(11-06-2025 01:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:23 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:23 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:03 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:00 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Opinions may vary, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the top 3 SEC adds in most realignment lists are those 3.

Sure about that?

Anonymous sources are such a joy. Are they Presidents, ADs, Coaches, a secretary, a friend of a friend voicing an opinion?

Do you really think that FSU would take all that very real risk, if they weren't ascertain of reward at the end of it?

So no, I don't think it's a coincidence when the same names repeatedly continue to appear in the news on these topics.

That said, facts on the ground may continue to change, so who knows where we'll be in a couple years when these moves are likely to happen.

Enough of a joy McMurphy felt the need to put his name on it.

The only names I saw coming from credible sources were UVa and Carolina, and that has been over a year. Sorry, youtube dudes in basements aren't up to snuff, and we haven't read actual industry sources for a while.

I am not predicting anything, I am merely going by credible sources.

This is true.

Thamel posted an article that said only UNC and UVA. McMurphy said that he talked to 3 SEC Presidents who all wanted UVA. Now, I can argue about whether those SEC Presidents were expressing a general "gosh I'd love to be affiliated with UVA but I haven't seen the number yet" vs "we've looked at the numbers and we want UVA the instant they're available", but I'm not going to try to accuse McMurphy of inaccuracy in his reporting. When he says he has a source, he has a source. When he's that specific, I'm certain that he's telling the truth about it. When he gives an opinion rather than sourced information, he isn't nearly as reliable, more like one of us but with a lot more information available to help form his opinion.

I'd like to see Saban go on Dan Patrick and see what he says when Dan asks him if the SEC would rather have UVA instead of Clemson or Miami. That probably happens some time in the next few years.

I'm not faulting the reporting at all. I'm saying that the specifics you just stated are not that specific in the article,

Quote:DALLAS — Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact, sources told Action Network.

If/when the Seminoles break free from the ACC, their top choices would be to join the Big Ten or SEC because of the huge difference in television media rights revenue, sources said.

However, there are multiple concerns about adding Florida State, sources said. Those reasons include the fact that it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner.”

Merely stating "sources said" provides nothing in regards to the quality or type of source in question. From the quotes we can glean a bit more, but in general, they could just as easily be from anyone. Are they even in a school's bureaucracy? much less a decision-maker's office, or even their advisors? We have no idea. I at least would like to believe that they were professional sources, and not merely man-on-the-street, but unfortunately the article doesn't provide much clarity on that.

Without context, without the ability to assess the quality of knowledge-depth of the sources, we're kinda just left to whether we blindly believe or not.

Even that you tube guy that some people make fun of around here has apparently said his main source is a big donor. That's even more info than we're getting from these sources.

Anyway, all that aside, that was also during the uncertainty of the court case(s), which have since been settled.

(Singing with Aladdin and Jasmin) - "It's a whole new world"...

(11-05-2025 05:49 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 10:50 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 08:49 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-04-2025 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Adding Duke and UNC and to a lesser degree Virginia to the SEC's basketball lineup will increase the national audience for that sport as well. The Big Ten with a fat bottom is going to making the same money plus or minus a couple of million. The SEC will have 12 more games with that foursome that add to the national audience numbers for football. They'll have 54 more basketball games that do the same for that revenue sport.

We might be talking across each other right now rather than to each other:

Are you saying that -- revenues being exactly equal going forward -- the sixteen member institutions of the SEC would prefer to be in a conference with Duke, UNC, and UVa than not?

I personally don't believe (1) that those revenues would be equal, or (2) that the SEC would prefer to be at twenty than to remain at sixteen.

I'm saying FSU adds 12 national audience games and Duke, North Carolina and to a lesser extent Virginia add 18 conference basketball games each which will drive a national audience when pitted against an SEC basketball schedule.

Those 4 payout more for the SEC than simply adding football schools. Virginia and North Carolina add markets of 21 million combined, Florida State with Florida delivers the top ad rates for Florida and with them more money.

We can't do that with Miami. We can't do that with Clemson. Duke adds prohibitively to basketball and helps carry the state of North Carolina when added to UNC, though N.C. State would do the same. Of those two Duke is the brand you want. One mediocre to poor football program is not going to hurt the SEC. They add academically, add dramatically to the value of basketball, and cement dominance in North Carolina's market with UNC.

Those 4 are also very solid on the diamond.

The payouts would go up with those 4. I'm saying the starting point prior to their additions are relatively equal, plus or minus 2 million in per school payouts. The SEC at 16 will be close to the Big Ten at 18 before this round of realignment begins.

If the SEC takes the North Carolina and Virginia markets and sews up Florida it won't matter what the Big Ten does. I seriously doubt they take Georgia Tech and even if they did the SEC has the dominant position in Georgia. If they take Miami they get at best 19-20% of the Florida market. I don't see them doing it for that. They'll look West again and make another run at Notre Dame.

The SEC won realignment when we landed Texas and Oklahoma. To hold that edge all that has to happen now is for Notre Dame to remain independent while the SEC picks up the Virginia and North Carolina markets.

Virginia and North Carolina with Duke denies the Big Ten entry into those two states and leaves them no potentially dominant position in the Southeast.

This is important because the two most viewer saturated areas for college athletics are in the Southeast and Southwest. They can't play catch up out West or in New England. The markets in Virginia and North Carolina will pay for their inclusion. FSU will multiply value for football and land the best rates for Florida for the SEC. ESPN has not had to pass them along with the Gators holding the plurality and the ACC holding the simple majority. ESPN won't lose too much and would much prefer the SEC control it now because it's safer for ESPN.

Clemson in attendance and in revenue, is a mid-tier SEC addition. Sure, they add to football strength but all they bring us 2.5 million more viewers in South Carolina.

Virginia Tech has some serious money issues developing in the Athletic Department. Virginia doesn't. Ga Tech's problem like Clemson is what do they add? 3 million in Atlanta. Miami brings a DMA in South Florida where the SEC is weak in draw. But with FSU and UF the SEC draws over 70% of the Florida market (77% to be exact but there is overlap in those numbers).

The only thing the SEC could do to help their main rival is to do nothing. If we do that they pickup the 21 million in North Carolina and Virginia, gain more influence within AAU and pick up the House seats they need to have a block in Congress which they have enjoyed for years preserved. Why let them have any of that? It's stupid.

The SEC in 1991 hoped to one day land North Carolina. Doing it now makes sense and if the cost is Duke so be it!

