(05-16-2014 07:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I thought that when conference commissioners make public statements it is all part of a well thought out, multi-layered "misdirection" plan? :)

Isn't that what Delany gets credited for whenever he opens his mouth?

Seriously, I don't really care if the ACC gets a network or not. I just think it is funny when some people think certain conference commissioners have these grand, inevitable, multi-dimensional plans that most ordinary humans cannot comprehend.

I think that most of them are grab bagging, reacting and doing some ad hoc work as they bounce along with events, but then I am never really overly impressed with any of these guys.

1000% this. I think people give these commissioners way, way too much credit. They are intelligent, but they aren't planning a new college sports world order or anything.

(05-15-2014 08:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just like how when he was hopeful for an ACC Network he was speaking very strongly about it. Now though, the situation has changed and he is pushing it off until "several years down the road." It will only happen if major changes happen after we have a P5 council setting up the rules.

You haven't been following the quotes about the network at all then. Nothing has been said that suggests anything before 2016, at the earliest, is possible. No guarantees have ever been made. Not even individual athletic director statements, although they've all been fairly positive in their statements about progressing on the network front.

(05-15-2014 01:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  From earlier today:

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN ·4h
Earliest ACC could start an ACC Network? "Several years,” Swofford said

Well, I guess that means that either it won't happen, or they'll settle at taking the extra $2M/year from ESPN.

The ACC isn't getting an extra $2M/year from ESPN

(05-16-2014 03:50 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  From earlier today:

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN ·4h
Earliest ACC could start an ACC Network? "Several years,” Swofford said

Well, I guess that means that either it won't happen, or they'll settle at taking the extra $2M/year from ESPN.

The ACC isn't getting an extra $2M/year from ESPN

There is a lot of denial in this thread. Just honestly read the quote:

Earliest ACC could start an ACC Network? "Several years,” Swofford said

Swofford has already received the bad news from ESPN and now must break it to the ACC during the spring meetings. Will we hear words of dissention at the summer meetings?

(05-16-2014 12:42 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just like how when he was hopeful for an ACC Network he was speaking very strongly about it. Now though, the situation has changed and he is pushing it off until "several years down the road." It will only happen if major changes happen after we have a P5 council setting up the rules.

You haven't been following the quotes about the network at all then. Nothing has been said that suggests anything before 2016, at the earliest, is possible. No guarantees have ever been made. Not even individual athletic director statements, although they've all been fairly positive in their statements about progressing on the network front.

(05-16-2014 07:15 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:29 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:23 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:39 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:17 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Sorry, but the context is wrong. When Slive made the above comments the SEC had just acquired TAMU and Mizzou where it was well known the SEC did so to reopen their media contracts and to have inventory for an SEC Network. When those comments were made it was time to start negotiating the particulars. Slive was not being deceitful. At most he was tempering expectations.

In contrast, everyone has known for a year that the ACC negotiated an undisclosed period of time with ESPN, whereby the World Wide Leader would decided to either start an ACC Network or pay each ACC school approximately $2 million. Swofford has repeatedly stated he thought an ACC Network would happen within 2-3 years. Now it's "several years away" after ESPN has had a year to think about it and the SEC Network carriage negotiations are progressing better than many had expected.

It looks like the "Ninja" might have only bought the ACC a little more time.

Then you don't know Swofford. Months before the Notre Dame deal he proclaimed the ACC was an all-in conference and everyone shut the door on any partial relationship. Well we know how that turned out.

I still think it's going to happen, and I think it will happen in the next 3 years. They're waiting for something. So time will tell.

Apples and Oranges. Swofford told ND it could not join as a partial member when he was trying to lure ND as a full member. That makes sense, even though he later caved when Maryland left.

How is telling the world it will be several years before the ACC can have a network a strategic move in any way? It is not to gain strength in negotiations with Raycom. What do you think he is trying to convey? That the ACC does not want the rights back? That ESPN does not want them back? That Raycom may not be able to sell the rights back because network negotiations have stalled so you better reduce your price!? Please, the last thing Raycom wants to do is sell back its rights to the ACC, assuming it even could since Raycom has sold a significant amount of such rights. That is the only thing keeping it in business.

