Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
Author Message
EigenEagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,731
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 476
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
The "at least right now" is something the author added, not part of the commissioner's quote.

Quote:“There’s the entertainment piece of college athletics that we all know and love,” he said. “To me and the ACC, it’s pushing forward in those three areas in particular. Speaking only for the ACC, we’re incredibly excited about what we’ve seen, the possibilities and some of the work that’s been done in the past six months, but even more bullish on where this thing can go in the future and how the Alliance can be a part of the bigger picture of the future of college sports.”

That doesn't to me signal anything of the sort is being considered. There's no "we're looking at our options" cliche at all there.
05-10-2022 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,059
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 620
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #62
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 02:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The operative word, unspoken, is "yet." That he had to quell the rumor of immediate departure tells you such thinking is much farther along than many realize.

But at the moment we are seeing views and opinions all over the map from various P5 coaches and administrators. And right now the NCAA is bending over backwards to let the P5 get their way, because the threat is real.

I firmly believe this will happen, but only after the next set of media contracts and after everyone has a couple years of dealing with NIL under their belt. The P5 still cannot agree on the CFP and they have various views on media -- I am in the camp of believing that ESPN has already peaked and they are about to enter an era of serious erosion from competition from far deeper pockets in the consolidating media, entertainment and tech industries. The money is about to get larger, and the incentive to dump the NCAA as an agency and directly contract their own playoffs and tournament is literally in the $Billions annually. Inertia, lack of current consensus (but building) and some uncertainty about the media direction (needs clarity) are what is in the way. But I think the clock is ticking, and I expect a move in about three years time.

Correct Stu! All of this Summer will be planning and finding consensus on the plan. They already know who they wish to have involved in the breakaway. And frankly why would Phillips be included? He's proven to be in line with Warren and an obstructionist. I find it interesting that Kliavkoff and Sankey are spending some time together, but then they do have some common ground on issues. The SEC already has direct relationships with ACC members and is on cordial terms with most Big 10 power football programs. This concept is not recent and has been talked behind the scenes in earnest for about 3 years among AD's down here.

The only thing holding up things is some kind of sense of how to govern conduct around NIL without violating the court ruling, and waiting on the Pay for Play ruling. I'm not sure we are even waiting on contracts. The one that truly matters is the Big 10's and should it include an expansion then Boom! Things will happen quickly from there. I see several triggers which could set it in motion and no real stop signs.
...please...

...they don't want the trouble, legal bureaucracy and lawsuits that would bring[Image: f9504242cd525bff6e4073c62061aae8.gif]

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
05-10-2022 09:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,766
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #63
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 02:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The operative word, unspoken, is "yet." That he had to quell the rumor of immediate departure tells you such thinking is much farther along than many realize.

But at the moment we are seeing views and opinions all over the map from various P5 coaches and administrators. And right now the NCAA is bending over backwards to let the P5 get their way, because the threat is real.

How is it any kind of threat when the NCAA would be better off without the P5?

They can get back to a regulated college athletic environment without the P5 mucking everything up.
05-10-2022 09:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:14 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I checked out a few of the ACC message boards, including InsideCarolina.

A little bit surprising to see, but on multiple (and lengthy) threads recently the overwhelming consensus was that the ACC is running on fumes and UNC needs to be on the next train to B1G or SEC as soon as possible.

Looked like very, very few of the Tar Heel fans expect — or even want — the ACC to remain intact until 2035.

Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league. I also don’t buy the notion that ESPN will help facilitate moving Clemson and FSU to the SEC —- neither has the popularity of Texas or OU, neither/both would increase the SEC’s bottom line enough to justify having two more mouths to feed, and ESPN has no monetary incentive to pay the Tigers or Noles more money for rights they already control.

I see ESPN needlessly paying more for inventory they have locked up for 14 years, without valued added in return, being close to last on how they use cash freed up from losing out on BIG.

You think ESPN wouldn't pay just two more ACC schools more in the SEC, where they likely have additive value, yet you think the Mouse will cave and pay an entire conference of ACC schools more? You don't see your contradiction?

I don't see ESPN having that much invested in the league.

ESPN controls three conferences. Soon, maybe 4 in the Big 12. They benefit form rearranging the schedules (realignment) to get the best return on the entire collection of schools. In other words, consolidation of brands into conferences of more closely averaged brands.

If the sport is ready for big changes, 24 in the SEC may be the big tent needed for ESPN to grow the sport into a more national product. And if it is not ready, 24 is needed to have the critical mass for the SEC/ESPN to make it ready. At 24 plus the threat of an ESPN independent USC, the BIG would be forced to follow with Pac 12. Now that is a good use of ESPN's freed up cash from missing out on BIG.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 11:11 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
05-10-2022 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,325
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 224
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
There are valuable schools out there in D1 that are not in P5 like some of the G5 schools like Boise State and Memphis, and schools like some of the Big East, A-10, CAA, AEC, Missouri State and Gonzaga who have men's basketball. NDSU is valuable to the Big 10 at least. South Dakota State as well. They give close by opponents for Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska which could be cutting down on spending in travel for all sports.
05-10-2022 09:48 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 104
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 12:58 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Well, there goes 80% of the threads on this website.

lol well, more like 70 : )

Looking over realignment threads:

Where/When will a school go

Where/When should they go

Where/When should they have gone

Who will a conference pick / Who should the conference have picked / Who should they not have picked

When will a conference pick them / When should they / When should they have

Will a conference merge / split / etc.

Will a school drop football / add football / go to fbs / go to fcs / etc.

Then we stray into legal stuff of title IX, NIL, pay-for-play, etc.

There's other stuff of course, but that seems the vast majority : )

And I have to admit, it's fun theorizing, but I think it's more interesting to read what everyone else is thinking. Otherwise, why post here at all, if not interested in others' thoughts? : )
05-10-2022 10:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:14 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I checked out a few of the ACC message boards, including InsideCarolina.

