(03-26-2018 12:47 PM)ren.hoek Wrote: (03-26-2018 12:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote: (03-26-2018 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: (03-26-2018 10:37 AM)murrdcu Wrote: If B1G fails to add KU and OU, would they settle for KU and Syracuse?
Perhaps, one day. They wouldn't even start flirting with Syracuse until 2033 and wouldn't be able to land them until after the next GOR extension for the ACC in about 2035. Or roughly the time a century ago between the end of the Great War (1918) and the rise of Hitler (1933) and his taking of the Sudetenland in 1938. So if Delany eyed Syracuse now a lot has to happen before he marches into Syracuse to raise the Big 10 banner.
So 15 years to wait or if the ACC Network collapses. I still think the ACC Network will be success, just behind both the SEC and B1G channels in terms of profitability
Concur with this. I think the ACCN will be successful, but the B1G and SEC networks will still have a lead. How much the ACCN will narrow that gap remains to be seen. I would think that the ND factor would be beneficial to the carriage rates in the Northeast. There has been speculation that ND would allow the ACCN to get carriage in Chicago. NC, SC, VA, and FL should get very good carriage rates. It's all meaningless speculation by a bunch of non-experts at this point. We'll see.
The game here ren is on the fringes. Just where can the Big 10 really go to add value? Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, a Virginia or North Carolina school. The problem with all of those is that it would require some form of external pressure before they ever considered a move.
With the ACC the pressure could be economic, but that is an unknown. In 2010 the Big 10 hoped Maryland would provide that pressure, and it did, just not enough. Maryland was the weakest link in the ACC's armor. They were farther North, and had massive monetary woes.
So I would argue that the weakest links in the ACC today are in the Northeast. Boston College, Syracuse, and Pitt are all private or quasi private schools which probably need the additional revenue to remain viable.
Rutgers was a plucking of a Big 10 type school that could create instability in New England and the Northeast. Syracuse will feel the rise of Rutgers finances more than most of the other ACC schools. Penn State was part of the external pressure that Maryland was feeling.
In those two additions were what, if any, long term strategy the B1G had in 2010. Build up two schools within the footprint of the ACC and let time, pressure, and monetary disparity do its work.
What Delany failed to take into consideration was that the most expensive sport, football, was not as important to these schools as was basketball. So therefore their tolerance for economic disparity is much higher.
The Virginia and North Carolina schools have no concern over these matters right now. They have always had a disparity in income with their neighboring conferences, but they have always had non football interests so their threshold for feeling economic pressure is much higher as well.
Clemson and Florida State are building themselves up and remain close enough to the SEC to remain competitive.
The weakest links therefore, outside of Georgia Tech which is neutralized from the Big 10 by geography, and not profitable to the SEC, are in the Northeast. This is crucial because of the TV markets there. While their product is not crucial to the ACC's survival, the markets and the exposure the ACC gains there is.
Because of this Syracuse and Boston College, more so than Pitt, would be key grabs by Delany if he wanted to continue to destabilize the ACC. The airing of these kinds of stories merely provides a talking point around which an administration which could finance all of its sports more amenably by switching conferences, could gain public approval from their constituents if that angle is played up. Therefore the danger with these kinds of articles is that they can be turned into a prelude for movement.
If the ACC is destabilized it won't be by the SEC, but by the Big 10. The ACC really doesn't pose a threat to the SEC and is a nice buffer against the Big 10's eastward expansion hopes.
That said it would be very wise of the ACC to pursue larger markets elsewhere as a safety valve should a Syracuse or B.C. ever defect. For that reason pursuit of the Texas market would be smart and Texas and T.C.U. would be the targets that get the most bang out of the markets. Houston would also be key. To make that possible an expansion to 20 by the SEC and ACC would actually do more to secure the permanence of the ACC than anything else that could happen. I say 20 because to land Texas a division of their current home schedule would be a clincher.
So long range, both the SEC and ACC would be extremely secure should they decide to absorb the Big 12 between them. Why?
Those additions would raise the ACC to a competitive rate in TV revenue. They would insure the success of the ACCN because the Texas/Oklahoma market area comprises 34 million viewers who do watch weekly. And because it removes all of Delany's expansion targets. So it halts the Big 10's economic growth while growing that of the ACC and sating the SEC's desires for a cohesive buffer and new markets.
Should the ACC TV payouts approach 50 million there would be no lure for Syracuse and B.C.. In fact the roles would reverse and the island nature of Maryland and Penn State and Rutgers would actually put them at risk for future movement from the Big 10 for the sake of more local play.
The new SEC would essentially be the Old SEC as the Eastern division, and the new SEC Western division would essentially be members and friends of the old SWC minus Texas.
Why is the Big 10 so interested in Kansas and Oklahoma? Because that is their best future lure for Texas. The value of Texas and Oklahoma as a pair is almost equal to the entire value of the present ACC (not counting N.D.).
If you think the ACC could be vulnerable now should their revenue not increase dramatically, just let Oklahoma and Kansas, and later Texas fall into the Big 10's hands. There would literally be nothing that would stop them from cherry-picking the ACC apart after that.
So an abosrption of the Big 12 schools IMO is a necessary defensive move if we want our two conferences to remain insulated from outside interference. I cannot foresee the SEC's desire to grow further if something like this were to occur.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and West Virginia to the SEC.
Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Texas Christian, Texas, and Notre Dame to the ACC.
Kansas can play Kansas State out of conference if they share a conference with Missouri. K State plays solid basketball and better football than Kansas and would be better for the ACC in that regard than Kansas.
Texas Tech is a bridge too far for accessibility to the ACC. The rest of it is to give Texas their own division.
Once the access pathways Southward are cut off from the Big 10 realignment will end. The PAC is too remote for anything but a shared network with the Big 10 and a scheduling alliance and the SEC and ACC would be impenetrable.
Game over.
/
Could Dissatisfaction Be Smoldering In the ACC North?
