(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

(10-12-2022 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

ok there's an idea mixed in here that just has never made sense to me

I'm not saying it can't happen - in the wackiness of realignment that produced some odd groupings of the American (AAC), anything is technically possible.

But likely?

The idea that Texas schools would be joining the ACC just doesn't make sense to me.

yes, texas has some major markets, but so do other states. and I just don't think trying to get a little of everything is a likely path forward.

Not for the ACC at least.

I just don't see them going past the Mississippi.

The SEC? sure, I could see them adding a 3rd or even a 4th Texas school.

But I mean, I don't even see the B10 adding a Texas school at this point.

But I'm open to hearing differing perspectives on why ACC adding texas schools is likely.

When I look at the ACC schools, I see FSU and Clemson as really starting to look like fish out of water ready to leave.

but the rest seems to fall into a couple categories:

a.) Schools who could get an SEC or B10 invite, but likely aren't interested in leaving the ACC set of schools - rivalries, geography, etc. (NC is the poster child of this one, but there are others - Miami, and GT, for example)

b.) Schools nowhere near the front of the line for an SEC or B10 invite, but would like to get one (most of the conference).

So if the GoR was gone tomorrow, I think FSU, Clemson leave, and get replaced.

I think the rest (group b) will get a "we're thinking about it" response from the SEC and the B10, and I think "group a" will decide to wait with their schoolmates.

Join a big bloated conference for "some" more money, or stay in a home of their own?

So I dunno.

But then I'm attempting to be logical about this, and whatever happens is more likely to be messy than logical : )

I think that most of the schools/conferences could accept the following:

SEC adds FSU, Clemson, possibly Miami - 18/19

No one else leaves the ACC

ACC adds Cin, WV, possibly UCF - 16+ND

(Could also add Memphis and Navy to go to 18 - 17+1+1)

B10 adds Oregon, Stanford, Washington and Cal/Kansas - 19/20

Cal joins Big West for all sports except FB.

OSU and WSU merge to MWC and the other 6 PAC schools merge to B12

B12 adds USF, Gonzaga, and Cal-fb, if B1G doesn't want.


B12 - 18 (17+1+1)
Colorado, Iowa state, Kansas state, OK State, Baylor, Houston, TCU, Texas tech

WA, OR, OSU, WSU, UT, BYU, AZ, AZ State, SDSU, Cal-FB?, Gonzaga non-FB?

UCF, USF

----------
And then there's a P4 - each essentially at 18 members. (or 17+1+1)

I don't think anyone would argue that these aren't decent moves, I think people just want to see the conferences go to 20 or 24 or bigger.

That said, do I think the B10 will go after FSU and others? sure. Do I think FSU and others will just use that to guarantee a better deal with the SEC? probably.

So I guess it all comes down to negotiations and circumstances.

(10-12-2022 05:26 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-12-2022 04:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

ok there's an idea mixed in here that just has never made sense to me

I'm not saying it can't happen - in the wackiness of realignment that produced some odd groupings of the American (AAC), anything is technically possible.

But likely?

The idea that Texas schools would be joining the ACC just doesn't make sense to me.

yes, texas has some major markets, but so do other states. and I just don't think trying to get a little of everything is a likely path forward.

Not for the ACC at least.

I just don't see them going past the Mississippi.

The SEC? sure, I could see them adding a 3rd or even a 4th Texas school.

But I mean, I don't even see the B10 adding a Texas school at this point.

But I'm open to hearing differing perspectives on why ACC adding texas schools is likely.

When I look at the ACC schools, I see FSU and Clemson as really starting to look like fish out of water ready to leave.

but the rest seems to fall into a couple categories:

a.) Schools who could get an SEC or B10 invite, but likely aren't interested in leaving the ACC set of schools - rivalries, geography, etc. (NC is the poster child of this one, but there are others - Miami, and GT, for example)

b.) Schools nowhere near the front of the line for an SEC or B10 invite, but would like to get one (most of the conference).

