they only have two road games a year against the East Coast.

This move closes the gap with the Big 10 significantly and jumps you over the PAC by a wider margin. It increases your ration of states to duplications and states to privates.

Notre Dame remains an independent. And should they need to join in full there will always be Connecticut, Cincinnati, South Florida and Central Florida and Temple to choose from.

P.S. If the Heels holler to much about their division then just swap them with Louisville.

What an excellent idea. You're close really close.......you are almost there...with just a few tweeks we will be really close, really close
Since the SEC doesn't do well with privates, how about we substitute TCU for Texas Tech for starters and I think I can sell my folks IF we can substitute Missouri for Oklahoma State.

That gives us:
Boston College, Duke, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Wake Forest

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Texas, TCU.

and gives you:

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State, South Carolina

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas A&M


This is something we could consider.

Beggars can't be choosers. If you get Oklahoma you have to pay the piper and take the Pokes. If you get Texas you have to pay the piper again and take the Red Raiders. Otherwise we simply aren't going to play ball with this deal. We could take all four and bury your sorry butts forever and wait until you beg either us or the Big 10 for the last of the big time paydays. So what I offered is as close as the ACC will ever get to being safe.

You are dead last in every metric. The ACCN might make you #4. Or, #3 if the Big 12 goes away. But without the brand infusion that Texas and Oklahoma deliver you're nothing, will be nothing, and will eventually succumb to either Big 10 or the SEC. Personally I hope it's the Big 10 for UNC. The move will bury your fan base. And then you get to be the whipping boy of the Northern Conference. The folks in North Carolina are going to love that!

I still think all in all Texa-homa to the SEC gets her done. Try again.

You should be thanking me, under the current circumstances most of my crowd wanted to insist on a Vanderbilt for Louisville swap too, which would actually help your "northern" division quite a bit.
And BTW we aren't begging, because what we have to sell you can't buy anywhere else.

Keep telling yourself that sport. There are three schools in the nation that bring a 1 billion dollar financial impact with them. Texas and Oklahoma are two of them. The truth is X the further we move away from dependence upon the market model the less UNC is worth.

(10-21-2017 06:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

I agree. It's what kept Texas out in 2010-1 when Dodds was talking about looking East. UNC simply didn't want it

Without some big clout in football the ACCN will be totally reliant upon subscription fees. That model will likely be dead in 5 year. Something is going to have to give.

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

Well, I suppose there is a way that ESPN could acquire majority rights to each conference in a P3 scenario...

1. Let's say that ESPN does indeed use Texas as bait to acquire a desperate PAC 12 and their conference network.

PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State

The PAC regional networks are dissolved along with the LHN. What emerges is one national channel(the model ESPN prefers) that stretches across the Pacific, Mountain, and Central time zones. The PAC stands pat at 20.

2. ESPN finally decides to parse out the ACC. First thing they do though is finish off the Big 12 by putting TCU in the SEC. The SEC gets a strong presence in DFW while adding a regional mate for the other Western schools.

Anyway...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech are also added. The SEC rounds out at 20.

3. The B1G acquires Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame. They also finish at 20.

ESPN could then use the SEC and PAC Networks to leverage coverage for each other while simultaneously controlling a large portion of the B1G.

(10-21-2017 09:36 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

Well, I suppose there is a way that ESPN could acquire majority rights to each conference in a P3 scenario...

1. Let's say that ESPN does indeed use Texas as bait to acquire a desperate PAC 12 and their conference network.

PAC adds Texas, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State

The PAC regional networks are dissolved along with the LHN. What emerges is one national channel(the model ESPN prefers) that stretches across the Pacific, Mountain, and Central time zones. The PAC stands pat at 20.

2. ESPN finally decides to parse out the ACC. First thing they do though is finish off the Big 12 by putting TCU in the SEC. The SEC gets a strong presence in DFW while adding a regional mate for the other Western schools.

Anyway...Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech are also added. The SEC rounds out at 20.

