(06-18-2022 10:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.

That is some serious head in the sand thinking right there. I don't doubt that used to be true, but not anymore. The reality is if any school can join another conference and make 30 million, maybe 50 million dollars more each year they would. It's silly to think otherwise. And please don't bring up endowments, they do not have a thing to do with such decisions.

(06-18-2022 12:34 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.

That is some serious head in the sand thinking right there. I don't doubt that used to be true, but not anymore. The reality is if any school can join another conference and make 30 million, maybe 50 million dollars more each year they would. It's silly to think otherwise. And please don't bring up endowments, they do not have a thing to do with such decisions.

Of course you have absolutely no proof to support your position nor are you likely to find any. To claim to KNOW what the BOT of every school outside of the B1G and SEC wants is ridiculous.

(06-17-2022 10:22 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-16-2022 10:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-16-2022 10:37 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(06-16-2022 10:12 PM)Tigerblud Wrote:  

(06-16-2022 10:10 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?.

They will eventually have FSU and Clemson. Maybe more.

Agreed. The ACC will be raided

Don’t agree.

Leagues don’t expand just for the sake of expanding.

Every expansion raises the bar for the next expansion to simply break even.

The SEC just added the single greatest pair of schools that they could EVER realistically add with Texas and Oklahoma.

This board exists because getting to be the final home of Texas was what caused all of conference realignment from 2010 until now.

I quoted Doctor Strange on the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: “We’re in the END GAME now.”

There’s no one that loves discussing realignment more than me, but power conference realignment (at least for the Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12) is over unless Notre Dame decides to drop independence. That’s it. It’s over. Even adding FSU, Clemson, UNC and take your pick of anyone else in the ACC combined wouldn’t bring in the value that simply the pair of UT and OU just brought to the SEC. Hence the total paralysis of any movement from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC over the past year (unlike the 2010-13 timeframe) outside of a non-binding Alliance.

Our realignment talks are going to be focused on the Big 12, G5 and basketball leagues. I have as much vested interest in seeing more big moves from the SEC, Big Ten and other major powers as anyone here, but it’s over. Done. There is NO expansion that’s better than UT and OU alone. NONE. It was a mic drop hammer to power conference realignment.

Getting Texas is the entire end game, NOT the start.

owev

Frank, you are correct when you say a conference, when stable, will not expand unless the new additions make each current conference member more money. I also agree it will be harder for SEC candidates to meet this threshold after the SEC brought in UT and OU. However, I think you may discounting how undervalued Clemson, FSU, and VT are in the ACC. UNC, NCS and UVA, and definitely Miami also have enormous untapped potential.

As to Clemson, FSU and VT, those three football programs specifically would have much higher value playing a SEC schedule the moment the enter SEC conference play. The amount of content they would provide, and market expansion for the conference adding these ready made brands, would be extremely valuable. You would not just be getting what Clemson, FSU and VT are now, you would be getting UGA vs Clemson, FSU vs Auburn, VT vs Tennessee and likely 8 or 9 other highly interesting match-ups. The potential is enormous, and I say would rival the UT and OU additions.

I want to add on to the above to expand on the excellent mouths needing to be fed argument by Frank. I think it is more accurate to analyze the value of the conference and its financial opportunities post expansion than to only look at the value of a particular school. When the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina it was not because their value exceeded the mean of the existing members. It was to get an SEC championship. Future conference expansion cannot be considered, especially in the SEC and the B1G, without considering changes to college football's regular and postseason format. I think we are at the point where they are being considered together right now.

Bottom line, if the SEC was comprised of one half of a 56 team elite highest level tier the per school average of a SEC28 wouldbe > a SEC16, if the top 14 schools throughout the south were added and there were conference playoff expansion and a national playoff expansion.

I do co concede the B1G might be handicapped by their advantages, present per school payouts plus AAU requirements, and might be confined to an alliance with the PAC for purposes of playoff tie-ins and regular season match-ups when it wants them. A lot would have to change out west for the B1G to want to merge because of the differences in conference value.

The future may become a greater SEC and a B1G PAC alliance with hopefully access to a national playoff for other conference champions.

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 04:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, I think the Big Ten would be interested in all of those exact same schools in a vacuum, too. This is sort of the opposite of the UT/OU situation, though. It was probably hard envisioning OU ending up in the Big Ten while it was very easy to see them fit into the SEC. UT could really fit into any conference geographically and academically (which is why they were such a valuable commodity for realignment - they made sense for EVERY conference coast-to-coast). In contrast, I just see no way that Duke would ever choose the SEC over the Big Ten and I'd likely say the same for UVA and Kansas. UNC is different in the sense that they're in a more UT-like position. The thing is that UT's rivals preferred the SEC while UNC's rivals very likely prefer the Big Ten.