So if the GoR was gone tomorrow, I think FSU, Clemson leave, and get replaced.

I think the rest (group b) will get a "we're thinking about it" response from the SEC and the B10, and I think "group a" will decide to wait with their schoolmates.

Join a big bloated conference for "some" more money, or stay in a home of their own?

So I dunno.

But then I'm attempting to be logical about this, and whatever happens is more likely to be messy than logical : )

I think that most of the schools/conferences could accept the following:

SEC adds FSU, Clemson, possibly Miami - 18/19

No one else leaves the ACC

ACC adds Cin, WV, possibly UCF - 16+ND

(Could also add Memphis and Navy to go to 18 - 17+1+1)

B10 adds Oregon, Stanford, Washington and Cal/Kansas - 19/20

Cal joins Big West for all sports except FB.

OSU and WSU merge to MWC and the other 6 PAC schools merge to B12

B12 adds USF, Gonzaga, and Cal-fb, if B1G doesn't want.


B12 - 18 (17+1+1)
Colorado, Iowa state, Kansas state, OK State, Baylor, Houston, TCU, Texas tech

WA, OR, OSU, WSU, UT, BYU, AZ, AZ State, SDSU, Cal-FB?, Gonzaga non-FB?

UCF, USF

----------
And then there's a P4 - each essentially at 18 members. (or 17+1+1)

I don't think anyone would argue that these aren't decent moves, I think people just want to see the conferences go to 20 or 24 or bigger.

That said, do I think the B10 will go after FSU and others? sure. Do I think FSU and others will just use that to guarantee a better deal with the SEC? probably.

So I guess it all comes down to negotiations and circumstances.

Skyhawk, please see my revisions to your post up top for this reply. This is based on everything I have been folowing.

(10-11-2022 11:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-11-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN created the realignment logjam when they instructed the SEC to invite Missouri.
It was a solid move into a relatively large State but a real "no-man's land" as far as realignment goes. It basically froze everything long enough for the SEC/ESPN to chisel Texas and Oklahoma away from the then crippled Big 12.
The B1G continued to destroy as much as they could and dealt a death blow to the PAC with the invitations for USC and UCLA.
Now we wait in anticipation of each of those conferences to fail.
What can ESPN do now that final movement seems desirable? What is possible to enhance their star product and expand the reach of the SEC into new markets without destroying what made the conference marketable in the first place?

For years many have advocated ridding the SEC of their weakest link...Vanderbilt. On paper that seems like a good idea, but replacing them with .....
16 seems like a compact number for a conference, anything larger only dilutes the product.
The ACC on the other hand is ESPN's hodge-podge, a catch all conference sewn, together to offer a large area to tie up a large population.
I think moving the ACC to 20 by adding a few properties that could hasten what we have all been expecting since the Texas/Oklahoma announcement.
Radical ?possibly, but worthy of at least passing consideration.
ESPN moves Vanderbilt to the ACC and replaces them with West Virginia.
ESPN rounds out the ACC with Kansas, TCU and Baylor for a 20 team conference.
The West Virginia/Pitt game becomes another ACC/SEC season ender. The SEC gains access toward the DC market, and has an opportunity to thwart the B1G influence in the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Ohio regions.
The ACC gains 3 states and access to the lucrative Texas TV market.

Just a thought.

The SEC and Big 10 will move to 20 each, 9 conference games, rotate through the entire conference every 3 years. Vanderbilt will not leave.

The Big 10 knows it cannot simply take two L.A. schools who will flyover for all games but each other. The move implied further expansion to the West. They'll end up taking at least Oregon and Washington and one Bay area school. They'll make N.D. one final offer and the take the other Bay area school (which may be what they are waiting on now) if ND says no.

Then the ACC will have some choices to make if it wishes to survive as the third P conference.