Occam's Razor suggests the ACC cannot get a network because the ACC could not buy back its content sold to Raycom, or if they could, such properties do not warrant starting a network.

Notre Dame was invited months BEFORE Maryland left. Check the dates.

ACC basketball alone can generate enough subscribers for profitability, but unfortunately football drives the bus. Trust me. If ACC football continues to have years like last year, the roadblocks will suddenly disappear. They just have to work through it.

(05-15-2014 07:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  There is no reason and nothing to gain from "being sneaky" and trying to make folks think it isn't happening when it really is happening.

Seriously...give me ONE, just one, plausible reason. Not some made up gimmicky ACC fan reason but an actual reason why he would downplay it from the hopeful tone he used to carry on the subject in the past. Anyone?

I thought that when conference commissioners make public statements it is all part of a well thought out, multi-layered "misdirection" plan? :)

Isn't that what Delany gets credited for whenever he opens his mouth?

Seriously, I don't really care if the ACC gets a network or not. I just think it is funny when some people think certain conference commissioners have these grand, inevitable, multi-dimensional plans that most ordinary humans cannot comprehend.

I think that most of them are grab bagging, reacting and doing some ad hoc work as they bounce along with events, but then I am never really overly impressed with any of these guys.

Seems, everything anyone ever says about Delany gets attributed to me by you for some reason.

I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

(05-16-2014 07:53 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:50 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:36 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  From earlier today:

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN ·4h
Earliest ACC could start an ACC Network? "Several years,” Swofford said

Well, I guess that means that either it won't happen, or they'll settle at taking the extra $2M/year from ESPN.

The ACC isn't getting an extra $2M/year from ESPN

There is a lot of denial in this thread. Just honestly read the quote:

Earliest ACC could start an ACC Network? "Several years,” Swofford said

Swofford has already received the bad news from ESPN and now must break it to the ACC during the spring meetings. Will we hear words of dissention at the summer meetings?

Swofford must keep up the myth of an ACC network to placate the masses. The ACC faithful that keep pretending its some grand plan are just trying to delude others or are deluded themselves.

ESPN already created an ACC digital network, and said specifically they did this because they knew some conferences would want their own dedicated tv channel--and didn't do it for the SEC, Big Ten or Pac 12 because they already have their own. You aren't going to make a statement like that and mention the Pac 12 Network, B10 Network and SECn if you don't consider the digitiatl ACCn the same thing.

Not surprisingly Swofford has mentioned every last action that has happened to, with, or for the ACC--every one--except for ESPNs ACC digital network. Not one word about it.

Can't imagine why ESPN would need to create two networks for the same conference with the same product.

It all stills boils down to Raycom and FOX--Swofford has to eliminate his Son's job and buy product back from FOX in order to even have the remote possibility of starting an ACC network. Then of course, ESPN has to be interested in doing a second one, and they have this little thing called the SEC network to get up and running along with the LHN.

The SEC certainly doesn't want a competing network in their territory--Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and ESPN probably isn't going to do anything to hurt their major investment in that conference either.

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

What will be funny is when ACC goes to do their network and they add St Johns, Georgetown, and Villanova for all but FB to get ACCN on sets in NYC, DC and PHL w/out having share FB $ with more schools. UCONN, Cincy, Temple et al would be all sports and get full share that ACC FB schools (FSU, Clemson, Miami and GA Tech) may not agree to and all-but-FB adds above add the TV value of markets including FB and ACC only needs to cut those schools in for maybe $6-7MM each v. full share $15-17MM to all sports. That's one very affordable way for ACC to combat B1G invasion of the NE.

(05-16-2014 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

I agree about the wasted channels. Sucks to get even more of them...

(05-16-2014 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

JR, this is a very big issue. The joint discussions you mention will unlikely lead to any bundling of an SEC and ACC. The more likely scenario is an large absorption of the ACC product into the SEC.