A little bit surprising to see, but on multiple (and lengthy) threads recently the overwhelming consensus was that the ACC is running on fumes and UNC needs to be on the next train to B1G or SEC as soon as possible.

Looked like very, very few of the Tar Heel fans expect — or even want — the ACC to remain intact until 2035.

Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league.

Do some homework on values. You can find some in a thread by Nerdlinger at the top of the P5 subforum.

The most valuable ACC schools are in order: Louisville, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech.

If the B1G landed Duke, UNC, and Virginia the would acquire:

North Carolina (5th in ACC value), Duke (7th), Georgia Tech (9th) and Virginia (11th).

The SEC would then be free to take 1-4 in value. If the SEC wanted to protect the deep South they would offer Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami and Kansas and move to 24. This would leave the B1G #6 Syracuse or # 12 (AAU) Pitt.

Donors and Fan Interest say UNC/Duke tries to grab 2 SEC slots. Why Duke? Duke wants to stay with UNC. Anyway we can wait and see. Should be fun!

I don’t see any network or conference using that ranking, particularly for Louisville. Brewer’s metrics are about as good as USNWR rankings, which at least have the benefit of being a brand maker at this point.
05-10-2022 10:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #68
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The concept is a lot older than three years. Try 50 years!

The NCAA failed at allowing it to happen in ‘75, ‘78, ‘81, ‘90, and so in. As matter of fact, the more FCS directional schools moving to FBS and Division II, III etc schools moving to D1, the more likely it will actually happen.

I find it humorous that people predicting this “novel” idea believe they are some sort of guru. Try again!

I think I may have told you, as I have posted it several times over the years, but John McKay and Bear Bryant were the first in my memory to propose it in the very early 70's.

The reason it was not acted upon was practical then. The cost of travel versus the meager media revenue of that era made it DOA to have a far-flung super conference.

It has percolated over the decades but when travel was no longer an issue schools all were making more in the late 80's and early 90's and all were competitive and more importantly had no idea what top values were. This led to some bad contracts.

The AD's and presidents now have estimates based on size, scope and composition of the super "league" more than conference. 110-120 million depending upon the size has been tendered and verified by outside firms. Basketball (not an issue for Bear and McKay) now adds fuel as 2.25 x present earnings has been kicked around.

The last 3 years (beginning just before COVID) has led to a lot of communication between schools. It's much farther down the road as a concept than the press has been told. It picked up steam with the Alston suit. It took off with he Alston ruling.

Stu is correct that many are only waiting to see how NIL is handled and what the Pay for Play ruling will say. Texas and Oklahoma's move was the first response to this. There will be many more responses.

The concept hasn't been Novel since '71. I've never been a Guru either. I simply know what is being discussed and what is likely.

How old is my thread on Time, Money and Economic Disparity? Eight years ago I told a laughing dismissive board it was a hostile takeover by corporate media entities. Still laughing now Esayem? Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first viably discussed in the SEC presidents' meeting ~1987. Was serious in '89-90. Then not. Then off and on until NIL. Texas and Oklahoma administrations, boosters and AD's were then compelled to act. They are only the first.

Here I endured the Texas and Oklahoma will never join the SEC comments. I listened to all the reasons the Big 10's academics would win out. Yawn!

Now I'm hearing it again when UNC called the SEC in 2011 after Maryland announced and "allegedly" (I say this because officially unofficial emissaries were used) visited Birmingham incognito 3 days after the OU/UT leak.

I'd love to see Tobacky Road head to the B1G. It's just not what has been lined up behind the scenes. And ESPN has a say.

What's happened here for years is I tell you what's coming and the board screams never because some talking head didn't say it. You live in confident denial, slink off when wrong, and slowly regain the courage to hurl insults again just in time to again be proven wrong.

How many times have I had to tell you that beat writers get a headline once something has happened. When it doesn't happen after being rumored they are given a gloss (spin) depending upon whether it makes a school or a conference look better. Things planned which fall apart "simply never happened" and that's for legal reasons.

Breakaway talks are well advanced. But believe what you must. But no P5 AD wants to live with a 40-50 million dollar deficit for 11 years and no president wants to suffer in the public eye. Time, money, and economic disparity have done their work.

My post wasn’t directed towards you, hence the absence of quotes. I merely noted your “three years” remark.

Football is a different animal than every other college sport and as I said, breakaway talk has been around since the 70’s. I didn’t need to read your post eight years ago to know that.

I didn’t think Texas would join the SEC as long as they had their own viable network and commanded their own league. I have to believe Oklahoma was getting antsy and it spurred their decision.

UNC will not join the Big Ten. That would be a catastrophe of mammoth proportions.

I am on record predicting ESPN keeping ACC content either by 1) paying the conference more due to increased success under the new NIL and pay-for-play paradigm or 2) folding it within the SEC package and maintaining ACC branding.

So take your titanic talk and entertain those former SWC fans, because that’s not this situation. ESPN has two college sports networks covering the Atlantic Coast and the Deep South into Texas. Don’t forget they have the minor league feeder system in the AAC.
05-10-2022 10:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #69
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 06:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 03:28 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 03:17 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Hello?

FSU's schedule has included Clemson and FSU every season since the Noles joined the SEC.

Maybe our friend Gamenole can comment about his excitement of playing GT every season.


We don't care about playing U of L any more in football than they care about playing us in men's basketball.

Instead of schedule tweaks, how about some info on the ACC-ESPN "look-in" meeting scheduled for this spring and how that might help narrow the ever-widening revenue gap between the Birmingham and Greensboro operations?

Not sure why some folks are so opposed to FSU and Clemson wanting to leave for a much-wealthier football-centric conference that also happens to be a far better cultural fit?

The Tobacco Road schools are strong enough to keep the ACC going even if those two leave.

Maybe just maybe Notre Dame will change its mind and join for all sports.

FSU has a large presence in Atlanta and it’s the closest conference opponent.

I’m not against FSU fans wanting to join the SEC, and the university certainly looked the part 30 years ago, but maybe the president has a different opinion these days.

