(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 08:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 07:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  That’s where the divisionless model would come in handy for the ACC. The ACC could add only one school and have their 15 football teams play 9 conference games (4-5-5) while keeping the basketball team at 16. If the ACC add only one school and the ESPN is willing to pay for it, I suspect that it would be Cincy.

I don’t care who it is as long as it nets everyone money. I don’t know who does that in the Big XII. Looking at the hierarchy of realignment, outside of the original Big XII members, WVU and TCU were added first. Why was WVU added during a time when media markets were all the rage? I have to think WVU football is still a strong TV property and it would add some compelling games with the existing ACC: namely Pitt, VaTech, and Syracuse. Don’t forget the ancient rivalry with Virginia.

To answer the bolded part, I think that's a good question, and my take is that when Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU and Missouri left, the Big 12 was in the position of needing to shore up its football strength on the field, not tap big markets.

WVU, which had had very nice success in the Big East the previous 5-6 years, winning conference titles and BCS bowl games, fit that bill. They had a prominent national football profile at the time. They had finished in the top 25 in six of the seven previous years, three times in the top ten.

TCU might be viewed as more of a market add, but IMO not so much. Firstly because even without a team in the DFW, the DFW, halfway between Texas and Oklahoma, was surely Big 12 country already. Like say Charlotte is ACC territory even though there is no ACC school in Charlotte. But TCU, like WVU, had been very successful on the field in recent years, finishing in the top 25 in five of the previous six years, with three times in the top 10, and like WVU winning some BCS bowl games.

So IMO the Big 12, after losing schools to the B1G and then SEC, was more in the need of football power in terms of results on the field. They didn't really need markets, because they still had their core market, essentially the state of Texas, very solidified.

Heck, if markets had been the key concern, they would have added Houston then, to shore up that big market, not WVU.

Beyond that, I've always felt WVU fit in the ACC, if the ACC could get past its prejudices about Mountain Boys lighting couches on fire and running stills, etc.

You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 08:19 PM)esayem Wrote:  I don’t care who it is as long as it nets everyone money. I don’t know who does that in the Big XII. Looking at the hierarchy of realignment, outside of the original Big XII members, WVU and TCU were added first. Why was WVU added during a time when media markets were all the rage? I have to think WVU football is still a strong TV property and it would add some compelling games with the existing ACC: namely Pitt, VaTech, and Syracuse. Don’t forget the ancient rivalry with Virginia.

To answer the bolded part, I think that's a good question, and my take is that when Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU and Missouri left, the Big 12 was in the position of needing to shore up its football strength on the field, not tap big markets.

WVU, which had had very nice success in the Big East the previous 5-6 years, winning conference titles and BCS bowl games, fit that bill. They had a prominent national football profile at the time. They had finished in the top 25 in six of the seven previous years, three times in the top ten.

TCU might be viewed as more of a market add, but IMO not so much. Firstly because even without a team in the DFW, the DFW, halfway between Texas and Oklahoma, was surely Big 12 country already. Like say Charlotte is ACC territory even though there is no ACC school in Charlotte. But TCU, like WVU, had been very successful on the field in recent years, finishing in the top 25 in five of the previous six years, with three times in the top 10, and like WVU winning some BCS bowl games.

So IMO the Big 12, after losing schools to the B1G and then SEC, was more in the need of football power in terms of results on the field. They didn't really need markets, because they still had their core market, essentially the state of Texas, very solidified.

Heck, if markets had been the key concern, they would have added Houston then, to shore up that big market, not WVU.

Beyond that, I've always felt WVU fit in the ACC, if the ACC could get past its prejudices about Mountain Boys lighting couches on fire and running stills, etc.

You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To answer the bolded part, I think that's a good question, and my take is that when Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU and Missouri left, the Big 12 was in the position of needing to shore up its football strength on the field, not tap big markets.

WVU, which had had very nice success in the Big East the previous 5-6 years, winning conference titles and BCS bowl games, fit that bill. They had a prominent national football profile at the time. They had finished in the top 25 in six of the seven previous years, three times in the top ten.

TCU might be viewed as more of a market add, but IMO not so much. Firstly because even without a team in the DFW, the DFW, halfway between Texas and Oklahoma, was surely Big 12 country already. Like say Charlotte is ACC territory even though there is no ACC school in Charlotte. But TCU, like WVU, had been very successful on the field in recent years, finishing in the top 25 in five of the previous six years, with three times in the top 10, and like WVU winning some BCS bowl games.

