Would it make sense for teams to seek greener pastures? I assume the "expansion" teams would be attractive to the B1G and the SEC would be interested in the "traditional" teams?

If the B1G and SEC DO poach, who's left out in the cold?

No, because they signed a grant of rights agreeement

I was ignoring that, play along.

(06-27-2021 11:36 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  No, because they signed a grant of rights agreeement

There is a possibility that moving to paid football and basketball players would be a big enough change in circumstance to allow getting out of the grant, but it seems like that would be easiest to argue for schools abandoning big money sports rather than making that step, so even that is not a certain "get out of contract" move for the kinds of schools that the SEC and Big Ten would be interested in.

Mind, media rights contracts are a tangled field of their own in law, and since IANDL, it obviously follows that I ain't no damn media rights lawyer, so that's just from the position of an observer of several markets where media rights contracts sometimes interfere with getting lucrative deals done rather than legal expertise.

I would suspect in order for the GoR to be thrown under the bus, every signing member would need to give written consent. For that to happen, each school would need to find a home. Assuming the PAC stays at 12 in its geographical cove, the B1G, SEC, and XII would split the ACC.

B1G
East: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M

XVI
East: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, TCU, Wake Forest, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
* Notre Dame / non-football full member with 5-game scheduling requirement

This new CFP format makes further conference expansion or reshuffling unnecessary even detrimental to schools opportunity to make the Top 12. It doesn’t make any sense to create these conferences of 16, 18 or even larger.

A few years of the Top 12 CFP and we may begin to see conference contraction.

(06-28-2021 05:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This new CFP format makes further conference expansion or reshuffling unnecessary even detrimental to schools opportunity to make the Top 12. It doesn’t make any sense to create these conferences of 16, 18 or even larger.

A few years of the Top 12 CFP and we may begin to see conference contraction.

I agree, but making the top 12 isn't necessarily what matters most. Money always matters, IMO, and we are seeing the P5 peloton thin-out on the money front.

I think the top-value ACC teams can grudgingly live with the the B1G and SEC breakaway as long as they are on a par with the PAC and Big 12. But both of those are going to be doing new deals in the next couple years, and if they break away leaving the ACC as a clear trailer, there could be serious restlessness.

The same would hold true for PAC and B12 elites if their new deals do not produce the breakthrough money they are anticipating.

(06-28-2021 05:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This new CFP format makes further conference expansion or reshuffling unnecessary even detrimental to schools opportunity to make the Top 12. It doesn’t make any sense to create these conferences of 16, 18 or even larger.

A few years of the Top 12 CFP and we may begin to see conference contraction.

I agree in theory, but it's also hard to see how contraction would work. It would be interesting to see an upper mid level State school try and drop down to the AAC or MWC and see if they can get that 6th auto bid every year, but for too many reasons that won't happen.

(06-28-2021 07:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 05:55 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This new CFP format makes further conference expansion or reshuffling unnecessary even detrimental to schools opportunity to make the Top 12. It doesn’t make any sense to create these conferences of 16, 18 or even larger.

A few years of the Top 12 CFP and we may begin to see conference contraction.

I agree, but making the top 12 isn't necessarily what matters most. Money always matters, IMO, and we are seeing the P5 peloton thin-out on the money front.

I think the top-value ACC teams can grudgingly live with the the B1G and SEC breakaway as long as they are on a par with the PAC and Big 12. But both of those are going to be doing new deals in the next couple years, and if they break away leaving the ACC as a clear trailer, there could be serious restlessness.

The same would hold true for PAC and B12 elites if their new deals do not produce the breakthrough money they are anticipating.

What I put in bold in your post says it all....

The question is with the new court rulings that effects all of NCAA? I think retract the Power Conferences to more regional than what we see right now. I think G5 and FCS schools might be in play, and maybe some of the top D2 schools that do have stadiums that are at or close enough to be FBS might be in play like the Lone Star Conference schools, some MIAA and even Central Oklahoma at 10,000 seat stadium who does have plans to go 20,000 seat.