Clemson is much more complicated than FSU. So if you don’t know much about the people that run the place and their culture, it won’t make sense. They could have withdrawn with SC, and they didn’t. They could have withdrawn and joined the SEC in 1990, according to JRSEC, but they didn’t. It’s much more complex than “let’s go to the SEC and make more money!”
It becomes much less complex when more money is $500+ million over a decade rather than a million or so a year.

1990 is a LONG time ago.

Let’s allow history to speak for itself. It’s not hard to predict **** a hundred people have already said on a message board.

Do you honestly believe Clemson and their fans would have had a better decade making more money while playing in the SEC?

Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I don’t think you understand how this works. ESPN is going to pay Clemson more to leave one ESPN entity and join another all the while destroying a GOR that benefits ESPN?
05-10-2022 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The concept is a lot older than three years. Try 50 years!

The NCAA failed at allowing it to happen in ‘75, ‘78, ‘81, ‘90, and so in. As matter of fact, the more FCS directional schools moving to FBS and Division II, III etc schools moving to D1, the more likely it will actually happen.

I find it humorous that people predicting this “novel” idea believe they are some sort of guru. Try again!

I think I may have told you, as I have posted it several times over the years, but John McKay and Bear Bryant were the first in my memory to propose it in the very early 70's.

The reason it was not acted upon was practical then. The cost of travel versus the meager media revenue of that era made it DOA to have a far-flung super conference.

It has percolated over the decades but when travel was no longer an issue schools all were making more in the late 80's and early 90's and all were competitive and more importantly had no idea what top values were. This led to some bad contracts.

The AD's and presidents now have estimates based on size, scope and composition of the super "league" more than conference. 110-120 million depending upon the size has been tendered and verified by outside firms. Basketball (not an issue for Bear and McKay) now adds fuel as 2.25 x present earnings has been kicked around.

The last 3 years (beginning just before COVID) has led to a lot of communication between schools. It's much farther down the road as a concept than the press has been told. It picked up steam with the Alston suit. It took off with he Alston ruling.

Stu is correct that many are only waiting to see how NIL is handled and what the Pay for Play ruling will say. Texas and Oklahoma's move was the first response to this. There will be many more responses.

The concept hasn't been Novel since '71. I've never been a Guru either. I simply know what is being discussed and what is likely.

How old is my thread on Time, Money and Economic Disparity? Eight years ago I told a laughing dismissive board it was a hostile takeover by corporate media entities. Still laughing now Esayem? Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first viably discussed in the SEC presidents' meeting ~1987. Was serious in '89-90. Then not. Then off and on until NIL. Texas and Oklahoma administrations, boosters and AD's were then compelled to act. They are only the first.

Here I endured the Texas and Oklahoma will never join the SEC comments. I listened to all the reasons the Big 10's academics would win out. Yawn!

Now I'm hearing it again when UNC called the SEC in 2011 after Maryland announced and "allegedly" (I say this because officially unofficial emissaries were used) visited Birmingham incognito 3 days after the OU/UT leak.

I'd love to see Tobacky Road head to the B1G. It's just not what has been lined up behind the scenes. And ESPN has a say.

What's happened here for years is I tell you what's coming and the board screams never because some talking head didn't say it. You live in confident denial, slink off when wrong, and slowly regain the courage to hurl insults again just in time to again be proven wrong.

How many times have I had to tell you that beat writers get a headline once something has happened. When it doesn't happen after being rumored they are given a gloss (spin) depending upon whether it makes a school or a conference look better. Things planned which fall apart "simply never happened" and that's for legal reasons.

Breakaway talks are well advanced. But believe what you must. But no P5 AD wants to live with a 40-50 million dollar deficit for 11 years and no president wants to suffer in the public eye. Time, money, and economic disparity have done their work.

My post wasn’t directed towards you, hence the absence of quotes. I merely noted your “three years” remark.

Football is a different animal than every other college sport and as I said, breakaway talk has been around since the 70’s. I didn’t need to read your post eight years ago to know that.

I didn’t think Texas would join the SEC as long as they had their own viable network and commanded their own league. I have to believe Oklahoma was getting antsy and it spurred their decision.

UNC will not join the Big Ten. That would be a catastrophe of mammoth proportions.

I am on record predicting ESPN keeping ACC content either by 1) paying the conference more due to increased success under the new NIL and pay-for-play paradigm or 2) folding it within the SEC package and maintaining ACC branding.

So take your titanic talk and entertain those former SWC fans, because that’s not this situation. ESPN has two college sports networks covering the Atlantic Coast and the Deep South into Texas. Don’t forget they have the minor league feeder system in the AAC.

Better get the life jacket now.

A 6 team ACC division in the SEC will be a good use of ESPNs cash. On the opposite side of the SWC/Big 8 division.

The SEC, but paying homage to conferences of yesteryear.

I don’t see Tobacco Rd letting the ACC name live on with the leftovers.
05-10-2022 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 104
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The concept is a lot older than three years. Try 50 years!

The NCAA failed at allowing it to happen in ‘75, ‘78, ‘81, ‘90, and so in. As matter of fact, the more FCS directional schools moving to FBS and Division II, III etc schools moving to D1, the more likely it will actually happen.

I find it humorous that people predicting this “novel” idea believe they are some sort of guru. Try again!

I think I may have told you, as I have posted it several times over the years, but John McKay and Bear Bryant were the first in my memory to propose it in the very early 70's.

The reason it was not acted upon was practical then. The cost of travel versus the meager media revenue of that era made it DOA to have a far-flung super conference.

It has percolated over the decades but when travel was no longer an issue schools all were making more in the late 80's and early 90's and all were competitive and more importantly had no idea what top values were. This led to some bad contracts.

The AD's and presidents now have estimates based on size, scope and composition of the super "league" more than conference. 110-120 million depending upon the size has been tendered and verified by outside firms. Basketball (not an issue for Bear and McKay) now adds fuel as 2.25 x present earnings has been kicked around.

