I think it is quite possible that FOX and ESPN could make final additions to the SEC and Big 10 taking them to at least 20 full members, or perhaps a bit beyond, without a hint to the press, without the banter of the blogosphere, without their network sports shows discussing it, and do so within the next year or two.

Such a move really requires little discussion if it is the intention of the two networks to continue to provide for the Big 12 and ACC as they are doing now. Such a move would consolidate the higher valued schools into the SEC and Big 10 and the rest into the ACC and Big 12 and by the rest I am speaking of those who want inclusion at the highest level.

Such a move could be made in concert with staying in an Autonomous part of the NCAA or in a new structure.

Open discussion would bring about needless rancor and hard feelings and if the goal is for the middle tier not to suffer financial setback due to upper tier consolidation it could be made in house at the networks with cooperation and could be worked out and simply announced. Of course, the schools involved would be within the discussion, but it doesn't have to be inclusive of those not moving provided their contracts and current access are honored.

My point? If we hear nothing and then get an announcement as to how this final consolidation has been determined, agreed to, and implemented, you shouldn't be surprised. If it happens that way schools not involved but which are members of the Big 12 and ACC will be included and will not be disadvantaged in their contracted revenue. And it is quite possible that the best possible applicants from the G5 will be promoted into those conferences to fill the slots of those departing for the SEC and Big 10.

Something to ponder in a period of slow to no new news.

First of all the ACC would have to vote to modify their GOR contracts. Since those contracts were put into place to protect ESPN's inventory and investment in the ACC network, the prodding for that to happen would have to be initiated by ESPN themselves. That in itself would be strange, considering that ESPN just extended one of their contracts with the ACC until 2036. Because of that extension ESPN has obligated itself to pay "the ACC" until 2036.

Which teams might move from the Big 12 or the ACC into the P2 for each league to get to 20 or more?
None of the remaining teams (sans Notre Dame) actually add value to either league. The B1G would probably be searching for new markets, while the SEC would be forced into playing defense since most of the remaining value is in the ACC's southeastern schools.
If Notre Dame refuses to join the B1G, then I might see the reasoning that the B1G would target Miami and Florida State to gain access to the Florida market. If the B1G could secure Florida they might stop at 20.
At that point how does the SEC get to 20. North Carolina for sure, then what? Double up in South Carolina with Clemson? A basketball school in Kansas? Push further west with Colorado? If the B1G would stop at 20, there would be no need to protect Atlanta. Duke is a duplicate in the same market as UNC, but an established brand.
ESPN's ultimate defensive move would be to keep the ACC together until 2036.

We'll see.

(02-10-2025 05:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  First of all the ACC would have to vote to modify their GOR contracts. Since those contracts were put into place to protect ESPN's inventory and investment in the ACC network, the prodding for that to happen would have to be initiated by ESPN themselves. That in itself would be strange, considering that ESPN just extended one of their contracts with the ACC until 2036. Because of that extension ESPN has obligated itself to pay "the ACC" until 2036.

Which teams might move from the Big 12 or the ACC into the P2 for each league to get to 20 or more?
None of the remaining teams (sans Notre Dame) actually add value to either league. The B1G would probably be searching for new markets, while the SEC would be forced into playing defense since most of the remaining value is in the ACC's southeastern schools.
If Notre Dame refuses to join the B1G, then I might see the reasoning that the B1G would target Miami and Florida State to gain access to the Florida market. If the B1G could secure Florida they might stop at 20.
At that point how does the SEC get to 20. North Carolina for sure, then what? Double up in South Carolina with Clemson? A basketball school in Kansas? Push further west with Colorado? If the B1G would stop at 20, there would be no need to protect Atlanta. Duke is a duplicate in the same market as UNC, but an established brand.
ESPN's ultimate defensive move would be to keep the ACC together until 2036.

We'll see.

1. Yes, ESPN did extend the contract, does control investments in both the SEC and ACC, and has had ample opportunity to renegotiate both the extension and conditions of the extension. And there are certain brands which would be worth much more against an SEC slate of teams in both the football and basketball schedule.

2. With streaming there is only really a need to have contracts with conferences that can fill airtime on live television on traditional commercial national platforms.
Therefore, any network will have all of the inventory they need with a P4, even an inequitable P4. They also save money by only paying top dollar the top brands and largest market schools and paying the rest less. It is simply a more efficient grouping for determining an average value.

3. The question is not so much what the ACC and Big 10 want, though they will get some of that, but what ESPN wants. ESPN keeps the bulk of what they have now by adding North Carolina, N.C. State, Clemson and FSU to the SEC. How? The two Carolina state schools give them dominance over the viewership of North Carolina, Clemson is a content multiplier for the SEC and with U.S.C.e. gives them dominance in South Carolina, and FSU delivers enough market share to give ESPN with Florida 77% of the college sports viewers in the Sunshine State. The only dominance missing from the SEC lineup which is part of the markets dominated by the ACC is that of Virginia as B.C., Pitt, and Syracuse do not deliver the majority let alone super majority of college viewers in their states and neither do Stanford, Cal, or SMU. Should ESPN later choose to close things down to one conference the Virginia schools, Georgia Tech or Louisville and Kansas would give them the one instrument to keep what they have now with 2 and a partial.