(06-28-2021 06:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The question is with the new court rulings that effects all of NCAA? I think retract the Power Conferences to more regional than what we see right now. I think G5 and FCS schools might be in play, and maybe some of the top D2 schools that do have stadiums that are at or close enough to be FBS might be in play like the Lone Star Conference schools, some MIAA and even Central Oklahoma at 10,000 seat stadium who does have plans to go 20,000 seat.

No...... just stop. No one gives two ***** about Central Oklahoma.

(06-28-2021 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I would suspect in order for the GoR to be thrown under the bus, every signing member would need to give written consent. For that to happen, each school would need to find a home. Assuming the PAC stays at 12 in its geographical cove, the B1G, SEC, and XII would split the ACC.

B1G
East: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M

XVI
East: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, TCU, Wake Forest, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
* Notre Dame / non-football full member with 5-game scheduling requirement

You are probably correct in assuming that BC, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse and Wake Forest wouldn't find a home in either the SEC or B1G. For pretty much the same reasons, they wouldn't find one in the Big 12 either. That conference has no interest in adding an eastern wing that would significantly reduce the per school media payout they now enjoy, and would weaken the product on the field.

Only fools look at revenue and never look at expenses. That's what MD did. Look at them now.

(06-28-2021 06:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 01:07 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I would suspect in order for the GoR to be thrown under the bus, every signing member would need to give written consent. For that to happen, each school would need to find a home. Assuming the PAC stays at 12 in its geographical cove, the B1G, SEC, and XII would split the ACC.

B1G
East: Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Purdue
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida St, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Missouri, Texas A&M

XVI
East: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, TCU, Wake Forest, West Virginia
West: Baylor, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
* Notre Dame / non-football full member with 5-game scheduling requirement

You are probably correct in assuming that BC, Louisville, Miami, Pitt, Syracuse and Wake Forest wouldn't find a home in either the SEC or B1G. For pretty much the same reasons, they wouldn't find one in the Big 12 either. That conference has no interest in adding an eastern wing that would significantly reduce the per school media payout they now enjoy, and would weaken the product on the field.

That’s probably true but ESPN could offer the XII more money to make it happen and have control over the product. If that didn’t happen, I could see only Louisville and Miami getting a solid look by the XII.

(06-28-2021 06:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only fools look at revenue and never look at expenses. That's what MD did. Look at them now.

Maryland has had athletic financial problems the last 10+ years. But before joining the B1G, Maryland cut 7 sports in 2012. It's still a bad situation but it would be more of one in the ACC.

(06-28-2021 08:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 06:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only fools look at revenue and never look at expenses. That's what MD did. Look at them now.

Maryland has had athletic financial problems the last 10+ years. But before joining the B1G, Maryland cut 7 sports in 2012. It's still a bad situation but it would be more of one in the ACC.

No, that's not accurate.

I've had numerous conversations with the son of MD's old AD. The one who became AD at UNC, as well as other people who worked at MD in the past. MD has been an administrative **** up since 1986. The Athletic Department was made part of of a financial tug of war between a faction comingling donations and keeping them away from the Athletic Department and the Athletics Department was not allowed to cut certain sports when it needed to in the early 2000's for Title 9 politics.

Now Maryland has gone from being financially in the middle of the ACC, to the bottom quarter of the Big 10. They are still having to plug an annual operating hole and are fully uncompetitive in football. Leaving the ACC was a stupid financial decision for Athletics, but the decision was a political/power decision by the System President to facilitate other matters.


https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terp...story.html

Read this and become educated.

Also note the following:

"The financial reports covering 2018 and earlier show Maryland’s share amounted to $40.6 million in the last fiscal year, up from $37.3 million in 2017 and more than double the distribution it received ($19 million) in its final season in the Atlantic Coast Conference. The athletics budget showed a surplus of $475,000 in the last fiscal year."

