(03-08-2022 08:16 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Yes, built on winning consistently over 100+ years. Not for winning for 5, 10, or even 20 years. It's why we don't talk about FSU and Miami as blue-bloods even though they both had a really amazing 25-30 year period.

The Big 12 will be fine.

If we learned anything from bowl season (where it was the top rated P5 conference with 2 NY6 wins a numerous wins over the SEC) the Big 12 is top 3 at worst.

In basketball the Big 12 is the #1 Conference and arguably better post-expansion.

There are P5 leagues (plural) that literally aren't capable of replicating what the Big 12 did this year.

(03-08-2022 10:47 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 08:16 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Yes, built on winning consistently over 100+ years. Not for winning for 5, 10, or even 20 years. It's why we don't talk about FSU and Miami as blue-bloods even though they both had a really amazing 25-30 year period.

The Big 12 will be fine.

If we learned anything from bowl season (where it was the top rated P5 conference with 2 NY6 wins a numerous wins over the SEC) the Big 12 is top 3 at worst.

In basketball the Big 12 is the #1 Conference and arguably better post-expansion.

There are P5 leagues (plural) that literally aren't capable of replicating what the Big 12 did this year.

It's remarkable how experts like Fraschilla see things so clearly; while 'message board warriors' are so invested in trying to convince other message boarders otherwise.

(03-08-2022 10:51 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 10:47 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  [quote='djsuperfly' pid='18124841' dateline='1646788567']
Yes, built on winning consistently over 100+ years. Not for winning for 5, 10, or even 20 years. It's why we don't talk about FSU and Miami as blue-bloods even though they both had a really amazing 25-30 year period.

The Big 12 will be fine.

If we learned anything from bowl season (where it was the top rated P5 conference with 2 NY6 wins a numerous wins over the SEC) the Big 12 is top 3 at worst.

In basketball the Big 12 is the #1 Conference and arguably better post-expansion.

There are P5 leagues (plural) that literally aren't capable of replicating what the Big 12 did this year.

It's remarkable how experts like Fraschilla see things so clearly; while 'message board warriors' are so invested in trying to convince other message boarders otherwise.

Did you quote yourself for this second post? Probably could have just edited the first post, eh?

Nothing that anyone is doing here is any more or less "message board warrior"-ish than anything you are doing. We're all throwing around our opinions on a subject we care about. Maybe if this is such a bad thing, you might not be here? Or do you just need an echo chamber?

(03-08-2022 03:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

I don't think the massive SEC-B1G expansion concept is out of the question, but a what point does a conference become too large? I mean, does anyone really want to see something like this:

SEC North: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, NC State.
SEC East: Florida State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson.
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn.
SEC West: Texas, A&M, OU, Mizzou, Arkansas.

B1G South: Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Maryland
B1G East: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
B1G North: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
B1G West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska.

ACC/Big XII: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU.

Well, the SEC (and their patron, Disney) won't allow southern ACC programs to join the Big Ten. So that path is out of the question. My preference now would be building a true Eastern division by taking Pitt and Syracuse from the ACC. That makes the Big Ten a lot more comfortable for the Domers, especially if a West Coast division is built around USC, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. Only Kansas is needed for the plains division. Geographic contiguity is not as important as branding and content for streaming/new media.

East: Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Mideast: Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois
Midwest: Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA

(03-08-2022 10:58 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 10:51 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 10:47 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  [quote='djsuperfly' pid='18124841' dateline='1646788567']
Yes, built on winning consistently over 100+ years. Not for winning for 5, 10, or even 20 years. It's why we don't talk about FSU and Miami as blue-bloods even though they both had a really amazing 25-30 year period.

The Big 12 will be fine.

If we learned anything from bowl season (where it was the top rated P5 conference with 2 NY6 wins a numerous wins over the SEC) the Big 12 is top 3 at worst.

In basketball the Big 12 is the #1 Conference and arguably better post-expansion.



There are P5 leagues (plural) that literally aren't capable of replicating what the Big 12 did this year.

It's remarkable how experts like Fraschilla see things so clearly; while 'message board warriors' are so invested in trying to convince other message boarders otherwise.

We're all throwing around our opinions on a subject we care about.

Not diminishing your passion.

Just underlining the fact that Fraschilla provides analysis for a living.

