(09-06-2013 10:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Not right now, but ECU is still another 10-15 years of heavy athletic and academic building from serious SEC consideration anyway.

Thats the nice thing about the SEC, we can afford to wait for the right moment and if it doesn't come, we're pretty well set with the 14 we have.

Right... no reason to ever reach on a school. Admission/Purchase is $0.00 whether now or later.

I was kidding, I was kidding! Didn't expect a reply on the ECU thing.

Just for the record, and I know y'all don't want to hear it, conference affiliation has been proven to boost athletics and academics. Look at VPI and FSU. When they started becoming powers in athletics, they started attracting higher quality students, which results in quality professors being hired, more research grants applied for, more research dollars being pumped in through the state...etc. A boost in academics.

It goes without saying how many more casual fans a program gains by playing at the top level.

The above isn't really about Ecu, I just wanted to make the point that athletics really is the front porch/door of an institution. It's the first thing people see.

I'm guessing the acceptance rate of 'Bama has plummeted in the Saban years? Does anybody know? Acceptance rate may not directly benefit a school short, but in the long run after a few classes of higher "quality" (I don't like saying that....some HS genuises turn out to be dumb, while some average students are just late bloomers) alumni graduate and get good jobs, they pump some more money in to the school.

Sorry to go so off topic. I know it's about FSU & Clemson. I'm still young so I've always viewed these as good schools, but for any older fans is it actually true that FSU became a lot better academically when their athletics stepped up? I may be way off here.

What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

(09-06-2013 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

Still aint happening for a long while.

(09-06-2013 06:39 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

Still aint happening for a long while.

I agree.

(09-06-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:39 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

Still aint happening for a long while.

I agree.

If we haven't added any more teams by the end of the first half of 2014 we won't be adding any for about a decade.

(09-06-2013 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:39 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  What you are saying is true, but its also not grounds for membership.

Pretty much any school can make the argument "if we were in power conference X, THEN we'd really improve attendance and academics etc"

How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

Still aint happening for a long while.

I agree.

If we haven't added any more teams by the end of the first half of 2014 we won't be adding any for about a decade.

That's the most likely option...

(09-06-2013 09:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:39 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  How many of them are in North Carolina and don't already belong to another Major conference?

Still aint happening for a long while.

I agree.

If we haven't added any more teams by the end of the first half of 2014 we won't be adding any for about a decade.

That's the most likely option...

Not really.

(09-07-2013 12:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 06:39 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Still aint happening for a long while.

I agree.

If we haven't added any more teams by the end of the first half of 2014 we won't be adding any for about a decade.

That's the most likely option...

Not really.

Nobody is breaking a GoR to join the SEC, and their are no SEC calibur teams out there that do not have a GoR hanging over their head. So who are you going to persuade to join? I kind of doubt Cincinnati or ECU fit the bill at present...

I disagree about Cincy. They do add real value.

(09-07-2013 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-07-2013 12:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 09:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 08:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-06-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I agree.

If we haven't added any more teams by the end of the first half of 2014 we won't be adding any for about a decade.

That's the most likely option...

Not really.

Nobody is breaking a GoR to join the SEC, and their are no SEC calibur teams out there that do not have a GoR hanging over their head. So who are you going to persuade to join? I kind of doubt Cincinnati or ECU fit the bill at present...

GOR's are not unbreakable contracts. They are contracts in which the breaching party is contractually obligated to supply current value to the conference they leave. As contracts do not cover all forms of sports revenue and whereas the conference they move to will pay them for their road games the idea that these GOR's are unbreakable is a canard.

Let's say for example that Texas chooses to leave the Big 12 for any other conference. They are liable for the fair market value of their home games throughout the duration of the GOR. Since Texas (and all Big 12 schools retain the rights to one home game per year for tier 3 that means they owe the Big 12 for 6 home games and the added value that their name brings to the Big 12. The latter can be easily erased should the network involved decide to honor the full value of the Big 12's television contract as a conference even if Texas leaves.

Now let's say that Texas leaves in three years time and goes to the Big 10 where their projected earnings are now 40 million per year. Texas receives as a half member 20 million of that money. They lose 22 million a year in the Big 12 for which they have to be paid a portion for the GOR to remain viable. (A GOR is a quid pro quo contract. As long as both parties are paid it remains in force.) Texas in the Big 10 now earns more money for merchandising, both at home and away. They have a hard sell out more games generating more revenue. And, for the home game they get to keep they earn more money. So a move to the Big 10 might cost them a total of 25 to 30 million for the duration of their Big 12 contract. That's hardly enough to keep them there.

Now if their choice is to move to the ACC that cost might double due to the difference in projected earnings between the Big 10 and ACC.