Notice how a revenue figure from 2018 is compared to a revenue figure from 2011 – did you catch that one? Nice trick eh? Loh and Kirwan fooled the UM board with that one back in the day.

The suggestion is that MD is netting $20 million more a year in the Big 10.

The reality is that it’s GROSSING about $10 million more per year in the Big 10 than it would have had it stayed in the ACC.

And that gross has to offset plunging football attendance as well as the cost of competing directly with Michigan, OSU, and Penn State.

When someone says MD left the ACC in order to get more money from the Big 10 you know you have met an idiot who flunked econ and accounting.

(06-28-2021 09:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 06:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only fools look at revenue and never look at expenses. That's what MD did. Look at them now.

Maryland has had athletic financial problems the last 10+ years. But before joining the B1G, Maryland cut 7 sports in 2012. It's still a bad situation but it would be more of one in the ACC.

No, that's not accurate.

I've had numerous conversations with the son of MD's old AD. The one who became AD at UNC, as well as other people who worked at MD in the past. MD has been an administrative **** up since 1986. The Athletic Department was made part of of a financial tug of war between a faction comingling donations and keeping them away from the Athletic Department and the Athletics Department was not allowed to cut certain sports when it needed to in the early 2000's for Title 9 politics.

Now Maryland has gone from being financially in the middle of the ACC, to the bottom quarter of the Big 10. They are still having to plug an annual operating hole and are fully uncompetitive in football. Leaving the ACC was a stupid financial decision for Athletics, but the decision was a political/power decision by the System President to facilitate other matters.


https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terp...story.html

Read this and become educated.

Also note the following:

"The financial reports covering 2018 and earlier show Maryland’s share amounted to $40.6 million in the last fiscal year, up from $37.3 million in 2017 and more than double the distribution it received ($19 million) in its final season in the Atlantic Coast Conference. The athletics budget showed a surplus of $475,000 in the last fiscal year."

Notice how a revenue figure from 2018 is compared to a revenue figure from 2011 – did you catch that one? Nice trick eh? Loh and Kirwan fooled the UM board with that one back in the day.

The suggestion is that MD is netting $20 million more a year in the Big 10.

The reality is that it’s GROSSING about $10 million more per year in the Big 10 than it would have had it stayed in the ACC.

And that gross has to offset plunging football attendance as well as the cost of competing directly with Michigan, OSU, and Penn State.

When someone says MD left the ACC in order to get more money from the Big 10 you know you have met an idiot who flunked econ and accounting.

Maryland will only start receiving a full share from the B1G this year. Last year their cut was about $12 million less than other B1G members (other than Rutgers). That gap versus the ACC will only continue to grow in the future as the B1G will get new media deals long before the ACC will. Also, in the event of a 12 team CFP the gap will also grow larger by virtue of placing more teams in the tournament.

Maryland may have made a mistake in leaving the ACC, but not because of money.

I will play along, although I don't believe that the ACC is fundamentally the least valuable league. The league signed an under market contract back in 2010 that was to run from 2011-2023. As other conferences signed more lucrative deals, it signed extensions that achieved higher current payouts but which locked it in for even longer periods. In some sense, they have violated the old adage that the first thing you do when you're in a hole is to stop digging.

That all said, the primary interest of the SEC and Big Ten in the ACC would be in its North Carolina and Virginia schools, as those states would represent new markets for those conferences. The Big Ten could also be interested in Syracuse, as upstate New York is a significant market by itself, larger than many entire states.

(06-29-2021 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 09:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 08:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2021 06:43 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Only fools look at revenue and never look at expenses. That's what MD did. Look at them now.

Maryland has had athletic financial problems the last 10+ years. But before joining the B1G, Maryland cut 7 sports in 2012. It's still a bad situation but it would be more of one in the ACC.

No, that's not accurate.

