(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

At 17/18 with South Florida, every school has a much higher chance of playing in Florida. Let's say football remains at 8 conference games:
With just Miami - every non-Florida school gets to play in Florida about every 4 years
With Miami and South Florida - every non-Florida school gets to play in Florida about every 2 years

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

Well for 1 the idea is to have Notre Dame fully involved as that would raise your payouts. I picked Tulane because it gives the Irish access to Louisiana. Right now scheduling LSU isn't difficult because we are both under ESPN. There may come a day when that is no longer the case. At that point all desired destinations would be reachable within the ACC.

The other consideration is with 18 you have 12 more games from the full member and 7 more from Notre Dame. Those have value as well.

But if ND isn't included fully then yes you could stop a 16 & 1.

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

An ACC that replaces FSU with Notre Dame is a stronger. Then add either USF or Vanderbilt to get to 18.
If Vandy joins the ACC, the SEC replaces Vanderbilt with FSU and adds Kansas and Colorado for 18.
If the ACC adds USF the SEC gets to 18 with FSU and Kansas.

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

I am hopeful that we don't ever move to only 2 leagues. The networks may be excited about the possibility but I believe that college athletics and football in particular would be the loser.
As you said above, the only way to keep only a little regionalism alive we must not move to the 20,24 or 32 team conference.
The SEC and ACC could continue their cooperative exchange of OOC games (Clemson v. South Carolina etc.) without having to "merge" the two leagues.

(10-29-2023 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

I am hopeful that we don't ever move to only 2 leagues. The networks may be excited about the possibility but I believe that college athletics and football in particular would be the loser.
As you said above, the only way to keep only a little regionalism alive we must not move to the 20,24 or 32 team conference.
The SEC and ACC could continue their cooperative exchange of OOC games (Clemson v. South Carolina etc.) without having to "merge" the two leagues.

I believe that Sankey was speaking with Petitti about keeping things smaller rather than larger, and whether Petitti is in agreement or not I believe there are numerous Big 10 presidents which are.

If the networks wanted the playoff to function as two leagues, the ACC and SEC integrity would be maintained by being 2 distinct divisions within 1 league. In essence it would function as two conferences, only the distinction would be division instead of conference. The only thing we might lose is one set of conference overhead as it was replaced by 1 league overhead. We'll see. but this is if presented correctly it would be the quickest way to what the networks would want for the expanded CFP without disrupting geography further. In that case it is a win for the networks, a win for the remaining conferences of the now P4, and a win for the fans inasmuch as more carnage will not be necessary.

If not, this will drag out another 10 years with more damage done in each phase. Within two years the Big 10 and SEC would move to 20. Within another 3-4 years to 24, and then around 2032 the third compilation conference would be assimilated as each of the Super 2 move to 32 schools each and that conference goes away. 64 schools will provide the needed inventory for the upper tier college programs and the networks, or new providers, with the NFL would help cover the costs. What would suffer in the interim would be some programs, fan anger, and the lost time in which to make the move while the optimum audience is still with us. Taking the 4 conferences now, and moving to an upper tier of 72 with two conferences to a league and holding the expanded playoffs could be wrapped up in 2 to 3 years if we agree on 18 per conference and make the adjustments now.

(10-29-2023 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

I am hopeful that we don't ever move to only 2 leagues. The networks may be excited about the possibility but I believe that college athletics and football in particular would be the loser.
As you said above, the only way to keep only a little regionalism alive we must not move to the 20,24 or 32 team conference.
The SEC and ACC could continue their cooperative exchange of OOC games (Clemson v. South Carolina etc.) without having to "merge" the two leagues.

c

I believe that Sankey was speaking with Petitti about keeping things smaller rather than larger, and whether Petitti is in agreement or not I believe there are numerous Big 10 presidents which are.