So IMO the Big 12, after losing schools to the B1G and then SEC, was more in the need of football power in terms of results on the field. They didn't really need markets, because they still had their core market, essentially the state of Texas, very solidified.

Heck, if markets had been the key concern, they would have added Houston then, to shore up that big market, not WVU.

Beyond that, I've always felt WVU fit in the ACC, if the ACC could get past its prejudices about Mountain Boys lighting couches on fire and running stills, etc.

You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

But would Louisville and Cincy have sued the Big East and left early as Eers did? That’s the question I haven’t found a clear answer to.

(02-23-2022 03:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

But would Louisville and Cincy have sued the Big East and left early as Eers did? That’s the question I haven’t found a clear answer to.

FWIW, I've never bought the notion, pushed by some Cincy fans and many UofL fans, that WV wasn't the Big 12's first choice among the remaining schools, rather just the one most willing to do slavish things to join.

IMO, they were the Big 12's first choice.

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To answer the bolded part, I think that's a good question, and my take is that when Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU and Missouri left, the Big 12 was in the position of needing to shore up its football strength on the field, not tap big markets.

WVU, which had had very nice success in the Big East the previous 5-6 years, winning conference titles and BCS bowl games, fit that bill. They had a prominent national football profile at the time. They had finished in the top 25 in six of the seven previous years, three times in the top ten.

TCU might be viewed as more of a market add, but IMO not so much. Firstly because even without a team in the DFW, the DFW, halfway between Texas and Oklahoma, was surely Big 12 country already. Like say Charlotte is ACC territory even though there is no ACC school in Charlotte. But TCU, like WVU, had been very successful on the field in recent years, finishing in the top 25 in five of the previous six years, with three times in the top 10, and like WVU winning some BCS bowl games.

So IMO the Big 12, after losing schools to the B1G and then SEC, was more in the need of football power in terms of results on the field. They didn't really need markets, because they still had their core market, essentially the state of Texas, very solidified.

Heck, if markets had been the key concern, they would have added Houston then, to shore up that big market, not WVU.

Beyond that, I've always felt WVU fit in the ACC, if the ACC could get past its prejudices about Mountain Boys lighting couches on fire and running stills, etc.

You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

No. I don't know if USF was part of the consideration. Cincy didn't want to work the extra payouts and scheduling issues to leave early. Keeping the TV contract enforced was the motivator as the contracted minimum was 10 schools. So literally they were limited to the equivalent of AQ and TCU was shoehorned in since they were in the process of moving up.

Louisville was a viable option, but one which upon Maryland's departure had the eye of ESPN to patch up the hole in the ACC which at the time of the departures of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M & Missouri was considered the more stable conference.

The Networks rightfully wanted replacements they felt would more closely approximate the contracted amounts, which had been drastically impacted.

The later vetting or G5 candidates merely proved, though it wasn't the intended purpose, why so many could not pass muster in replacing the departed.

(02-23-2022 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 03:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

But would Louisville and Cincy have sued the Big East and left early as Eers did? That’s the question I haven’t found a clear answer to.

FWIW, I've never bought the notion, pushed by some Cincy fans and many UofL fans, that WV wasn't the Big 12's first choice among the remaining schools, rather just the one most willing to do slavish things to join.

IMO, they were the Big 12's first choice.

I see what you mean, it does seem weird to assert that they weren't the first choice when they literally were the one school the Big 12 did pick... Given the stakes in the moment (Big East about to lose AQ status), it sounds like the assertion of fans bitter their school didn't get the invite.

(02-23-2022 03:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  You have a short memory. TCU was between conferences and was available. West Virginia under Oliver Luck was willing to pay the Big East penalty, leave early and along with TCU suffer reduced payments as a buy in to the Big 12. Luck knew it was WVU's last life boat out of the Big East and it was a homecoming promotion due to availability for the Frogs. Where the Big 12 was fortunate is that both held their own initially and TCU held it the longest.

It had zero to do with branding, winning or ratings. Moving back to 10 schools in the field was essential for the media contract to be honored.

Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

No. I don't know if USF was part of the consideration. Cincy didn't want to work the extra payouts and scheduling issues to leave early. Keeping the TV contract enforced was the motivator as the contracted minimum was 10 schools. So literally they were limited to the equivalent of AQ and TCU was shoehorned in since they were in the process of moving up.

Louisville was a viable option, but one which upon Maryland's departure had the eye of ESPN to patch up the hole in the ACC which at the time of the departures of Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M & Missouri was considered the more stable conference.

The Networks rightfully wanted replacements they felt would more closely approximate the contracted amounts, which had been drastically impacted.

The later vetting or G5 candidates merely proved, though it wasn't the intended purpose, why so many could not pass muster in replacing the departed.

I'm curious, where did you hear/read that Cincy didn't want to do the needful here? It seems implausible they wouldn't be willing to work through a few scheduling headaches and raise a bit of extra money to avoid landing outside the P5. Frankly, they are fortunate things have worked out for them a decade on.

Otherwise, what you're saying about tv partners being heavily involved does make sense.

For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

The Big already makes so much more than ACC they can cherry pick anytime they want. A billion $ deal may enhance that but doesn't really change it. The Big simply has to wait for the last ACC deal to get close to an end. Just like the SEC just did with Tx, OK choices.

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

This is a good point. The higher conference revenue of the Big Ten and SEC doesn't necessarily translate into having the best NIL opportunities. There's might be a strong correlation, but it's not causation. That could enable certain schools to continue to recruit top talent despite having a conference revenue disadvantage compared to the Big Ten and SEC.

I've said for awhile that schools like USC and UCLA are the types of schools that we should all fear the most regarding NIL money since they're in huge markets with a ton of marketing firms located *directly* down the street from their respective campuses. Miami (the school) is in a similar spot. I believe when we end up seeing where NIL progresses over the next few years, we'll find that a lot of fans overrated the "local college town car dealer endorsement" side of NIL compensation and underrated the "national Instagram/TikTok/Twitter/Facebook social media post endorsement" side of NIL compensation. Those latter endorsement opportunities are concentrated in the major cities where professional marketing campaign shoots occur, which is where LA is #1 by far and Miami (the city) is also very high on the list.

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

Luck is a piss poor descriptor for a deal 22 years in the works! You mealy mouth the things the SEC planned and worked on way too much. Business deals aren't luck either. They are good or bad depending on who makes them and how competent they were and over how much understanding of value exists on either side of the arrangement.

The ACC simply made an awful deal. They made it because they were content with status quo and bet on schools which already didn't control their markets when they picked them to gain cable subscription fees instead of to add dominance, and I'm not talking about FSU and Miami.

The SEC made a bad deal with CBS, not with ESPN. It was CBS that locked in lopsided value for too long of a span. That mistake happened because the SEC was focused on exposure. It's the same thinking ND used in making a deal with NBC only theirs aren't so long.

I suppose a deal in the works for 32 years with Texas and Oklahoma is just luck? You do realize that out of 1990's original targets of Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas's then silent partner (Oklahoma), Clemson and Florida State, the SEC has acquired 4 along with South Carolina instead of Clemson. I'm sure long-range planning and years of talks had nothing to do with that, right?

Discussions about expansion were centered on markets, brands, and potential revenue and upon enhancing strength in changing times. There wasn't much room for luck. I'd say the more insular "nothing will change our world" approach that the ACC took into what for their core was an annoying expansion and invasion of privacy was less well thought out and looked and felt more like a parking lot for ESPN's removal of potential Big 10 expansion targets, only ESPN has had a long-range plan as well, and one vast enough that a simple map didn't necessarily reveal it as clearly as the SEC's.

What really killed the ACC's position in all of this was OU/UGa vs the NCAA which freed football to be the revenue king while basketball kept working for peanuts on the NCAA plantation. I've never heard such stupidity as the fearful moans of "But the tourney" as an excuse to give away earning potential. The NCAA is the fattest parasite ever grown and those loyal to it are going to die with it. The stupidity of thinking venues filled with 15-20 thousand hoops fans could out earn and should out earn football which drew 80 - 100 thousand who made extra donations just to get in a queue to get tickets was absurd prima facia.

Do you call that "luck" as well, or what it really is, arrogance and stupidity?