(03-08-2022 10:19 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 09:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Miami is just not a top tier school in the ACC. I think they’d be number 5 or 6 in the SECs pecking order. I don’t think they are getting a lifeline. Let’s take FSU/Clemson/UNC/Duke off the board, then it’s just a matter of the B1G going to 18 (where Miami doesn’t fit) or the SEC going to 20 (possibly with Miami). I honestly don’t see Miami in a 20 team SEC over NCSU and VaTech, but it is certainly debatable.

For the ACC to retain value comparable Big 12 value, they need to retain 3/5 from GaTech, NCSU, VaTech/UVa, and Miami. If the SEC/B1G both go to 20+ in that direction then the ACC is done, and Cuse BC are calling Aresco at that point (or his successor).

The only thing that flips this thesis is UNC/Duke falling off a cliff in BBall given the coaching departures. This is a distinct possibility that ruins the appeal of this historic rivalry. In that case, I don’t think the B1G touches any ACC schools without ND, and UNC could find the SEC package a lot more attractive, leaving all their in-state rivals behind. I think UVa or VaTech also become more attractive to the SEC versus a mediocre FSU/Clemson program when the time comes to make a move. At this point it’s less about football and more about all-around conference excellence.

I don't think Miami is necessarily a top tier team. Like I said, I think they'd still be around if only 4 got raided, but you said 4-6 and think they would likely be #6. Even if Miami was still around though, I wouldn't see the benefit for UCF making what then be, again, at best a lateral move while paying big exit fees just to have one school within driving distance.

(Personally, I'm dubious about the very common belief around here and other circles that UNC and Duke are tied at the hip. I think the revenue disparity is just going to become too large for any school not to be self-serving when it comes to a lifeline out.)

Duke-Carolina is the premier rivalry in college basketball history. The two of them sticking together is in the interest of both schools. Moreover, Duke and Carolina aren’t making a move without Virginia. Obviously, the B1G would need an 18th team and it would likely be Georgia Tech. I know the Jackets look like an ACC version of Rutgers in some respects, but they are different in that Tech is actually located in the big city it claims, unlike Rutgers, and Tech has had actual success in basketball this century and has won a CFB title in the last 35 years. If the ACC only loses those 4 schools if then poaches West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, and some other school to get back to 14.

Even if the ACC loses 4 to the B1G, I don’t see the impetus for the SEC to add 2 of FSU, Clemson, NC State, or VT since none of those 4 would boost the media payout enough to warrant adding new mouths. If the SEC did decide to take 2 I think it would likely come down to VT, NC State, and Kansas over either Clemson or FSU as they’d be adding new states to the footprint.

If, for the sake of argument, the ACC loses Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT to the B1G and NC State and VT to the SEC, then the revamped, refilled ACC would probably be something like this:

ACC North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Navy*.
ACC South: Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UCF, USF, Memphis.
*FB-only

The Big XII then makes 3 additions to get back to 12:

Big XII North: BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Colorado State.
Big XII South: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, UTSA.

(03-08-2022 11:24 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 10:19 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 09:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Miami is just not a top tier school in the ACC. I think they’d be number 5 or 6 in the SECs pecking order. I don’t think they are getting a lifeline. Let’s take FSU/Clemson/UNC/Duke off the board, then it’s just a matter of the B1G going to 18 (where Miami doesn’t fit) or the SEC going to 20 (possibly with Miami). I honestly don’t see Miami in a 20 team SEC over NCSU and VaTech, but it is certainly debatable.

For the ACC to retain value comparable Big 12 value, they need to retain 3/5 from GaTech, NCSU, VaTech/UVa, and Miami. If the SEC/B1G both go to 20+ in that direction then the ACC is done, and Cuse BC are calling Aresco at that point (or his successor).

The only thing that flips this thesis is UNC/Duke falling off a cliff in BBall given the coaching departures. This is a distinct possibility that ruins the appeal of this historic rivalry. In that case, I don’t think the B1G touches any ACC schools without ND, and UNC could find the SEC package a lot more attractive, leaving all their in-state rivals behind. I think UVa or VaTech also become more attractive to the SEC versus a mediocre FSU/Clemson program when the time comes to make a move. At this point it’s less about football and more about all-around conference excellence.