3. The B1G acquires Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame. They also finish at 20.

ESPN could then use the SEC and PAC Networks to leverage coverage for each other while simultaneously controlling a large portion of the B1G.

Except the Big 10 would find a better market in Boston College than with Pitt and the SEC can't take T.C.U. because it only accounts for 11 ACC schools, not enough to dissolve the conference and end the GOR.

And Houston can't head to the PAC either because it takes 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12 and void the GOR.

(10-21-2017 09:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Except the Big 10 would find a better market in Boston College than with Pitt and the SEC can't take T.C.U. because it only accounts for 11 ACC schools, not enough to dissolve the conference and end the GOR.

And Houston can't head to the PAC either because it takes 8 votes to dissolve the Big 12 and void the GOR.

With BC there's also the potential of inviting one of their main rivals in hockey as an affiliate. Boston University is an ice hockey power in its own right and an AAU school. BC and BU as a package would guarantee the other teams one trip to Boston every season. Would also put a big hurt to Hockey East. Those two could still play the Beanpot when it's most convenient for them.

Not that I think hockey would be the major consideration but would help with the votes from Big Ten schools that sponsor the sport.

(10-21-2017 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 06:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 03:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It may be 2035 before the ACC finds that there are members in their ranks who no longer want to sign a GOR renewal. I accept that to an extent.

But ESPN will want to sew up Texas. If Texa-homa to the SEC does that I think it happens. I think FOX will go to the mat on it as well and both will push for it sooner rather than later. The reason being they don't want to wait until the streamers bid it up. ESPN has the leverage with the LHN.

The question in my mind however is do they want to use Texas, to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 in 5 years? Or do they want to use the ACC to acquire a larger % of the Big 10 and to mend old fences? Because if they do they can easily place 6 schools each in the Big 10 and SEC and do so profitably. The LHN along with a contingent from the Big 12 is the only option for a PAC which is beginning to ooze discontent.

And Transic, for all the yammering, the Irish when put to the question will go for the conference that offers them the most. The most money. The largest exposure to recruiting grounds, and the most rivals to play.

The Big 10 could accomplish that with a scheduling agreement with the PAC and with a rotating 1 game for the Irish with the SEC. When things were in question with regards to the ACC, and Notre Dame was nosing around membership in what later would turn out to be a failed larger deal, Swarbrick visited Birmingham. Supposedly he wanted insight about the ACC and he wanted to know the viability of scheduling SEC schools should N.D. not take the ACC plunge. Georgia in South Bend is just the first fruit of that.

Should the SEC and Big 10 work together to assimilate the ACC all of the above can be accomplished. The Irish could join the Big 10 solidifying Big 10 control of Northern Cities. They could count on a continued rotation of SEC schools in key recruiting areas, they could have all of their minor sports close to home, play hockey , and probably join with some of their ACC lacrosse buddies as they move to the B1G as well.

The SEC would move to solidify the Southeast and safeguard key rivalries.

If neither of our conferences land Texas and Oklahoma then we maintain a good balance financially and the PAC plays catch up.

It's why I favor the 3 x 20 and if the AAC is renamed & promoted a 4 x 20 would be even better for competitive balance and as a repository for 2nd state schools which otherwise would snag the final move.

Boston College, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Duke (good appeal in NY), Virginia and UNC becomes the rug that ties the B1G room together.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Miami solidifies the Southeast.

12 is what it takes to dissolve the ACC. We don't fight over Texas and Oklahoma and we all solidify our geography for minor sports.

I think it is still viable.

If ESPN can grab more Big 10 content and split the PAC 50/50 as they do now by lease. I think it would work.

I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

I agree. It's what kept Texas out in 2010-1 when Dodds was talking about looking East. UNC simply didn't want it

Without some big clout in football the ACCN will be totally reliant upon subscription fees. That model will likely be dead in 5 year. Something is going to have to give.