I think it's all water under the bridge because of the ACC Grant of Rights agreement, though. We can talk about all of these scenarios of the ACC getting poached all day, but from a legal perspective, the GOR is truly a hammer to prevent schools from getting poached. Like I've said before, UT and OU are having a hard time simply paying an extra year or two of damages in order to be released from the Big 12 GOR agreement... and these are super rich schools going to the super rich SEC. It's not reasonable for any ACC school to be paying a dozen years of those same types of damages in order for the ACC to agree to release them from the GOR. (The term of art to "break the GOR" is NOT a very good way of phrasing it for anyone that wants to discuss this issue. It implies that a school can unilaterally figure out a way to break the contract, which simply isn't true. Instead, it's the conference getting enough money that it's satisfied to agree to release the defecting school from its GOR obligations. ALL of the power is with the conference in GOR agreements.)

Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

This is the most complete super conference for all sports while keeping it largely regional. Baseball, Basketball, and Football are rock solid. Women's hoops, gymnastics and softball are rock solid.

Academics are vastly improved (9 AAU schools).

ESPN can pay this conference top dollar for branding alone and still build a second very solid football conference which could also earn more than the current SEC or Big 12:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Oklahoma State

*Notre Dame

It could really pop if U.S.C. went indy and joined N.D. here.

(06-18-2022 01:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 12:34 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.

That is some serious head in the sand thinking right there. I don't doubt that used to be true, but not anymore. The reality is if any school can join another conference and make 30 million, maybe 50 million dollars more each year they would. It's silly to think otherwise. And please don't bring up endowments, they do not have a thing to do with such decisions.

Of course you have absolutely no proof to support your position nor are you likely to find any. To claim to KNOW what the BOT of every school outside of the B1G and SEC wants is ridiculous.

Everyone wants tens of millions of dollars more per year. To think otherwise is asinine. This is especially true for our fine universities who have shown a clear history of chasing money from media providers, including which conference to join and which schools to Invite into a conference. It is the entire history of modern college football.

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well Frank you are likely to be as shocked as you were with the Texas decision. They've been in talks twice now. UVa I'm inclined to believe could go either way. Kansas will merely take the first firm offer from either. Northern certitude, ain't nothin' like it for entertainment!

Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Georgia-Georgia Tech
Florida-FSU
UNC-NC St.
UVA-Virginia Tech
Kentucky-Louisville

And Texas likes to play games around the country and not only in the SE.

But that leaves a number of those schools only one game to play with and that will be a buy game against a SB, CUSA, MAC or FCS school.

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 08:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Frank's point regarding additions must make more money for current members is legit, but college football and basketball is still under valued compared to what it could be worth that it would be smart to acquire the most valuable pieces on the board when you can. For example, if there is going to be a breakaway of the top 48, 56 or 64 schools, and the SEC could expand it's membership to one half that total so it would be one of the two conferencs remaiing, then the SEC would be wise to take the best 8, 14 or even 16 schools. And leave the B1G aligned with the PAC and a few others outside the SEC's territory.

When Frank says conferences hold the power in the Grant of Rights negotiations he was referring to a school's ability to leave the conference. But the network has power too because the school cannot go to another conference the network does not own.the rights to another conference. That means there is zero chance any school goes to the B1G as long as there is an ACC until the ACC's grant of rights has expired. It might be unlikely that any ACC school can go the SEC during the ACC's grant of rights but the chances are not zero.

I think UNC has decided if the are going to leave the ACC it will be to go to the SEC. All of the tea leaves say Tar Heels to the SEC. FSU definitely has.

UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 11:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  UNC and Duke will move as a pair. Like they discussed in 2011, and allegedly last July. They prefer to keep the ACC as is, but if that isn't in the cards they'll keep things close to home and remain part of Southern culture. Virginia likely opts to stay with them. ESPN will have a lot of influence because they are in position to line things up before anyone knows of formal plans, like they did with Oklahoma's T3 package and with Texas. This won't be a wait until 2035 issue especially if the NCAA is left behind and pay for play becomes a reality.

20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia.

NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and
NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

WV might be a must get despite their academics because the northeast quadrant needs needs more beef. I mean, did Tennessee pay you to design the divisions? :) Their rivalry with VT and natural rivalry possibilities with Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia worth make for good TV.