If the networks wanted the playoff to function as two leagues, the ACC and SEC integrity would be maintained by being 2 distinct divisions within 1 league. In essence it would function as two conferences, only the distinction would be division instead of conference. The only thing we might lose is one set of conference overhead as it was replaced by 1 league overhead. We'll see. but this is if presented correctly it would be the quickest way to what the networks would want for the expanded CFP without disrupting geography further. In that case it is a win for the networks, a win for the remaining conferences of the now P4, and a win for the fans inasmuch as more carnage will not be necessary.

If not, this will drag out another 10 years with more damage done in each phase. Within two years the Big 10 and SEC would move to 20. Within another 3-4 years to 24, and then around 2032 the third compilation conference would be assimilated as each of the Super 2 move to 32 schools each and that conference goes away. 64 schools will provide the needed inventory for the upper tier college programs and the networks, or new providers, with the NFL would help cover the costs. What would suffer in the interim would be some programs, fan anger, and the lost time in which to make the move while the optimum audience is still with us. Taking the 4 conferences now, and moving to an upper tier of 72 with two conferences to a league and holding the expanded playoffs could be wrapped up in 2 to 3 years if we agree on 18 per conference and make the adjustments now.

The chink in the armor of moving to two leagues of 32 or 36 (if there are no relegations).
FOX would have to buy out ESPN's interest in the Big 12, which in and of itself is a big deal because FOX is cheap. AND they don't have enough time slots to show display all of their inventory. If they had to share revenue with other outlets NBC/CBS etc. could they even afford the cost of additional inventory?

One thing that may interest FOX is to sell their interest in the Big 12 to ESPN and buy out the ACC's contract from the Mouse.
Then the ACC's added market would make it profitable to bring in a permanent OTA partner for FOX.

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

Miami can't carry Florida by itself
USF would help carry the Tampa Bay area and look at adding UCF around 2030.

(10-29-2023 01:16 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

I am hopeful that we don't ever move to only 2 leagues. The networks may be excited about the possibility but I believe that college athletics and football in particular would be the loser.
As you said above, the only way to keep only a little regionalism alive we must not move to the 20,24 or 32 team conference.
The SEC and ACC could continue their cooperative exchange of OOC games (Clemson v. South Carolina etc.) without having to "merge" the two leagues.

Unfortunately, the networks have all the power and college football is doomed, just like my marriage was. Unlike you JR and you XLance, I see no hope .

Frank, think like a network executive!! They have the power over the college presidents!!

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 02:12 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the ACC loses only FSU, why not just stay at 16 for FB, 17 OS. Unless an add increases their average media revenue, what's the point?

The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

The fewest complications, JR, would be to swap Vanderbilt for Louisville.
The ACC loses Kentucky but picks up Tennessee for the ACCN. The SEC stays neutral for the SECN.
The ACC picks up an academic peer, the SEC picks up a basketball heavyweight to join Kentucky and Kansas?
The SEC takes West Virginia for #18, the ACC takes either TCU or Tulane for 18.
Notre Dame still plays five ACC games per year but makes a concession to play at least one SEC team (maybe two) every year.

(11-11-2023 12:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  The way things are looking now, we could end up with 4 conferences of 18 each.

The SEC's best defense is a strong ACC.

If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

The fewest complications, JR, would be to swap Vanderbilt for Louisville.
The ACC loses Kentucky but picks up Tennessee for the ACCN. The SEC stays neutral for the SECN.
The ACC picks up an academic peer, the SEC picks up a basketball heavyweight to join Kentucky and Kansas?
The SEC takes West Virginia for #18, the ACC takes either TCU or Tulane for 18.
Notre Dame still plays five ACC games per year but makes a concession to play at least one SEC team (maybe two) every year.

And the Bourbon monarchy continues to rule France!! The French Revolution never happened. The Thirteen Colonies never revolted, and we continue to enjoy King Charles III's rule.

I guess that went over your head, Xlance, but what I was trying to say that what you want basically requires ignoring history.

UNC & Duke, IMO, want to ignore NIL & coming pay for play, much like the old French nobility & the French clergy wanted to contnue to tax the peasants like they had for years, but the French peasants got tired of it and revolted against the French nobility & clergy, using the American Revolution for inspiration. Similarly, the student athletes are getting tired of not really cut of the profits made off of their hard work, and are looking to college basketball's court case against EA basketball & football games as inspiration. Whether UNC and Duke like it or not, [b] their athletes are in full revolt and the old equation has changed.