They are at 18 if we can lock them out of any dominant position in the Southeast that's what we do. Why? It preserves our revenue model, adds AAU schools with national brand in a revenue sport to the SEC, and likely helps keep Notre Dame independent and that recipe is a winning hand. We'll make more money. A lot more? Likely not oodles, but any added revenue is welcome if it also obtains objectives long desired and secures the revenue model for the foreseeable future.

Remember the SEC doesn't have to go national in membership to have the largest national draw. It's all of those other ledger lines that are amplified by keeping everything within our new expanded regional area. And we have 3 revenue sports, and almost 4. Women's softball is making money at about a third of our schools. Everything we need is in our region and we don't need to leave any dominant share on the table, and wont.

This is a plausible argument but it overlooks the national appeal of Clemson. The Tigers made a lot of friends by beating SEC teams for national titles while wearing the world’s catchiest logo. Then there’s the appeal of matchups like Clemson-Alabama, Clemson-South Carolina, Clemson-UNC, Clemson-Florida State and Clemson-Georgia all being conference games. Maybe Clemson-Miami as well?

Factor in that draw and the above is as compelling an argument to add six schools as it is to add four.

I think if we polled the current SEC Presidents anonymously and they each told the truth, there would be some votes for no expansion, some for only 2, and some for 4, but no appetite at all for more than 4. Ofc that could change by 2030, and the specific schools preferred can also change in the coming years.

That bryanw, is a very germane point worth emphasizing. It is a high probability those conference Presidents may not all be on the same page as to if and when to expand, what schools to add, and how many. The politics in this process is not to be minimized. Sankey will recommend and ESPN will have their marketing specialist present a dog and pony show. Some eastern and some western SEC schools may not see matters the same way. The major SEC football powers, and those that are less prominent, may not view expansion and certain choices the same way.

The expressed views and rumors stemming from non-elite prediction and advocacy articles, as well as podcast clownish theatrics, that the SEC has already settled on at least three schools to add, and the fourth one will be a second North Carolina school or the University of Virginia. I am skeptical that the SEC discussion/decision making processes have advanced to that point whereby something real firm already exists.

(11-06-2025 01:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't get caught up in the disconnect. All of those articles, including the one cited, happened at about the same time and were based on two very important details. Sankey and Phillips and Petitti, didn't care for a school filing a lawsuit against its conference so there was part of that which was a chide at both Clemson and FSU. But more importantly the network (ESPN) saw an opportunity to spin the narrative and do some pre-selling of an option they realized they might have to encourage to protect their product line, namely the selling of North Carolina and Virginia as the concommitant stories with the chiding of Clemson and FSU began the narrative of North Carolina and Virginia being the most desire of both conferences.

Therefore the article cited was a shot across the bow of schools suing their conferences and at the same time a chance to alter the public narrative in a way that would permit ESPN if the need arose to shelter key product and markets in another of their rights packages, the SEC.

SEC fans have been primed sinced 1991 to expect that FSU and Clemson might join one day. They had not been sold, as evidenced on this forum, about the prospect of adding Virginia and North Carolina, or Duke to make it happen.

There is some dissonance between Notre Dame and Tobacco Road. If ESPN is to build an ACC suitable to the Irish, a task they began by taking Cal, Stanford and S.M.U., then two things had to happen. ESPN who wants and needs those markets of Virginia and North Carolina and wants to keep the two major basketball brands of UNC and Duke, had to prepare golden parachutes for those 3 programs.

The second thing they wanted to do was to enhance the football profile of the ACC and to try to keep it together sans those 3 schools. Well, you can build branding for football in the ACC if Clemson and FSU depart, at least not easily, or with schools satisfactory to the profile N.D. wants to play. So, what was the second step ESPN took, unequal revenue sharing with a competitive bonus for football producers. IMO this is why the multiple AQ position isn't dead yet. What if instead of paying Clemson and FSU, or Miami a competitive bonus, ESPN decides simply to pay them an SEC share to remain in the ACC? Does that not give them the resources to compete? Would the new ACC not be more attractive for football if it added just South Florida and one or two more with a football first mentality?

Perhaps they had the three departures in clear focus when they added Cal, Stanford and SMU and perhaps the motive was to build a more comfortable environment for keeping Notre Dame affiliated. If they have a plan for holding onto FSU and Clemson then Kansas is still in play for the SEC. Why? ESPN wants them.

Am I predicting all of this happens? No. But I am suggesting that these storylines from mid July 2024 were setting up ESPN options, and options that are plausible if their goal is to keep the Irish in tow. The SEC claims new markets and academic plumbs, gains prestige nationally for basketball, and ESPN builds a profitable football conference in the Mid Atlantic that encompases the best of the Old Big East and the football first ACC. They remain crossover rivals with the SEC but not at an economic disadvantage. Then when Notre Dame's contract is up in 2030 they outbid NBC set the Irish up with SEC scheduling agreements and ACC scheduling agreements, and ESPN controls Notre Dame's away games and through contract their home games.

Notre Dame remains independent for football, gets to schedule a couple of games a year with the Big Ten if they desire to, and ESPN once again outmaneuvers FOX and the Big Ten.

Dissing the possibility of Clemson and FSU to the SEC or Big Ten, moving the unholy trinity to the SEC, grabbing Kansas, and setting up Notre Dame winds up costing them 140 million for the SEC additions, which they recoup about half of that with the SECN and added hoops value, and it costs them 105 million to boost Clemson, FSU, and Miami to SEC shares, with a little bit more for Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech, Pitt and Syracuse and everyone else, because of exit fees. And they have everything they have wanted.

And folks this is how the Mouse works. There are no problems only solutions and they never allow a contract to paint them in the corner.

The SEC has attained everything it wanted in 1991 except Clemson and FSU which wound up being replaced by South Carolina and Missouri. They get to add Virginia, North Carolina and Kansas. Their basketball contains the 4 winningest programs of all time just in time for a new hoops tournament that pays full shares not over six years but every year.

Out of targets the Big 10 decides whether to round out for travel to the West with the Arizona schools or one and Colorado.

ESPN sits and waits for the key brands of the Big Ten to start grumbling about the arrangement and that's your new reality.

Now would you rather it wind up that way, or for the SEC to take Duke, UNC, Virginia and FSU? One way ESPN sews it all up, the other way they don't.

Yes, I think swarbrick publicly giving his impramater about "Tallahassee", freed up espn to move FSU to the SEC.

Incidentally, ND's influence is why I initially was hesitant believing Miami would move. And now with performance pay, I'm back to "I dunno". Yes, they'd jump at P2 money, but the Miami matchups are better for media partners, if Miami continues to play ND and other former BigEast members of the ACC.

IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

We'd go from talking to UNC and FSU to talking to PSU and OSU...