A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

(02-11-2025 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

(02-14-2025 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2025 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

(02-16-2025 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2025 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2025 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

(02-16-2025 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2025 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2025 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

(02-16-2025 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2025 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-11-2025 05:53 AM)XLance Wrote:  A lot of things mentioned about adding ACC schools to the SEC is so that the brand v brand matchups could create bigger match-ups and would be worth more to ESPN.

Looking ahead it's interesting to see what has already been scheduled:

Clemson may be the primary target based on their future scheduling. Between 2024 and 2036 the Tigers will face Oklahoma twice, LSU twice, Georgia four times and Notre Dame 4 times.

In the same time period, Florida State plays Alabama twice, and Georgia twice. The 'Noles also face Notre Dame 4 times.

Miami, another team with SEC potential, plays Florida once, South Carolina, once, Auburn twice and Notre Dame 6 times.

North Carolina, supposedly on of the "top" targets of the SEC only have South Carolina scheduled two times and the do play Notre Dame 4 times. Even NC State has more games scheduled against SEC teams than the Tar Heels (South Carolina 1, Georgia 2).

The possibility of brand v brand exists, now. Some of the potential SEC additions already have those match-up scheduled and they didn't have to join the SEC to schedule them.
There are those that will say that they could be playing a slate of SEC games and have a whole season of big games, and that may be true, but it looks as if those "big matchups" are limited primarily to Clemson and Florida State, and ESPN is passing on setting up potential market interest games with many of the other supposed teams that the SEC is interested in.

5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

(02-16-2025 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-14-2025 02:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  5 million derived from a couple of OOC games isn't going to make up the difference for Clemson, Florida State or UNC. And that is especially true if the SEC and Big 10 have a scheduling alliance that disrupts those games. you have scheduled. There is proposal being kicked around that would have an 18 or 20 member Big 10 and an 18- or 20-member SEC agreeing to two crossover games per season and 8 conference games each for a total of 10 P games. The two buy games are left for each school in the Big 10 and SEC to have 7 home games per year.

I don't see Clemson, FSU, or North Carolina missing the boat on that or losing in state cross conference rivals to that scheduling agreement. ESPN and FOX know that this will only ramp up the pressure for remaining key brands, including Notre Dame, to choose to segregate themselves in the top tier. That puts Notre Dame and Miami in play too and is the reason N.C. State would be the cost of UNC's inclusion.

Duke and Virginia scheduled in basketball would be easily attained to preserve those rivalries.

An SEC/Big 10 alliance in scheduling will restore Oklahoma / Nebraska, allow for Miami to schedule FSU and UF annually, permit Notre Dame to play two games annually out of a mix of Texas, Louisiana, Georgia and Florida and still play USC, Michigan State etc. Kentucky and Indiana becomes a thing again. And the top brands from each playing each other is only money in the bank.

This time around if you aren't included you will be, at least in football, excluded. And therein resides the pressure that all administrations are aware of and none are talking about publicly. It is also why at the risk of sounding a bit off base I've tossed around the possibility of 24. I think the odds are good that a consolidated effort by Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Kansas could be dealt with politically, practically, and effectively if they pushed matters. I don't think they can stop the SEC/Big 10 scheduling agreement and cooperation on the post season, but they could push their way in. I can see Cal, Stanford, Arizona and Arizona State doing the same with the Big 10.

IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

Using your hypothetical where Vanderbilt and Northwestern stay put. And adding to that, with all things that are old having become new again (NC State being the price for Carolina), I would suggest to you that 20 teams could be the max, and if so the B1G will likely go back to the Delany playbook and again offer UVa and Georgia Tech (and as a possible return gesture to the SEC/ESPN agree to stay out of Florida).
The likelihood of the last stages of realignment being left to chance without the benefit of "engineering" doesn't seep probable.

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  IIRC MR. SEC also suggested that it may be necessary to include NC State in order to secure the Tar Heels.

According to Coach K's statements about a year ago, Duke would be content to avoid the SEC and cast their lot with a modified Big East (the same talk has recently re-surfaced with K and Pitino's comments).

Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

Using your hypothetical where Vanderbilt and Northwestern stay put. And adding to that, with all things that are old having become new again (NC State being the price for Carolina), I would suggest to you that 20 teams could be the max, and if so the B1G will likely go back to the Delany playbook and again offer UVa and Georgia Tech (and as a possible return gesture to the SEC/ESPN agree to stay out of Florida).
The likelihood of the last stages of realignment being left to chance without the benefit of "engineering" doesn't seep probable.