Does ESPN shelter it's top ACC brands with more money in the SEC and build more football gravitas around the remaining ACC members? Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas to the SEC to build premier hoops and balance the football power. But, keeping FSU and Clemson in order to add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U. Texas Tech, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, West Virginia, UCF, and B.Y.U.

Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Colorado, Texas Tech, Utah

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Central Florida, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest

A lineup which produces some real football contenders and provides a helluva footprint for the ACCN.


Or, does the ACC surrender it's two top football programs Clemson and FSU to the SEC who then adds Kansas and perhaps a market add like Colorado to balance them out.

The SEC then looks something like this:

Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Florida State, South Carolina

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee

The ACC could backfill with Central Florida and South Florida, pick up Cincinnati and West Virginia and sit at 16 with ND as a partial if they turn down a Big 10 final offer.

The Big 12 could pick up the 2 Arizonas and Utah and add Oregon State, Washington State, San Diego State, Tulane and SMU.

Now your ACC would look like this:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Cincinnati, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida

The Big 12 would look like this:

Arizona, Arizona State, San Diego State, Texas Tech

Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist

Baylor, Houston, Texas Christian, Tulane

With the first option you have 3 conferences with 64 schools.

With the second option you have 4 conferences (SEC & B1G at 20 and ACC & B12 at 16) of 72 schools, possibly plus N.D. as an indy. If N.D. joins the Big 10 Tulane is out of the Big 12 and a Bay area school possibly joins. If the not Tulane remains.

(04-04-2022 06:16 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 05:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2022 04:26 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  A couple questions...

1) Who will decide to not compete at this level? I might be wrong but IMO there will be a couple universities that will self demote.
2) Are the networks going to allow dead weight to stay aligned with their current conferences? My example is Mississippi State, they really don't bring anything for football or basketball that say a school like Florida State could bring. Does the mouse allow schools like this to stay? MSU isn't the only one either...
3) Why only 3 conferences? I know someone is going to yell at me but I feel like symmetry rules in professional sports, There is equal divisions and conferences in all of the 4 major north American sports so why not in what would become the 5th?
4) What will be the the cue that we can all look to and know unequivocally that this massive transition has begun?

1. If anyone opts out they are just out. I'm not sure unless it is a B1G or SEC member that it would make much difference.

2. Mississippi State won the national championship in baseball last year, and recently enough was a final game away in Women's hoops. They are charter members and no one is mucking around with core SEC members or core B1G members which is just good fortune for some.

3. Why a P5 if we love symmetry? It will eventually be a P2, the third conference is a necessary transitional phase. Some will make it and some eventually will not but nature will decide that.

4. Unless you are blind it has already begun. NIL was one symptom, Texas and Oklahoma leaving is your cue, and Pay for Play will be the starting gun for the race for a place to which some have already been working.

1. Makes Sense

2. Not a shot at Miss St, I guess I don't see how they're more valuable than an Arizona state or a Virginia Tech. Might just be a case of right place right time, I can accept that.

3. If a P2 is the end game, that pretty much answers the question.

4. Not blind, just wondering if there is another proverbial "shoe to drop", that I should be aware of or that is not being mentioned.

(05-15-2022 06:50 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 06:25 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(05-15-2022 06:01 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

Maybe Kliavkoff is trying to make the transition smoother behind the scenes?

Larry Scott would make a lot of people look good imo.


Getting everyone aligned that there is a existential problem would give them a chance, but the inherent issues remain. Low fan interest in combination with location means the Pac12 MUST become less Pac.

I do think they benefited from getting someone that isn't a career president or AD. Unlike the Big 12, the Pac12 SHOULD have unity if they can remain halfway close to P2.

I just don't know what network will want to go long on a conference with declining demographics and performance.

I think their primary chance is to borrow against the future on their deal- punting it down the road and hope something changes. Get a front loaded deal in exchange for giving the network length and a deal on the back half.

Performance where? Football and basketball, yes, all other sports, not a chance. What demographics? 6 of the 10 fastest growing states are all inside the PAC's footprint and if they were to expand into Texas that would give them 7.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states

The demise of population in the west is overblown and as I previously stated, if the PAC expands into Texas they re-coup those Californians that are leaving.