Well, if that's the case...

"Florida, Georgia, Texas A&M, Missouri, we just called say hi..."

Interesting development re: Florida State

https://csnbbs.com/thread-1019815-post-2...id20400378

Looks like the 'Noles and Notre Dame are headed in different directions.

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland did they get two schools which were champions in anything? North Carolina and Duke are rated higher academically, and each has won championships in a revenue sport, and more recently than any of the Big Ten's basketball programs. Alabama vs Louisiana Monroe will be outdrawn by Alabama vs Virginia. Auburn vs Middle Tennessee will be outdrawn by Auburn vs North Carolina, and that doesn't even touch what Duke vs Kentucky and North Carolina vs Kentucky, or Virginia vs Kentucky will do nationally in basketball.

The only thing needed to keep the SEC's dynamic for football is improvements on the schedule for the buy games. When the Big Ten and SEC are playing only P games for 12 regular season games nobody will care if North Carolina, Duke or Virginia are on the schedule. Those tickets will start at the 75 dollar amount the same as any SEC game or P5 game, and the 55 dollar FCS and 65 dollar G5 tickets will be gone. Each school will make more more money and that is all that will matter.

I grew up in New Jersey, went to Villanova undergrad. I moved to Alabama for grad school and have been in SEC Country since.

Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Aside from possibly a jolt of cash coming from subscriber fees and the promises of great content for their media partners, the Big Ten is not better off with those additions. That jolt of cash will peter out soon enough and the SEC will get paid what it deserves for having a substantially more interesting, more watched product -- so why would the SEC make the same mistake the Big Ten made?

I took a stab at this one the other day. I think that the B1G did the best they could with what they had, with their one mistake being taking Maryland instead of Missouri. Consider:

PSU - nobody is disputing that this was a slam dunk
Nebraska - PSU of the midwest
Maryland - um
Rutgers - we'll circle back to Maryland and Rutgers
USC - PSU of LA
UCLA - UNC of LA, still playing games for now in the Rose Bowl of all places
Washington - FSU of the PNW
Oregon - Clemson of the PNW

Oregon, Washington, USC, Nebraska and PSU have all enhanced B1G matchups, prestige and football enthusiasm. UCLA...more like UNC, their great strengths are market, basketball and overall everything other than football, and they're respectable generally but not Elite in football. The only 2 that we can look at and say "no reasonable person expected this to work out in football" are Maryland and Rutgers.

So, let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field. The only change I'd make with hindsight is Missouri over Maryland, which, hey, I'm glad they didn't do that b/c any potential #14 to go with A&M wouldn't have been as solid for the SEC as Missouri has been. Maybe NC St? GT would have been a quality Missouri replacement, maybe 90% as good, but they wouldn't give us a 6m State that is completely dominated by one school, and they probably couldn't have gotten enough support from the original 10 schools after leaving the SEC and then refusing an offer to return a few years after they left. Also, the SEC needed new markets to get more $$ from ESPN...it probably would have been NC St, which would have complicated our UNC aspirations in a way that A&M didn't complicate things for us with Texas (I still think that 90% of the reason Texas moved to the SEC was so that they wouldn't drift to a distant #2 permanently in their own State, a not unreasonable concern after watching A&M's first decade in the SEC). Anyway, the B1G could have caused the SEC some consternation over the past decade while also ultimately strengthening their own product on the field with a quality program like Missouri instead of an also-ran like Maryland that just happened to be in a very slightly better location. And we all know that Missouri would have jumped at a B1G offer back in 2011. Today, I don't think that they'd leave the SEC for any reason, and their 6m people are now firmly in SEC country.

So...5 strong football additions, one that is ok but overall elite in all sports, and 2 that were poor choices. The B1G's biggest problem isn't their additions, but rather that, of their original 10, Michigan and OSU carry such an outsized role. Those 2 dominated the original 10, with only very rare instances of either being eclipsed, and not much churn from the bottom and middle tier at all really. Of the original SEC 10, 6 of them have won at least 1 National Title since 1998, and they've won about 2/3 of the titles of the past 20 years even with 2 straight to the B1g. New additions OUT have also each won one national title since 1998 and have proven to still be elite on the field after joining the SEC. A&M has also been a lot better on the field in the past 14 years than we were in about that same number of years in the Big 12. Missouri has been about the same as they were in the Big 12 and Big 8, some excellent years, some not so excellent, but overall very competitive. Of the B1G's 8 total additions since 1990, the only one that hasn't suffered a clear dropoff after joining is Oregon.

Perhaps the B1G's problem has not so much been the schools that they've added, but rather that they've brought in some great Brands and then strangled their resources so much so that those Brands lost some of their luster after joining. Hardly the kind of Welcome Mat they want to be putting out their for potential future ACC additions...

I may disagree somewhat with some of your assessments, buy I fully agree that not adding Missouri along with Nebraska was an unforced error.

At the time, they apparently only wanted to go from 11 to 12.

It was, in my opinion, a very missed opportunity.

but as they say, hindsight is 20/20. Who knew in 2011/12 that we'd be where we are now?

I disagree on Maryland though. That was an opportunity that was acted upon, and for presumably good reasons.

(11-06-2025 01:48 PM)XLance Wrote:  Interesting development re: Florida State

https://csnbbs.com/thread-1019815-post-2...id20400378

Looks like the 'Noles and Notre Dame are headed in different directions.

Per the link in that thread, it looks like FSU next plays ND in 2029 and 2030.

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:23 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Anonymous sources are such a joy. Are they Presidents, ADs, Coaches, a secretary, a friend of a friend voicing an opinion?

Do you really think that FSU would take all that very real risk, if they weren't ascertain of reward at the end of it?

So no, I don't think it's a coincidence when the same names repeatedly continue to appear in the news on these topics.

That said, facts on the ground may continue to change, so who knows where we'll be in a couple years when these moves are likely to happen.

Don't get caught up in the disconnect. All of those articles, including the one cited, happened at about the same time and were based on two very important details. Sankey and Phillips and Petitti, didn't care for a school filing a lawsuit against its conference so there was part of that which was a chide at both Clemson and FSU. But more importantly the network (ESPN) saw an opportunity to spin the narrative and do some pre-selling of an option they realized they might have to encourage to protect their product line, namely the selling of North Carolina and Virginia as the concommitant stories with the chiding of Clemson and FSU began the narrative of North Carolina and Virginia being the most desire of both conferences.

Therefore the article cited was a shot across the bow of schools suing their conferences and at the same time a chance to alter the public narrative in a way that would permit ESPN if the need arose to shelter key product and markets in another of their rights packages, the SEC.

