(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 02:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 02:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I grant that it's possible. Similarly, though, it could be that it's simply not worth more to ESPN if they're not yielding savings on the ACC contract to compensate to whatever more they would have to pay to the SEC.

That's what ESPN feared back in 2010 when they offered the LHN: it was better to send $15 million per year to Texas than deal with a Pac-16 that included Texas and would have as much negotiating power as any sports entity outside of the NFL and would have cost much, much more.

Note that you've pointed out another reason why the UT/OU expansion is so singularly efficient for the SEC in a way that isn't really possible for many (or any) expansion combinations. Not only are Texas and Oklahoma top tier football brands, but they're also top tier basketball brands, too. They're achieving in an expansion with just 2 schools what it would take all 4 of Clemson, FSU, UNC and Duke to do here... and that's with the bar to actually make expansion more profitable to the SEC going sky high with this UT/OU move in the first place.

In any event, my point is that thinking that the SEC and Big Ten can really add anyone besides Notre Dame to make more on a media money basis is pretty much impossible now.

If we want to say that there are global factors like a total restructuring of college football administration or the elimination of the NCAA that could spur those leagues to expand further, then sure, I can buy that. I just don't think it's going to be based on how much more money ESPN, FOX or anyone else is going to pay at this point. We've reached the maximum per school revenue size for the Big Ten and SEC under the current environment just as the NFL has reached its maximum per franchise size. The NFL reached the point where their current members would make more money by staying the same size as opposed to expanding and that's simply where I see the Big Ten and SEC now.

I suspect the SEC might be more interested in North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas. 4 AAUs, 3 national brands, 3 new states, and oodles of hoops branding (which is insurance for the future). FSU and Clemson could be used by ESPN to anchor a better football conference (rebuilt from B12 and ACC brands). To me the accretive value to the SEC is in hoops (especially if basketball is monetized outside of the NCAA), and yet they would also be picking up 3 stellar baseball programs and an improving one at Kansas. The conference would never run short on any of the Big 3's post seasons. And it adds (as did OU and UT) to softball and women's hoops.

It also puts a bow on the entire region.

We'll simply see what ESPN is thinking soon enough.

Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own. the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe that bolded statement is technically true. Whether UNC wanted to go to the B1G or to the SEC they would still have to negotiate their release from the GoR with the ACC and whatever schools remain in it, just like OUT have to do to leave the Big 12 early.