(05-17-2014 12:12 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

JR, this is a very big issue. The joint discussions you mention will unlikely lead to any bundling of an SEC and ACC. The more likely scenario is an large absorption of the ACC product into the SEC.

Lurker, under certain circumstances that is a possibility, and could even be as you state a likelihood, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, at least not publicly. The official line is that the discussions are being held for the sake of future scheduling between the two conferences in all sports that will broaden audience participation and reduce travel for OOC games between the two ESPN properties. This is 2014. The 2017 season is still 3 years away and the word was "could" under the right circumstances which means the expected success of the SECN and of course the right circumstances for the ACC.

Where your reasoning is particularly on point is in reacquiring the sublet rights. Whether that is in 1 year or 3, or 10 it has to be done before such a network can be accomplished. If the idea is to run the ACCN out of the same Charlotte facility, which would be simple to do, start up time for the project should be minimal, except for the rights. A lot can happen in three years and depending upon moves the Big 10 may or may not make many theories, approaches, and plans could change by then. The talking point right now is a joint venture, but certainly it lays the same groundwork for a future change of plans as well.

In three years the cable model could change, the economy could tank even more, the economy could rebound, the Big 10 contract will be done, the O'Bannon case will hopefully be through, the resolution of Maryland happens this year but hasn't happened yet, and maybe there is a clearer understanding of where we are headed with the union issue. Until then I have no doubt but what ESPN wants to hold onto the timeline on the decision about the ACCN and the proposed joint venture.

This approach freezes the SEC and ACC where they are with the exception that they are both still open to acquisitions from outside of each other's conference. ESPN will have time to assess the Big 12 situation, monitor the Big 10 situation, and wait to see what the PAC decides to do with regard to being open to more network influence over their product. If things continue to play out like they have and the ACC reacquires their rights then a bundle benefits both by virtue of footprints. The SEC won't need to own ACC property to get distribution in states they don't currently have and vice versa. That kind of model places any future expansion in Northeastern schools not owned by the Big 10, and in schools West of the Mississippi.

If Delany, after the Maryland moderation goes after more ACC schools then I agree the SEC becomes a haven for the property that ESPN wants to shelter and perhaps some properties that the SEC doesn't want in the Big 10's hands.

But, I believe there is more to be gleaned for the Big 10 (and FOX) by looking toward some kind of merger or business arrangement with the PAC. If that happens then the same could be in the offing for the SEC and ACC.

But that's how I see it.

ESPN doesn't hate the Big Ten. That is ridiculous. Small time properties they might want in the SEC instead because that is where Tier 3 comes into play but big time properties will only strengthen the possibilities for ESPN to air on ABC/ESPN channels.

(05-17-2014 12:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  ESPN doesn't hate the Big Ten. That is ridiculous. Small time properties they might want in the SEC instead because that is where Tier 3 comes into play but big time properties will only strengthen the possibilities for ESPN to air on ABC/ESPN channels.

H1 nobody hates the Big 10 so chill with that. FOX is a competitor. FOX owns 51% of the BTN and that isn't changing.

And ESPN plays plenty of Big Ten match ups on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. That isn't changing either.

BTN is only third tier. You are making way too much of it for the sake of arguing ESPN is going to go that far in protecting and boosting your SEC.

(05-17-2014 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:12 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

JR, this is a very big issue. The joint discussions you mention will unlikely lead to any bundling of an SEC and ACC. The more likely scenario is an large absorption of the ACC product into the SEC.

Lurker, under certain circumstances that is a possibility, and could even be as you state a likelihood, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, at least not publicly. The official line is that the discussions are being held for the sake of future scheduling between the two conferences in all sports that will broaden audience participation and reduce travel for OOC games between the two ESPN properties. This is 2014. The 2017 season is still 3 years away and the word was "could" under the right circumstances which means the expected success of the SECN and of course the right circumstances for the ACC.