Football as a "big time' collegiate sport is in big, big trouble. Yesterday during one of the many games I watched a commercial came on several times. It was a MOM, saying that she loved the game and wanted her sons to play the game. She downplayed the chance of injury and was encouraging other moms to let their sons play too.
The ad was sponsored by the NCAA.
As boomers die out, people that have grown up with college football being a part of their life, and are replaced by their children that either don't have the passion for the game, the money, or the tradition to follow their teams like their parents do/did football is losing their core audience. Overprotective parents who aren't letting their kids play outside without being in an organized group aren't letting them participate in violent contact sports in the same numbers they have in the past. The pool of available players is starting to shrink, and as it does, the future of football as a we now know it does too.

(10-22-2017 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 08:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 06:35 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 01:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm not sure it's viable anymore. With ESPN investing in an ACC Network, I think their plan is to use the SEC and ACC to complement one another.

1. Use the 2 networks to leverage each other into markets they might not be able to get into by themselves.

2. Make sure their inventory is stocked by scheduling plenty of cross-conference content. For example, the number of SEC/ACC games being scheduled has taken a precipitous jump in recent years.

I think this is part of the reason ESPN will "steer" UT and OU to the SEC so that we are fat and happy and far less likely to to want to raid the ACC in the future.

Two points:

1. They haven't really invested anything in the ACCN yet. And it won't launch until 2019 so there's still plenty of time to work out other options. So would they rather pit the ACC against the SEC and further alienate the #2 product in the country for the sake of placating #5? Or is #5 the fallback option if they can't get more of #2.

2. If Texas decides to head to the PAC and takes OU with them along with 4 other Big 12 products then how is ESPN going to placate the SEC? Our T1 is up in 2024-5. It would be poor timing on their part indeed to tick us off right before that part of the contract is signed. How do you think ESPN stock would fare if the SEC cooled to the Mouse? Sure were signed until the mid 2030's but 10 years of knowing the SEC would head elsewhere would devastate their stock expectations.

So I just don't see any angle where they permit Bevo to head West and placate the SEC without reexamining their commitment to the ACC. And I wouldn't be surprised at all with the issues they have faced this past year if Skipper isn't replaced.

The smartest move ESPN could make while staring down the streaming companies that will want to bid on product the next time around would be to double their efforts to land more of the Big 10 (who knows that FOX's coverage hasn't been great for their product) and to play off of Big 10 / SEC rivalry which is deeper and stronger in every way than the SEC / ACC thing.

I'm betting they placate Texas and the SEC and if they do that somebody is going to be on the auction block.

The only way they can avoid that is to land Texas and OU into the SEC. But Texas will have a say in that.

For Texas and for the Three Musketeers of the ACC any material gain would be balanced out by the possibility of losing their fiefdoms for good, which would be stinging for their egos. So there would have to be some messaging involved.

I agree. It's what kept Texas out in 2010-1 when Dodds was talking about looking East. UNC simply didn't want it

Without some big clout in football the ACCN will be totally reliant upon subscription fees. That model will likely be dead in 5 year. Something is going to have to give.

Football as a "big time' collegiate sport is in big, big trouble. Yesterday during one of the many games I watched a commercial came on several times. It was a MOM, saying that she loved the game and wanted her sons to play the game. She downplayed the chance of injury and was encouraging other moms to let their sons play too.
The ad was sponsored by the NCAA.
As boomers die out, people that have grown up with college football being a part of their life, and are replaced by their children that either don't have the passion for the game, the money, or the tradition to follow their teams like their parents do/did football is losing their core audience. Overprotective parents who aren't letting their kids play outside without being in an organized group aren't letting them participate in violent contact sports in the same numbers they have in the past. The pool of available players is starting to shrink, and as it does, the future of football as a we now know it does too.

Basketball's popularity with those who can donate is flagging faster than football. It seems to me that baseball will have the brighter future and that's not saying a whole lot. With the people who support collegiate sports basketball doesn't provide what their looking for with regard to their kids either.

I fear we are losing our moxy at time in history when we are going to need it the most. As a nation we have now educated an entire generation to be fearful and that generation seems to me to be on a collision course with China and will have to confront more Middle Eastern terrorists. They aren't mentally, emotionally, or physically prepared for a future of conflict.