Liberty
Equality
Fraternity (Brotherhood)

In addition, Vandy has no desire to be on wrong side of the revolution. Unlike the ACC, who has fought the NIL, the SEC has embraced it. Therefore, happy peasants unlike the angry peasants in the ACC.

If only FSU gets out of the ACC, then it's likely the path of least resistance -

FSU and Kansas to the SEC

ACC backfills with USF (AAU)

Big12 backfills with San Diego State

Why? The 4Cs have said repeatedly that they want recruiting in California.

UConn is another option, but I think they are happier in the BigEast, than San Diego State is, in the MWC.

And that's important because of how little the conference might want to pay an incoming school...

(11-11-2023 09:13 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If only FSU gets out of the ACC, then it's likely the path of least resistance -

FSU and Kansas to the SEC

ACC backfills with USF (AAU)

Big12 backfills with San Diego State

Why? The 4Cs have said repeatedly that they want recruiting in California.

UConn is another option, but I think they are happier in the BigEast, than San Diego State is, in the MWC.

And that's important because of how little the conference might want to pay an incoming school...

I believed that this scenario was very possible a couple of weeks ago. After the last court ruling, I think greater consolidation is coming, and fairly quickly. I also would not rule out 28 member conferences. 20 is profitable and doable. 24 happens if FOX and ESPN need inventory for OTA time slots which equal 12 games a Saturday since Big 10 and SEC brands max out the viewership.

All other conferences would be paid by the stream or utilized on off day telecasts. In that world Skyhawk there would be no compilation conference. In that world schools will opt out. And it would be more in the interest of the two major carriers to absorb 4 more schools each (2 extra games) than to only have four worthwhile schools in a tweener conference. It would be Super 2 only and that's where 28 still works and an upper tier of 56 would still likely be profitable enough and with better win / loss records so it could very likely work.

An equitable and profitable 4 x 18 is likely gone now. Twenty isn't enough to cover Saturday time slots needs across FOX 54, FS1, NBC, CBS and the BTN and neither would it be enough for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the SECN. I think 24 each minimally, and possibly 28 depending upon how many want to comply with pay for play, NIL and collective bargaining.

(11-11-2023 12:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-11-2023 12:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If we want to maintain any semblance of regional emphasis this is the path that must be taken. If the Big 10 and SEC move to 20 each regionalism for all but the SEC is dead, and the SEC's regionalism will be more loosely defined than before, but at least contiguous peripheral expansion is somewhat justifiable.

If the SEC added just Florida State for the insured presence in Florida that gives them in terms of advertising advantage, and Kansas to cement a rivalry and create a 6 team definable former Big 12 sub region to cut down a bit on travel, then movement to 18 would not only make sense in obtaining objectives, but in profit margins beyond FOX and ESPN.

A stronger ACC would keep the SEC from worrying about a diminishing Big 10 from seeking to augment their influence politically and broaden their recruiting athletically by poaching their way down the East Coast. And as the census indicates the loss of seats in Congress up North their aspirations for Virginia and North Carolina will grow. USC and UCLA boosted markets helped slightly with their recruiting but adding them and Washington and Oregon also helps with representation. The South is growing in general and while that poses no immediate threat to them institutionally it raises concerns about political influence in the future.

IMO, realignment has been obviously about sports, and stealthily about influence. A strong ACC allied closely with the SEC is better for all of us in many ways. In helping with representation in areas important to grants, in regional business and infrastructure concerns, in preservation of culture in the midst of a culture war, and ultimately in holding our natural advantages in athletics, which is part of that culture. The Big 10 didn't just pounce on Los Angeles because of the value of Texas football. They pounced on California because of the political strength of Texas.