(05-16-2022 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 02:00 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:58 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So if all FBS schools are willing to go to the next level would that preclude realignment or make it more likely?

That's one side only of the elephant. It represents what the Big 10 would like to keep, not what the SEC wants, which is a separate P5, which is why Dabo said that what a Middle Tennessee needs and Alabama needs are worlds apart. Which is why we are having consolidation at the top. Many at the top are preparing for a more defined separation from the G5, and from the NCAA, and for specifically basketball.

So what I'm hearing is the further demarcation of the battleline between two factions. Basketball remaining as is represents how much the B1G is tossing in with the NCAA. The NCAA loses nothing with a football separation because it is essentially separate now. The NCAA has to keep hoops to remain viable.

If this position isn't abandoned it will impact how consolidation happens and IMO it will get much rougher for the B1G down the road as to revenue divide. It, to me, only points to a level of politics within the B1G which will eventually push a few member schools out.

You've said that basketball would multiply in value in the event of a breakaway. Maybe that view is not shared by multiple programs in the FBS group. I doubt they'd turn down more money if they were certain about it.

So either they think basketball wouldn't be more valuable in a breakaway or they believe the NCAA name has so much cache in March Madness that there's too risk in upending that relationship.

Major programs stand to make 2.25 x present value, and I'm not talking just bluebloods, but rather most P5's and mid majors of note. Many outside of that group would not make that much more.

If there is a breakaway the NCAA label won't mean much if top schools are gone.

The reason Warren and the Big 10 want to include the whole FBS is because it is their only check on the SEC and any ACC schools which might join them and any ESPN family arrangement made with the NB12.

I seriously doubt ESPN and the SEC permit this. Should ESPN sign ND and USC to an independent deal it isolates Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin in some horrible ways.

Kliavkoff may yet sign on with the Mouse. The maneuver to counter and then isolate the Big Ten is on. But Warren and the Big Ten started this with opposition to expanded playoffs and the alliance, and now its insistence on retaining the NCAA and thereby preventing full monetization of hoops will bury them.

(10-18-2022 05:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 02:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 02:00 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 11:58 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

So if all FBS schools are willing to go to the next level would that preclude realignment or make it more likely?

That's one side only of the elephant. It represents what the Big 10 would like to keep, not what the SEC wants, which is a separate P5, which is why Dabo said that what a Middle Tennessee needs and Alabama needs are worlds apart. Which is why we are having consolidation at the top. Many at the top are preparing for a more defined separation from the G5, and from the NCAA, and for specifically basketball.

So what I'm hearing is the further demarcation of the battleline between two factions. Basketball remaining as is represents how much the B1G is tossing in with the NCAA. The NCAA loses nothing with a football separation because it is essentially separate now. The NCAA has to keep hoops to remain viable.

If this position isn't abandoned it will impact how consolidation happens and IMO it will get much rougher for the B1G down the road as to revenue divide. It, to me, only points to a level of politics within the B1G which will eventually push a few member schools out.

You've said that basketball would multiply in value in the event of a breakaway. Maybe that view is not shared by multiple programs in the FBS group. I doubt they'd turn down more money if they were certain about it.

So either they think basketball wouldn't be more valuable in a breakaway or they believe the NCAA name has so much cache in March Madness that there's too risk in upending that relationship.

Major programs stand to make 2.25 x present value, and I'm not talking just bluebloods, but rather most P5's and mid majors of note. Many outside of that group would not make that much more.

If there is a breakaway the NCAA label won't mean much if top schools are gone.

The reason Warren and the Big 10 want to include the whole FBS is because it is their only check on the SEC and any ACC schools which might join them and any ESPN family arrangement made with the NB12.

I seriously doubt ESPN and the SEC permit this. Should ESPN sign ND and USC to an independent deal it isolates Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin in some horrible ways.