SEC fans have been primed sinced 1991 to expect that FSU and Clemson might join one day. They had not been sold, as evidenced on this forum, about the prospect of adding Virginia and North Carolina, or Duke to make it happen.

There is some dissonance between Notre Dame and Tobacco Road. If ESPN is to build an ACC suitable to the Irish, a task they began by taking Cal, Stanford and S.M.U., then two things had to happen. ESPN who wants and needs those markets of Virginia and North Carolina and wants to keep the two major basketball brands of UNC and Duke, had to prepare golden parachutes for those 3 programs.

The second thing they wanted to do was to enhance the football profile of the ACC and to try to keep it together sans those 3 schools. Well, you can build branding for football in the ACC if Clemson and FSU depart, at least not easily, or with schools satisfactory to the profile N.D. wants to play. So, what was the second step ESPN took, unequal revenue sharing with a competitive bonus for football producers. IMO this is why the multiple AQ position isn't dead yet. What if instead of paying Clemson and FSU, or Miami a competitive bonus, ESPN decides simply to pay them an SEC share to remain in the ACC? Does that not give them the resources to compete? Would the new ACC not be more attractive for football if it added just South Florida and one or two more with a football first mentality?

Perhaps they had the three departures in clear focus when they added Cal, Stanford and SMU and perhaps the motive was to build a more comfortable environment for keeping Notre Dame affiliated. If they have a plan for holding onto FSU and Clemson then Kansas is still in play for the SEC. Why? ESPN wants them.

Am I predicting all of this happens? No. But I am suggesting that these storylines from mid July 2024 were setting up ESPN options, and options that are plausible if their goal is to keep the Irish in tow. The SEC claims new markets and academic plumbs, gains prestige nationally for basketball, and ESPN builds a profitable football conference in the Mid Atlantic that encompases the best of the Old Big East and the football first ACC. They remain crossover rivals with the SEC but not at an economic disadvantage. Then when Notre Dame's contract is up in 2030 they outbid NBC set the Irish up with SEC scheduling agreements and ACC scheduling agreements, and ESPN controls Notre Dame's away games and through contract their home games.

Notre Dame remains independent for football, gets to schedule a couple of games a year with the Big Ten if they desire to, and ESPN once again outmaneuvers FOX and the Big Ten.

Dissing the possibility of Clemson and FSU to the SEC or Big Ten, moving the unholy trinity to the SEC, grabbing Kansas, and setting up Notre Dame winds up costing them 140 million for the SEC additions, which they recoup about half of that with the SECN and added hoops value, and it costs them 105 million to boost Clemson, FSU, and Miami to SEC shares, with a little bit more for Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech, Pitt and Syracuse and everyone else, because of exit fees. And they have everything they have wanted.

And folks this is how the Mouse works. There are no problems only solutions and they never allow a contract to paint them in the corner.

The SEC has attained everything it wanted in 1991 except Clemson and FSU which wound up being replaced by South Carolina and Missouri. They get to add Virginia, North Carolina and Kansas. Their basketball contains the 4 winningest programs of all time just in time for a new hoops tournament that pays full shares not over six years but every year.

Out of targets the Big 10 decides whether to round out for travel to the West with the Arizona schools or one and Colorado.

ESPN sits and waits for the key brands of the Big Ten to start grumbling about the arrangement and that's your new reality.

Now would you rather it wind up that way, or for the SEC to take Duke, UNC, Virginia and FSU? One way ESPN sews it all up, the other way they don't.

Yes, I think swarbrick publicly giving his impramater about "Tallahassee", freed up espn to move FSU to the SEC.

Incidentally, ND's influence is why I initially was hesitant believing Miami would move. And now with performance pay, I'm back to "I dunno". Yes, they'd jump at P2 money, but the Miami matchups are better for media partners, if Miami continues to play ND and other former BigEast members of the ACC.

IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

(11-06-2025 01:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't get caught up in the disconnect. All of those articles, including the one cited, happened at about the same time and were based on two very important details. Sankey and Phillips and Petitti, didn't care for a school filing a lawsuit against its conference so there was part of that which was a chide at both Clemson and FSU. But more importantly the network (ESPN) saw an opportunity to spin the narrative and do some pre-selling of an option they realized they might have to encourage to protect their product line, namely the selling of North Carolina and Virginia as the concommitant stories with the chiding of Clemson and FSU began the narrative of North Carolina and Virginia being the most desire of both conferences.

Therefore the article cited was a shot across the bow of schools suing their conferences and at the same time a chance to alter the public narrative in a way that would permit ESPN if the need arose to shelter key product and markets in another of their rights packages, the SEC.

SEC fans have been primed sinced 1991 to expect that FSU and Clemson might join one day. They had not been sold, as evidenced on this forum, about the prospect of adding Virginia and North Carolina, or Duke to make it happen.

There is some dissonance between Notre Dame and Tobacco Road. If ESPN is to build an ACC suitable to the Irish, a task they began by taking Cal, Stanford and S.M.U., then two things had to happen. ESPN who wants and needs those markets of Virginia and North Carolina and wants to keep the two major basketball brands of UNC and Duke, had to prepare golden parachutes for those 3 programs.

The second thing they wanted to do was to enhance the football profile of the ACC and to try to keep it together sans those 3 schools. Well, you can build branding for football in the ACC if Clemson and FSU depart, at least not easily, or with schools satisfactory to the profile N.D. wants to play. So, what was the second step ESPN took, unequal revenue sharing with a competitive bonus for football producers. IMO this is why the multiple AQ position isn't dead yet. What if instead of paying Clemson and FSU, or Miami a competitive bonus, ESPN decides simply to pay them an SEC share to remain in the ACC? Does that not give them the resources to compete? Would the new ACC not be more attractive for football if it added just South Florida and one or two more with a football first mentality?

Perhaps they had the three departures in clear focus when they added Cal, Stanford and SMU and perhaps the motive was to build a more comfortable environment for keeping Notre Dame affiliated. If they have a plan for holding onto FSU and Clemson then Kansas is still in play for the SEC. Why? ESPN wants them.

Am I predicting all of this happens? No. But I am suggesting that these storylines from mid July 2024 were setting up ESPN options, and options that are plausible if their goal is to keep the Irish in tow. The SEC claims new markets and academic plumbs, gains prestige nationally for basketball, and ESPN builds a profitable football conference in the Mid Atlantic that encompases the best of the Old Big East and the football first ACC. They remain crossover rivals with the SEC but not at an economic disadvantage. Then when Notre Dame's contract is up in 2030 they outbid NBC set the Irish up with SEC scheduling agreements and ACC scheduling agreements, and ESPN controls Notre Dame's away games and through contract their home games.