X, the Big 10 will go after the most money. They'll offer Stanford and Notre Dame and settle for Stanford and Miami (which has a large DMA) and sets up a big Florida game annually for FOX to air.

(02-17-2025 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 12:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, I found that very interesting in its consistency from 2010-11 and in Coach K's revived idea. I would think that there will have to be answers for the two Virginia schools likely Kansas and by the example of N.C. State and Virginia Tech, then Georgia Tech.

Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

Using your hypothetical where Vanderbilt and Northwestern stay put. And adding to that, with all things that are old having become new again (NC State being the price for Carolina), I would suggest to you that 20 teams could be the max, and if so the B1G will likely go back to the Delany playbook and again offer UVa and Georgia Tech (and as a possible return gesture to the SEC/ESPN agree to stay out of Florida).
The likelihood of the last stages of realignment being left to chance without the benefit of "engineering" doesn't seep probable.

X, the Big 10 will go after the most money. They'll offer Stanford and Notre Dame and settle for Stanford and Miami (which has a large DMA) and sets up a big Florida game annually for FOX to air.

Maybe.
What's truly interesting is that in the hypothetical all six schools used to boost the memberships of the SEC and the B1G all come from the ACC.
(Clemson, FSU, State, Carolina and Stanford Miami/NotreDame)

(02-17-2025 07:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  Let's look at recent trends over the last several years, most notably in private vs. state supported institutions.

As realignment has heated up the ability of private schools being able to "keep up" has diminished. Even schools in the P2 (Vanderbilt and Northwestern) with a supposed money advantage have had a hard time improving facilities and improving their on field/court performances.
This is the ACC's biggest problem. BC, Syracuse, Duke, Wake Forest and even Miami have had a hard time attaining success and maintaining it.
In fact the only two private schools that have competed at the highest level are Notre Dame and USC (and I'm not convinced USC can actually regain what they once had even with B1G money and exposure).
We have danced around the Magnolia concept many times, but it could be Notre Dame's ultimate escape plan.
A conference made up of privates and a few state institutions (perhaps Cal and even GT) could give the Irish a "Home".
Miami, GT, Wake Forest, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Tulane, Rice?, Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame. You could even let the Irish remain "independent", add in the service academies and throw in TCU and Baylor and you have a worthy 18 team league that compete on it's own level.

Just a Sunday afternoon musing.
Maybe K's "Big East" is just a stalking horse for the "New Magnolia".

I don't think there is any limit to what Notre Dame would be willing to do to keep control over as much of their football program as possible.

It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

Using your hypothetical where Vanderbilt and Northwestern stay put. And adding to that, with all things that are old having become new again (NC State being the price for Carolina), I would suggest to you that 20 teams could be the max, and if so the B1G will likely go back to the Delany playbook and again offer UVa and Georgia Tech (and as a possible return gesture to the SEC/ESPN agree to stay out of Florida).
The likelihood of the last stages of realignment being left to chance without the benefit of "engineering" doesn't seep probable.

X, the Big 10 will go after the most money. They'll offer Stanford and Notre Dame and settle for Stanford and Miami (which has a large DMA) and sets up a big Florida game annually for FOX to air.

Maybe.
What's truly interesting is that in the hypothetical all six schools used to boost the memberships of the SEC and the B1G all come from the ACC.
(Clemson, FSU, State, Carolina and Stanford Miami/NotreDame)

Should that be surprising? The ACC was always the parking lot for future ESPN leverage. In the 90's the Big East looked promising for the Big 10 to expand out of following the addition of Penn State. Notre Dame was parked there. So before the Big East could be used to make an aggressive move against the ACC, ESPN used it to make an aggressive move against the Big East taking B.C. (then of recent Flutie success), Pittsburgh, Syracuse (which was playing solid football at the time) Virginia Tech (see Syracuse) and what looked to be a building dynasty in Miami. Now these trickled in after the initial raid but the move blocked opportunities to the recalcitrant Big 10 where Delany had told them where to put their offer and where the Big 10 was launching its own network in response. Similarly, ESPN used the SEC to break open the SWC and then pick apart the Big 12. They initially had designs on building a rival to the SEC with the key Big 12 components and when that fell through, they used the SEC to sew them up anyway, with the exception of Kansas. That move destabilized the PAC 12 and the Big 10 pounced to keep up with the OU/UT add to the SEC. Stanford and Cal were rescued from the burning PAC 12 ruin while the Big 12 parked the lesser valued 4 corners. Why SMU, Stanford and Cal? ESPN had half of TCU and wanted to keep SMU tied up to keep the Big 10 out of Dallas until ESPN had the deal they wanted and, in the meantime, they play keep away with Stanford and Notre Dame to boot.