You won't find any articles supporting this, because political influence is something you don't talk about publicly, or you risk losing some of it. You can keep company with whores as long as the relationship isn't acknowledged, and that goes for the South as well as the North. And state institutions are inherently political.

Florida State and Kansas essentially finish what the SEC needs. If Vanderbilt wants the ACC because it will be a better fit for them then the ACC has to work the deal. And I'm addressing this to Xlance. The SEC will not boot a school. But the problem then is that the SEC will need another school. I think you would prefer to keep Clemson, and the SEC doesn't have a driving need of them. You can't afford to give up Miami too, and the SEC doesn't have a major need of them if we have FSU. I would suggest N.C. State or Virginia Tech but the ACC needs some decent sized states that 100% their own otherwise you split carriage and lose ad revenue. Maybe at that point a Colorado would hold some interest for the SEC. They would fit well with UT, OU, Missouri and Kansas, and would, like Missouri, be the only P4 school in a state of 6 million. I just see them as a bridge too far for Sankey. If we lose Vanderbilt we'll need a private if the legal matters stay as they are currently. Perhaps T.C.U. gets the golden Wonka ticket.

The only way this works and we don't grow to a Super Two is if Notre Dame anchors the ACC. Without FSU and with Tulane you would have assembled the total reach they want. Othewise we move to 20 for the SEC and Big 10 and from there for inventory's sake in an upper tier TV deal likely 24.

Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

The fewest complications, JR, would be to swap Vanderbilt for Louisville.
The ACC loses Kentucky but picks up Tennessee for the ACCN. The SEC stays neutral for the SECN.
The ACC picks up an academic peer, the SEC picks up a basketball heavyweight to join Kentucky and Kansas?
The SEC takes West Virginia for #18, the ACC takes either TCU or Tulane for 18.
Notre Dame still plays five ACC games per year but makes a concession to play at least one SEC team (maybe two) every year.

And the Bourbon monarchy continues to rule France!! The French Revolution never happened. The Thirteen Colonies never revolted, and we continue to enjoy King Charles III's rule.

I guess that went over your head, Xlance, but what I was trying to say that what you want basically requires ignoring history.

UNC & Duke, IMO, want to ignore NIL & coming pay for play, much like the old French nobility & the French clergy wanted to contnue to tax the peasants like they had for years, but the French peasants got tired of it and revolted against the French nobility & clergy, using the American Revolution for inspiration. Similarly, the student athletes are getting tired of not really cut of the profits made off of their hard work, and are looking to college basketball's court case against EA basketball & football games as inspiration. Whether UNC and Duke like it or not, [b] their athletes are in full revolt and the old equation has changed.

Liberty
Equality
Fraternity (Brotherhood)

In addition, Vandy has no desire to be on wrong side of the revolution. Unlike the ACC, who has fought the NIL, the SEC has embraced it. Therefore, happy peasants unlike the angry peasants in the ACC.

The difference is of course there is no paradigm shift.
The changes are being made by the existing power structure through the court system, and in that system money rules.
Perhaps it is you that should understand: "meet the new boss......same as the old boss".

(11-12-2023 08:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-11-2023 12:59 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-11-2023 12:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-29-2023 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  Funny that you should mention TCU.
First I don't think the ACC will be first to free a school from the Big 12. However if the SEC invites Kansas, the Big 12 door will have been cracked open. At that point the oft mentioned TCU movement to the ACC might trump the addition of Vanderbilt.
It would give the ACC double penetration in both of it's outpost locations (Cal/Stanford and SMU/TCU). This would probably be more desirable than additional presence in Florida (USF). It also keeps the SEC from having to move too far west. The SEC can still keeps a six team cohesive pod west of the Mississippi (Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and A&M).


The key of course is Notre Dame as a replacement for FSU.

That would work with fewer complications. And should we eventually move to 2 leagues the SEC and ACC could be two divisions within 1 of those leagues. And if we scheduled our couple of OOC games with each other then that money stays within the house so to speak and access to our recruiting grounds and representatives would be in house as well.