No Quo there are a lot of men and women who put long hours of deep planning into what has happened, and they are way above your or my pay grade, and none of it should ever be attributed to just luck. I grew up being told the U.S. Navy got lucky at Midway. Decades later I found out when some things were finally declassified that we had broken their code and knew their plans and location (roughly as there was no GPS). I spent my childhood thinking the Titanic disaster and the Hindenburg explosion were just bad luck only to learn it was ill conceived engineering which doomed them. Now I've lived long enough not to believe in luck. Events are fixed in outcome by solid planning and performance, or lousy planning and performance, or as in gambling, just fixed. And not planning to build in wiggle room to a contract is lousy planning. And innovation alone in the broadcasting world should have necessitated the 6 year windows the B1G now utilizes decades ago. None of it from OU/UGa in 1983 until now has been just luck.

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

I don’t think the two points are connected. The fact revenue doesn’t equal success doesn’t mean the schools in the ACC don’t want to make more revenue and ESPN wouldn’t help them do so.

(02-24-2022 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

Luck is a piss poor descriptor for a deal 22 years in the works! You mealy mouth the things the SEC planned and worked on way too much. Business deals aren't luck either. They are good or bad depending on who makes them and how competent they were and over how much understanding of value exists on either side of the arrangement.

The ACC simply made an awful deal. They made it because they were content with status quo and bet on schools which already didn't control their markets when they picked them to gain cable subscription fees instead of to add dominance, and I'm not talking about FSU and Miami.

The SEC made a bad deal with CBS, not with ESPN. It was CBS that locked in lopsided value for too long of a span. That mistake happened because the SEC was focused on exposure. It's the same thinking ND used in making a deal with NBC only theirs aren't so long.

I suppose a deal in the works for 32 years with Texas and Oklahoma is just luck? You do realize that out of 1990's original targets of Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas's then silent partner (Oklahoma), Clemson and Florida State, the SEC has acquired 4 along with South Carolina instead of Clemson. I'm sure long-range planning and years of talks had nothing to do with that, right?

Discussions about expansion were centered on markets, brands, and potential revenue and upon enhancing strength in changing times. There wasn't much room for luck. I'd say the more insular "nothing will change our world" approach that the ACC took into what for their core was an annoying expansion and invasion of privacy was less well thought out and looked and felt more like a parking lot for ESPN's removal of potential Big 10 expansion targets, only ESPN has had a long-range plan as well, and one vast enough that a simple map didn't necessarily reveal it as clearly as the SEC's.

What really killed the ACC's position in all of this was OU/UGa vs the NCAA which freed football to be the revenue king while basketball kept working for peanuts on the NCAA plantation. I've never heard such stupidity as the fearful moans of "But the tourney" as an excuse to give away earning potential. The NCAA is the fattest parasite ever grown and those loyal to it are going to die with it. The stupidity of thinking venues filled with 15-20 thousand hoops fans could out earn and should out earn football which drew 80 - 100 thousand who made extra donations just to get in a queue to get tickets was absurd prima facia.

Do you call that "luck" as well, or what it really is, arrogance and stupidity?

No Quo there are a lot of men and women who put long hours of deep planning into what has happened, and they are way above your or my pay grade, and none of it should ever be attributed to just luck. I grew up being told the U.S. Navy got lucky at Midway. Decades later I found out when some things were finally declassified that we had broken their code and knew their plans and location (roughly as there was no GPS). I spent my childhood thinking the Titanic disaster and the Hindenburg explosion were just bad luck only to learn it was ill conceived engineering which doomed them. Now I've lived long enough not to believe in luck. Events are fixed in outcome by solid planning and performance, or lousy planning and performance, or as in gambling, just fixed. And not planning to build in wiggle room to a contract is lousy planning. And innovation alone in the broadcasting world should have necessitated the 6 year windows the B1G now utilizes decades ago. None of it from OU/UGa in 1983 until now has been just luck.

Lots to unpack here, but some in the ACC had designs on Miami and Syracuse back in 1990 and they achieved those additions and more along the entire Atlantic seaboard. So it’s not some willy-nilly expansion you’re leading people to believe. The issue is there was resistance amongst members. That’s the key point and it’s also why the ACC missed out on Penn State, and even Florida and Georgia (and Penn lol) back in the 50’s!

(02-24-2022 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

Luck is a piss poor descriptor for a deal 22 years in the works! You mealy mouth the things the SEC planned and worked on way too much. Business deals aren't luck either. They are good or bad depending on who makes them and how competent they were and over how much understanding of value exists on either side of the arrangement.