ESPN has wanted Big 10 product since Delany told them to pound sand. Syracuse once held great promise as a leverage to that end. Now Miami does, and possibly Georgia Tech. But make no mistake the Big 10 eyes the Notre Dame and Stanford endowments and looks at nearly 54 billion in research money that could be used as a lure to lobby through the Big Ten initiative for grants whether in total to those schools or more specifically for those for which portions of the grants could be shared among member institutions. And it doesn't hurt that Stanford and Notre Dame have national audiences and are proficient in more sports than football.

If now is the time to have 2 Super Conferences the old core ACC is a continued lure for SEC obedience, Notre Dame and Stanford/Miami for the Big 10's acquiescence or FOX's cooperation, and the remainder of the Big 12 and ACC makes for some quality filler and for the cheap price of essentially the current rate and access to the post season CFP or any new hoops tourney.

Had the Big East continued to be strong in football and the traditional ACC schools improved things may have turned out quite differently and the focus of the ACC and SEC may have been altered accordingly, but now the die is cast. ESPN will play its chips to have the whip hand going into this new NIL/Portal/CFP era.

The rub for me has always been over 20 or 24. Clearly 20 is more profitable for those 20, but 24 is needed to preserve rivalries and identities important to the game and to ensure continued regional interest from affected areas.

The Magnificent 7 made sense completely when paired with Kansas, another of ESPN's special interests.

Notre Dame, Stanford cleans up the Big 10's East and Pacific West. Miami and Georgia Tech give them their Southern DMAs for a national conference, but without impacting ESPN's dominant advertising leverage for the entire region. Then Colorado and one of the Arizona schools or Utah give them their bridge to the Pacific.

Meanwhile, the SEC/SWC/ACC core SoCon members reunite with a few new faces.

Clemson, Florida State, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia and Virginia Tech plus Kansas does it. I'm sure from your vantage point swapping Georgia Tech for Kansas with the Big 10 makes it better (assuming the bridge then becomes Kansas and Colorado instead of Colorado and Arizona/Utah). The SEC would be fine either way.

It is nothing but a personal preference, but 24 to me seems to be more calming to the average fan of the schools involved than 20 would be and it seems to me we would be preserving more of the heritage with such a move.

Twenty seems like needless but painful amputations will occur.

(02-17-2025 08:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 07:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 03:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-16-2025 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It will be interesting to see it play out. If the Irish do choose a separate path I don't think it will matter much, or change the natural standing of things as they currently exist. I'm not sure you'll get Vanderbilt or Northwestern to depart their present situations but a private school league as a third upper tier conference would probably be as equitable as it could get for them. I'm not sure they would all have to play football either. It might be quite possible to have that Big East merger with the following, and understanding that UConn does play football: Air Force, Army, Baylor, Boston College, Brigham Young, Duke, Navy, Pittsburgh, S.M.U., Syracuse, Stanford, T.C.U., Tulane, Wake Forest, plus publics Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida, and West Virginia. That's 18 that play football. Now consider Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech. Now you have 24 football playing members. Expand that by Butler, Georgetown, Marquette, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Villanova, or the rest and there is a true power conference for basketball and a strong secondary for football. If Notre Dame wants to affiliate with those then so be it.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Kansas, UNC, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech to the SEC

Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Miami, Utah to the Big 10

Now you have 72 football programs, a more representative field for basketball, and no reason to play outside that grouping.

But for the matter at hand, to 20 it would be Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina and N.C. State.

If Swarbrick and Warren were correct about the potential of moving to two conferences of 22 then add the Virginia schools.

The conferences will grow as large as ESPN and FOX need them to be as long as they are willing to pay for the growth. At 20 value covers the additions. Perhaps at 22 value is still in play. At 24 it would have to be pro rata and because the networks either needed to satisfy some political issues, or wanted divisions, or needed the inventory.

Using your hypothetical where Vanderbilt and Northwestern stay put. And adding to that, with all things that are old having become new again (NC State being the price for Carolina), I would suggest to you that 20 teams could be the max, and if so the B1G will likely go back to the Delany playbook and again offer UVa and Georgia Tech (and as a possible return gesture to the SEC/ESPN agree to stay out of Florida).
The likelihood of the last stages of realignment being left to chance without the benefit of "engineering" doesn't seep probable.

X, the Big 10 will go after the most money. They'll offer Stanford and Notre Dame and settle for Stanford and Miami (which has a large DMA) and sets up a big Florida game annually for FOX to air.

