Ask that the thread title be changed to the P4!

(01-02-2024 07:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  Thanks to SCB

Maybe ESPN sends FSU to the Big 12

https://csnbbs.com/thread-961701-post-19...id19395450

I would think they prefer the B12 over the ACC. In the B12 they could have Memphis with them.

B12 SE = FSU, Memphis, Houston, Cincy, UCF, WVa (the old Metro come to life)
B12 Central = ISU, KSU, Kansas, K-State, TCU, Baylor (the old SWC come to life)
B12 SW = Utah, BYU, Colorado, Arizona, ASU, TT (the old MW come to life)

Florida will still play them. Miami will probably continue to play them. They would be set.

X: I notice you have K-State and KSU listed in B12 Central. I assume that you meant for one of those to be OK St?

To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Not to be nit-picky but the remainder would be 15+ND unless you meant to exclude California, Stanford, and SMU and intended for 14+ND to mean the "original 14+ND."

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Well Stanford, California and SMU won't go very long without any remuneration. The compromise here which I believe ESPN has set up, is let FSU (possibly Clemson too) go and we will shore the ACC up by paying USF and the other 3 adds pro rata from game 1 in the ACC, and the ACC will benefit by adding California, and Texas to the ACCN footprint. So, the existing 12 ACC schools (the current 14 full members minus FSU/Clemson) get a bump from the added market to the ACCN, the 4 new schools get a full share as currently contracted, and the original 12 will split the exit fees and any negotiated amount from the departure of FSU/Clemson. There's their raise. SMU, Stanford and Cal at full ACC pro rata is the stability, USF keeps 2 schools in Florida. The new ACC is at 16 plus 1 partial. The SEC is at 18, and the Big 10 is at 18.

While the SEC and Big 10 are clearly the super two, the surviving Big 12 is very competitive, just not with any dominant programs in football. The new ACC is very strong academically and Director's Cup oriented, but without any dominant football programs as full members.

That would amount to a segregation by value of the members. Two football giants competitive in basketball, and two basketball conferences one of which is competitive in football and the other in all sports.

The Big 10 becomes Football North and West. The SEC becomes Football South and Southwest. The Big 12 remains strong in hoops and feisty in football and the ACC becomes the highbrow hoops conference. Those are four marketable identities.

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents from ESPN canceling the option if they don’t like it

(01-05-2024 05:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents if they don’t like it

Except that's not how ESPN and FOX would look at it. They want to limit the big money to the producers in football. FSU and Clemson produce on the field and in eyes on the product. Pay them. Keep the rest at their current rates.

The Big 10 made that move pay paying lesser shares to Oregon and Washington. ESPN made that move by lining up some late night games for the ACC with Cal and Stanford, but with only increasing their ACC pro rata by 40 x 2 (SMU and USF if added). They pick up Cal and Stanford for close to what they earned in the PAC 12.

FSU and Clemson earn ESPN about 8 million more a game against any of the top half of the SEC, and that's a lot more than they earned per game vs the ACC schedule. That alone covers the added 35 million each for their move to the SEC.

If this is what ESPN does the cost to them is about 60 million to move two schools to a more profitable return for ESPN and to add two schools to the ACC from the AAC. Hell, the added markets of California and Texas may even cover that via the T3 monthly revenue.

You can drop the LOL stuff and spend a little more time figuring the angles.

LOL stupid would be ESPN losing valuable product to FOX. And as much as Big 10 fans want this Greek City State arrangement to work out for their revenue, the difficulties in doing it with product locked up with ESPN until 2036 remains a major hurdle.

In the end what does ESPN and FOX have? They have 18 teams each in which they invest premium money, instead of 24. That's a 25% savings in potential overhead. they have other product which can participate in a new hoops tourney, or in the CFP at bargain basement prices. And those two conferences are useful should each want to pick up some all but football members for that hoops tournament. It's much easier to adjust 40 million down by removing the football value and calculating hoops and other sports and coming up with an amount greater than what the MWC and Big East currently make.

So, you see they have their two Super Conferences, have them for the cost of 18 instead of 24, and have flexibility and options with the Big 12 and ACC.