The ACC simply made an awful deal. They made it because they were content with status quo and bet on schools which already didn't control their markets when they picked them to gain cable subscription fees instead of to add dominance, and I'm not talking about FSU and Miami.

The SEC made a bad deal with CBS, not with ESPN. It was CBS that locked in lopsided value for too long of a span. That mistake happened because the SEC was focused on exposure. It's the same thinking ND used in making a deal with NBC only theirs aren't so long.

I suppose a deal in the works for 32 years with Texas and Oklahoma is just luck? You do realize that out of 1990's original targets of Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas's then silent partner (Oklahoma), Clemson and Florida State, the SEC has acquired 4 along with South Carolina instead of Clemson. I'm sure long-range planning and years of talks had nothing to do with that, right?

Discussions about expansion were centered on markets, brands, and potential revenue and upon enhancing strength in changing times. There wasn't much room for luck. I'd say the more insular "nothing will change our world" approach that the ACC took into what for their core was an annoying expansion and invasion of privacy was less well thought out and looked and felt more like a parking lot for ESPN's removal of potential Big 10 expansion targets, only ESPN has had a long-range plan as well, and one vast enough that a simple map didn't necessarily reveal it as clearly as the SEC's.

What really killed the ACC's position in all of this was OU/UGa vs the NCAA which freed football to be the revenue king while basketball kept working for peanuts on the NCAA plantation. I've never heard such stupidity as the fearful moans of "But the tourney" as an excuse to give away earning potential. The NCAA is the fattest parasite ever grown and those loyal to it are going to die with it. The stupidity of thinking venues filled with 15-20 thousand hoops fans could out earn and should out earn football which drew 80 - 100 thousand who made extra donations just to get in a queue to get tickets was absurd prima facia.

Do you call that "luck" as well, or what it really is, arrogance and stupidity?

No Quo there are a lot of men and women who put long hours of deep planning into what has happened, and they are way above your or my pay grade, and none of it should ever be attributed to just luck. I grew up being told the U.S. Navy got lucky at Midway. Decades later I found out when some things were finally declassified that we had broken their code and knew their plans and location (roughly as there was no GPS). I spent my childhood thinking the Titanic disaster and the Hindenburg explosion were just bad luck only to learn it was ill conceived engineering which doomed them. Now I've lived long enough not to believe in luck. Events are fixed in outcome by solid planning and performance, or lousy planning and performance, or as in gambling, just fixed. And not planning to build in wiggle room to a contract is lousy planning. And innovation alone in the broadcasting world should have necessitated the 6 year windows the B1G now utilizes decades ago. None of it from OU/UGa in 1983 until now has been just luck.

I guess I'm sort of in the middle.

I definitely don't believe that the SEC adding Texas A&M was luck. The SEC set itself up in a position to make itself attractive to Texas A&M (and Missouri and now Texas and Oklahoma) and they intentionally took steps to do so. I'd say the same thing with the Big Ten - I know that Nebraska has lost some of its luster, but if anyone had said in the mid-1990s that Nebraska was going to join the Big Ten, people would have thought they were nuts. All of the steps that the SEC and Big Ten made starting circa 2000 (whether it was via their TV contracts, conference networks, commissioner leadership, etc.) led to their expansion choices and further increasing of their revenue advantages today. None of that was luck.

That being said, we can also find quotes from 30/40/50-plus years ago that indicated interest from Conference A in School X for all this time and claim that it was a decades-long plan. I don't necessarily think that's the case, either. Pretty much every major conference bandied about adding Texas in many instances over many decades. I don't think that the SEC was able to add Texas because they planned for it 40 years ago any more than we could have pulled quotes from the Big Ten and old-Pac-10 (which all exist) stating that they were looking at Texas, too. Instead, I believe that the SEC's moves over the past 10 years specifically, particularly taking Texas A&M which both took an in-state rival and nullified the academic prestige advantage that the Big 12 previously had over the SEC, is really what put the SEC in the position to get Texas and Oklahoma.