The last 3 years (beginning just before COVID) has led to a lot of communication between schools. It's much farther down the road as a concept than the press has been told. It picked up steam with the Alston suit. It took off with he Alston ruling.

Stu is correct that many are only waiting to see how NIL is handled and what the Pay for Play ruling will say. Texas and Oklahoma's move was the first response to this. There will be many more responses.

The concept hasn't been Novel since '71. I've never been a Guru either. I simply know what is being discussed and what is likely.

How old is my thread on Time, Money and Economic Disparity? Eight years ago I told a laughing dismissive board it was a hostile takeover by corporate media entities. Still laughing now Esayem? Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first viably discussed in the SEC presidents' meeting ~1987. Was serious in '89-90. Then not. Then off and on until NIL. Texas and Oklahoma administrations, boosters and AD's were then compelled to act. They are only the first.

Here I endured the Texas and Oklahoma will never join the SEC comments. I listened to all the reasons the Big 10's academics would win out. Yawn!

Now I'm hearing it again when UNC called the SEC in 2011 after Maryland announced and "allegedly" (I say this because officially unofficial emissaries were used) visited Birmingham incognito 3 days after the OU/UT leak.

I'd love to see Tobacky Road head to the B1G. It's just not what has been lined up behind the scenes. And ESPN has a say.

What's happened here for years is I tell you what's coming and the board screams never because some talking head didn't say it. You live in confident denial, slink off when wrong, and slowly regain the courage to hurl insults again just in time to again be proven wrong.

How many times have I had to tell you that beat writers get a headline once something has happened. When it doesn't happen after being rumored they are given a gloss (spin) depending upon whether it makes a school or a conference look better. Things planned which fall apart "simply never happened" and that's for legal reasons.

Breakaway talks are well advanced. But believe what you must. But no P5 AD wants to live with a 40-50 million dollar deficit for 11 years and no president wants to suffer in the public eye. Time, money, and economic disparity have done their work.

First - great post : )

I really enjoy reading when things are put into historical context.

But I just wanted to say that this all is reminding me of what they used to say about fortune tellers - wait long enough and "eventually" they might turn out at least partially right.

And 1975 is over 40 years ago, sooo.

Complaints about the NCAA are going to happen because people who want to complain typically do so about whomever they think is "in authority" or whomever they think is preventing them from doing whatever it is that they are saying they want to do (which, however, isn't always what they actually want to do : )

Anyway.

Will a breakaway happen "someday"? maybe.

Are we there yet? I don't think so.

At the very least, everyone is waiting to see how all these legal issues play out.

If the NCAA can hold itself together in the meantime and address the legal issues, then I doubt it's going anywhere.

If it turns out that it can't, then they will likely find/create something that can.
05-10-2022 10:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #72
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:43 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The concept is a lot older than three years. Try 50 years!

The NCAA failed at allowing it to happen in ‘75, ‘78, ‘81, ‘90, and so in. As matter of fact, the more FCS directional schools moving to FBS and Division II, III etc schools moving to D1, the more likely it will actually happen.

I find it humorous that people predicting this “novel” idea believe they are some sort of guru. Try again!

I think I may have told you, as I have posted it several times over the years, but John McKay and Bear Bryant were the first in my memory to propose it in the very early 70's.

The reason it was not acted upon was practical then. The cost of travel versus the meager media revenue of that era made it DOA to have a far-flung super conference.

It has percolated over the decades but when travel was no longer an issue schools all were making more in the late 80's and early 90's and all were competitive and more importantly had no idea what top values were. This led to some bad contracts.

The AD's and presidents now have estimates based on size, scope and composition of the super "league" more than conference. 110-120 million depending upon the size has been tendered and verified by outside firms. Basketball (not an issue for Bear and McKay) now adds fuel as 2.25 x present earnings has been kicked around.

The last 3 years (beginning just before COVID) has led to a lot of communication between schools. It's much farther down the road as a concept than the press has been told. It picked up steam with the Alston suit. It took off with he Alston ruling.

Stu is correct that many are only waiting to see how NIL is handled and what the Pay for Play ruling will say. Texas and Oklahoma's move was the first response to this. There will be many more responses.

The concept hasn't been Novel since '71. I've never been a Guru either. I simply know what is being discussed and what is likely.

How old is my thread on Time, Money and Economic Disparity? Eight years ago I told a laughing dismissive board it was a hostile takeover by corporate media entities. Still laughing now Esayem? Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first viably discussed in the SEC presidents' meeting ~1987. Was serious in '89-90. Then not. Then off and on until NIL. Texas and Oklahoma administrations, boosters and AD's were then compelled to act. They are only the first.

Here I endured the Texas and Oklahoma will never join the SEC comments. I listened to all the reasons the Big 10's academics would win out. Yawn!

Now I'm hearing it again when UNC called the SEC in 2011 after Maryland announced and "allegedly" (I say this because officially unofficial emissaries were used) visited Birmingham incognito 3 days after the OU/UT leak.

I'd love to see Tobacky Road head to the B1G. It's just not what has been lined up behind the scenes. And ESPN has a say.

What's happened here for years is I tell you what's coming and the board screams never because some talking head didn't say it. You live in confident denial, slink off when wrong, and slowly regain the courage to hurl insults again just in time to again be proven wrong.

How many times have I had to tell you that beat writers get a headline once something has happened. When it doesn't happen after being rumored they are given a gloss (spin) depending upon whether it makes a school or a conference look better. Things planned which fall apart "simply never happened" and that's for legal reasons.

Breakaway talks are well advanced. But believe what you must. But no P5 AD wants to live with a 40-50 million dollar deficit for 11 years and no president wants to suffer in the public eye. Time, money, and economic disparity have done their work.

My post wasn’t directed towards you, hence the absence of quotes. I merely noted your “three years” remark.

Football is a different animal than every other college sport and as I said, breakaway talk has been around since the 70’s. I didn’t need to read your post eight years ago to know that.