Kliavkoff may yet sign on with the Mouse. The maneuver to counter and then isolate the Big Ten is on. But Warren and the Big Ten started this with opposition to expanded playoffs and the alliance, and now its insistence on retaining the NCAA and thereby preventing full monetization of hoops will bury them.

These last 2 paragraphs shed an interesting light on the USCLA move and U-turn on early CFP expansion. All of a sudden, instead of being isolated, the B1G has aggressively moved to shore up weaknesses, help everyone get more money through early CFP expansion, and reduced ESPN's influence by locking in deals with other networks.

I knew that there was a reason that I simultaneously respected and disliked Warren.

(10-19-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  So, the only way Clemson will get any attention from the SEC is to get attention from the Big Ten. Am I right JR?? If that hypothesis is correct, what ESPN's larger view for the SEC?? Do they wish for Mississippi State, LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky to be more like Big Ten universities instead of what they are presently??

(10-19-2022 09:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  So, the only way Clemson will get any attention from the SEC is to get attention from the Big Ten. Am I right JR?? If that hypothesis is correct, what ESPN's larger view for the SEC?? Do they wish for Mississippi State, LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky to be more like Big Ten universities instead of what they are presently??

You've twisted the logic in your mind, not reality. The reality is that ESPN is only interested in sheltering the schools which FOX and the Big 10 would be interested in taking from the ACC. Their top 4 priorities have been deemed to be North Carolina, Florida State, Duke and Virginia in that order. Clemson does not fit the Big 10 profile therefore is not seen as necessary to move, but it seen as a solid anchor for the value of a new ACC. Translation: While Clemson fits the SEC very well, ESPN likely wants to keep them where they are so they can build a football conference around them.

SEC priorities would include top schools in new markets (North Carolina and Virginia do that). A second school in Florida for advertising and scheduling (Florida State accomplishes both and better than the other 3 Florida schools of Miami, UCF, and USF). Duke would simply remove the final appealing carrot to the Big 10's interest and give the SEC another hoops brand, UNC its main rival, and enhance academics which presidents of SEC schools would welcome.

Nobody in the SEC is trying to force a Big 10 academic model on current members. The move would be smart offensively and defensively and for making the SEC the top basketball conference as well.

It also allows for the construction of a better football conference in the ACC.

(10-19-2022 09:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  So, the only way Clemson will get any attention from the SEC is to get attention from the Big Ten. Am I right JR?? If that hypothesis is correct, what ESPN's larger view for the SEC?? Do they wish for Mississippi State, LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky to be more like Big Ten universities instead of what they are presently??

You've twisted the logic in your mind, not reality. The reality is that ESPN is only interested in sheltering the schools which FOX and the Big 10 would be interested in taking from the ACC. Their top 4 priorities have been deemed to be North Carolina, Florida State, Duke and Virginia in that order. Clemson does not fit the Big 10 profile therefore is not seen as necessary to move, but it seen as a solid anchor for the value of a new ACC. Translation: While Clemson fits the SEC very well, ESPN likely wants to keep them where they are so they can build a football conference around them.

SEC priorities would include top schools in new markets (North Carolina and Virginia do that). A second school in Florida for advertising and scheduling (Florida State accomplishes both and better than the other 3 Florida schools of Miami, UCF, and USF). Duke would simply remove the final appealing carrot to the Big 10's interest and give the SEC another hoops brand, UNC its main rival, and enhance academics which presidents of SEC schools would welcome.

Nobody in the SEC is trying to force a Big 10 academic model on current members. The move would be smart offensively and defensively and for making the SEC the top basketball conference as well.

It also allows for the construction of a better football conference in the ACC.

(10-19-2022 09:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  So, the only way Clemson will get any attention from the SEC is to get attention from the Big Ten. Am I right JR?? If that hypothesis is correct, what ESPN's larger view for the SEC?? Do they wish for Mississippi State, LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky to be more like Big Ten universities instead of what they are presently??