How can you bring in Duke and Kansas for basketball but not include Louisville? Forbes has them rated as the second most valuable college basketball school. All three can make a SEC28 and are the only three basketball first schools that could move the niddle enough to get an invite, though there are arguments against the inclusion of all three.

It is important to consider the economic value Duke, Kansas and Louisville could bring to SEC football. While they often are competitive in particular games they usually generate a lot of Ls for themselves and Ws for the rest of yous. Those Ws are worth a lot of money to the conference. If those three averaged 4 wins in a 15 game regular season that is 33 Ws to the other schools. Not every conference member can be a giant, and these three loosing more that winning could be the difference in several other schools having a winning season or not. The great thing about these three is the strenght of schedule respite and extra wins for orher schools in football and tremendous value added to the conference in basketball.

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  20 makes it a LOT harder to do reasonable scheduling. There are too many rivalries that would no longer be annual affairs. You just can't split the conference to keep them with only a 9 game schedule. (Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Florida-Tennessee are the most problematic) And i don't see the schools tying themselves up with a 10 game conference schedule. And I don't see them splitting into two 10 team divisions and essentially kicking LSU and the Mississippi schools out of the SEC division.

24 might work, but its a lot more difficult with Texas and Oklahoma than if they added everyone from the ACC. You would have to have some odd geography, kind of a donut hole with the old SEC schools together.

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

(06-18-2022 01:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 12:34 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:40 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  My rationale for the SEC remaining at 16 members in 2030…

The next ideal expansion scenario for the SEC is to diversify into basketball/all-sports, as well as grow into North Carolina and Virginia. So long as there is a reasonable shot at UNC, the SEC can afford to wait until the opportunity presents itself. UNC is currently unwilling (mainly due to relationships with ACC brethren, especially Duke and UVa) and unable (via GOR financial commitments through 2036) to fully explore this option.

IMO - if the GOR were not a factor and UNC was actually interested in leaving the ACC, UNC loses a lot of value if it separates itself from Duke. There are wonderful value-creation media synergies from having elite universities battling in truly competitive rivalry games (and this formula has worked for decades). Duke’s athletics success and potential is underrated in this forum because of the overwhelming focus on football.

What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.

That is some serious head in the sand thinking right there. I don't doubt that used to be true, but not anymore. The reality is if any school can join another conference and make 30 million, maybe 50 million dollars more each year they would. It's silly to think otherwise. And please don't bring up endowments, they do not have a thing to do with such decisions.

Of course you have absolutely no proof to support your position nor are you likely to find any. To claim to KNOW what the BOT of every school outside of the B1G and SEC wants is ridiculous.

Lance, since when has any of the "knowledge" you've graced this board with ever come to fruition?

Weren't Texas and Baylor supposed to join the ACC?

I'll wait.

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia

You play 4 in your division, you play 1 permanent rival from each other division and you rotate 1 from each other division annually alternating home and away on the cycle completion.

With 10 conference games everyone plays everyone else every 4 years.

Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

(06-18-2022 03:52 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

I understand your point of view. I simply don't think the solution will be as monolithic as money. And finding a solution which appeases those which would have options should 2035 arrive without a solution, and isolating competition, and still selling the moves to presidents at Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, A&M, and Texas as well as those at Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma will be essential. Now add to that mix the Head Coaches who think we may be getting too strong and you find harmony outside of just money.

Who is it that blocks the most reasonable football additions in the ACC? Which ACC schools tout elitism? You remove the obstacle with cash and other elite associations which don't require abandonment of rivalries and regional culture and which do not pose a major threat to their key sport.

With Duke along UNC keeps NC State OOC in football and Wake easily in hoops. And UNC elevates themselves even more over both. It's all in the "Art of the Deal". ESPN keeps what they want, regional advertising dominance. They hold all the product they've built. They have room left for major steals of dissatisfied properties in other conferences.

I find certain prospects interesting. I'm also considering Kliavkoff's statement that the P5 by itself might be too small of a governance structure. When you consider the repetition of games and the aforementioned notion of certain schools needing more wins, certain things make more sense.

The SEC at 28 makes a lot of sense although I've always thought 24 was where this was headed because it meant the inclusion of enough rivals and enough content under one roof that it has the potential to maximize bang for the buck.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas.