I didn’t think Texas would join the SEC as long as they had their own viable network and commanded their own league. I have to believe Oklahoma was getting antsy and it spurred their decision.

UNC will not join the Big Ten. That would be a catastrophe of mammoth proportions.

I am on record predicting ESPN keeping ACC content either by 1) paying the conference more due to increased success under the new NIL and pay-for-play paradigm or 2) folding it within the SEC package and maintaining ACC branding.

So take your titanic talk and entertain those former SWC fans, because that’s not this situation. ESPN has two college sports networks covering the Atlantic Coast and the Deep South into Texas. Don’t forget they have the minor league feeder system in the AAC.

Better get the life jacket now.

A 6 team ACC division in the SEC will be a good use of ESPNs cash. On the opposite side of the SWC/Big 8 division.

The SEC, but paying homage to conferences of yesteryear.

I don’t see Tobacco Rd letting the ACC name live on with the leftovers.

And that’s the Southern Conference. We did this song and dance 100 years ago. It could be coming full circle.
05-10-2022 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,426
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3809
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The concept is a lot older than three years. Try 50 years!

The NCAA failed at allowing it to happen in ‘75, ‘78, ‘81, ‘90, and so in. As matter of fact, the more FCS directional schools moving to FBS and Division II, III etc schools moving to D1, the more likely it will actually happen.

I find it humorous that people predicting this “novel” idea believe they are some sort of guru. Try again!

I think I may have told you, as I have posted it several times over the years, but John McKay and Bear Bryant were the first in my memory to propose it in the very early 70's.

The reason it was not acted upon was practical then. The cost of travel versus the meager media revenue of that era made it DOA to have a far-flung super conference.

It has percolated over the decades but when travel was no longer an issue schools all were making more in the late 80's and early 90's and all were competitive and more importantly had no idea what top values were. This led to some bad contracts.

The AD's and presidents now have estimates based on size, scope and composition of the super "league" more than conference. 110-120 million depending upon the size has been tendered and verified by outside firms. Basketball (not an issue for Bear and McKay) now adds fuel as 2.25 x present earnings has been kicked around.

The last 3 years (beginning just before COVID) has led to a lot of communication between schools. It's much farther down the road as a concept than the press has been told. It picked up steam with the Alston suit. It took off with he Alston ruling.

Stu is correct that many are only waiting to see how NIL is handled and what the Pay for Play ruling will say. Texas and Oklahoma's move was the first response to this. There will be many more responses.

The concept hasn't been Novel since '71. I've never been a Guru either. I simply know what is being discussed and what is likely.

How old is my thread on Time, Money and Economic Disparity? Eight years ago I told a laughing dismissive board it was a hostile takeover by corporate media entities. Still laughing now Esayem? Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC was first viably discussed in the SEC presidents' meeting ~1987. Was serious in '89-90. Then not. Then off and on until NIL. Texas and Oklahoma administrations, boosters and AD's were then compelled to act. They are only the first.

Here I endured the Texas and Oklahoma will never join the SEC comments. I listened to all the reasons the Big 10's academics would win out. Yawn!

Now I'm hearing it again when UNC called the SEC in 2011 after Maryland announced and "allegedly" (I say this because officially unofficial emissaries were used) visited Birmingham incognito 3 days after the OU/UT leak.

I'd love to see Tobacky Road head to the B1G. It's just not what has been lined up behind the scenes. And ESPN has a say.

What's happened here for years is I tell you what's coming and the board screams never because some talking head didn't say it. You live in confident denial, slink off when wrong, and slowly regain the courage to hurl insults again just in time to again be proven wrong.

How many times have I had to tell you that beat writers get a headline once something has happened. When it doesn't happen after being rumored they are given a gloss (spin) depending upon whether it makes a school or a conference look better. Things planned which fall apart "simply never happened" and that's for legal reasons.

Breakaway talks are well advanced. But believe what you must. But no P5 AD wants to live with a 40-50 million dollar deficit for 11 years and no president wants to suffer in the public eye. Time, money, and economic disparity have done their work.

My post wasn’t directed towards you, hence the absence of quotes. I merely noted your “three years” remark.

Football is a different animal than every other college sport and as I said, breakaway talk has been around since the 70’s. I didn’t need to read your post eight years ago to know that.

I didn’t think Texas would join the SEC as long as they had their own viable network and commanded their own league. I have to believe Oklahoma was getting antsy and it spurred their decision.

UNC will not join the Big Ten. That would be a catastrophe of mammoth proportions.

I am on record predicting ESPN keeping ACC content either by 1) paying the conference more due to increased success under the new NIL and pay-for-play paradigm or 2) folding it within the SEC package and maintaining ACC branding.

So take your titanic talk and entertain those former SWC fans, because that’s not this situation. ESPN has two college sports networks covering the Atlantic Coast and the Deep South into Texas. Don’t forget they have the minor league feeder system in the AAC.

ESPN won't kill the GOR, though they could mitigate any damages. The SCOTUS decision affirming Pay for Play could kill the GOR.

If it does ESPN will segregate programs by value placing them in a high dollar group, and mid dollar group, and keeping the feeder group. I do look for them to pursue the acquisition of all B12 rights. The mid dollar group would be the NB12 / ACC remnants and high dollar ACC product would be with the SEC.
05-10-2022 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 104
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:14 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I checked out a few of the ACC message boards, including InsideCarolina.

A little bit surprising to see, but on multiple (and lengthy) threads recently the overwhelming consensus was that the ACC is running on fumes and UNC needs to be on the next train to B1G or SEC as soon as possible.

Looked like very, very few of the Tar Heel fans expect — or even want — the ACC to remain intact until 2035.

Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league.

Do some homework on values. You can find some in a thread by Nerdlinger at the top of the P5 subforum.

The most valuable ACC schools are in order: Louisville, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech.

If the B1G landed Duke, UNC, and Virginia the would acquire:

North Carolina (5th in ACC value), Duke (7th), Georgia Tech (9th) and Virginia (11th).