Maybe.
What's truly interesting is that in the hypothetical all six schools used to boost the memberships of the SEC and the B1G all come from the ACC.
(Clemson, FSU, State, Carolina and Stanford Miami/NotreDame)

Should that be surprising? The ACC was always the parking lot for future ESPN leverage. In the 90's the Big East looked promising for the Big 10 to expand out of following the addition of Penn State. Notre Dame was parked there. So before the Big East could be used to make an aggressive move against the ACC, ESPN used it to make an aggressive move against the Big East taking B.C. (then of recent Flutie success), Pittsburgh, Syracuse (which was playing solid football at the time) Virginia Tech (see Syracuse) and what looked to be a building dynasty in Miami. Now these trickled in after the initial raid but the move blocked opportunities to the recalcitrant Big 10 where Delany had told them where to put their offer and where the Big 10 was launching its own network in response. Similarly, ESPN used the SEC to break open the SWC and then pick apart the Big 12. They initially had designs on building a rival to the SEC with the key Big 12 components and when that fell through, they used the SEC to sew them up anyway, with the exception of Kansas. That move destabilized the PAC 12 and the Big 10 pounced to keep up with the OU/UT add to the SEC. Stanford and Cal were rescued from the burning PAC 12 ruin while the Big 12 parked the lesser valued 4 corners. Why SMU, Stanford and Cal? ESPN had half of TCU and wanted to keep SMU tied up to keep the Big 10 out of Dallas until ESPN had the deal they wanted and, in the meantime, they play keep away with Stanford and Notre Dame to boot.

ESPN has wanted Big 10 product since Delany told them to pound sand. Syracuse once held great promise as a leverage to that end. Now Miami does, and possibly Georgia Tech. But make no mistake the Big 10 eyes the Notre Dame and Stanford endowments and looks at nearly 54 billion in research money that could be used as a lure to lobby through the Big Ten initiative for grants whether in total to those schools or more specifically for those for which portions of the grants could be shared among member institutions. And it doesn't hurt that Stanford and Notre Dame have national audiences and are proficient in more sports than football.

If now is the time to have 2 Super Conferences the old core ACC is a continued lure for SEC obedience, Notre Dame and Stanford/Miami for the Big 10's acquiescence or FOX's cooperation, and the remainder of the Big 12 and ACC makes for some quality filler and for the cheap price of essentially the current rate and access to the post season CFP or any new hoops tourney.

Had the Big East continued to be strong in football and the traditional ACC schools improved things may have turned out quite differently and the focus of the ACC and SEC may have been altered accordingly, but now the die is cast. ESPN will play its chips to have the whip hand going into this new NIL/Portal/CFP era.

The rub for me has always been over 20 or 24. Clearly 20 is more profitable for those 20, but 24 is needed to preserve rivalries and identities important to the game and to ensure continued regional interest from affected areas.

The Magnificent 7 made sense completely when paired with Kansas, another of ESPN's special interests.

Notre Dame, Stanford cleans up the Big 10's East and Pacific West. Miami and Georgia Tech give them their Southern DMAs for a national conference, but without impacting ESPN's dominant advertising leverage for the entire region. Then Colorado and one of the Arizona schools or Utah give them their bridge to the Pacific.

Meanwhile, the SEC/SWC/ACC core SoCon members reunite with a few new faces.

Clemson, Florida State, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia and Virginia Tech plus Kansas does it. I'm sure from your vantage point swapping Georgia Tech for Kansas with the Big 10 makes it better (assuming the bridge then becomes Kansas and Colorado instead of Colorado and Arizona/Utah). The SEC would be fine either way.

It is nothing but a personal preference, but 24 to me seems to be more calming to the average fan of the schools involved than 20 would be and it seems to me we would be preserving more of the heritage with such a move.

Twenty seems like needless but painful amputations will occur.

It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

If the Big 10 doesn't make it based on money it will be because once again FOX thwarted them in favor of markets/total potential viewers, as they did by limiting the pay for Oregon and Washington in order to cut off pursuit of Stanford and Cal. But part of that was that FOX's partners CBS (always stingy) and NBC (which really just wanted N.D.) were reticent to bite off more.

The SEC/ACC has had the benefit of being in the fastest growing region of the country and that means they could stay regional and grow market share naturally. ESPN is on board with this completely. It is why I expect as consolidation continues their approach will be to keep it regional and that lines up with the SEC's natural desires.

ESPN has also seen the ability to play brand on brand within its larger grouping of schools under contract. It will boost the value of its major ACC brands by brand association with those of the old SWC/B12 and SEC as that is really all the Big 10 is trying to do now under FOX's direction. It's just that their attempts have to be national in nature because the regional approach can't contain the brands needed to keep pace.

But to take that to the next move for value that is why the two groups would form some kind of League. Build two large groups of brands, wrap them in a natural North / South tagged rivalry, and make sure you can schedule enough crossover games to keep the public's interest. There's your mini NFL.

Both FOX and ESPN are seeking market penetration and packaging the market leaders to get it. They disguised this process as "Conference Growth" initially and used their various carrots to get the mule to move. Subscription Footprint for Cable TV, Market footprint tier 3 networks, and then Smart TV made them adjust that once more to actual eyeballs. You enhance the value of North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Duke by grouping them with programs that already command more actual eyes on the product.