Where your reasoning is particularly on point is in reacquiring the sublet rights. Whether that is in 1 year or 3, or 10 it has to be done before such a network can be accomplished. If the idea is to run the ACCN out of the same Charlotte facility, which would be simple to do, start up time for the project should be minimal, except for the rights. A lot can happen in three years and depending upon moves the Big 10 may or may not make many theories, approaches, and plans could change by then. The talking point right now is a joint venture, but certainly it lays the same groundwork for a future change of plans as well.

In three years the cable model could change, the economy could tank even more, the economy could rebound, the Big 10 contract will be done, the O'Bannon case will hopefully be through, the resolution of Maryland happens this year but hasn't happened yet, and maybe there is a clearer understanding of where we are headed with the union issue. Until then I have no doubt but what ESPN wants to hold onto the timeline on the decision about the ACCN and the proposed joint venture.

This approach freezes the SEC and ACC where they are with the exception that they are both still open to acquisitions from outside of each other's conference. ESPN will have time to assess the Big 12 situation, monitor the Big 10 situation, and wait to see what the PAC decides to do with regard to being open to more network influence over their product. If things continue to play out like they have and the ACC reacquires their rights then a bundle benefits both by virtue of footprints. The SEC won't need to own ACC property to get distribution in states they don't currently have and vice versa. That kind of model places any future expansion in Northeastern schools not owned by the Big 10, and in schools West of the Mississippi.

If Delany, after the Maryland moderation goes after more ACC schools then I agree the SEC becomes a haven for the property that ESPN wants to shelter and perhaps some properties that the SEC doesn't want in the Big 10's hands.

But, I believe there is more to be gleaned for the Big 10 (and FOX) by looking toward some kind of merger or business arrangement with the PAC. If that happens then the same could be in the offing for the SEC and ACC.

But that's how I see it.

Except for the northeast, Texas and NC/VA , "markets" are so yesterday for conferences that have networks. The networks, especially the SEC, needed the carriage boost from adding populous states, but the future is "market share". In all media, once distribution is achieved, content is king.

Look to our conference, the SEC. While every SEC game has value, certain matchups that bring very high ratings, even if both teams are not playing their best, and are the ones that really moves the needle and generate the most income. This is an important concept to remember. Revenue generation does not go up in a parallel line with market share of TV ratings, it goes up exponentially. Look at the ratings of SEC West intra-divisional games when two of Bama, TAMU, LSU, and AU played one another. In the SEC East, even though UGA was down, and UF was way down, UGA/UF still got high ratings.

For the SEC to make significantly more money they need more rainmaker games so that there is at least two such games every week, preferably three or four so at least one would be on the SECN.

So what schools provide rainmaker matchups against SEC teams in an expanded conference? Try these potential matchups where each SEC schools would play 5 to 7 marque SEC games per year:

Clemson/UGA
Clemson/AU
Clemson/UT
Clemson/SC
Clemson/FSU
Clemson/VT
Clemson/UF
Clemson/LSU
Clemson/Bama
Clemson/TAMU

VT/UT
VT/TAMU
VT/SC
VT/UGA
VT/UF
VT/FSU
VT/AU
VT/Bama
VT/LSU

FSU/AU
FSU/Bama
FSU/LSU
FSU/TAMU
FSU/UF
FSU/UGA
FSU/SC
FSU/TN

GT/UGA
GT/AU
GT/Bama
GT/TN
GT/Clemson
Gt/FSU

UNC/SC

Texas/Bama
Texas/LSU
Texas/Arkansas
Texas/TAMU
Texas/AU
Texas/UF'
Texas/UGA
Texas/FSU
Texas/TN

OU/Bama
OU/LSU
OU/Arkansas
OU/TAMU
OU/AU
OU/UF'
OU/UGA
OU/FSU
OU/TN

These are games people will watch, including casual fans across the nation. Of course it is not a complete list just an example of how many quality matchups could be created instantly by adding six schools.

The revenue generated by these additional marque games would be enormous. So much so that the immediate cries of "That would be too hard of a conference to play in for its schools to have a decent chance at making the 4 team playoff!" would be silenced by altering the rules of conference and national championship playoffs so such revenue could be generated.