(01-05-2024 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Well Stanford, California and SMU won't go very long without any remuneration. The compromise here which I believe ESPN has set up, is let FSU (possibly Clemson too) go and we will shore the ACC up by paying USF and the other 3 adds pro rata from game 1 in the ACC, and the ACC will benefit by adding California, and Texas to the ACCN footprint. So, the existing 12 ACC schools (the current 14 full members minus FSU/Clemson) get a bump from the added market to the ACCN, the 4 new schools get a full share as currently contracted, and the original 12 will split the exit fees and any negotiated amount from the departure of FSU/Clemson. There's their raise. SMU, Stanford and Cal at full ACC pro rata is the stability, USF keeps 2 schools in Florida. The new ACC is at 16 plus 1 partial. The SEC is at 18, and the Big 10 is at 18.

While the SEC and Big 10 are clearly the super two, the surviving Big 12 is very competitive, just not with any dominant programs in football. The new ACC is very strong academically and Director's Cup oriented, but without any dominant football programs as full members.

That would amount to a segregation by value of the members. Two football giants competitive in basketball, and two basketball conferences one of which is competitive in football and the other in all sports.

The Big 10 becomes Football North and West. The SEC becomes Football South and Southwest. The Big 12 remains strong in hoops and feisty in football and the ACC becomes the highbrow hoops conference. Those are four marketable identities.

yes, I think they would be.

That said, I would not be surprised if the new adds may not all get full shares, but - due to some other issues that have been mentioned recently - they may give SMU a partial share.

(01-05-2024 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents if they don’t like it

Except that's not how ESPN and FOX would look at it. They want to limit the big money to the producers in football. FSU and Clemson produce on the field and in eyes on the product. Pay them. Keep the rest at their current rates.

The Big 10 made that move pay paying lesser shares to Oregon and Washington. ESPN made that move by lining up some late night games for the ACC with Cal and Stanford, but with only increasing their ACC pro rata by 40 x 2 (SMU and USF if added). They pick up Cal and Stanford for close to what they earned in the PAC 12.

FSU and Clemson earn ESPN about 8 million more a game against any of the top half of the SEC, and that's a lot more than they earned per game vs the ACC schedule. That alone covers the added 35 million each for their move to the SEC.

If this is what ESPN does the cost to them is about 60 million to move two schools to a more profitable return for ESPN and to add two schools to the ACC from the AAC. Hell, the added markets of California and Texas may even cover that via the T3 monthly revenue.

You can drop the LOL stuff and spend a little more time figuring the angles.

LOL stupid would be ESPN losing valuable product to FOX. And as much as Big 10 fans want this Greek City State arrangement to work out for their revenue, the difficulties in doing it with product locked up with ESPN until 2036 remains a major hurdle.

In the end what does ESPN and FOX have? They have 18 teams each in which they invest premium money, instead of 24. That's a 25% savings in potential overhead. they have other product which can participate in a new hoops tourney, or in the CFP at bargain basement prices. And those two conferences are useful should each want to pick up some all but football members for that hoops tournament. It's much easier to adjust 40 million down by removing the football value and calculating hoops and other sports and coming up with an amount greater than what the MWC and Big East currently make.

So, you see they have their two Super Conferences, have them for the cost of 18 instead of 24, and have flexibility and options with the Big 12 and ACC.

I’ll take that bet.


In the end, there will be two super conferences. Fox doesn’t have an interest in just 18, but perhaps they’ll be cut off.

It is fun proposing all the angles, isn’t it? Moderator prerogative on when being curt is allowed , I trust

(01-05-2024 08:15 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents if they don’t like it

Except that's not how ESPN and FOX would look at it. They want to limit the big money to the producers in football. FSU and Clemson produce on the field and in eyes on the product. Pay them. Keep the rest at their current rates.

The Big 10 made that move pay paying lesser shares to Oregon and Washington. ESPN made that move by lining up some late night games for the ACC with Cal and Stanford, but with only increasing their ACC pro rata by 40 x 2 (SMU and USF if added). They pick up Cal and Stanford for close to what they earned in the PAC 12.

FSU and Clemson earn ESPN about 8 million more a game against any of the top half of the SEC, and that's a lot more than they earned per game vs the ACC schedule. That alone covers the added 35 million each for their move to the SEC.

If this is what ESPN does the cost to them is about 60 million to move two schools to a more profitable return for ESPN and to add two schools to the ACC from the AAC. Hell, the added markets of California and Texas may even cover that via the T3 monthly revenue.

You can drop the LOL stuff and spend a little more time figuring the angles.

LOL stupid would be ESPN losing valuable product to FOX. And as much as Big 10 fans want this Greek City State arrangement to work out for their revenue, the difficulties in doing it with product locked up with ESPN until 2036 remains a major hurdle.