Notre Dame remains independent for football, gets to schedule a couple of games a year with the Big Ten if they desire to, and ESPN once again outmaneuvers FOX and the Big Ten.

Dissing the possibility of Clemson and FSU to the SEC or Big Ten, moving the unholy trinity to the SEC, grabbing Kansas, and setting up Notre Dame winds up costing them 140 million for the SEC additions, which they recoup about half of that with the SECN and added hoops value, and it costs them 105 million to boost Clemson, FSU, and Miami to SEC shares, with a little bit more for Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech, Pitt and Syracuse and everyone else, because of exit fees. And they have everything they have wanted.

And folks this is how the Mouse works. There are no problems only solutions and they never allow a contract to paint them in the corner.

The SEC has attained everything it wanted in 1991 except Clemson and FSU which wound up being replaced by South Carolina and Missouri. They get to add Virginia, North Carolina and Kansas. Their basketball contains the 4 winningest programs of all time just in time for a new hoops tournament that pays full shares not over six years but every year.

Out of targets the Big 10 decides whether to round out for travel to the West with the Arizona schools or one and Colorado.

ESPN sits and waits for the key brands of the Big Ten to start grumbling about the arrangement and that's your new reality.

Now would you rather it wind up that way, or for the SEC to take Duke, UNC, Virginia and FSU? One way ESPN sews it all up, the other way they don't.

Yes, I think swarbrick publicly giving his impramater about "Tallahassee", freed up espn to move FSU to the SEC.

Incidentally, ND's influence is why I initially was hesitant believing Miami would move. And now with performance pay, I'm back to "I dunno". Yes, they'd jump at P2 money, but the Miami matchups are better for media partners, if Miami continues to play ND and other former BigEast members of the ACC.

IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

You think NC prefers the big10?

(11-06-2025 01:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Yes, I think swarbrick publicly giving his impramater about "Tallahassee", freed up espn to move FSU to the SEC.

Incidentally, ND's influence is why I initially was hesitant believing Miami would move. And now with performance pay, I'm back to "I dunno". Yes, they'd jump at P2 money, but the Miami matchups are better for media partners, if Miami continues to play ND and other former BigEast members of the ACC.

IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

You think NC prefers the big10?

If Carolina, UVa and Duke ever leave the ACC, all three will leave together (and for the same destination).

(11-06-2025 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

You think NC prefers the big10?

If Carolina, UVa and Duke ever leave the ACC, all three will leave together (and for the same destination).

I look at Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, and I"m just not sure about that.

(11-06-2025 02:14 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 02:05 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:57 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

You think NC prefers the big10?

If Carolina, UVa and Duke ever leave the ACC, all three will leave together (and for the same destination).

I look at Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, and I"m just not sure about that.

You can be sure about those 3. Why do you think I have them listed that way? They are a package and why would you want them any other way? The synergy between the 3 is worth it.

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field.

* * *

The bolded is constantly my issue with this board: Looking at today and tomorrow without any regard for the next twenty years. Conference affiliations last for generations. Mississippi State is a proud member of the SEC and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, even though there are at least a handful of schools that would do better for the SEC than those Bulldogs.

"We can get these subscriber fees and Rutgers will pay for itself!" was an arrogant, ill-thought-out strategy that never asked some very important questions: Are conference networks were here to stay as cash cows? Will Rutgers actually be able to succeed in a top league when it has never had sustained success on the field before? Will traditional fans of the Big Ten have any interest in watching their teams play the Scarlet Knights?

It seems like the only questions they asked were answered by an echo chamber:

Will the Greater New York area become Big Ten territory if we add Rutgers? "YES IT WILL!"

Does it matter that New Jersey is divided between three NFL teams, three NBA teams, and has loyalties to dozens of college basketball schools other than Rutgers? "NO WAY! This is the Big Ten we're talking about!"

Rutgers was never going to carry New York, and Rutgers will never be better than mediocre at any sport that matters over any extended period of time. Those are the things that the Big Ten should have taken into consideration. . .

. . . and back to the crux of this discussion: Those are the factors that the SEC will take into account when discussing a school like Virginia, that has excellent academics and very pedestrian football with (1) a small fan base (2) that is split in its own state with Virginia Tech; (3) and has a hugely popular NFL team; and (4) has a tremendous amount of transplants in its most populous area -- the vast majority of whom don't care what league UVa plays in.

(11-06-2025 11:03 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:00 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:35 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 07:16 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  It should be noted the majority of the "Mag 7" sued FSU and Clemson, and voted to bring in Stanford, Cal, and SMU.

bolded - you glossed over: [i]except for FSU, Clemson, NC, and[\i] (initially)[i] North Carolina State.

That's over half the M7...

State did alter their objection and 4 is a majority of 7.



The ACC is run by committees. Sometimes it's difficult for someone outside the Club to understand internal politics.
It's possible that North Carolina was actually for the expansion but didn't vote that way because their vote was not necessary for the measure to pass, but internally kept peace in Chapel Hill among several warring factions.

Opinions may vary, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the top 3 SEC adds in most realignment lists are those 3.

Sure about that?

We'll know a lot more about how things are shaking out with those 3, after this football and basketball season. First full season of players officially(wink wink) being paid. Will there be court challenges, tax implications. I don't follow the legal side.

The B1G needs a major football shot in the arm. Among ND, ACC, B12, they'll get what they need to compete with the SEC. National N/S parity is where the $weet $pot aka market is.

Money will speed things up.

Only thing I knew first-hand about a possible P2, was from a sports analyst I'd met in '21. And that was waaay before NIL and Portal.

Very interesting conversation here. Learning a lot about the realignment background.

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 09:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland did they get two schools which were champions in anything? North Carolina and Duke are rated higher academically, and each has won championships in a revenue sport, and more recently than any of the Big Ten's basketball programs. Alabama vs Louisiana Monroe will be outdrawn by Alabama vs Virginia. Auburn vs Middle Tennessee will be outdrawn by Auburn vs North Carolina, and that doesn't even touch what Duke vs Kentucky and North Carolina vs Kentucky, or Virginia vs Kentucky will do nationally in basketball.

The only thing needed to keep the SEC's dynamic for football is improvements on the schedule for the buy games. When the Big Ten and SEC are playing only P games for 12 regular season games nobody will care if North Carolina, Duke or Virginia are on the schedule. Those tickets will start at the 75 dollar amount the same as any SEC game or P5 game, and the 55 dollar FCS and 65 dollar G5 tickets will be gone. Each school will make more more money and that is all that will matter.