I've had numerous conversations with the son of MD's old AD. The one who became AD at UNC, as well as other people who worked at MD in the past. MD has been an administrative **** up since 1986. The Athletic Department was made part of of a financial tug of war between a faction comingling donations and keeping them away from the Athletic Department and the Athletics Department was not allowed to cut certain sports when it needed to in the early 2000's for Title 9 politics.

Now Maryland has gone from being financially in the middle of the ACC, to the bottom quarter of the Big 10. They are still having to plug an annual operating hole and are fully uncompetitive in football. Leaving the ACC was a stupid financial decision for Athletics, but the decision was a political/power decision by the System President to facilitate other matters.


https://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terp...story.html

Read this and become educated.

Also note the following:

"The financial reports covering 2018 and earlier show Maryland’s share amounted to $40.6 million in the last fiscal year, up from $37.3 million in 2017 and more than double the distribution it received ($19 million) in its final season in the Atlantic Coast Conference. The athletics budget showed a surplus of $475,000 in the last fiscal year."

Notice how a revenue figure from 2018 is compared to a revenue figure from 2011 – did you catch that one? Nice trick eh? Loh and Kirwan fooled the UM board with that one back in the day.

The suggestion is that MD is netting $20 million more a year in the Big 10.

The reality is that it’s GROSSING about $10 million more per year in the Big 10 than it would have had it stayed in the ACC.

And that gross has to offset plunging football attendance as well as the cost of competing directly with Michigan, OSU, and Penn State.

When someone says MD left the ACC in order to get more money from the Big 10 you know you have met an idiot who flunked econ and accounting.

Maryland will only start receiving a full share from the B1G this year. Last year their cut was about $12 million less than other B1G members (other than Rutgers). That gap versus the ACC will only continue to grow in the future as the B1G will get new media deals long before the ACC will. Also, in the event of a 12 team CFP the gap will also grow larger by virtue of placing more teams in the tournament.

Maryland may have made a mistake in leaving the ACC, but not because of money.

Ken you conveniently left out the loan that MD has to repay to the Big 10.

This article written about Rutgers in particular shows that you are dead wrong:

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/2018/...g_ten.html
From the Article:



Still, it paled in comparison to its Big Ten peers. Here's a look at the school-by-school distribution from the Big Ten in 2016-17:

Wisconsin: $44.3 million
Maryland: $37.3 million
Illinois: $36.3 million
Michigan: $35.2 million
Indiana: $35 million
Purdue: $34.7 million
Minnesota: $33.9 million
Iowa: $33.5 million
Ohio State: $33.1 million
Michigan State: $32.9 million
Penn State: $31.5 million
Nebraska: $24.7 million
Rutgers: $16.1 million
Box-office draws

Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State each feature football stadiums with seating capacities exceeding 100,000. Rutgers' football stadium holds just over 53,000. That is among a handful of reasons why Rutgers' ticket sales pale in comparison to its Big Ten brethren.

Here's a look at where Rutgers ranks among Big Ten schools in all-sports ticket revenue:

1. Ohio State: $61.6 million

2. Michigan: $55.3 million

3. Nebraska: $37.3 million

4. Penn State: $35.5 million

5. Wisconsin: $28.8 million

6. Iowa: $28.3 million

7. Michigan State: $26.8 million

8. Minnesota: $20.5 million

9. Indiana: $18.1 million

10. Maryland: $15.3 million

11. Illinois: $12.8 million

12. Rutgers: $12.8 million

13. Purdue: $9.2 million


Ken, there is a cabal that is hell bent on supporting the lies Maryland told and continues to tell. Are you the WAPO's Feinstein's love child or something?

(06-27-2021 11:26 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would it make sense for teams to seek greener pastures? I assume the "expansion" teams would be attractive to the B1G and the SEC would be interested in the "traditional" teams?

If the B1G and SEC DO poach, who's left out in the cold?