But leaving the Big 12 is doable for their five most profitable programs including yours Bit. But it would cost each of them a range of penalties from perhaps around 30 million and up to 60 million depending upon where they go and to what there earning potential was in the new league and with what increased merchandise sales and crowd appeal might mitigate.

I just don't see any major movement happening for the next decade or so, while schools posture themselves for the next round of realignment. At least that's how it seems to me...

I just don't see the rush, unless there's some other issue on the backburner that justifies the need for speed on the moves...

(09-07-2013 11:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I just don't see any major movement happening for the next decade or so, while schools posture themselves for the next round of realignment. At least that's how it seems to me...

I just don't see the rush, unless there's some other issue on the backburner that justifies the need for speed on the moves...

I think a lot also depends upon a profitable ACC network in the near future.

(09-07-2013 11:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I just don't see any major movement happening for the next decade or so, while schools posture themselves for the next round of realignment. At least that's how it seems to me...

I just don't see the rush, unless there's some other issue on the backburner that justifies the need for speed on the moves...

It's no longer on the backburner. It was.

I tend to agree with the "no major movement until the GORs ends"

At that time I see the B1G and PAC making moves to get into southern and or central time zone markets and the SEC simply waiting to see if the right fruit decides they want an invite

While Clemson and FSU (and GT) all have serious issues with the ACC and John HerpDerpington Swofford ... we all have even more issues with the SEC.

Plus, with 50% of the US population being within the ACC footprint by 2030 ... an ACC TV network could dwarf every other league's TV income. The Pac-12 and ACC really are in the strongest positions for money making.

(09-11-2013 01:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While Clemson and FSU (and GT) all have serious issues with the ACC and John HerpDerpington Swofford ... we all have even more issues with the SEC.

Plus, with 50% of the US population being within the ACC footprint by 2030 ... an ACC TV network could dwarf every other league's TV income. The Pac-12 and ACC really are in the strongest positions for money making.

But, swagger, all those people in the footprint have to be interested. The northern ACC schools have a problem even filling up their stadiums, many of which are small in the first place. Also, the footprint data for Louisville, Clemson, Ga. Tech, FSU, and Miami are an overlap of the SEC; it is not like the ACC is in an exclusive footprint. What are those issues with the SEC, by the way? All the schools in the region have 50 or 100 year old beefs, but most of those people are dead. What are the current issues? Academic integrity/status can no longer be an argument after the ACC took Louisville, not to mention the UNC disaster. The SEC has had problems, but academics in the southern ACC schools is close to a wash with the SEC as it stands.

(09-11-2013 01:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While Clemson and FSU (and GT) all have serious issues with the ACC and John HerpDerpington Swofford ... we all have even more issues with the SEC.

Plus, with 50% of the US population being within the ACC footprint by 2030 ... an ACC TV network could dwarf every other league's TV income. The Pac-12 and ACC really are in the strongest positions for money making.

Part of that population swell will be in the SEC's footprint as well. The ACC need do only one thing to be able to utilize those markets....win ... consistently. Until that happens having the markets is a moot point.

(09-11-2013 01:45 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 01:32 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  While Clemson and FSU (and GT) all have serious issues with the ACC and John HerpDerpington Swofford ... we all have even more issues with the SEC.

Plus, with 50% of the US population being within the ACC footprint by 2030 ... an ACC TV network could dwarf every other league's TV income. The Pac-12 and ACC really are in the strongest positions for money making.

But, swagger, all those people in the footprint have to be interested. The northern ACC schools have a problem even filling up their stadiums, many of which are small in the first place. Also, the footprint data for Louisville, Clemson, Ga. Tech, FSU, and Miami are an overlap of the SEC; it is not like the ACC is in an exclusive footprint. What are those issues with the SEC, by the way? All the schools in the region have 50 or 100 year old beefs, but most of those people are dead. What are the current issues? Academic integrity/status can no longer be an argument after the ACC took Louisville, not to mention the UNC disaster. The SEC has had problems, but academics in the southern ACC schools is close to a wash with the SEC as it stands.

That's just it. It isn't just about eyeballs, it is about eyeballs watching. I do think the ACC is in good position for the future if they hold it together through the next round of realignment.

I think Swagger is more incorrect about the PAC. Not only is it a very disinterested population out there, just look at the size of their stadiums, but they also get screwed by their time zone. First off, their later games get ZERO highlight coverage on ESPN except for the next day and by then many football fans have moved on to thinking about the NFL. The PAC seriously needs some Central Time Zone coverage in order to get their major programs some earlier games so they can get full highlight coverage on ESPN. That is why Oregon likes those games in Texas.