The fewest complications, JR, would be to swap Vanderbilt for Louisville.
The ACC loses Kentucky but picks up Tennessee for the ACCN. The SEC stays neutral for the SECN.
The ACC picks up an academic peer, the SEC picks up a basketball heavyweight to join Kentucky and Kansas?
The SEC takes West Virginia for #18, the ACC takes either TCU or Tulane for 18.
Notre Dame still plays five ACC games per year but makes a concession to play at least one SEC team (maybe two) every year.

And the Bourbon monarchy continues to rule France!! The French Revolution never happened. The Thirteen Colonies never revolted, and we continue to enjoy King Charles III's rule.

I guess that went over your head, Xlance, but what I was trying to say that what you want basically requires ignoring history.

UNC & Duke, IMO, want to ignore NIL & coming pay for play, much like the old French nobility & the French clergy wanted to contnue to tax the peasants like they had for years, but the French peasants got tired of it and revolted against the French nobility & clergy, using the American Revolution for inspiration. Similarly, the student athletes are getting tired of not really cut of the profits made off of their hard work, and are looking to college basketball's court case against EA basketball & football games as inspiration. Whether UNC and Duke like it or not, [b] their athletes are in full revolt and the old equation has changed.

Liberty
Equality
Fraternity (Brotherhood)

In addition, Vandy has no desire to be on wrong side of the revolution. Unlike the ACC, who has fought the NIL, the SEC has embraced it. Therefore, happy peasants unlike the angry peasants in the ACC.

The difference is of course there is no paradigm shift.
The changes are being made by the existing power structure through the court system, and in that system money rules.
Perhaps it is you that should understand: "meet the new boss......same as the old boss".

UNC & Duke should ask SC justice Kavanaugh just how far their $$ takes them. Hint: it's not very far. And FYI, in pay for play, Wake Forest has admitted it won't survive in that type of financial environment.


Refute this article , Xlance:

https://www.theassemblync.com/culture/sp...ge-sports/

Give me UL 365/24/7 over Vandy.

Vandy doesn't help in Football

(11-11-2023 09:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2023 09:13 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If only FSU gets out of the ACC, then it's likely the path of least resistance -

FSU and Kansas to the SEC

ACC backfills with USF (AAU)

Big12 backfills with San Diego State

Why? The 4Cs have said repeatedly that they want recruiting in California.

UConn is another option, but I think they are happier in the BigEast, than San Diego State is, in the MWC.

And that's important because of how little the conference might want to pay an incoming school...

I believed that this scenario was very possible a couple of weeks ago. After the last court ruling, I think greater consolidation is coming, and fairly quickly. I also would not rule out 28 member conferences. 20 is profitable and doable. 24 happens if FOX and ESPN need inventory for OTA time slots which equal 12 games a Saturday since Big 10 and SEC brands max out the viewership.

All other conferences would be paid by the stream or utilized on off day telecasts. In that world Skyhawk there would be no compilation conference. In that world schools will opt out. And it would be more in the interest of the two major carriers to absorb 4 more schools each (2 extra games) than to only have four worthwhile schools in a tweener conference. It would be Super 2 only and that's where 28 still works and an upper tier of 56 would still likely be profitable enough and with better win / loss records so it could very likely work.

An equitable and profitable 4 x 18 is likely gone now. Twenty isn't enough to cover Saturday time slots needs across FOX 54, FS1, NBC, CBS and the BTN and neither would it be enough for ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, and the SECN. I think 24 each minimally, and possibly 28 depending upon how many want to comply with pay for play, NIL and collective bargaining.

In that scenario, I think for football (and maybe for all revenue sports), the concept of a "conference" falls by the wayside.

Schools will re-group up in smaller groups, or in the case of the top teams, solo independence.

It becomes a sales pitch.

How much money can I get alone

How much money can I get as part of a package of 3-6 teams.

Only the lower end are likely to package up in a dozen or so.

These new solo, or group, pitches will be heard and assessed by the media partners

No different than when we go to the store. Are we buying multiple bulk generic or the individual top name brands.

The media "partners" are likely to be looking at things similarly.