I don't think Miami is necessarily a top tier team. Like I said, I think they'd still be around if only 4 got raided, but you said 4-6 and think they would likely be #6. Even if Miami was still around though, I wouldn't see the benefit for UCF making what then be, again, at best a lateral move while paying big exit fees just to have one school within driving distance.

(Personally, I'm dubious about the very common belief around here and other circles that UNC and Duke are tied at the hip. I think the revenue disparity is just going to become too large for any school not to be self-serving when it comes to a lifeline out.)

Duke-Carolina is the premier rivalry in college basketball history. The two of them sticking together is in the interest of both schools. Moreover, Duke and Carolina aren’t making a move without Virginia. Obviously, the B1G would need an 18th team and it would likely be Georgia Tech. I know the Jackets look like an ACC version of Rutgers in some respects, but they are different in that Tech is actually located in the big city it claims, unlike Rutgers, and Tech has had actual success in basketball this century and has won a CFB title in the last 35 years. If the ACC only loses those 4 schools if then poaches West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, and some other school to get back to 14.

Even if the ACC loses 4 to the B1G, I don’t see the impetus for the SEC to add 2 of FSU, Clemson, NC State, or VT since none of those 4 would boost the media payout enough to warrant adding new mouths. If the SEC did decide to take 2 I think it would likely come down to VT, NC State, and Kansas over either Clemson or FSU as they’d be adding new states to the footprint.

If, for the sake of argument, the ACC loses Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT to the B1G and NC State and VT to the SEC, then the revamped, refilled ACC would probably be something like this:

ACC North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Navy*.
ACC South: Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UCF, USF, Memphis.
*FB-only

The Big XII then makes 3 additions to get back to 12:

Big XII North: BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Colorado State.
Big XII South: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, UTSA.

If that's my option as FSU, Clemson, and Miami, I'm probably calling up the XII for a lifeboat before UC, UCF, and WVU jump.

(03-08-2022 11:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

I don't think the massive SEC-B1G expansion concept is out of the question, but a what point does a conference become too large? I mean, does anyone really want to see something like this:

SEC North: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, NC State.
SEC East: Florida State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson.
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn.
SEC West: Texas, A&M, OU, Mizzou, Arkansas.

B1G South: Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Maryland
B1G East: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
B1G North: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
B1G West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska.

ACC/Big XII: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU.

Well, the SEC (and their patron, Disney) won't allow southern ACC programs to join the Big Ten. So that path is out of the question. My preference now would be building a true Eastern division by taking Pitt and Syracuse from the ACC. That makes the Big Ten a lot more comfortable for the Domers, especially if a West Coast division is built around USC, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. Only Kansas is needed for the plains division. Geographic contiguity is not as important as branding and content for streaming/new media.

East: Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Mideast: Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois
Midwest: Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA

Why would ESPN allow any ACC school, whether Syracuse, Pitt or the Southern schools, to join a league that it doesn’t control outright? A 24 team conference is far too large, but to indulge you hypothetical, why not just add the 6 PAC-12 schools you mentioned, as well as Colorado? Kansas
doesn’t add much and ND isn’t joining the B1G.

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana.

Central: Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska.

West: Colorado, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington.

(03-08-2022 08:44 AM)otown Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 06:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  There is no doubt the Big 12 is well positioned. But if offers came from the PAC/ACC, those schools would jump. No question about it. Were the PAC 12 to jump to 14, Houston/TCU come off. Even if the ACC lost their top 4-6 schools, UC/UCF/WVU would take immediate invites to the ACC. I have no doubt in my mind. Yet you argue otherwise. Is it debatable? Perhaps more so once the Big 12 establishes its track record without UT/OU. But there is a clear cut line at the moment.

I am fascinated by this. Please expand. Ok, let's play your scenario. I'll even only use 4 schools instead of 6 like you went up to.

Syracuse
BC
VT
Pitt
WF
NC State
Miami
Georgia Tech
Louiseville
Duke

Assuming Clemson, Virginia, UNC, and FSU get gobbled by B1G and SEC.

You honestly gonna say UC, UCF, and WVU jump to that football conference without a doubt in your mind as you put it? That is one hell of a downgrade in football and basketball. That would be a hell of a downgrade with a media deal too after a handsome ACC haircut that they would take. Also, there would be no way ND keeps any alliance with them. Only positive thing would be a tighter conference, but I think that would be low on the priority of the schools at that point.