So, I definitely don't believe that Texas has been pre-ordained to go to the SEC for decades. The SEC had to put itself in a position where it was both (a) more financially lucrative to Texas to be an equal member of stronger league compared to being an "eat what you kill" dominant member of an unequal league and (b) academically superior to the Big 12 (which wasn't the case in 2010 but *is* the case now). None of that was luck, but that also couldn't have been planned out 30 to 40 years ago no matter how much Nostradamus might have been working in the SEC office at the time. If ESPN hadn't offered Texas the LHN back in 2010, we would instead be talking about how the then-Pac-10 and now-Pac-16 (with Texas, A&M and OU) had been aiming to get Texas since the 1980s. This was the right place in the right time for the SEC and Texas to come together, but it was more like a 10 to 12 year process as opposed to a 40-year process.

(02-24-2022 11:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

Luck is a piss poor descriptor for a deal 22 years in the works! You mealy mouth the things the SEC planned and worked on way too much. Business deals aren't luck either. They are good or bad depending on who makes them and how competent they were and over how much understanding of value exists on either side of the arrangement.

The ACC simply made an awful deal. They made it because they were content with status quo and bet on schools which already didn't control their markets when they picked them to gain cable subscription fees instead of to add dominance, and I'm not talking about FSU and Miami.

The SEC made a bad deal with CBS, not with ESPN. It was CBS that locked in lopsided value for too long of a span. That mistake happened because the SEC was focused on exposure. It's the same thinking ND used in making a deal with NBC only theirs aren't so long.

I suppose a deal in the works for 32 years with Texas and Oklahoma is just luck? You do realize that out of 1990's original targets of Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas's then silent partner (Oklahoma), Clemson and Florida State, the SEC has acquired 4 along with South Carolina instead of Clemson. I'm sure long-range planning and years of talks had nothing to do with that, right?

Discussions about expansion were centered on markets, brands, and potential revenue and upon enhancing strength in changing times. There wasn't much room for luck. I'd say the more insular "nothing will change our world" approach that the ACC took into what for their core was an annoying expansion and invasion of privacy was less well thought out and looked and felt more like a parking lot for ESPN's removal of potential Big 10 expansion targets, only ESPN has had a long-range plan as well, and one vast enough that a simple map didn't necessarily reveal it as clearly as the SEC's.

What really killed the ACC's position in all of this was OU/UGa vs the NCAA which freed football to be the revenue king while basketball kept working for peanuts on the NCAA plantation. I've never heard such stupidity as the fearful moans of "But the tourney" as an excuse to give away earning potential. The NCAA is the fattest parasite ever grown and those loyal to it are going to die with it. The stupidity of thinking venues filled with 15-20 thousand hoops fans could out earn and should out earn football which drew 80 - 100 thousand who made extra donations just to get in a queue to get tickets was absurd prima facia.

Do you call that "luck" as well, or what it really is, arrogance and stupidity?

No Quo there are a lot of men and women who put long hours of deep planning into what has happened, and they are way above your or my pay grade, and none of it should ever be attributed to just luck. I grew up being told the U.S. Navy got lucky at Midway. Decades later I found out when some things were finally declassified that we had broken their code and knew their plans and location (roughly as there was no GPS). I spent my childhood thinking the Titanic disaster and the Hindenburg explosion were just bad luck only to learn it was ill conceived engineering which doomed them. Now I've lived long enough not to believe in luck. Events are fixed in outcome by solid planning and performance, or lousy planning and performance, or as in gambling, just fixed. And not planning to build in wiggle room to a contract is lousy planning. And innovation alone in the broadcasting world should have necessitated the 6 year windows the B1G now utilizes decades ago. None of it from OU/UGa in 1983 until now has been just luck.

About the two bolded statements:

1) I agree with you (and FT), "luck" was a bad word. The SEC was not lucky to land TAMU, it landed TAMU because it had built up its strength and brand value to the point that a large chunk of TAMU Nation was clamoring for their school to leave for the SEC. That was a bad choice of words, and I didn't mean it as in the sense that TAMU could have gone somewhere else and just happened to randomly choose the SEC. It wanted to join the SEC because of SEC strength and the natural rivalries with several of the SEC west teams.

2) As we've discussed before, I think both of the 2008 deals were bad deals. The CBS deal was worse in one sense, in that it didn't have any possibilities, such as the establishment of the SECN with ESPN, that could make its bad terms somewhat less bad. But IMO the ESPN deal was worse in another, and larger sense, just because it was a bad deal for much more of the conference's rights.