The SEC would then be free to take 1-4 in value. If the SEC wanted to protect the deep South they would offer Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami and Kansas and move to 24. This would leave the B1G #6 Syracuse or # 12 (AAU) Pitt.

Donors and Fan Interest say UNC/Duke tries to grab 2 SEC slots. Why Duke? Duke wants to stay with UNC. Anyway we can wait and see. Should be fun!

I suppose I have to agree that those are the schools which seem to be the ones potentially in play.

I'm not sure that the NC cluster wants to leave their own conference. (Serve in heaven vs reign in... lol) But could be. Though I dunno, if they left, I would be surprised if the Big10 gets them over the SEC. GA tech seems more possible, though without the others, there's no geographic contiguousness that the B10 seems to prefer. Peeling off VA seems the most likely of any of it.

I've seen several of your posts now in which you seem sure that Kansas is going to SEC rather than Big10.

What do you see that's bringing you to that conclusion?
05-10-2022 10:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #75
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 06:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 03:28 PM)esayem Wrote:  FSU has a large presence in Atlanta and it’s the closest conference opponent.

I’m not against FSU fans wanting to join the SEC, and the university certainly looked the part 30 years ago, but maybe the president has a different opinion these days.

Clemson is much more complicated than FSU. So if you don’t know much about the people that run the place and their culture, it won’t make sense. They could have withdrawn with SC, and they didn’t. They could have withdrawn and joined the SEC in 1990, according to JRSEC, but they didn’t. It’s much more complex than “let’s go to the SEC and make more money!”
It becomes much less complex when more money is $500+ million over a decade rather than a million or so a year.

1990 is a LONG time ago.

Let’s allow history to speak for itself. It’s not hard to predict **** a hundred people have already said on a message board.

Do you honestly believe Clemson and their fans would have had a better decade making more money while playing in the SEC?

Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I don’t think you understand how this works. ESPN is going to pay Clemson more to leave one ESPN entity and join another all the while destroying a GOR that benefits ESPN?

So you’ve moved on from Clemson not wanting it, and given up on applying 1990’s economics to this decision? That’s a start.

Why would ESPN want it? Lol, this from a guy that thinks it’s possible ESPN will start paying the entire ACC more before the GOR.

I don’t think you understand consolidation and the current realignment era.

ESPN controls x number of schools across soon to be 4 conferences. It benefits them to rearrange the assets that result in the most profitable matchups. Then have conferences tiered based on groupings of similar value.

There’s also macro benefits, as well as ESPN having less ability to control the situation as the GOR nears, and getting the SEC to have critical mass as the unequivocal premier conference in both sports. Phillips obstruction on CFP an example of a benefit if ESPN makes the SEC a top 24 and CFB a P2

If ESPN is going to spend money on the ACC, it will be on reorganization, not as a result of giving up leverage on a good deal for free (while paying more!)
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 11:01 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
05-10-2022 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #76
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:55 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 06:26 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  It becomes much less complex when more money is $500+ million over a decade rather than a million or so a year.

1990 is a LONG time ago.

Let’s allow history to speak for itself. It’s not hard to predict **** a hundred people have already said on a message board.

Do you honestly believe Clemson and their fans would have had a better decade making more money while playing in the SEC?

Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I don’t think you understand how this works. ESPN is going to pay Clemson more to leave one ESPN entity and join another all the while destroying a GOR that benefits ESPN?

So you’ve moved on from Clemson not wanting it, and given up on applying 1990’s economics to this decision? That’s a start.

Why would ESPN want it? Lol, this from a guy that thinks it’s possible ESPN will start paying the entire ACC more before the GOR.

I don’t think you understand consolidation and the current realignment era.

ESPN controls x number of schools across soon to be 4 conferences. It benefits them to rearrange the assets that result in the most profitable matchups. Then have conferences tiered based on groupings of similar value.

There’s also macro benefits, as well as ESPN having less ability to control the situation as the GOR nears, and getting the SEC to have critical mass as the unequivocal premier conference in both sports. Phillips obstruction on CFP an example of a benefit if ESPN makes the SEC a top 24 and CFB a P2

If ESPN is going to spend money on the ACC, it will be on reorganization, not as a result of giving up leverage on a good deal for free (while paying more!)

Clemson’s PTB remained in the ACC for reasons other than “football culture” or whatever that other poster was trying to say. 1990’s economics? I was pointing out FSU fit much better in the SEC than the ACC as an institution in 1990. I’m not sure what you’re reading.

I do think ESPN could pay the entire conference more. Why? Because there might be stipulations in the contract triggered by circumstances like a drastic change of schedule which we will be seeing soon. Suddenly more marquee games will happen a lot more frequently. Another example would be to lock-in a new deal before schools get pissed off to the point they would jump ship to another network after GOR expiration. Sorry, Clemson and FSU don’t have that option. Carolina absolutely does and the Big Ten would kill to have them. ESPN wants to keep Carolina and they’ll do what it takes to ensure that. Especially if the NCAA loses the tournament down the road. All of a sudden their investment in northeastern schools make sense.

I don’t know if ESPN would absorb the entire ACC into an SEC media package. That’s all conferences are anymore btw. I totally understand consolidation, but I also understand the current position of power ESPN has.
05-10-2022 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,426
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3809
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 10:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:14 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  I checked out a few of the ACC message boards, including InsideCarolina.

A little bit surprising to see, but on multiple (and lengthy) threads recently the overwhelming consensus was that the ACC is running on fumes and UNC needs to be on the next train to B1G or SEC as soon as possible.

Looked like very, very few of the Tar Heel fans expect — or even want — the ACC to remain intact until 2035.

Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league.

Do some homework on values. You can find some in a thread by Nerdlinger at the top of the P5 subforum.

The most valuable ACC schools are in order: Louisville, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech.

If the B1G landed Duke, UNC, and Virginia the would acquire:

North Carolina (5th in ACC value), Duke (7th), Georgia Tech (9th) and Virginia (11th).