B12 takes Louisville and Pitt, and perhaps USF and Miami.

Syracuse
BC
VT
WF
NC State
Georgia Tech
Duke

That leaves UConn, UMass, and ECU for the ACC to get back to 10.

(03-08-2022 11:40 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  If that's my option as FSU, Clemson, and Miami, I'm probably calling up the XII for a lifeboat before UC, UCF, and WVU jump.

I’d agree with this. I can’t see the SEC hanging a competitive FSU/Clemson out to dry, but the Big 12 would add them in this case, along with Miami and possibly UL/Pitt/WF.

USF, BSU and Memphis would never get in once they hit 16 schools. I think the northern ACC merges with the BE and maybe rekindle the hybrid model. Southern leftovers overs go to a 16 team American.

(03-08-2022 08:09 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 07:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, first, I don't think 'brand' is a very fluid concept. E.g., Notre Dame hasn't won a national title since the Reagan administration

The Notre Dame brand is rooted in the mythology of Hollywood and a religion that embraced that team as they were regularly winning on television in the major cities throughout the development of our mediated society.

Nevertheless, even the Notre Dame brand was built through winning. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you.

- Rankings matter
- Hierarchy is subject to winning
- Brand (in the Notre Dame sense) is built by fielding the best teams

Anyone who tells you the standings don't matter is just feeding into your biases. Brand is most definitely fluid.

No question, in the long run, winning is closely tied to branding. It's no accident that the biggest brand names - Notre Dame, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan, Alabama, etc. - are also among the historically winningest programs out there. Brand name is built by winning over a long period of time. FSU and Miami were unknown 45 years ago, but are big brands now because they became huge winners in the 1980s and forward.

But that kind of development takes time. It's more viscous, not very fluid. More like a slow lava flow than water rushing over a waterfall. It also takes *major* winning. Both FSU and Miami won multiple national titles and had many top-5 finishing teams over a two-decade or so period of time to build those brand names. It's not someone like UCF going to two NY6 bowls, winning one and losing one, 4-5 years ago, or Cincy going to and losing NY6 games in back to back seasons. At least it never has been.

Point is, the ACC schools have a major brand advantage over the new Big 12 schools, and events like Baylor beating the 3rd-place SEC team in this year's Sugar Bowl or Iowa State beating the 4-2 PAC "champ" in the 2020 Fiesta Bowl isn't going to move the needle much.

Heck, as I noted, if winning big recently is the metric, the ACC has it all over the Big 12 anyway. In the past 10 years, the Big 12 has won one combined football and hoops national title. The ACC has won six.

To answer the question, I suspect the Big12 deal will be done AFTER the Big10 and Pac12 deals. So I look for the Big12 to sign a GOR—-but I think they will take a page from the Big10 play book and sign shorter tv deals. I’m going to guess it’s a 5 or 6 year TV deal with a GOR that matches the TV duration. That allows the Big12 schools to claim any “GOR premium” being offered by networks while allowing its members to have regular windows every few years where they are positioned to jump to a better league if the opportunity presents itself. The top leagues will know this and will plan accordingly should they ever consider expansion.

(03-09-2022 11:12 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To answer the question, I suspect the Big12 deal will be done AFTER the Big10 and Pac12 deals. So I look for the Big12 to sign a GOR—-but I think they will take a page from the Big10 play book and sign shorter tv deals. I’m going to guess it’s a 5 or 6 year TV deal with a GOR that matches the TV duration. That allows the Big12 schools to claim any “GOR premium” being offered by networks while allowing its members to have regular windows every few years where they are positioned to jump to a better league if the opportunity presents itself. The top leagues will know this and will plan accordingly should they ever consider expansion.

I agree. Going forward, I think it is fair to assume signing long term deals is detrimental considering the rapidly changing landscape as well as inflation. When a long term contract is signed and they have "look in periods" to ease conference member minds, it can be borderline laughable because there is no force stopping the TV partner to "look in" and say, we "looked in" and deem no change in contract. I suspect that will happen with the ACC as well as the AAC since those are the two that come to mind that are locked in for a ridiculously long period of time.

(03-08-2022 11:42 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:02 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 03:12 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 01:04 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I would be absolutely SHOCKED if Big 12 schools agree to any sort of GOR agreement like the ACC currently has, even if TV partners ask for one. The extra few million isn't worth the flexibility that half of those schools are going to ask for.