In the end what does ESPN and FOX have? They have 18 teams each in which they invest premium money, instead of 24. That's a 25% savings in potential overhead. they have other product which can participate in a new hoops tourney, or in the CFP at bargain basement prices. And those two conferences are useful should each want to pick up some all but football members for that hoops tournament. It's much easier to adjust 40 million down by removing the football value and calculating hoops and other sports and coming up with an amount greater than what the MWC and Big East currently make.

So, you see they have their two Super Conferences, have them for the cost of 18 instead of 24, and have flexibility and options with the Big 12 and ACC.

I’ll take that bet.


In the end, there will be two super conferences. Fox doesn’t have an interest in just 18, but perhaps they’ll be cut off.

It is fun proposing all the angles, isn’t it? Moderator prerogative on when being curt is allowed , I trust

I merely returned serve. You were a bit curt with Muskie. I'm old, know what I know, and don't give a hoot about the rest. Things, when they pop, are going to fray a lot of nerves around here. I'm trying to push civility before it happens. It is why I put the notice about how the ACC is to be treated in the Important Threads section at the top of this page. Esayem can handle his own, but things were a bit curt there as well. I remember the escalation and friction when Maryland departed.

While I readily anticipate something will break this time, whether that is simply FSU or FSU and one other, or an exodus in mass has yet to be determined. My take right now is that the economic recovery "a myth funded by 1 trillion in debt since the start of football season" has a lot of major corporations looking to scale back to make their positions better moving forward so they can be nimbler in their expenditures. ESPN has money. FOX has money. But both are likely to be cautious for now. A move just involving FSU is a fix to a potentially explosive situation where ESPN might have to spend much more than just the 35 million it would cost them to put FSU in the SEC. Maybe they consider Clemson since the Tigers too were slighted at the last minute in 2011, but we'll see.

Until Notre Dame makes a decision, I think the moves will be small. And right now, N.D. has no reason to change course. I listed on the ACC forum, in a thread about FSU by Ga Tech Fletch, the schools which add in any way to the SEC and Big 10. There's Notre Dame and Florida State for either conference, and then there is relatively equal move in Clemson regarding the SEC, and market adds with North Carolina and Virginia where Virginia Tech actually works better for the SEC. By the numbers Miami doesn't do it for either. Nor does Georgia Tech. Duke could be a neutral move for the Big 10 and Duke and Kansas could be moves balanced by Florida State or Notre Dame. But I can't count 14 to get us both to 24. I really can't count 6 to get us both to 20. I can count 2 to get us both to 18, and I can get there without Notre Dame.

While the economic future is dicey, while the international violations pertaining to fishing are about to break and possibly become a flashpoint, and while Israel is in flux and Russia and Ukraine destabilizes Europe and parts of the Middle East, and the U.S. foreign policy and economy are in flux due to an election, my money is squarely on a punt.

ESPN deals on FSU, keeping them in house but in a S2 conference which appeases the SEC concerns over keeping the Deep South Big 10 free, gives FSU what they claim to want, a S2, not necessarily the SEC, keeps ESPN's advertising monopoly in Florida viable, and then ESPN does some patch up work in the ACC by bringing Cal, Stanford, and SMU in with equal shares, and adding USF scarfing up another AAU property in Florida in which the Big 10 might find interest. Perhaps they even seek to pair Kanas to the SEC with FSU. If so it's 2032 before this resurfaces. In the meantime, FOX and ESPN have their Super 2 for 25% less overhead, and that helps FOX in its bid for the CFP and helps ESPN stick to a more restrictive budget.

It's not anything but a solid hold, until many of the things I mentioned above are decided, or their impact is known. Keeping schools in the Big 12 and ACC who are willing to commit to the court rulings simply gives both networks filler stock. Both networks still get what they want, the squeaky wheel(s) get greased, no major shakeup in FOX and ESPN inventory transpires, and things rock on, only in a less risky fashion. That's what I see now.

(01-05-2024 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 08:15 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the ESPN “make-this-FSU-problem-go-away” solution is to negotiate a move to put Florida St and Clemson in the SEC. In exchange:

ESPN continues to pay the ACC the same amount, allowing the remaining 14+ND to split the 2 extra shares. ACC gets a bump in money even though their quality takes a hit.

It would be wise for the ACC to pocket that money rather than expanding and having to distribute part of the FSU/Clemson shares to new members. (This makes the likes of USF, UConn, Tulane, and Memphis sad).

Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents if they don’t like it

Except that's not how ESPN and FOX would look at it. They want to limit the big money to the producers in football. FSU and Clemson produce on the field and in eyes on the product. Pay them. Keep the rest at their current rates.

The Big 10 made that move pay paying lesser shares to Oregon and Washington. ESPN made that move by lining up some late night games for the ACC with Cal and Stanford, but with only increasing their ACC pro rata by 40 x 2 (SMU and USF if added). They pick up Cal and Stanford for close to what they earned in the PAC 12.

FSU and Clemson earn ESPN about 8 million more a game against any of the top half of the SEC, and that's a lot more than they earned per game vs the ACC schedule. That alone covers the added 35 million each for their move to the SEC.

If this is what ESPN does the cost to them is about 60 million to move two schools to a more profitable return for ESPN and to add two schools to the ACC from the AAC. Hell, the added markets of California and Texas may even cover that via the T3 monthly revenue.

You can drop the LOL stuff and spend a little more time figuring the angles.

LOL stupid would be ESPN losing valuable product to FOX. And as much as Big 10 fans want this Greek City State arrangement to work out for their revenue, the difficulties in doing it with product locked up with ESPN until 2036 remains a major hurdle.

In the end what does ESPN and FOX have? They have 18 teams each in which they invest premium money, instead of 24. That's a 25% savings in potential overhead. they have other product which can participate in a new hoops tourney, or in the CFP at bargain basement prices. And those two conferences are useful should each want to pick up some all but football members for that hoops tournament. It's much easier to adjust 40 million down by removing the football value and calculating hoops and other sports and coming up with an amount greater than what the MWC and Big East currently make.

So, you see they have their two Super Conferences, have them for the cost of 18 instead of 24, and have flexibility and options with the Big 12 and ACC.

I’ll take that bet.


In the end, there will be two super conferences. Fox doesn’t have an interest in just 18, but perhaps they’ll be cut off.

It is fun proposing all the angles, isn’t it? Moderator prerogative on when being curt is allowed , I trust

I merely returned serve. You were a bit curt with Muskie. I'm old, know what I know, and don't give a hoot about the rest. Things, when they pop, are going to fray a lot of nerves around here. I'm trying to push civility before it happens. It is why I put the notice about how the ACC is to be treated in the Important Threads section at the top of this page. Esayem can handle his own, but things were a bit curt there as well. I remember the escalation and friction when Maryland departed.

While I readily anticipate something will break this time, whether that is simply FSU or FSU and one other, or an exodus in mass has yet to be determined. My take right now is that the economic recovery "a myth funded by 1 trillion in debt since the start of football season" has a lot of major corporations looking to scale back to make their positions better moving forward so they can be nimbler in their expenditures. ESPN has money. FOX has money. But both are likely to be cautious for now. A move just involving FSU is a fix to a potentially explosive situation where ESPN might have to spend much more than just the 35 million it would cost them to put FSU in the SEC. Maybe they consider Clemson since the Tigers too were slighted at the last minute in 2011, but we'll see.

Until Notre Dame makes a decision, I think the moves will be small. And right now, N.D. has no reason to change course. I listed on the ACC forum, in a thread about FSU by Ga Tech Fletch, the schools which add in any way to the SEC and Big 10. There's Notre Dame and Florida State for either conference, and then there is relatively equal move in Clemson regarding the SEC, and market adds with North Carolina and Virginia where Virginia Tech actually works better for the SEC. By the numbers Miami doesn't do it for either. Nor does Georgia Tech. Duke could be a neutral move for the Big 10 and Duke and Kansas could be moves balanced by Florida State or Notre Dame. But I can't count 14 to get us both to 24. I really can't count 6 to get us both to 20. I can count 2 to get us both to 18, and I can get there without Notre Dame.

While the economic future is dicey, while the international violations pertaining to fishing are about to break and possibly become a flashpoint, and while Israel is in flux and Russia and Ukraine destabilizes Europe and parts of the Middle East, and the U.S. foreign policy and economy are in flux due to an election, my money is squarely on a punt.

ESPN deals on FSU, keeping them in house but in a S2 conference which appeases the SEC concerns over keeping the Deep South Big 10 free, gives FSU what they claim to want, a S2, not necessarily the SEC, keeps ESPN's advertising monopoly in Florida viable, and then ESPN does some patch up work in the ACC by bringing Cal, Stanford, and SMU in with equal shares, and adding USF scarfing up another AAU property in Florida in which the Big 10 might find interest. Perhaps they even seek to pair Kanas to the SEC with FSU. If so it's 2032 before this resurfaces. In the meantime, FOX and ESPN have their Super 2 for 25% less overhead, and that helps FOX in its bid for the CFP and helps ESPN stick to a more restrictive budget.