16+12=28

There's a lot of potential value in these combinations regardless of the structural setup. It also fulfills Jay Bilas' prophecy. :D

There's a lot of Spring sport value in there as well even if some of these schools aren't big Winter draws. I think baseball and softball are going to become more valuable nationally. ESPN has been pumping a lot of energy into the sports, but if they deregulate scholarships in those sports and if MLB continues to pare down their investment in minor league baseball then this could become a fairly significant profit venture.

As to JR's point about strengthening the Big 12, I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. Let's keep in mind that the ACC disintegrating will leave Notre Dame without a home and their inertia is strong enough to buoy just about any conference. How about this?

After departures, Big 12 = BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, and UCF. Throw USF and Memphis in there if need be.

What if Notre Dame takes a partial deal with them? That league is pretty stable.

Now what if USC takes a partial deal with the PAC 12? Maybe the PAC adds UNLV or Colorado State as a 12th full member.

What if ESPN rebuilds the traditional Big East?

Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, UConn, Temple, and Wake Forest could form the nucleus of a Big East football league that is partnered with the basketball league. Basketball becoming more profitable in this environment is key, but it's also important to find a place for the remaining ACC schools. This would be an easy way to incorporate the Big East back into the Power conference paradigm. Their champion get s berth in the CFP.

But yes, the key here is making sure the CFP is a fair bit bigger while simultaneously wrestling the control of basketball away from the NCAA.

(06-18-2022 03:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 01:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 12:34 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 10:07 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  What some seem to not understand is that every school except ND presently wants to be in the SEC or B1G, or if they do not it's because they think it's geographically unworkable due to geography. The difference between conference payouts to these two conferences' schools now dwarfs every other school, ND included. The question is which schools do the SEC and B1G, if any.

Imo, any talk of expansion by the SEC or B1G must include at least an expansion of the playoffs and an expansion of regular season games, which is more feasible now that players are getting paid, both in conjunction of either an acutual separation by this two conferences or a de facto separation that includes a payoff that is more inclusive to other conferences. With the presnt money disparity and so much more that can be realized it is hard not to think this isn't the future.

Untrue.
These schools might want B1G money (or the projected SEC money) but I seriously doubt that many if any of the schools in the ACC or PAC actually want to be in the B1G or the SEC.

That is some serious head in the sand thinking right there. I don't doubt that used to be true, but not anymore. The reality is if any school can join another conference and make 30 million, maybe 50 million dollars more each year they would. It's silly to think otherwise. And please don't bring up endowments, they do not have a thing to do with such decisions.

Of course you have absolutely no proof to support your position nor are you likely to find any. To claim to KNOW what the BOT of every school outside of the B1G and SEC wants is ridiculous.

Lance, since when has any of the "knowledge" you've graced this board with ever come to fruition?

Weren't Texas and Baylor supposed to join the ACC?

I'll wait.

No, I imagined that Oklahoma and Baylor would be perfect additions for the SEC.
Texas would have been a great addition for the ACC but unfortunately they chose another path.

(06-18-2022 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:52 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

I understand your point of view. I simply don't think the solution will be as monolithic as money. And finding a solution which appeases those which would have options should 2035 arrive without a solution, and isolating competition, and still selling the moves to presidents at Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, A&M, and Texas as well as those at Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma will be essential. Now add to that mix the Head Coaches who think we may be getting too strong and you find harmony outside of just money.

Who is it that blocks the most reasonable football additions in the ACC? Which ACC schools tout elitism? You remove the obstacle with cash and other elite associations which don't require abandonment of rivalries and regional culture and which do not pose a major threat to their key sport.

With Duke along UNC keeps NC State OOC in football and Wake easily in hoops. And UNC elevates themselves even more over both. It's all in the "Art of the Deal". ESPN keeps what they want, regional advertising dominance. They hold all the product they've built. They have room left for major steals of dissatisfied properties in other conferences.

Both Slive and Sankey described what the conference desired in expansion candidates was large public schools with large fan basis. That sounds more like NCS than Duke. UNC would not get to decide who it gets to bring along, but the board of trustees that oversees both the UNC and NCS boards do. So do politicians. Do you think they would favor a small private school getting a golden ticket over either of the public schools? UNC must play Duke but not be in a conference with them.

As to the SEC side of the equation, which is the side that matters, Duke has certain things going against it. First, their basketball success has almost entirely been under Coach K. There is no guarantee that Duke will be a basketball brand in 10 years. Probably, but no guarantee. Second, they're small. Large fan bases provide sufficient fan attendance and viewership even in bad years. Third, they would be the third invite from the same state. It would be hard to go with 3 schools from the same state, except maybe Texas or Florida. It's possible Duke gets a SEC invite but not to a SEC24 or less conference.