And IMO, the SEC likely dodged a bullet in 2012, when after adding TAMU and Mizzou, it wanted CBS to up that 2008 deal. Had CBS agreed, it probably would have done so at a much lower rate than what the SEC will get in 2023, and likely would have asked for 10 more years tacked on to it, like ESPN did to create the SECN. And then the SEC would have been stuck at say $100m a year for 20 more years, instead of getting the big cash in that we will get in 2023. We owe CBS a "thanks" for refusing to change that 2008 deal a decade ago, IMO.

To me, what exposed the 2008 ESPN deal as bad is the comparison with the B1G. The B1G has been making more media deal money than us these past several years. Why is that? IMO it's because back in 2006-2007 Delany was smart, he created the BTN with FOX, signed deals with multiple networks, and most crucially, signed their ESPN deal for 10 years, not 15 years. They should have signed for 6 years, but 10 was better than 15.

Otherwise, if you don't think Delany was smarter than the 2007-2008 SEC leadership, then what accounts for the B1G making more media money? The only other thing I can think of is if you believe the B1G is just more valuable than the SEC, and IMO that isn't so. If anything, the SEC is more valuable. Year in and year out, the SEC leads in football attendance and TV ratings, albeit the latter is close.

So to me, it has to be the nature of those deals signed in the late 2000s.

Just MO ...

(02-23-2022 10:37 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 03:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

But would Louisville and Cincy have sued the Big East and left early as Eers did? That’s the question I haven’t found a clear answer to.

FWIW, I've never bought the notion, pushed by some Cincy fans and many UofL fans, that WV wasn't the Big 12's first choice among the remaining schools, rather just the one most willing to do slavish things to join.

IMO, they were the Big 12's first choice.

I see what you mean, it does seem weird to assert that they weren't the first choice when they literally were the one school the Big 12 did pick... Given the stakes in the moment (Big East about to lose AQ status), it sounds like the assertion of fans bitter their school didn't get the invite.

IIRC, Louisville was the first team mentioned as a possible replacement for Missouri, and seemed like a lock for the invitation. Then WVU entered the conversation. It was pretty clear that Louisville was unwilling to do what WVU did, i.e., shoot its way out of the Big East immediately. If Louisville had been willing to do so, I believe it would have been preferred by the B12, although I could be wrong. Indeed, its lack of willingness may have prompted the appearance of WVU as a candidate. WVU's willingness to move immediately clearly tipped the balance in any event.

I don't recall that UC was mentioned as a serious candidate for B12 membership at the time. When Maryland moved to the B1G, though, UC lobbied the ACC aggressively for the slot that was ultimately offered to Louisville. I would therefore be surprised if it hadn't taken a prior run at the B12. Perhaps, though, the failure of its quieter efforts regarding B12 membership led to the more aggressive attempt at ACC membership.

(02-24-2022 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-24-2022 04:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 11:54 PM)Schema Wrote:  For the next eleven years or so, I'm sure I'll worry about the ever growing financial gap between the ACC and the SEC/B1G. Then, probably around 2033 or 2034, I'll start worry about what kind of new media contract the ACC will be able to negotiate with Disney during their exclusive negotiation window or on the open market if they don't plan on re-signing with Disney. If schools in the ACC drastically improved their football product over the years and a new (much shorter) media contract sounds awesome, then great. Otherwise, if the next ten to twelve years of ACC football didn't go so well and the rumors of the new media contract negotiations are underwhelming, then my worry changes to hoping the SEC or B1G choose my alma mater for expansion.

And that’s the sensible outlook. I’d add that I hope ESPN/Disney is looking out for the best interests of its investment and is helping with ways to increase payouts during those 11 years. It makes sense for ESPN to want the ACC to be a national competitor after all.

We can already see the resurgence of Miami football under NIL. This shows me the revenue gap isn’t as much of a competitive advantage in this new paradigm as the chicken littles believe.

People will point to SEC basketball and say “look at this!” Well, this isn’t the first time the SEC has had success on the hardwood. It’s actually a combination of a string of good coaching hires after a competitive lull and the fact a dominant conference like the ACC is going through massive coaching turnover.

Well, first, ESPN has established and ACCN to help the ACC with revenues. It's not going to just give the ACC more money out of its own pocket, but if there are ways to grow the revenue pie so that both the ACC and ESPN get more, there's no reason for ESPN not to do that. I think that's what the ACCN is.