It's not anything but a solid hold, until many of the things I mentioned above are decided, or their impact is known. Keeping schools in the Big 12 and ACC who are willing to commit to the court rulings simply gives both networks filler stock. Both networks still get what they want, the squeaky wheel(s) get greased, no major shakeup in FOX and ESPN inventory transpires, and things rock on, only in a less risky fashion. That's what I see now.

Notre Dame engineered the addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU in an effort to keep the ACC intact. What the Irish want at this point is status quo.

(01-06-2024 09:50 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 08:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 08:15 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-05-2024 05:33 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Lol, pay the ACC 17 shares for 15 schools, AND move Clemson and FSU to SEC?

Or pay ACC same rate despite losing most of its T1 draws?

Both are unlikely, but the first is unfathomable

It would be better to just tell the acc that they’ll pay the T1 schools more. The deadweight can become free agents if they don’t like it

Except that's not how ESPN and FOX would look at it. They want to limit the big money to the producers in football. FSU and Clemson produce on the field and in eyes on the product. Pay them. Keep the rest at their current rates.

The Big 10 made that move pay paying lesser shares to Oregon and Washington. ESPN made that move by lining up some late night games for the ACC with Cal and Stanford, but with only increasing their ACC pro rata by 40 x 2 (SMU and USF if added). They pick up Cal and Stanford for close to what they earned in the PAC 12.

FSU and Clemson earn ESPN about 8 million more a game against any of the top half of the SEC, and that's a lot more than they earned per game vs the ACC schedule. That alone covers the added 35 million each for their move to the SEC.

If this is what ESPN does the cost to them is about 60 million to move two schools to a more profitable return for ESPN and to add two schools to the ACC from the AAC. Hell, the added markets of California and Texas may even cover that via the T3 monthly revenue.

You can drop the LOL stuff and spend a little more time figuring the angles.

LOL stupid would be ESPN losing valuable product to FOX. And as much as Big 10 fans want this Greek City State arrangement to work out for their revenue, the difficulties in doing it with product locked up with ESPN until 2036 remains a major hurdle.

In the end what does ESPN and FOX have? They have 18 teams each in which they invest premium money, instead of 24. That's a 25% savings in potential overhead. they have other product which can participate in a new hoops tourney, or in the CFP at bargain basement prices. And those two conferences are useful should each want to pick up some all but football members for that hoops tournament. It's much easier to adjust 40 million down by removing the football value and calculating hoops and other sports and coming up with an amount greater than what the MWC and Big East currently make.

So, you see they have their two Super Conferences, have them for the cost of 18 instead of 24, and have flexibility and options with the Big 12 and ACC.

I’ll take that bet.


In the end, there will be two super conferences. Fox doesn’t have an interest in just 18, but perhaps they’ll be cut off.

It is fun proposing all the angles, isn’t it? Moderator prerogative on when being curt is allowed , I trust

I merely returned serve. You were a bit curt with Muskie. I'm old, know what I know, and don't give a hoot about the rest. Things, when they pop, are going to fray a lot of nerves around here. I'm trying to push civility before it happens. It is why I put the notice about how the ACC is to be treated in the Important Threads section at the top of this page. Esayem can handle his own, but things were a bit curt there as well. I remember the escalation and friction when Maryland departed.

While I readily anticipate something will break this time, whether that is simply FSU or FSU and one other, or an exodus in mass has yet to be determined. My take right now is that the economic recovery "a myth funded by 1 trillion in debt since the start of football season" has a lot of major corporations looking to scale back to make their positions better moving forward so they can be nimbler in their expenditures. ESPN has money. FOX has money. But both are likely to be cautious for now. A move just involving FSU is a fix to a potentially explosive situation where ESPN might have to spend much more than just the 35 million it would cost them to put FSU in the SEC. Maybe they consider Clemson since the Tigers too were slighted at the last minute in 2011, but we'll see.

Until Notre Dame makes a decision, I think the moves will be small. And right now, N.D. has no reason to change course. I listed on the ACC forum, in a thread about FSU by Ga Tech Fletch, the schools which add in any way to the SEC and Big 10. There's Notre Dame and Florida State for either conference, and then there is relatively equal move in Clemson regarding the SEC, and market adds with North Carolina and Virginia where Virginia Tech actually works better for the SEC. By the numbers Miami doesn't do it for either. Nor does Georgia Tech. Duke could be a neutral move for the Big 10 and Duke and Kansas could be moves balanced by Florida State or Notre Dame. But I can't count 14 to get us both to 24. I really can't count 6 to get us both to 20. I can count 2 to get us both to 18, and I can get there without Notre Dame.