The more interesting question, I think, is if the Pac-12 gets one.

Definitely! There's no telling how big the Big 2 could get. If the PAC signs a new deal and no one leaves then we'd know that things have settled for the next few years.

However...

I don't think the massive SEC-B1G expansion concept is out of the question, but a what point does a conference become too large? I mean, does anyone really want to see something like this:

SEC North: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, NC State.
SEC East: Florida State, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Clemson.
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Bama, Auburn.
SEC West: Texas, A&M, OU, Mizzou, Arkansas.

B1G South: Georgia Tech, Duke, UNC, Virginia, Maryland
B1G East: Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State
B1G North: Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
B1G West: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska.

ACC/Big XII: Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Miami, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF, Houston, Baylor, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, BYU.

Well, the SEC (and their patron, Disney) won't allow southern ACC programs to join the Big Ten. So that path is out of the question. My preference now would be building a true Eastern division by taking Pitt and Syracuse from the ACC. That makes the Big Ten a lot more comfortable for the Domers, especially if a West Coast division is built around USC, Oregon, Washington and Stanford. Only Kansas is needed for the plains division. Geographic contiguity is not as important as branding and content for streaming/new media.

East: Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Mideast: Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois
Midwest: Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
West: Washington, Oregon, California, Stanford, Southern Cal, UCLA

Why would ESPN allow any ACC school, whether Syracuse, Pitt or the Southern schools, to join a league that it doesn’t control outright? A 24 team conference is far too large, but to indulge you hypothetical, why not just add the 6 PAC-12 schools you mentioned, as well as Colorado? Kansas
doesn’t add much and ND isn’t joining the B1G.

East: Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana.

Central: Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska.

West: Colorado, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Washington.

This is the point people often miss or overlook entirely. I think we’ll see ESPN pay the ACC programs to stay under the ESPN banner when it comes time. Whether that be some conference reshuffling or not.

I think instead of Pac teams joining the Big Ten, some sort of media configuration will happen. It might develop into an eat what you kill scenario where UNC makes more than BC and USC more than Wazzou. BC doesn’t like it? They’re free to leave.

(03-08-2022 11:24 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 10:19 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 09:40 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Miami is just not a top tier school in the ACC. I think they’d be number 5 or 6 in the SECs pecking order. I don’t think they are getting a lifeline. Let’s take FSU/Clemson/UNC/Duke off the board, then it’s just a matter of the B1G going to 18 (where Miami doesn’t fit) or the SEC going to 20 (possibly with Miami). I honestly don’t see Miami in a 20 team SEC over NCSU and VaTech, but it is certainly debatable.

For the ACC to retain value comparable Big 12 value, they need to retain 3/5 from GaTech, NCSU, VaTech/UVa, and Miami. If the SEC/B1G both go to 20+ in that direction then the ACC is done, and Cuse BC are calling Aresco at that point (or his successor).

The only thing that flips this thesis is UNC/Duke falling off a cliff in BBall given the coaching departures. This is a distinct possibility that ruins the appeal of this historic rivalry. In that case, I don’t think the B1G touches any ACC schools without ND, and UNC could find the SEC package a lot more attractive, leaving all their in-state rivals behind. I think UVa or VaTech also become more attractive to the SEC versus a mediocre FSU/Clemson program when the time comes to make a move. At this point it’s less about football and more about all-around conference excellence.

I don't think Miami is necessarily a top tier team. Like I said, I think they'd still be around if only 4 got raided, but you said 4-6 and think they would likely be #6. Even if Miami was still around though, I wouldn't see the benefit for UCF making what then be, again, at best a lateral move while paying big exit fees just to have one school within driving distance.

(Personally, I'm dubious about the very common belief around here and other circles that UNC and Duke are tied at the hip. I think the revenue disparity is just going to become too large for any school not to be self-serving when it comes to a lifeline out.)

Duke-Carolina is the premier rivalry in college basketball history. The two of them sticking together is in the interest of both schools. Moreover, Duke and Carolina aren’t making a move without Virginia. Obviously, the B1G would need an 18th team and it would likely be Georgia Tech. I know the Jackets look like an ACC version of Rutgers in some respects, but they are different in that Tech is actually located in the big city it claims, unlike Rutgers, and Tech has had actual success in basketball this century and has won a CFB title in the last 35 years. If the ACC only loses those 4 schools if then poaches West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF, and some other school to get back to 14.