Lurker

(05-17-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And ESPN plays plenty of Big Ten match ups on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. That isn't changing either.

BTN is only third tier. You are making way too much of it for the sake of arguing ESPN is going to go that far in protecting and boosting your SEC.

He1nous, ESPN owns 100% of the ACC and all but 1 game a week of the SEC. I think it is logical that they will protect the properties in which they have invested the most against the moves of a conference where their investment level is percentage wise much less and could get even smaller. And if that impacts the Big 10's expansion plans then so be it, because all choices have consequences and every business will do what is best for their self interest. If it profits ESPN to grow the Big 10 it will. If it profits ESPN more to protect the ACC or the SEC it will. There is no agenda outside of that.

(05-17-2014 01:50 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:12 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:32 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I get why everyone hopes their school's conference gets the coveted "network". But seriously, who wants to be forced to buy another channel with the so so games? The BTN sucks, yet millions are forced to buy it. I can't believe people are bragging about there being a new SEC network - YAAAAAAAYYYYY!!!!! - and then ridiculing other conferences for not having. Haven't we learned about how boring and overpriced these stupid networks are? C'mon, support your school but don't sanction their intent to fleece us so that we can watch the sh!tty networks with low quality games.

Miko you just described 286 channels of the 300 I already get and am forced to buy to get the regular sports channels. Somehow this is more than a conference network issue.

BTW joint discussions have recently been held between the ACC/SEC and ESPN. I think the ACC will have one too and that it will be bundled with the SECN perhaps as soon as 2017. This is a non issue.

JR, this is a very big issue. The joint discussions you mention will unlikely lead to any bundling of an SEC and ACC. The more likely scenario is an large absorption of the ACC product into the SEC.

Lurker, under certain circumstances that is a possibility, and could even be as you state a likelihood, but those circumstances have not yet arisen, at least not publicly. The official line is that the discussions are being held for the sake of future scheduling between the two conferences in all sports that will broaden audience participation and reduce travel for OOC games between the two ESPN properties. This is 2014. The 2017 season is still 3 years away and the word was "could" under the right circumstances which means the expected success of the SECN and of course the right circumstances for the ACC.

Where your reasoning is particularly on point is in reacquiring the sublet rights. Whether that is in 1 year or 3, or 10 it has to be done before such a network can be accomplished. If the idea is to run the ACCN out of the same Charlotte facility, which would be simple to do, start up time for the project should be minimal, except for the rights. A lot can happen in three years and depending upon moves the Big 10 may or may not make many theories, approaches, and plans could change by then. The talking point right now is a joint venture, but certainly it lays the same groundwork for a future change of plans as well.

In three years the cable model could change, the economy could tank even more, the economy could rebound, the Big 10 contract will be done, the O'Bannon case will hopefully be through, the resolution of Maryland happens this year but hasn't happened yet, and maybe there is a clearer understanding of where we are headed with the union issue. Until then I have no doubt but what ESPN wants to hold onto the timeline on the decision about the ACCN and the proposed joint venture.

This approach freezes the SEC and ACC where they are with the exception that they are both still open to acquisitions from outside of each other's conference. ESPN will have time to assess the Big 12 situation, monitor the Big 10 situation, and wait to see what the PAC decides to do with regard to being open to more network influence over their product. If things continue to play out like they have and the ACC reacquires their rights then a bundle benefits both by virtue of footprints. The SEC won't need to own ACC property to get distribution in states they don't currently have and vice versa. That kind of model places any future expansion in Northeastern schools not owned by the Big 10, and in schools West of the Mississippi.

If Delany, after the Maryland moderation goes after more ACC schools then I agree the SEC becomes a haven for the property that ESPN wants to shelter and perhaps some properties that the SEC doesn't want in the Big 10's hands.

But, I believe there is more to be gleaned for the Big 10 (and FOX) by looking toward some kind of merger or business arrangement with the PAC. If that happens then the same could be in the offing for the SEC and ACC.