I grew up in New Jersey, went to Villanova undergrad. I moved to Alabama for grad school and have been in SEC Country since.

Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Aside from possibly a jolt of cash coming from subscriber fees and the promises of great content for their media partners, the Big Ten is not better off with those additions. That jolt of cash will peter out soon enough and the SEC will get paid what it deserves for having a substantially more interesting, more watched product -- so why would the SEC make the same mistake the Big Ten made?

It hasn't been a failure. They made money on the BTN during prime conference network value. And they got what they wanted in exposure around a bunch of rich alumni living in NYC and DC. That is a case where it was not solely about TV money or ratings.

Basketball is only 20% of the media value for the big conferences. https://painttouches.com/2024/06/28/the-...ball-fans/ Big East is getting $80 million, about $7 million per school. And the Big East is a power conference in basketball in great markets.
That's the reason the Big Ten, SEC and Pac 12 all passed on Kansas, despite numerous chances. I would be pretty surprised if either the Big Ten or SEC took Duke. Note that Stanford has solid football and basketball and is probably the best university in the country and in the #10 media market. The Big Ten said no.

(11-06-2025 03:23 PM)WhidbeyWolf Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:03 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:00 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 08:35 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  bolded - you glossed over: [i]except for FSU, Clemson, NC, and[\i] (initially)[i] North Carolina State.

That's over half the M7...

State did alter their objection and 4 is a majority of 7.



The ACC is run by committees. Sometimes it's difficult for someone outside the Club to understand internal politics.
It's possible that North Carolina was actually for the expansion but didn't vote that way because their vote was not necessary for the measure to pass, but internally kept peace in Chapel Hill among several warring factions.

Opinions may vary, but I don't think it was a coincidence that the top 3 SEC adds in most realignment lists are those 3.

Sure about that?

We'll know a lot more about how things are shaking out with those 3, after this football and basketball season. First full season of players officially(wink wink) being paid. Will there be court challenges, tax implications. I don't follow the legal side.

The B1G needs a major football shot in the arm. Among ND, ACC, B12, they'll get what they need to compete with the SEC. National N/S parity is where the $weet $pot aka market is.

Money will speed things up.

ND is not going to join the Big Ten, likely never.

Good luck to the Big Ten adding enough value with ACC and Big 12 schools to compete with the SEC.

(11-06-2025 01:36 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:04 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:23 PM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:23 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 11:03 AM)Dr Dawgma III Wrote:  Sure about that?

Anonymous sources are such a joy. Are they Presidents, ADs, Coaches, a secretary, a friend of a friend voicing an opinion?

Do you really think that FSU would take all that very real risk, if they weren't ascertain of reward at the end of it?

So no, I don't think it's a coincidence when the same names repeatedly continue to appear in the news on these topics.

That said, facts on the ground may continue to change, so who knows where we'll be in a couple years when these moves are likely to happen.

Enough of a joy McMurphy felt the need to put his name on it.

The only names I saw coming from credible sources were UVa and Carolina, and that has been over a year. Sorry, youtube dudes in basements aren't up to snuff, and we haven't read actual industry sources for a while.

I am not predicting anything, I am merely going by credible sources.

This is true.

Thamel posted an article that said only UNC and UVA. McMurphy said that he talked to 3 SEC Presidents who all wanted UVA. Now, I can argue about whether those SEC Presidents were expressing a general "gosh I'd love to be affiliated with UVA but I haven't seen the number yet" vs "we've looked at the numbers and we want UVA the instant they're available", but I'm not going to try to accuse McMurphy of inaccuracy in his reporting. When he says he has a source, he has a source. When he's that specific, I'm certain that he's telling the truth about it. When he gives an opinion rather than sourced information, he isn't nearly as reliable, more like one of us but with a lot more information available to help form his opinion.

I'd like to see Saban go on Dan Patrick and see what he says when Dan asks him if the SEC would rather have UVA instead of Clemson or Miami. That probably happens some time in the next few years.

I'm not faulting the reporting at all. I'm saying that the specifics you just stated are not that specific in the article,

Quote:DALLAS — Florida State likely will not have a spot in the Big Ten or SEC if it’s successful in leaving the ACC and the ACC stays intact, sources told Action Network.

If/when the Seminoles break free from the ACC, their top choices would be to join the Big Ten or SEC because of the huge difference in television media rights revenue, sources said.

However, there are multiple concerns about adding Florida State, sources said. Those reasons include the fact that it doesn’t make financial sense for either league, “there’s no appetite for more expansion” and FSU has shown “it’s not a good partner.”

Merely stating "sources said" provides nothing in regards to the quality or type of source in question. From the quotes we can glean a bit more, but in general, they could just as easily be from anyone. Are they even in a school's bureaucracy? much less a decision-maker's office, or even their advisors? We have no idea. I at least would like to believe that they were professional sources, and not merely man-on-the-street, but unfortunately the article doesn't provide much clarity on that.

Without context, without the ability to assess the quality of knowledge-depth of the sources, we're kinda just left to whether we blindly believe or not.

Even that you tube guy that some people make fun of around here has apparently said his main source is a big donor. That's even more info than we're getting from these sources.

Anyway, all that aside, that was also during the uncertainty of the court case(s), which have since been settled.

(Singing with Aladdin and Jasmin) - "It's a whole new world"...

you quoted the wrong article. Both McMurphy and Thamel said that they were told that the SEC wanted UNC and Virginia.

Sports insider Brett McMurphy has reported that SEC university presidents consider
North Carolina (UNC) and Virginia (UVA) to be top expansion targets for the conference.
According to McMurphy's sources, the SEC is interested in UNC and UVA primarily because they represent new television markets and academic profiles that would be valuable additions.
Key details regarding the rumors:

Source of Claim: The information comes from college football insider Brett McMurphy, who has cited conversations with "three SEC schools presidents"

https://www.on3.com/news/brett-mcmurphy-...c-big-ten/

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/news/c...expansion/

https://www.on3.com/news/north-carolina-...alignemnt/

https://flywareagle.com/posts/3-sec-scho...s-exit-acc

Plenty of more articles on the subject. Now, as I've said many times, I'm VERY skeptical that when push comes to shove UVA will get 12 votes, at least the UVA of today that has very little football enthusiasm and would cost every current SEC school $5m a year to subsidize, but I also don't have a vote and I don't know anybody who does.