The SEC would then be free to take 1-4 in value. If the SEC wanted to protect the deep South they would offer Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami and Kansas and move to 24. This would leave the B1G #6 Syracuse or # 12 (AAU) Pitt.

Donors and Fan Interest say UNC/Duke tries to grab 2 SEC slots. Why Duke? Duke wants to stay with UNC. Anyway we can wait and see. Should be fun!

I suppose I have to agree that those are the schools which seem to be the ones potentially in play.

I'm not sure that the NC cluster wants to leave their own conference. (Serve in heaven vs reign in... lol) But could be. Though I dunno, if they left, I would be surprised if the Big10 gets them over the SEC. GA tech seems more possible, though without the others, there's no geographic contiguousness that the B10 seems to prefer. Peeling off VA seems the most likely of any of it.

I've seen several of your posts now in which you seem sure that Kansas is going to SEC rather than Big10.

What do you see that's bringing you to that conclusion?

Math. Kansas isn't as additive to the Big 10 and could be for the SEC, but only as a round out addition, and only if basketball is freed of NCAA oversight.

They could easily go Big Ten and would prefer it. But I don't see them getting in a PAC 12 move where Colorado is a more natural bridge to Oregon, Washington, USC, Stanford and perhaps a Utah to make it contiguous.

If the B1G landed Notre Dame, Duke, UNC, and UVa it's more profitable to stop at 18. The SEC would burn a slot on Ga Tech before giving up a B1G presence in Atlanta.
05-10-2022 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #78
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 11:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:54 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:37 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 08:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Only those in Titanic denial insist the ship is unsinkable and amid the increased listing decide to have a snifter of Brandy and shoot some Snooker. This is when even third class recognizes what their senses tell them while the enlightened prefer to die believing lies.

If the ACC wants to avoid getting partitioned like the Ottoman Empire they need Clemson’s 2021 to be an aberration, Miami’s investment in Cristobal and Radokovich to pay off, and FSU and Virginia Tech to become perennial 9-10 win schools again. Beyond that, the less B1G rights ESPN gets this round the more likely I think it is that the Mouse eventually caves and increases the ACC’s per school payout before 2036, not enough to put them on par with the SEC or B1G but enough to maintain conference inertia, lest they lose Virginia, Carolina, Duke, and Georgia Tech to the B1G, which would tank the value of the ACC Network and ESPN’s investment in the league.

Do some homework on values. You can find some in a thread by Nerdlinger at the top of the P5 subforum.

The most valuable ACC schools are in order: Louisville, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech.

If the B1G landed Duke, UNC, and Virginia the would acquire:

North Carolina (5th in ACC value), Duke (7th), Georgia Tech (9th) and Virginia (11th).

The SEC would then be free to take 1-4 in value. If the SEC wanted to protect the deep South they would offer Ga Tech, N.C. State, Miami and Kansas and move to 24. This would leave the B1G #6 Syracuse or # 12 (AAU) Pitt.

Donors and Fan Interest say UNC/Duke tries to grab 2 SEC slots. Why Duke? Duke wants to stay with UNC. Anyway we can wait and see. Should be fun!

I suppose I have to agree that those are the schools which seem to be the ones potentially in play.

I'm not sure that the NC cluster wants to leave their own conference. (Serve in heaven vs reign in... lol) But could be. Though I dunno, if they left, I would be surprised if the Big10 gets them over the SEC. GA tech seems more possible, though without the others, there's no geographic contiguousness that the B10 seems to prefer. Peeling off VA seems the most likely of any of it.

I've seen several of your posts now in which you seem sure that Kansas is going to SEC rather than Big10.

What do you see that's bringing you to that conclusion?

Math. Kansas isn't as additive to the Big 10 and could be for the SEC, but only as a round out addition, and only if basketball is freed of NCAA oversight.

They could easily go Big Ten and would prefer it. But I don't see them getting in a PAC 12 move where Colorado is a more natural bridge to Oregon, Washington, USC, Stanford and perhaps a Utah to make it contiguous.

If the B1G landed Notre Dame, Duke, UNC, and UVa it's more profitable to stop at 18. The SEC would burn a slot on Ga Tech before giving up a B1G presence in Atlanta.

Wonder if anybody at Georgia Tech still considers it a “national program” or “Notre Dame of the South”.

Please stop putting Carolina in the Big Ten. A little piece of my soul dies every time. If we must, let us march to Lexington, Knoxville, Athens, Gainesville, and Nashville. God forbid College Park, East Brunswick (?), State College (??), Columbus, and Ann Arbor. YUCK
05-10-2022 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big 12 fan too Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 471
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: NIU
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 11:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:55 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  Let’s allow history to speak for itself. It’s not hard to predict **** a hundred people have already said on a message board.

Do you honestly believe Clemson and their fans would have had a better decade making more money while playing in the SEC?

Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I don’t think you understand how this works. ESPN is going to pay Clemson more to leave one ESPN entity and join another all the while destroying a GOR that benefits ESPN?

So you’ve moved on from Clemson not wanting it, and given up on applying 1990’s economics to this decision? That’s a start.

Why would ESPN want it? Lol, this from a guy that thinks it’s possible ESPN will start paying the entire ACC more before the GOR.

I don’t think you understand consolidation and the current realignment era.

ESPN controls x number of schools across soon to be 4 conferences. It benefits them to rearrange the assets that result in the most profitable matchups. Then have conferences tiered based on groupings of similar value.

There’s also macro benefits, as well as ESPN having less ability to control the situation as the GOR nears, and getting the SEC to have critical mass as the unequivocal premier conference in both sports. Phillips obstruction on CFP an example of a benefit if ESPN makes the SEC a top 24 and CFB a P2

If ESPN is going to spend money on the ACC, it will be on reorganization, not as a result of giving up leverage on a good deal for free (while paying more!)

Clemson’s PTB remained in the ACC for reasons other than “football culture” or whatever that other poster was trying to say. 1990’s economics? I was pointing out FSU fit much better in the SEC than the ACC as an institution in 1990. I’m not sure what you’re reading.