But that's how I see it.

Except for the northeast, Texas and NC/VA , "markets" are so yesterday for conferences that have networks. The networks, especially the SEC, needed the carriage boost from adding populous states, but the future is "market share". In all media, once distribution is achieved, content is king.

Look to our conference, the SEC. While every SEC game has value, certain matchups that bring very high ratings, even if both teams are not playing their best, and are the ones that really moves the needle and generate the most income. This is an important concept to remember. Revenue generation does not go up in a parallel line with market share of TV ratings, it goes up exponentially. Look at the ratings of SEC West intra-divisional games when two of Bama, TAMU, LSU, and AU played one another. In the SEC East, even though UGA was down, and UF was way down, UGA/UF still got high ratings.

For the SEC to make significantly more money they need more rainmaker games so that there is at least two such games every week, preferably three or four so at least one would be on the SECN.

So what schools provide rainmaker matchups against SEC teams in an expanded conference? Try these potential matchups where each SEC schools would play 5 to 7 marque SEC games per year:

Clemson/UGA
Clemson/AU
Clemson/UT
Clemson/SC
Clemson/FSU
Clemson/VT
Clemson/UF
Clemson/LSU
Clemson/Bama
Clemson/TAMU

VT/UT
VT/TAMU
VT/SC
VT/UGA
VT/UF
VT/FSU
VT/AU
VT/Bama
VT/LSU

FSU/AU
FSU/Bama
FSU/LSU
FSU/TAMU
FSU/UF
FSU/UGA
FSU/SC
FSU/TN

GT/UGA
GT/AU
GT/Bama
GT/TN
GT/Clemson
Gt/FSU

UNC/SC

Texas/Bama
Texas/LSU
Texas/Arkansas
Texas/TAMU
Texas/AU
Texas/UF'
Texas/UGA
Texas/FSU
Texas/TN

OU/Bama
OU/LSU
OU/Arkansas
OU/TAMU
OU/AU
OU/UF'
OU/UGA
OU/FSU
OU/TN

These are games people will watch, including casual fans across the nation. Of course it is not a complete list just an example of how many quality matchups could be created instantly by adding six schools.

The revenue generated by these additional marque games would be enormous. So much so that the immediate cries of "That would be too hard of a conference to play in for its schools to have a decent chance at making the 4 team playoff!" would be silenced by altering the rules of conference and national championship playoffs so such revenue could be generated.

Lurker

There is a thread on the SEC board "SEC Realignment just by the numbers" that touches on a lot of that. By the numbers the best programs for the SEC to add are Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Clemson. If you pick up a North Carolina school or Virginia school other than markets there is not much of an impact for football. North Carolina and Virginia Tech would be the preferences. Obviously if your looking for eyeballs for hoops it's very different. But hands down the best programs for the SEC are those four. Georgia Tech might be a good regional boost and Virginia Tech if they pick back up their game would be solid too.

(05-17-2014 03:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And ESPN plays plenty of Big Ten match ups on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2. That isn't changing either.

BTN is only third tier. You are making way too much of it for the sake of arguing ESPN is going to go that far in protecting and boosting your SEC.

He1nous, ESPN owns 100% of the ACC and all but 1 game a week of the SEC. I think it is logical that they will protect the properties in which they have invested the most against the moves of a conference where their investment level is percentage wise much less and could get even smaller. And if that impacts the Big 10's expansion plans then so be it, because all choices have consequences and every business will do what is best for their self interest. If it profits ESPN to grow the Big 10 it will. If it profits ESPN more to protect the ACC or the SEC it will. There is no agenda outside of that.

That just doesn't make any sense. If anyone actually thinks that anyone from the ACC or Big Ten wants to jump right back into another similar issue as they are fighting to get out of right now, its just not gonna happen.

Big Ten taking another ACC school is a no go. If you were just bringing that up as a hypothetical then all good but after all that has gone on with Maryland, The Big Ten is not sniffing over there anymore. That doesn't mean they aren't sniffing around elsewhere.