(11-06-2025 01:55 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 01:03 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:32 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Don't get caught up in the disconnect. All of those articles, including the one cited, happened at about the same time and were based on two very important details. Sankey and Phillips and Petitti, didn't care for a school filing a lawsuit against its conference so there was part of that which was a chide at both Clemson and FSU. But more importantly the network (ESPN) saw an opportunity to spin the narrative and do some pre-selling of an option they realized they might have to encourage to protect their product line, namely the selling of North Carolina and Virginia as the concommitant stories with the chiding of Clemson and FSU began the narrative of North Carolina and Virginia being the most desire of both conferences.

Therefore the article cited was a shot across the bow of schools suing their conferences and at the same time a chance to alter the public narrative in a way that would permit ESPN if the need arose to shelter key product and markets in another of their rights packages, the SEC.

SEC fans have been primed sinced 1991 to expect that FSU and Clemson might join one day. They had not been sold, as evidenced on this forum, about the prospect of adding Virginia and North Carolina, or Duke to make it happen.

There is some dissonance between Notre Dame and Tobacco Road. If ESPN is to build an ACC suitable to the Irish, a task they began by taking Cal, Stanford and S.M.U., then two things had to happen. ESPN who wants and needs those markets of Virginia and North Carolina and wants to keep the two major basketball brands of UNC and Duke, had to prepare golden parachutes for those 3 programs.

The second thing they wanted to do was to enhance the football profile of the ACC and to try to keep it together sans those 3 schools. Well, you can build branding for football in the ACC if Clemson and FSU depart, at least not easily, or with schools satisfactory to the profile N.D. wants to play. So, what was the second step ESPN took, unequal revenue sharing with a competitive bonus for football producers. IMO this is why the multiple AQ position isn't dead yet. What if instead of paying Clemson and FSU, or Miami a competitive bonus, ESPN decides simply to pay them an SEC share to remain in the ACC? Does that not give them the resources to compete? Would the new ACC not be more attractive for football if it added just South Florida and one or two more with a football first mentality?

Perhaps they had the three departures in clear focus when they added Cal, Stanford and SMU and perhaps the motive was to build a more comfortable environment for keeping Notre Dame affiliated. If they have a plan for holding onto FSU and Clemson then Kansas is still in play for the SEC. Why? ESPN wants them.

Am I predicting all of this happens? No. But I am suggesting that these storylines from mid July 2024 were setting up ESPN options, and options that are plausible if their goal is to keep the Irish in tow. The SEC claims new markets and academic plumbs, gains prestige nationally for basketball, and ESPN builds a profitable football conference in the Mid Atlantic that encompases the best of the Old Big East and the football first ACC. They remain crossover rivals with the SEC but not at an economic disadvantage. Then when Notre Dame's contract is up in 2030 they outbid NBC set the Irish up with SEC scheduling agreements and ACC scheduling agreements, and ESPN controls Notre Dame's away games and through contract their home games.

Notre Dame remains independent for football, gets to schedule a couple of games a year with the Big Ten if they desire to, and ESPN once again outmaneuvers FOX and the Big Ten.

Dissing the possibility of Clemson and FSU to the SEC or Big Ten, moving the unholy trinity to the SEC, grabbing Kansas, and setting up Notre Dame winds up costing them 140 million for the SEC additions, which they recoup about half of that with the SECN and added hoops value, and it costs them 105 million to boost Clemson, FSU, and Miami to SEC shares, with a little bit more for Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Va Tech, Pitt and Syracuse and everyone else, because of exit fees. And they have everything they have wanted.

And folks this is how the Mouse works. There are no problems only solutions and they never allow a contract to paint them in the corner.

The SEC has attained everything it wanted in 1991 except Clemson and FSU which wound up being replaced by South Carolina and Missouri. They get to add Virginia, North Carolina and Kansas. Their basketball contains the 4 winningest programs of all time just in time for a new hoops tournament that pays full shares not over six years but every year.

Out of targets the Big 10 decides whether to round out for travel to the West with the Arizona schools or one and Colorado.

ESPN sits and waits for the key brands of the Big Ten to start grumbling about the arrangement and that's your new reality.

Now would you rather it wind up that way, or for the SEC to take Duke, UNC, Virginia and FSU? One way ESPN sews it all up, the other way they don't.

Yes, I think swarbrick publicly giving his impramater about "Tallahassee", freed up espn to move FSU to the SEC.

Incidentally, ND's influence is why I initially was hesitant believing Miami would move. And now with performance pay, I'm back to "I dunno". Yes, they'd jump at P2 money, but the Miami matchups are better for media partners, if Miami continues to play ND and other former BigEast members of the ACC.

IMO, the SEC's priorities are a gestalt. They developed them in 1990, and each subsequent addition has fallen under their direction save for Missouri. And each new member examines them and thus far has concurred about the objectives. I don't see the SEC as a variable.

The Big Ten has been somewhat transparent about what they are seeking to accomplish. With minor variations they will go after North Carolina and Virginia, likely Duke unless the SEC snags them. If there is any other money on the table for picking up other pieces in the South that's the direction they and FOX will go.

ESPN will protect the most vulnerable, which will be the ones FOX and the Big Ten want as priorities. I believe their solution was found in 2011 and they will play with that especially because of wanting to hold onto Notre Dame's affiliation. They were set to let Clemson and FSU move to the SEC in 2011 and announced it on their crawler. That move was allegedly pulled when Notre Dame was willing to affiliate as a partial, provided the football first schools remained. (Long story there.) Suffice it to say ESPN learned then what the Irish required.

I see the largest unknown variable in the potential future moves as being to what degree was/is ESPN preparing to create a conference suitable for Notre Dame's long-term affiliation? If Cal, Stanford and SMU were ways to give the Irish games in California and Texas, and if FSU and Clemson can be paid, or convinced, to stay in the ACC, then we have the variable that could alter all potentialities for the SEC and Big Ten. A combination of SEC level payouts coupled with 3 or 4 AQ slots for the CFP may be the angle.

ESPN would like to see the CFP at 16. 4 AQs for the SEC & Big Ten coupled with 3 for each of the Big 12 and ACC in a breakaway upper tier might be a future which could get the football first schools of the ACC to stick. That approach likely blows up plans already approved of in the SEC and possibly the Big Ten, though the situation of not having to expand further in a way that increases travel might be palatable to the Big Ten should they add 1 out West and 1 to the East. 4 hoops schools aren't what the SEC would want, but it really isn't much deviation from 3 plus FSU either.

We'll see.

If the big10 only added Virginia and Duke (for now, anyway), I wonder how that might affect the SEC's calculations and additions.

It may not alter the SEC's calculations, but the focus of Carolina's landing spot would do a 180.