As for your second statement, I tend to agree with it, and it tends to contradict the first. The ACC is likely to remain a clear-cut P5 conference in football despite the growing revenue gap, because revenue isn't the only thing that matters. I mean, look at Tennessee's football revenue compared to Cincy and UCF and Boise the past 10 years, and the results.

But, if you are correct that it is in ESPN's interest for the ACC to be competitive, then that seems to undercut the notion that ESPN will be concerned about ACC revenues, because those revenues aren't necessarily needed to be competitive.

I expect ESPN to milk its very good deal with the ACC for the next 10+ years, the way it has with the SEC ... ESPN has actually played just about as much hardball with the SEC as it has the ACC, the SEC just was lucky in that it added Texas AM, which really boosted its value, that the SECN has been such a fantastic success in drumming up new money, and that they had that CBS side-deal expiring in 2023.

Really, without that CBS side-deal expiring and being converted in to far more money, there would IMO be massive grumbling within the SEC about how badly that 2008 deal with ESPN has left them behind the B1G. That alone is what will keep the SEC in the same range as the B1G once the B1G signs its new 2023 deals.

I don’t think the two points are connected. The fact revenue doesn’t equal success doesn’t mean the schools in the ACC don’t want to make more revenue and ESPN wouldn’t help them do so.

Well, I agree that the ACC would like to make more and that ESPN will help them do so - but only if there is more money for ESPN as well. That's why ESPN agreed to create the ACCN. But IMO they aren't just going to do it just because the ACC wants more money with nothing $$$$ in it for them. They've never done that for any other conference I can think of. ESPN knows they have a sweet deal with the ACC, and I don't see any reason for them to not drink that nectar.

Only thing I can think of would be maybe 10 years from now, when the ACC deal is 2-3 years away from expiring, ESPN might make a re-up offer, at significantly more money of course, to maybe forestall the ACC from going to the market, but that offer will also extend the deal further in to the future.

(02-23-2022 03:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 03:11 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 02:42 PM)TexasCat Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 01:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-23-2022 08:27 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well FWIW, though I didn't mention it, as someone whose school was in the Big East at the time, I was aware that TCU had committed to the Big East when it then hop-scotched to the Big 12. I also know that WVU was desperate and willing to do most anything to leave, as they immediately and correctly surmised that the departure of Syracuse and Pitt meant that this would inevitably result in the collapse of the Big East as an "AQ" conference. Smart of them. Also, while I didn't specifically recall that the Big 12 needed to return to 10 for media contract reasons (thanks for the reminder), I did know they felt pressure to backfill, were making these moves under duress themselves. They'd just been raided.

It's just IMO none of these were worth spelling out, because while the Big 12 had to backfill with somebody, they also had a lot of choices as to who to backfill with. They could have focused on markets (say Houston, USF in Tampa), but IMO they made the choices to take TCU and WVU because of their recent football success.

NO! They did not have a lot of options. The Networks (FOX and ESPN) had to agree and they didn't want G5's at the time and being able to move immediately was a primary issue. WVU was acceptable because they did leave immediately at their cost and both schools were acceptable to the networks.

Isn't the point though that they just as easily could have called Cincinnati, USF, or Louisville? They did almost add Louisville, after all. And San Diego State/Boise State would have been AQ teams in the same sense as TCU (transitioning to the Big East), but they didn't get the call either. We can assume, I think safely, that any of these schools would have moved mountains and paid any fees required to make a move happen immediately like TCU/WVU did when their number got called. I'm not saying that constitutes a ton of options necessarily but it is interesting who they did pick among several options, given the pressure from TV partners to stop at ten.

But would Louisville and Cincy have sued the Big East and left early as Eers did? That’s the question I haven’t found a clear answer to.

FWIW, I've never bought the notion, pushed by some Cincy fans and many UofL fans, that WV wasn't the Big 12's first choice among the remaining schools, rather just the one most willing to do slavish things to join.

IMO, they were the Big 12's first choice.

Quo, you might be right.

Maybe WVU was the Big 12’s first choice THEN. But if they do it again and have a choice NOW between WVU, UL, or Cincy, will they pick WVU again?
I am pretty sure that the ACC won’t.