Even if the ACC loses 4 to the B1G, I don’t see the impetus for the SEC to add 2 of FSU, Clemson, NC State, or VT since none of those 4 would boost the media payout enough to warrant adding new mouths. If the SEC did decide to take 2 I think it would likely come down to VT, NC State, and Kansas over either Clemson or FSU as they’d be adding new states to the footprint.

If, for the sake of argument, the ACC loses Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT to the B1G and NC State and VT to the SEC, then the revamped, refilled ACC would probably be something like this:

ACC North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Navy*.
ACC South: Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, UCF, USF, Memphis.
*FB-only

The Big XII then makes 3 additions to get back to 12:

Big XII North: BYU, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Colorado State.
Big XII South: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, UTSA.

If, for the sake of argument, the ACC loses Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT to the B1G and NC State and VT to the SEC, then the revamped, refilled ACC would probably be something like this:

The biggest football brands (Miami and FSU) aren't going to elevate their instate competitors. Clemson will also join the Florida schools to bring-in other football first schools (Okie State and TCU). The old BE contingent will ask for traditional rivals...WVU and Cincy. ESPN would then fund the addition of Kansas and Baylor in order to maintain the viability of their ACCN investment.

ACC South - Clemson, Wake, FSU and Miami
ACC North - BC, Syracuse and Pitt
ACC Midwest - Louisville, Cincy and WVU
ACC Plains - Kansas, Oklahoma State, TCU and Baylor

Then ACCN provides greater exposure for schools coming from the B12. Every school has enough traditional rivals in their group. Schools with brands in football and basketball have solid competition.

The answer to the OP a simple YES. Maybe a couple of schools have desires to stay somewhat open to moving, but most want stability. Also the Networks will want stability of their product when committing the kinds of dollars we are seeing in contracts, even if a bit less than half the B1G or SEC numbers, for a contract of any length. So it's going to be a feature of all future Big 12 (and Pac-12 for that matter) contracts.

What we should look for is an expanded Big 12 Network for 3rd tier rights, which all of the "little-8" are on. This will be the basis of a new GOR. There will be allowance/carve out for BYUtv to air/stream content as a secondary broadcaster. But the length of the GOR will be based on and also tied to the 1st and 2nd tier contract(s).

To me the bigger question is how long a contract will this group want? Will they go 6 years like those who bet on increasing market rates, or will they want greater stability and look for a 10 or 12 year deal with a bit higher base, but possibly a lower ceiling (ACC went that route).

(03-09-2022 12:09 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  If, for the sake of argument, the ACC loses Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT to the B1G and NC State and VT to the SEC, then the revamped, refilled ACC would probably be something like this:

The biggest football brands (Miami and FSU) aren't going to elevate their instate competitors. Clemson will also join the Florida schools to bring-in other football first schools (Okie State and TCU). The old BE contingent will ask for traditional rivals...WVU and Cincy. ESPN would then fund the addition of Kansas and Baylor in order to maintain the viability of their ACCN investment.

ACC South - Clemson, Wake, FSU and Miami
ACC North - BC, Syracuse and Pitt
ACC Midwest - Louisville, Cincy and WVU
ACC Plains - Kansas, Oklahoma State, TCU and Baylor

Then ACCN provides greater exposure for schools coming from the B12. Every school has enough traditional rivals in their group. Schools with brands in football and basketball have solid competition.

There are a lot of competing interests in this conference. I’m not certain Big 12 schools would leave for this. But it could solidify the Eastern flank if they did a merger:

East: Pitt, FSU, Clemson, UC, UL, WF, UCF, Miami, WVU
West: Big 12-UC/WVU/UCF

I don’t think Cuse and BC have any value at this point. They join the American or Big East.

(03-08-2022 10:47 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 08:16 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  Yes, built on winning consistently over 100+ years. Not for winning for 5, 10, or even 20 years. It's why we don't talk about FSU and Miami as blue-bloods even though they both had a really amazing 25-30 year period.

The Big 12 will be fine.

If we learned anything from bowl season (where it was the top rated P5 conference with 2 NY6 wins a numerous wins over the SEC) the Big 12 is top 3 at worst.