You've twisted the logic in your mind, not reality. The reality is that ESPN is only interested in sheltering the schools which FOX and the Big 10 would be interested in taking from the ACC. Their top 4 priorities have been deemed to be North Carolina, Florida State, Duke and Virginia in that order. Clemson does not fit the Big 10 profile therefore is not seen as necessary to move, but it seen as a solid anchor for the value of a new ACC. Translation: While Clemson fits the SEC very well, ESPN likely wants to keep them where they are so they can build a football conference around them.

SEC priorities would include top schools in new markets (North Carolina and Virginia do that). A second school in Florida for advertising and scheduling (Florida State accomplishes both and better than the other 3 Florida schools of Miami, UCF, and USF). Duke would simply remove the final appealing carrot to the Big 10's interest and give the SEC another hoops brand, UNC its main rival, and enhance academics which presidents of SEC schools would welcome.

Nobody in the SEC is trying to force a Big 10 academic model on current members. The move would be smart offensively and defensively and for making the SEC the top basketball conference as well.

It also allows for the construction of a better football conference in the ACC.

(10-19-2022 04:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 08:37 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 06:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:58 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  It's going to be extremely difficult prying UNC solo, detaching 2/3 friends or more. We just haven't seen priority given to BBall first schools. We've had A&M, UT, OU, and USC (UCLA more of a tag along than BBall addition). There are only so many schools/programs at that level. Nebraska before that. In what planet do the Tarheels move the needle in Fall programming versus those aforementioned schools, even on down years?

Sure, if UNC is getting a payout 50% higher in the SEC, they'd go alone and buy out whomever is required. But I'd think FSU still gets priority for the SEC given the potential for B1G encroachment.

If Duke, or UVa, or NCSU (any 2/3) get left behind, they are no longer appealing for either the B1G or SEC as stand alone additions.

Overall, I think FSU is the prize and the SEC will cover them at all costs. I don't see the B1G settling for UNC if they are forced to take on 2-3 additional schools. UVa, Duke, GaTech would be the most attractive in that order, but that takes the B1G to 24 along with the PN4. That's the best they could do if they lose out on FSU and UNC.

If UNC and Duke/NCSU also go to the SEC, I don't see the B1G taking UVa GaTech and/or Duke (if available).

If I'm ESPN, I have no interest moving chips around in a zero sum game. Go for merit based pay increases to keep FSU and Clemson happy. There is literally no advantage moving FSU to the SEC aside from proactive defense from a B1G raid.

We've had some intense discussions about UNC here recently. My takeaway is that neither of the P2 is interested in bringing "buddies" or "travel partners" for new members, but if the synergy of 2 or more schools pushes the weaker one over the threshold then the weaker brand(s) could qualify on their own merits even if they wouldn't have qualified as a standalone. And the threshold for Duke is different than it is for NC St or one of the Virginia schools.

Regarding what the SEC does if the B1G gets UNC and UVA, I think that we'd take NC St or Duke + Va Tech. The difficulty with this question is that UNC and UVA know that they'd slowly erode towards 2nd class status in their own states if their rivals were in the SEC, significantly reducing the odds that they go B1G. And the problem for the B1G is that they would be unlikely to take Nc St or Va Tech (not impossible but not likely) if their in-state rivals joined the SEC.

The cost of competition in the B10 is what UNC and UVa want to avoid. The extra money does not cover their costs. When it comes to football, both are already less popular and put fewer butts in seats than VT or NC State. It does not matter though as long as their basketball programs are okay.

The ACC core is cheap and tight with a dollar compared to the B10 and SEC core. No magic snap of the fingers or big pot of money makes up for the fact that the top of the B10 has twice as many living alumns to call on as UVa or UNC. No magic snap of the fingers or pot of money makes up for not having 50 top 300 recruits in your state or the neighboring state.