If the Big 10 presidents have any resolve left in them Stanford will eventually be in the Big 10. If not, it might well be an Arizona school, or a school from a large DMA like Georgia Tech or Miami. But I don't think ESPN lets that happen and the acquisition of SMU to prevent a DFW school from being incorporated into the Big 10's national market plan was pretty clear.

So here we are on the precipice of a new order of things in collegiate sports. ESPN has the best hand and is simply rearranging how it looks at its cards and I doubt they sluff any large DMAs from their well assmembled region to FOX. We'll see.

(02-18-2025 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

If the Big 10 doesn't make it based on money it will be because once again FOX thwarted them in favor of markets/total potential viewers, as they did by limiting the pay for Oregon and Washington in order to cut off pursuit of Stanford and Cal. But part of that was that FOX's partners CBS (always stingy) and NBC (which really just wanted N.D.) were reticent to bite off more.

The SEC/ACC has had the benefit of being in the fastest growing region of the country and that means they could stay regional and grow market share naturally. ESPN is on board with this completely. It is why I expect as consolidation continues their approach will be to keep it regional and that lines up with the SEC's natural desires.

ESPN has also seen the ability to play brand on brand within its larger grouping of schools under contract. It will boost the value of its major ACC brands by brand association with those of the old SWC/B12 and SEC as that is really all the Big 10 is trying to do now under FOX's direction. It's just that their attempts have to be national in nature because the regional approach can't contain the brands needed to keep pace.

But to take that to the next move for value that is why the two groups would form some kind of League. Build two large groups of brands, wrap them in a natural North / South tagged rivalry, and make sure you can schedule enough crossover games to keep the public's interest. There's your mini NFL.

Both FOX and ESPN are seeking market penetration and packaging the market leaders to get it. They disguised this process as "Conference Growth" initially and used their various carrots to get the mule to move. Subscription Footprint for Cable TV, Market footprint tier 3 networks, and then Smart TV made them adjust that once more to actual eyeballs. You enhance the value of North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Duke by grouping them with programs that already command more actual eyes on the product.

If the Big 10 presidents have any resolve left in them Stanford will eventually be in the Big 10. If not, it might well be an Arizona school, or a school from a large DMA like Georgia Tech or Miami. But I don't think ESPN lets that happen and the acquisition of SMU to prevent a DFW school from being incorporated into the Big 10's national market plan was pretty clear.

So here we are on the precipice of a new order of things in collegiate sports. ESPN has the best hand and is simply rearranging how it looks at its cards and I doubt they sluff any large DMAs from their well assmembled region to FOX. We'll see.

If I were a TV exec, I probably would have passed over the Bay Area too. The only reason the ACC took them in was because Notre Dame twisted the ACC's arm, and they were picked up for a song.

ESPN put a band-aid on their empire by extending the ACC's contract, but are now obligated to pay the 17 team league through 2036.
The threat to that empire; the lawsuits brought by FSU and Clemson that still hang like the Sword of Damocles.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

(02-19-2025 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2025 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

If the Big 10 doesn't make it based on money it will be because once again FOX thwarted them in favor of markets/total potential viewers, as they did by limiting the pay for Oregon and Washington in order to cut off pursuit of Stanford and Cal. But part of that was that FOX's partners CBS (always stingy) and NBC (which really just wanted N.D.) were reticent to bite off more.

The SEC/ACC has had the benefit of being in the fastest growing region of the country and that means they could stay regional and grow market share naturally. ESPN is on board with this completely. It is why I expect as consolidation continues their approach will be to keep it regional and that lines up with the SEC's natural desires.

ESPN has also seen the ability to play brand on brand within its larger grouping of schools under contract. It will boost the value of its major ACC brands by brand association with those of the old SWC/B12 and SEC as that is really all the Big 10 is trying to do now under FOX's direction. It's just that their attempts have to be national in nature because the regional approach can't contain the brands needed to keep pace.

But to take that to the next move for value that is why the two groups would form some kind of League. Build two large groups of brands, wrap them in a natural North / South tagged rivalry, and make sure you can schedule enough crossover games to keep the public's interest. There's your mini NFL.

Both FOX and ESPN are seeking market penetration and packaging the market leaders to get it. They disguised this process as "Conference Growth" initially and used their various carrots to get the mule to move. Subscription Footprint for Cable TV, Market footprint tier 3 networks, and then Smart TV made them adjust that once more to actual eyeballs. You enhance the value of North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Duke by grouping them with programs that already command more actual eyes on the product.

If the Big 10 presidents have any resolve left in them Stanford will eventually be in the Big 10. If not, it might well be an Arizona school, or a school from a large DMA like Georgia Tech or Miami. But I don't think ESPN lets that happen and the acquisition of SMU to prevent a DFW school from being incorporated into the Big 10's national market plan was pretty clear.