Let's play a game. Let's pretend that UNC powers that be are 100% determined to stay in the ACC, unless the financial gap is so significant in 2030 that they feel compelled to move to a new conference. With me so far? Ok, when 2030 rolls around, would a B1G with Virginia+Duke be worth more money or less money on a per school basis? What about compared to an SEC that also added 2, but we added the highest value schools available with FSU and Clemson. Probably a couple million less per school for the B1G and a couple million more per school for the SEC. If the only reason that UNC wants to make a change is financial, and the expected delta between the 2 potential landing spots shifts $4-5m total in favor of the SEC, wouldn't that make them that much more interested in the SEC and that much less interested in carrying UVA's and Duke's water? Or do you guys not care about money in North Carolina, and the only reason UNC wants to leave the ACC is b/c you don't want to fly to the West Coast for games anymore? Whoops, that, too, would favor the SEC. Dang, this game is hard. Oh, I know, the B1G has better basketball. Whoops, not anymore.

Your veiled sniping is pointless. Your school might end up choosing the B1G, but the decision won't be determined by UVA or Duke. Or, I dunno, maybe it will be, and you will willingly choose to take far less money in the B1G long term, risking getting left behind by OSU/Michigan in the future?

(11-06-2025 03:20 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 12:55 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-06-2025 10:06 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  Talking about the Big Ten's additions of Rutgers and Maryland only proves my point. Do people actually think that the Big Ten's additions of those two made that conference beetter? It was an ego-driven move to invade the eastern seaboard, try to win the New York City market, and capitalize on the populations of those two states -- and it has been a failure. The Big Ten now has more bad games that nobody cares about; its ratings have fallen off a cliff relative to the SEC; and the two schools it added haven't seen their on-field product improve (and its basketball tournament at MSG was dwarfed by the Big East Tournament that happened a week later).

Let's examine Maryland and Rutgers. As Frank and other B1G fans talk about, those 2 schools juiced BTN revenues at a time when that was a huge portion of overall B1G revenues. They helped so much, or at least didn't dilute things at all, so much so that the B1G was able to actually come up with a half decent response to the OUT bombshell of 2021. The rest of the P5 were scrambling after that, the Big 12 barely survived, the Pac 12 didn't survive at all, and the ACC's tepid response was 3 far-distant schools that nobody watches on tv or in person. Looked at from that perspective, the Rutgers and Maryland moves were justifiable, even though neither has done much on the football field.

* * *

The bolded is constantly my issue with this board: Looking at today and tomorrow without any regard for the next twenty years. Conference affiliations last for generations. Mississippi State is a proud member of the SEC and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, even though there are at least a handful of schools that would do better for the SEC than those Bulldogs.

"We can get these subscriber fees and Rutgers will pay for itself!" was an arrogant, ill-thought-out strategy that never asked some very important questions: Are conference networks were here to stay as cash cows? Will Rutgers actually be able to succeed in a top league when it has never had sustained success on the field before? Will traditional fans of the Big Ten have any interest in watching their teams play the Scarlet Knights?

It seems like the only questions they asked were answered by an echo chamber:

Will the Greater New York area become Big Ten territory if we add Rutgers? "YES IT WILL!"

Does it matter that New Jersey is divided between three NFL teams, three NBA teams, and has loyalties to dozens of college basketball schools other than Rutgers? "NO WAY! This is the Big Ten we're talking about!"

Rutgers was never going to carry New York, and Rutgers will never be better than mediocre at any sport that matters over any extended period of time. Those are the things that the Big Ten should have taken into consideration. . .

. . . and back to the crux of this discussion: Those are the factors that the SEC will take into account when discussing a school like Virginia, that has excellent academics and very pedestrian football with (1) a small fan base (2) that is split in its own state with Virginia Tech; (3) and has a hugely popular NFL team; and (4) has a tremendous amount of transplants in its most populous area -- the vast majority of whom don't care what league UVa plays in.

At least in Rutgers' case, their value is very high today b/c of cable revenues and also long into the future. They completely dominate their own State, and they're also only 50 miles from Manhattan, with great potential to be the top school or one of the top schools in the 20m population NYC metro for the long term. Maryland is the one that confuses me a bit, I still think that they were about 3 notches below Missouri, comparable population sizes, alumni bases, both are excellent fits Academically and both are solid Athletically, only Missouri had decade upon decade of good to very good football and could reasonably have been expected to hold their own in that B1G buzzsaw. They're roughly .500 in SEC play since they joined the league, a monumental achievement and certainly far better than the naysayers predicted. They'd certainly be above .500 if they'd instead joined the B1G, though we can never be sure b/c they were an opportunity that the B1G missed. They would even have had multiple natural rivals in the B1G. The B1G didn't do anything to hinder the SEC's move into Maryland b/c we were never going there anyway, they could have added Missouri a year or 2 earlier and then correctly passed on Maryland.

Where would Maryland even rank in the ACC realignment hierarchy if they were still there?

UNC
FSU
Clemson
Miami
GT
Cal
Stanford
UVA
VT
Louisville
Maryland?
NC St

Somewhere around #10? They'd be like Utah, a pipe dream really. If Missouri had never left the Big 12, and they were still there today, they'd be in the thick of the discussion for both Conferences, perhaps a 1/2 step behind Miami but ahead of everyone else outside that top 4.

(11-06-2025 04:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  At least in Rutgers' case, their value is very high today b/c of cable revenues and also long into the future. They completely dominate their own State, and they're also only 50 miles from Manhattan, with great potential to be the top school or one of the top schools in the 20m population NYC metro for the long term.

Completely dominating a state is what Arkansas does -- with no professional teams and no other viable choice on the college level (sorry Arkansas State).

Dominating a state is what Ohio State does -- no split fan bases with major conferences, but still sharing with pro sports and a handful of G5 programs.

Rutgers is behind the following in its own state:

• Yankees
• Giants
• Eagles
• Jets
• Mets
• Devils
• Knicks
• Rangers
• Flyers
• Phillies
• Notre Dame
• The US Open
  

I don't know where Penn State and the rest of the top of the Big Ten or top of the SEC rank in NJ, but there is simply no appetite for college sports in the NYC and Philadelphia metro areas outside the Big East Tournament and the NCAA Tournament.

As for Rutgers' potential, I've been hearing about that "Sleeping Giant" since they entered the Big East in 1991. It hasn't happened yet; their athletic department somehow continues to hemorrhage money; and New Jersey is always in a state of financial crisis.

Rutgers has been ranked at the end of a football season exactly once since 1976. They've been in a power conference for most of that time.