In the 2010-11 time frame the UNC athletic department did an internal study re: the cost of competition in the B1G vs the SEC.
The study found that UNC would be competitive in the B1G based on current income and could sustain the entire athletic department (28 sports).
The study also found that UNC could not be competitive (especially in football) in the SEC without eliminating at least 7 sports from the offerings of the athletic department.
Those results were based on athletic department incomes in 2010-11. The numbers have changed dramatically in the last 12 years, but the basic premise is the same. Carolina could maintain it's entire athletic department (28 sports) and be competitive in the B1G (football) but would still have to reduce the number of sports to be competitive in the SEC.
The number of sports is important to the Administration at Carolina and goes much deeper than just the Varsity sports. As an example: Carolina is the only school in the ACC to continue to offer JV basketball.
Many of the team sports played in the ACC/UNC (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey) are not supported in the SEC.

(10-19-2022 10:12 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 09:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-19-2022 01:39 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  So, the only way Clemson will get any attention from the SEC is to get attention from the Big Ten. Am I right JR?? If that hypothesis is correct, what ESPN's larger view for the SEC?? Do they wish for Mississippi State, LSU, Ole Miss, and Kentucky to be more like Big Ten universities instead of what they are presently??

You've twisted the logic in your mind, not reality. The reality is that ESPN is only interested in sheltering the schools which FOX and the Big 10 would be interested in taking from the ACC. Their top 4 priorities have been deemed to be North Carolina, Florida State, Duke and Virginia in that order. Clemson does not fit the Big 10 profile therefore is not seen as necessary to move, but it seen as a solid anchor for the value of a new ACC. Translation: While Clemson fits the SEC very well, ESPN likely wants to keep them where they are so they can build a football conference around them.

SEC priorities would include top schools in new markets (North Carolina and Virginia do that). A second school in Florida for advertising and scheduling (Florida State accomplishes both and better than the other 3 Florida schools of Miami, UCF, and USF). Duke would simply remove the final appealing carrot to the Big 10's interest and give the SEC another hoops brand, UNC its main rival, and enhance academics which presidents of SEC schools would welcome.

Nobody in the SEC is trying to force a Big 10 academic model on current members. The move would be smart offensively and defensively and for making the SEC the top basketball conference as well.

It also allows for the construction of a better football conference in the ACC.

Unlike you, JR, and I do say this with all due respect, I don't trust ESPN. I don't believe that the SEC would ever blatantly force anyone out, but I can see ESPN wanting to set up a two tier earning system in the SEC if things aren't done their way. (tin foil hat on). Through use of uneven earnings, I could see ESPN using this to "encourage " the SEC to adopt B1G style academics. Think of it like the old Mafia gangsters who told various folks "I'll make you an offer you can't refuse. "

But changing subjects slightly, on ESPN, the ACC, UNC, and Clemson, a post XLance made on another thread altogether (as well as Skyhawk's replies in this thread) got me thinking

(10-19-2022 04:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 08:37 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 06:35 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 04:58 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  It's going to be extremely difficult prying UNC solo, detaching 2/3 friends or more. We just haven't seen priority given to BBall first schools. We've had A&M, UT, OU, and USC (UCLA more of a tag along than BBall addition). There are only so many schools/programs at that level. Nebraska before that. In what planet do the Tarheels move the needle in Fall programming versus those aforementioned schools, even on down years?

Sure, if UNC is getting a payout 50% higher in the SEC, they'd go alone and buy out whomever is required. But I'd think FSU still gets priority for the SEC given the potential for B1G encroachment.

If Duke, or UVa, or NCSU (any 2/3) get left behind, they are no longer appealing for either the B1G or SEC as stand alone additions.

Overall, I think FSU is the prize and the SEC will cover them at all costs. I don't see the B1G settling for UNC if they are forced to take on 2-3 additional schools. UVa, Duke, GaTech would be the most attractive in that order, but that takes the B1G to 24 along with the PN4. That's the best they could do if they lose out on FSU and UNC.

