(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 08:14 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I checked out a few of the ACC message boards, including InsideCarolina.

A little bit surprising to see, but on multiple (and lengthy) threads recently the overwhelming consensus was that the ACC is running on fumes and UNC needs to be on the next train to B1G or SEC as soon as possible.

Looked like very, very few of the Tar Heel fans expect — or even want — the ACC to remain intact until 2035.

Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league. I also don’t buy the notion that ESPN will help facilitate moving Clemson and FSU to the SEC —- neither has the popularity of Texas or OU, neither/both would increase the SEC’s bottom line enough to justify having two more mouths to feed, and ESPN has no monetary incentive to pay the Tigers or Noles more money for rights they already control.

I see ESPN needlessly paying more for inventory they have locked up for 14 years, without valued added in return, being close to last on how they use cash freed up from losing out on BIG.

You think ESPN wouldn't pay just two more ACC schools more in the SEC, where they likely have additive value, yet you think the Mouse will cave and pay an entire conference of ACC schools more? You don't see your contradiction?

I don't see ESPN having that much invested in the league.

ESPN controls three conferences. Soon, maybe 4 in the Big 12. They benefit form rearranging the schedules (realignment) to get the best return on the entire collection of schools. In other words, consolidation of brands into conferences of more closely averaged brands.

If the sport is ready for big changes, 24 in the SEC may be the big tent needed for ESPN to grow the sport into a more national product. And if it is not ready, 24 is needed to have the critical mass for the SEC/ESPN to make it ready. At 24 plus the threat of an ESPN independent USC, the BIG would be forced to follow with Pac 12. Now that is a good use of ESPN's freed up cash from missing out on BIG.