So here we are on the precipice of a new order of things in collegiate sports. ESPN has the best hand and is simply rearranging how it looks at its cards and I doubt they sluff any large DMAs from their well assmembled region to FOX. We'll see.

If I were a TV exec, I probably would have passed over the Bay Area too. The only reason the ACC took them in was because Notre Dame twisted the ACC's arm, and they were picked up for a song.

ESPN put a band-aid on their empire by extending the ACC's contract, but are now obligated to pay the 17 team league through 2036.
The threat to that empire; the lawsuits brought by FSU and Clemson that still hang like the Sword of Damocles.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

I would be very surprised if the extension was completed without assurances being given to those two schools and to UNC/N.C. State. ESPN has something up their sleeve that they aren't willing to talk about just yet.

Sankey in each of his last public appearances has reiterated the conference's satisfaction with 16 schools. That's so cliche in advance of more movement that it is almost code. When the SEC is doing nothing, they say nothing. When they are planning something, they make protestations to the contrary. It's farcical at this point.

ESPN won't be losing any content, just rearranging it and grouping it by value. What Stanford and Cal give ESPN are a couple of late-night Saturday games which are wholly theirs if they choose to air them on a network platform instead of streaming. Taking SMU insured limited access to DFW for FOX. Pro Rata now assures them that they can backfill without losing money on the ACC contract and without having to add it for the SEC's contract and they likely had a projected number of schools in mind when the SEC contract was signed.

(02-19-2025 07:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2025 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2025 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

If the Big 10 doesn't make it based on money it will be because once again FOX thwarted them in favor of markets/total potential viewers, as they did by limiting the pay for Oregon and Washington in order to cut off pursuit of Stanford and Cal. But part of that was that FOX's partners CBS (always stingy) and NBC (which really just wanted N.D.) were reticent to bite off more.

The SEC/ACC has had the benefit of being in the fastest growing region of the country and that means they could stay regional and grow market share naturally. ESPN is on board with this completely. It is why I expect as consolidation continues their approach will be to keep it regional and that lines up with the SEC's natural desires.

ESPN has also seen the ability to play brand on brand within its larger grouping of schools under contract. It will boost the value of its major ACC brands by brand association with those of the old SWC/B12 and SEC as that is really all the Big 10 is trying to do now under FOX's direction. It's just that their attempts have to be national in nature because the regional approach can't contain the brands needed to keep pace.

But to take that to the next move for value that is why the two groups would form some kind of League. Build two large groups of brands, wrap them in a natural North / South tagged rivalry, and make sure you can schedule enough crossover games to keep the public's interest. There's your mini NFL.

Both FOX and ESPN are seeking market penetration and packaging the market leaders to get it. They disguised this process as "Conference Growth" initially and used their various carrots to get the mule to move. Subscription Footprint for Cable TV, Market footprint tier 3 networks, and then Smart TV made them adjust that once more to actual eyeballs. You enhance the value of North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Duke by grouping them with programs that already command more actual eyes on the product.

If the Big 10 presidents have any resolve left in them Stanford will eventually be in the Big 10. If not, it might well be an Arizona school, or a school from a large DMA like Georgia Tech or Miami. But I don't think ESPN lets that happen and the acquisition of SMU to prevent a DFW school from being incorporated into the Big 10's national market plan was pretty clear.

So here we are on the precipice of a new order of things in collegiate sports. ESPN has the best hand and is simply rearranging how it looks at its cards and I doubt they sluff any large DMAs from their well assmembled region to FOX. We'll see.

If I were a TV exec, I probably would have passed over the Bay Area too. The only reason the ACC took them in was because Notre Dame twisted the ACC's arm, and they were picked up for a song.

ESPN put a band-aid on their empire by extending the ACC's contract, but are now obligated to pay the 17 team league through 2036.
The threat to that empire; the lawsuits brought by FSU and Clemson that still hang like the Sword of Damocles.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

I would be very surprised if the extension was completed without assurances being given to those two schools and to UNC/N.C. State. ESPN has something up their sleeve that they aren't willing to talk about just yet.

Sankey in each of his last public appearances has reiterated the conference's satisfaction with 16 schools. That's so cliche in advance of more movement that it is almost code. When the SEC is doing nothing, they say nothing. When they are planning something, they make protestations to the contrary. It's farcical at this point.

ESPN won't be losing any content, just rearranging it and grouping it by value. What Stanford and Cal give ESPN are a couple of late-night Saturday games which are wholly theirs if they choose to air them on a network platform instead of streaming. Taking SMU insured limited access to DFW for FOX. Pro Rata now assures them that they can backfill without losing money on the ACC contract and without having to add it for the SEC's contract and they likely had a projected number of schools in mind when the SEC contract was signed.

In that case, perhaps it's best not to speculate at all until all of the details are known.

With all of the skulduggery going on between the SEC (ESPN) and the B1G (FOX) their meetings may have been the Potsdam of Conference Realignment, deciding what the post-Realignment map should look like.