If UNC and Duke/NCSU also go to the SEC, I don't see the B1G taking UVa GaTech and/or Duke (if available).

If I'm ESPN, I have no interest moving chips around in a zero sum game. Go for merit based pay increases to keep FSU and Clemson happy. There is literally no advantage moving FSU to the SEC aside from proactive defense from a B1G raid.

We've had some intense discussions about UNC here recently. My takeaway is that neither of the P2 is interested in bringing "buddies" or "travel partners" for new members, but if the synergy of 2 or more schools pushes the weaker one over the threshold then the weaker brand(s) could qualify on their own merits even if they wouldn't have qualified as a standalone. And the threshold for Duke is different than it is for NC St or one of the Virginia schools.

Regarding what the SEC does if the B1G gets UNC and UVA, I think that we'd take NC St or Duke + Va Tech. The difficulty with this question is that UNC and UVA know that they'd slowly erode towards 2nd class status in their own states if their rivals were in the SEC, significantly reducing the odds that they go B1G. And the problem for the B1G is that they would be unlikely to take Nc St or Va Tech (not impossible but not likely) if their in-state rivals joined the SEC.

The cost of competition in the B10 is what UNC and UVa want to avoid. The extra money does not cover their costs. When it comes to football, both are already less popular and put fewer butts in seats than VT or NC State. It does not matter though as long as their basketball programs are okay.

The ACC core is cheap and tight with a dollar compared to the B10 and SEC core. No magic snap of the fingers or big pot of money makes up for the fact that the top of the B10 has twice as many living alumns to call on as UVa or UNC. No magic snap of the fingers or pot of money makes up for not having 50 top 300 recruits in your state or the neighboring state.

In the 2010-11 time frame the UNC athletic department did an internal study re: the cost of competition in the B1G vs the SEC.
The study found that UNC would be competitive in the B1G based on current income and could sustain the entire athletic department (28 sports).
The study also found that UNC could not be competitive (especially in football) in the SEC without eliminating at least 7 sports from the offerings of the athletic department.
Those results were based on athletic department incomes in 2010-11. The numbers have changed dramatically in the last 12 years, but the basic premise is the same. Carolina could maintain it's entire athletic department (28 sports) and be competitive in the B1G (football) but would still have to reduce the number of sports to be competitive in the SEC.
The number of sports is important to the Administration at Carolina and goes much deeper than just the Varsity sports. As an example: Carolina is the only school in the ACC to continue to offer JV basketball.
Many of the team sports played in the ACC/UNC (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey) are not supported in the SEC.

Now, couple that, with Clemson obviously wanting to leave the ACC.

Is it possible that UNC could be left as a basketball anchor in the ACC?? Allowing ESPN to rebuild the conference around basketball?? If a football anchor is still needed, what about straight up merging the ACC and the Big 12?? The ACC already detests Phillips anyway, so why not make Yormark the new commissioner of the new conference?? It would also be a covert, sneaky way to shut FOX out of the Big 12 altogether.

(11-01-2022 06:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  JR,

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Monty Show. It's a sports show out of Utah, so he covers local pro and college sports in the area. I've watched a few of his shows but he appears very connected to the college sports scene in the West. So yesterday he talked about the Big 12 media deal and then claims that sources told him that it would include a separate streaming deal between Amazon and the Big 12, which would add up to $20 million more for each member. If true then that would be a real game changer.







Other things he mentioned:

- UCLA chancellor has told the UC system that they're intent on joining the Big Ten and not staying in the PAC

- Disney pulled back money from the Big Ten in order to help lock down Big 12 content, before Yormark became Big 12 commish

- All Big 12 programs, including newbies, are behind Yormark and his vision; Yormark also informed all the Big 12 members what the plan is

- ESPN is willing to work with Amazon because they recognized that Amazon is going into college sports in a big way


The fourth item really has the potential to radically change the business end of college sports in terms of media. The second item jives with your theory about Disney wanting to lock down content in the heartland of the country.