In basketball the Big 12 is the #1 Conference and arguably better post-expansion.

There are P5 leagues (plural) that literally aren't capable of replicating what the Big 12 did this year.

What exactly did the Big 12 do this year that other P5 conferences cannot replicate? The SEC won the Big 12/SEC challenge 6-4. Kansas got hammered at home by Kentucky, 80-62. Baylor lost to Alabama, 87-78. The SEC won the challenge last year as well. Baylor won the national championship in 2021, but the Pac-12 got four teams in the Sweet 16 to one for the Big 12. In the tournament, USC crushed Kansas 85-51 and Oregon State knocked off Oklahoma State, 80-70.

The Big 12 did not place a team in the playoff, so I guess you are celebrating a couple of bowl wins or exhibition wins. But schools like Baylor and Oklahoma State will never replace Oklahoma and Texas. Over the years, these two schools have been owned by OU and UT. Baylor all-time is 4-27 against OU, 28-77-5 against Texas. From 1996 to 2009, Baylor had 14 consecutive losing seasons, with a combined record in that period of 43-117. The recent success of the Baylor program should not be assumed to go on permanently. They were 1-11 in 2017.

Oklahoma State is 19-82-7 all-time against OU. They are 10-26 versus Texas. They have won one conference championship over the past 45 years. To expect that the NB12 schools can replace storied programs like Oklahoma and Texas is ridiculous.

College football drives expansion and revenue, so that’s where the focus should lie.

The problem with CFB is that with a 9 game conference season and one buy game, that only leaves 2 real regular season games per year outside of the zero sum confines of the conference schedule. Every conference win also has a conference loss on the flip side. To have long-term value a conference needs to have different schools fill different niches.

1) There has to be one or two dominant programs that are consistently part of the CFP narrative. The B1G and SEC have this. The ACC has with Clemson and previously with FSU. This is what the PAC has been missing.
2) On the flip side, there have to be a few programs that retain value to the conference despite generally losing (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, and Duke are historically great examples of schools that provide a large market, great academics, and a city with many alumni of all conference members; with Stanford being good until recently, Oregon State and Washington State I would argue are examples of schools that don’t provide this benefit).
3) Then you need the filler- schools that can be healthy with moderate or low success. This is what the BigXII lost with Mizzou and Colorado. That’s what the PAC has in spades.


When I look at the new BigXII, I see schools that are currently successful below the top tier level. I don’t see the programs that can fill the valuable doormat or the valuable mediocre program roles. That’s why the BigXII looks to me like a less valuable version of a PAC with a down USC. Ultimately either all the schools have to dominate their 2 meaningful OOC games, or the conference will decline due to XII-on-XII parity/losses.

(03-09-2022 04:45 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  College football drives expansion and revenue, so that’s where the focus should lie.

The problem with CFB is that with a 9 game conference season and one buy game, that only leaves 2 real regular season games per year outside of the zero sum confines of the conference schedule. Every conference win also has a conference loss on the flip side. To have long-term value a conference needs to have different schools fill different niches.

1) There has to be one or two dominant programs that are consistently part of the CFP narrative. The B1G and SEC have this. The ACC has with Clemson and previously with FSU. This is what the PAC has been missing.
2) On the flip side, there have to be a few programs that retain value to the conference despite generally losing (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Stanford, and Duke are historically great examples of schools that provide a large market, great academics, and a city with many alumni of all conference members; with Stanford being good until recently, Oregon State and Washington State I would argue are examples of schools that don’t provide this benefit).
3) Then you need the filler- schools that can be healthy with moderate or low success. This is what the BigXII lost with Mizzou and Colorado. That’s what the PAC has in spades.


When I look at the new BigXII, I see schools that are currently successful below the top tier level. I don’t see the programs that can fill the valuable doormat or the valuable mediocre program roles. That’s why the BigXII looks to me like a less valuable version of a PAC with a down USC. Ultimately either all the schools have to dominate their 2 meaningful OOC games, or the conference will decline due to XII-on-XII parity/losses.

The B12 desperately needs CFP expansion. If the playoffs remain at 4 teams, the B12 won’t be seen as nationally relevant. They won’t have a brand program that dominates in recruiting talent and media coverage. But with an 8 or 12 team playoffs, the B12 depth will be comparable to the ACC and PAC.