While the economic future is dicey, while the international violations pertaining to fishing are about to break and possibly become a flashpoint, and while Israel is in flux and Russia and Ukraine destabilizes Europe and parts of the Middle East, and the U.S. foreign policy and economy are in flux due to an election, my money is squarely on a punt.

ESPN deals on FSU, keeping them in house but in a S2 conference which appeases the SEC concerns over keeping the Deep South Big 10 free, gives FSU what they claim to want, a S2, not necessarily the SEC, keeps ESPN's advertising monopoly in Florida viable, and then ESPN does some patch up work in the ACC by bringing Cal, Stanford, and SMU in with equal shares, and adding USF scarfing up another AAU property in Florida in which the Big 10 might find interest. Perhaps they even seek to pair Kanas to the SEC with FSU. If so it's 2032 before this resurfaces. In the meantime, FOX and ESPN have their Super 2 for 25% less overhead, and that helps FOX in its bid for the CFP and helps ESPN stick to a more restrictive budget.

It's not anything but a solid hold, until many of the things I mentioned above are decided, or their impact is known. Keeping schools in the Big 12 and ACC who are willing to commit to the court rulings simply gives both networks filler stock. Both networks still get what they want, the squeaky wheel(s) get greased, no major shakeup in FOX and ESPN inventory transpires, and things rock on, only in a less risky fashion. That's what I see now.

Notre Dame engineered the addition of Stanford, Cal and SMU in an effort to keep the ACC intact. What the Irish want at this point is status quo.

Status quo (football independence and ACC membership) has been what ND has wanted since 2013, when it joined the ACC.

From that day to this one to infinity, that is what ND wants. Before that, it wanted the status quo of football independence and Big East membership.

It doesn't budge and doesn't change its mind. It doesn't want to put football into a conference, any conference, ever.

Genetics (a Big Ten cheerleader on Twitter) posted yesterday (fwiw) that ND would add $200 million a year to the Big Ten and drive its own individual payout over $100 million a year, but that ND doesn't want to join.

He said "they value independence more. It is what it is."

Many things in CR change, but that does not.

People talk about waiting on ND to make a decision, when it already has done so, often and continuously.

ND didn't sign a new NBC deal and broker the deal bringing three new schools into the ACC to just simply join the Big Ten or SEC.

The ACCN already gets full carriage rates for 8 of the 12 most populous states, and states with about half the US population. And who knows how long the progress of technology will allow them to maintain that is anybody's guess. How many more new states can the league plant the flag in to justifying adding more schools? You could get about 12 million more population coverage with Wazzou and Oregon State, but unless you could land somebody like Ohio State and Michigan, there's not much value still out there.

(01-08-2024 03:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  The ACCN already gets full carriage rates for 8 of the 12 most populous states, and states with about half the US population. And who knows how long the progress of technology will allow them to maintain that is anybody's guess. How many more new states can the league plant the flag in to justifying adding more schools? You could get about 12 million more population coverage with Wazzou and Oregon State, but unless you could land somebody like Ohio State and Michigan, there's not much value still out there.

Well we could trade FSU for Vanderbilt (adds Tennessee, 7+ Million population).

Tulane for #18 (adds Louisiana, 4.5 Million population).

There is your almost 12 Million population increase for the ACCN.

(01-08-2024 07:29 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-08-2024 03:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  The ACCN already gets full carriage rates for 8 of the 12 most populous states, and states with about half the US population. And who knows how long the progress of technology will allow them to maintain that is anybody's guess. How many more new states can the league plant the flag in to justifying adding more schools? You could get about 12 million more population coverage with Wazzou and Oregon State, but unless you could land somebody like Ohio State and Michigan, there's not much value still out there.

Well we could trade FSU for Vanderbilt (adds Tennessee, 7+ Million population).

Tulane for #18 (adds Louisiana, 4.5 Million population).

There is your almost 12 Million population increase for the ACCN.

At this point, I think the overall general consensus is that if FSU and a friend (likely Clemson) leave, their replacement is probably USF and a friend (likely Tulane or UConn).

We can play with that a bit or add more schools or whatever, but I think this is a case where the simplest answer probably actually is the most likely.

YMMV, of course.