I do think ESPN could pay the entire conference more. Why? Because there might be stipulations in the contract triggered by circumstances like a drastic change of schedule which we will be seeing soon. Suddenly more marquee games will happen a lot more frequently. Another example would be to lock-in a new deal before schools get pissed off to the point they would jump ship to another network after GOR expiration. Sorry, Clemson and FSU don’t have that option. Carolina absolutely does and the Big Ten would kill to have them. ESPN wants to keep Carolina and they’ll do what it takes to ensure that. Especially if the NCAA loses the tournament down the road. All of a sudden their investment in northeastern schools make sense.

I don’t know if ESPN would absorb the entire ACC into an SEC media package. That’s all conferences are anymore btw. I totally understand consolidation, but I also understand the current position of power ESPN has.

The ACC doesn’t have the inventory for internal schedule changes to trigger it. There is no such clause. Which is why the ACC didn’t long ago do it. This is a meager attempt to appease those looking elsewhere.

ESPN has no incentive or reason to redo the deal without getting more value in return. That value can only come from the consolidation of brands .

Clemson and FSU likely have enough value if in a top conference.

ESPN has all the power.

UNC is the one that would be spending $500 million to just to delay death and get to the BIG in 2036 because of hurt feelings. Wounded pride heals quickly at that cost.

UNC will capitulate because every year that passes they lose leverage to control the breakup. There’s a lot of risk on these new basketball coaches at UNC and Duke not having Kevin Ollie careers. ESPN and the SEC wants UNC, but they can own the south without, suffocating any ACC orphans in the BIG that just went a decade as 2nd rate in pay to play era

The ACC schools that risk being in the American come 2036 will sell their dissolution vote to ESPN. So will the football schools that get a SEC slot. Those in the middle class will have a tough call, but most will not want to risk being left out, and will take parity to current contract wherever it is offered. If UNC wants to try fight that to the tune if $500 million, they can, but don’t expect ESPN to do the ACC any favors for a decade. Because if the good deal, they’ll make money on the ACC being an afterthought P5
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2022 11:37 PM by Big 12 fan too.)
05-10-2022 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 9,858
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 427
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #80
RE: Per ACC Commissioner: P5 Not Breaking Away
(05-10-2022 11:29 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 11:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:55 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 10:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-10-2022 07:44 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  Again, history doesn’t speak to the current revenue disparities.

Likewise, it is about the future decades. Do you honestly think Clemson wants to risk being in a 2 tier conference making less than half their region peers? Particularly as paying athletes becomes how you get recruits?

I don’t think you understand how this works. ESPN is going to pay Clemson more to leave one ESPN entity and join another all the while destroying a GOR that benefits ESPN?

So you’ve moved on from Clemson not wanting it, and given up on applying 1990’s economics to this decision? That’s a start.

Why would ESPN want it? Lol, this from a guy that thinks it’s possible ESPN will start paying the entire ACC more before the GOR.

I don’t think you understand consolidation and the current realignment era.

ESPN controls x number of schools across soon to be 4 conferences. It benefits them to rearrange the assets that result in the most profitable matchups. Then have conferences tiered based on groupings of similar value.

There’s also macro benefits, as well as ESPN having less ability to control the situation as the GOR nears, and getting the SEC to have critical mass as the unequivocal premier conference in both sports. Phillips obstruction on CFP an example of a benefit if ESPN makes the SEC a top 24 and CFB a P2

If ESPN is going to spend money on the ACC, it will be on reorganization, not as a result of giving up leverage on a good deal for free (while paying more!)

Clemson’s PTB remained in the ACC for reasons other than “football culture” or whatever that other poster was trying to say. 1990’s economics? I was pointing out FSU fit much better in the SEC than the ACC as an institution in 1990. I’m not sure what you’re reading.

I do think ESPN could pay the entire conference more. Why? Because there might be stipulations in the contract triggered by circumstances like a drastic change of schedule which we will be seeing soon. Suddenly more marquee games will happen a lot more frequently. Another example would be to lock-in a new deal before schools get pissed off to the point they would jump ship to another network after GOR expiration. Sorry, Clemson and FSU don’t have that option. Carolina absolutely does and the Big Ten would kill to have them. ESPN wants to keep Carolina and they’ll do what it takes to ensure that. Especially if the NCAA loses the tournament down the road. All of a sudden their investment in northeastern schools make sense.

I don’t know if ESPN would absorb the entire ACC into an SEC media package. That’s all conferences are anymore btw. I totally understand consolidation, but I also understand the current position of power ESPN has.

The ACC doesn’t have the inventory for internal schedule changes to trigger it. There is no such clause. Which is why the ACC didn’t long ago do it. This is a meager attempt to appease those looking elsewhere.

ESPN has no incentive or reason to redo the deal without getting more value in return. That value can only come from the consolidation of brands .

Clemson and FSU likely have enough value if in a top conference.

ESPN has all the power.

UNC is the one that would be spending $500 million to just to delay death and get to the BIG in 2036 because of hurt feelings. Wounded pride heals quickly at that cost.

UNC will capitulate because every year that passes they lose leverage to control the breakup. There’s a lot of risk on these new basketball coaches at UNC and Duke not having Kevin Ollie careers. ESPN and the SEC wants UNC, but they can own the south without, suffocating any ACC orphans in the BIG that just went a decade as 2nd rate in pay to play era

They tried to do it long ago and were stopped by other conferences. This happened as far back as 2003. You’re losing credibility.

Value doesn’t have to come only from consolidation. Where is this written? Miami and FSU being in the dumps has crushed projected value. Do you think ESPN put this conglomeration together by accident?

JR has pointed out Carolina reached out to the SEC and I believe him. I’m not sure who you’re trying to argue with anymore.

Stop with the Kevin Ollie references. It’s honestly poor taste and irrelevant to this discussion.
05-10-2022 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.