(02-19-2025 07:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-19-2025 07:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-19-2025 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-18-2025 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-17-2025 02:24 PM)XLance Wrote:  It has always appeared to me that the B1G has always placed a lot of emphasis on "market", while the SEC has been more concerned with brand.
While the overall realignment conditions have changed, these focal points for each conference have remained key in their decision making.

I'm just not sure that the B1G or the SEC will make their next membership choices solely based on how much money a school has in the bank.

If the Big 10 doesn't make it based on money it will be because once again FOX thwarted them in favor of markets/total potential viewers, as they did by limiting the pay for Oregon and Washington in order to cut off pursuit of Stanford and Cal. But part of that was that FOX's partners CBS (always stingy) and NBC (which really just wanted N.D.) were reticent to bite off more.

The SEC/ACC has had the benefit of being in the fastest growing region of the country and that means they could stay regional and grow market share naturally. ESPN is on board with this completely. It is why I expect as consolidation continues their approach will be to keep it regional and that lines up with the SEC's natural desires.

ESPN has also seen the ability to play brand on brand within its larger grouping of schools under contract. It will boost the value of its major ACC brands by brand association with those of the old SWC/B12 and SEC as that is really all the Big 10 is trying to do now under FOX's direction. It's just that their attempts have to be national in nature because the regional approach can't contain the brands needed to keep pace.

But to take that to the next move for value that is why the two groups would form some kind of League. Build two large groups of brands, wrap them in a natural North / South tagged rivalry, and make sure you can schedule enough crossover games to keep the public's interest. There's your mini NFL.

Both FOX and ESPN are seeking market penetration and packaging the market leaders to get it. They disguised this process as "Conference Growth" initially and used their various carrots to get the mule to move. Subscription Footprint for Cable TV, Market footprint tier 3 networks, and then Smart TV made them adjust that once more to actual eyeballs. You enhance the value of North Carolina, Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Duke by grouping them with programs that already command more actual eyes on the product.

If the Big 10 presidents have any resolve left in them Stanford will eventually be in the Big 10. If not, it might well be an Arizona school, or a school from a large DMA like Georgia Tech or Miami. But I don't think ESPN lets that happen and the acquisition of SMU to prevent a DFW school from being incorporated into the Big 10's national market plan was pretty clear.

So here we are on the precipice of a new order of things in collegiate sports. ESPN has the best hand and is simply rearranging how it looks at its cards and I doubt they sluff any large DMAs from their well assmembled region to FOX. We'll see.

If I were a TV exec, I probably would have passed over the Bay Area too. The only reason the ACC took them in was because Notre Dame twisted the ACC's arm, and they were picked up for a song.

ESPN put a band-aid on their empire by extending the ACC's contract, but are now obligated to pay the 17 team league through 2036.
The threat to that empire; the lawsuits brought by FSU and Clemson that still hang like the Sword of Damocles.

The next few years are going to be very interesting.

I would be very surprised if the extension was completed without assurances being given to those two schools and to UNC/N.C. State. ESPN has something up their sleeve that they aren't willing to talk about just yet.

Sankey in each of his last public appearances has reiterated the conference's satisfaction with 16 schools. That's so cliche in advance of more movement that it is almost code. When the SEC is doing nothing, they say nothing. When they are planning something, they make protestations to the contrary. It's farcical at this point.

ESPN won't be losing any content, just rearranging it and grouping it by value. What Stanford and Cal give ESPN are a couple of late-night Saturday games which are wholly theirs if they choose to air them on a network platform instead of streaming. Taking SMU insured limited access to DFW for FOX. Pro Rata now assures them that they can backfill without losing money on the ACC contract and without having to add it for the SEC's contract and they likely had a projected number of schools in mind when the SEC contract was signed.

In that case, perhaps it's best not to speculate at all until all of the details are known.

With all of the skulduggery going on between the SEC (ESPN) and the B1G (FOX) their meetings may have been the Potsdam of Conference Realignment, deciding what the post-Realignment map should look like.

That's quite possible. But give me one example of ESPN deliberately losing a major brand? I know of several where they swiped them from under the nose of other networks, but not one where they lost one, as I do not consider Maryland to be a major brand. I suspect Miami could be in play. But ESPN isn't giving away Winter content, or a market as large as North Carolina's.

A gutting of the ACC would require either their own consent or an ending to those court cases. And we'd definitely hear that leak out early. And even if it does, there's always going to be the next one up, arguing that the leagues should actually have 22 teams, etc.

AND the teams at the top are going to discuss break-aways, league mergers, leagues eating eachother, addition by subtraction, government intervention against an NCAA breakaway, et. AND TV could "die" to be fully replaced by streaming in the next decade or so, reshuffling priorities again.

Wings of a butterfly, no way to really say whats gonna happen, but it isn't gonna be quick and it isn't gonna be silent.