We agree that blocking the B1G is imperative, but want happens if VT gets AAU status shortly after UVA joins the SEC, which could certainly happen. Then B1G is not blocked. Taking both Virginia schools is the only way to block the B1G. The B1G is not going to leap frog the State of Virginia to get a small private school no matter how academically prestigious or how good it's basketball has been the last 25 years.

Money is what matters the most. So does cultural fit and geography. Academics is a tiebreaker. When the SEC was courting TAMU, the SEC had WV waiting as a possible second, then Mizzou popped up and said what about us? Mizzou's academics trumped WV's so they got the invite.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Duke's academics in the conference, and I'm sure we would crow about how academically better we are with them and the other additions if they were made members, but academics do not get you the golden ticket. Too much money is at stake and no one wants to watch Duke football.

(06-18-2022 04:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I find certain prospects interesting. I'm also considering Kliavkoff's statement that the P5 by itself might be too small of a governance structure. When you consider the repetition of games and the aforementioned notion of certain schools needing more wins, certain things make more sense.

The SEC at 28 makes a lot of sense although I've always thought 24 was where this was headed because it meant the inclusion of enough rivals and enough content under one roof that it has the potential to maximize bang for the buck.

Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas.

16+12=28

There's a lot of potential value in these combinations regardless of the structural setup. It also fulfills Jay Bilas' prophecy. :D

There's a lot of Spring sport value in there as well even if some of these schools aren't big Winter draws. I think baseball and softball are going to become more valuable nationally. ESPN has been pumping a lot of energy into the sports, but if they deregulate scholarships in those sports and if MLB continues to pare down their investment in minor league baseball then this could become a fairly significant profit venture.

As to JR's point about strengthening the Big 12, I don't think these ideas are mutually exclusive. Let's keep in mind that the ACC disintegrating will leave Notre Dame without a home and their inertia is strong enough to buoy just about any conference. How about this?

After departures, Big 12 = BYU, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Houston, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, and UCF. Throw USF and Memphis in there if need be.

What if Notre Dame takes a partial deal with them? That league is pretty stable.

Now what if USC takes a partial deal with the PAC 12? Maybe the PAC adds UNLV or Colorado State as a 12th full member.

What if ESPN rebuilds the traditional Big East?

Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, UConn, Temple, and Wake Forest could form the nucleus of a Big East football league that is partnered with the basketball league. Basketball becoming more profitable in this environment is key, but it's also important to find a place for the remaining ACC schools. This would be an easy way to incorporate the Big East back into the Power conference paradigm. Their champion get s berth in the CFP.

But yes, the key here is making sure the CFP is a fair bit bigger while simultaneously wrestling the control of basketball away from the NCAA.

Kansas is a wildcard. If the B1G gets ND then they are probably number 16 into the B1G. Their basketball would be great but they would be the biggest stretch culturally by far. The southern half of Mizzou is southern, none of Kansas is.

Don't be surprised if #28 isn't Oklahoma State. They were not invited to the SEC16 for good reasons; but at 28 all conference members get their biggest in state rival, Bedlam is an SEC property and geographically they are a great fit for OU, Arky and Mizzou. Their athletics are strong across the board also.

(06-18-2022 04:54 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:52 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

I understand your point of view. I simply don't think the solution will be as monolithic as money. And finding a solution which appeases those which would have options should 2035 arrive without a solution, and isolating competition, and still selling the moves to presidents at Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, A&M, and Texas as well as those at Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma will be essential. Now add to that mix the Head Coaches who think we may be getting too strong and you find harmony outside of just money.

Who is it that blocks the most reasonable football additions in the ACC? Which ACC schools tout elitism? You remove the obstacle with cash and other elite associations which don't require abandonment of rivalries and regional culture and which do not pose a major threat to their key sport.

With Duke along UNC keeps NC State OOC in football and Wake easily in hoops. And UNC elevates themselves even more over both. It's all in the "Art of the Deal". ESPN keeps what they want, regional advertising dominance. They hold all the product they've built. They have room left for major steals of dissatisfied properties in other conferences.

Both Slive and Sankey described what the conference desired in expansion candidates eas large public schools with large fan basis. That sounds more like NCS than Duke. UNC would not get to decide who it gets to bring along, bug the board of trustees that oversees both the UNC and NCS boards do. So do politicians. Do you think they would favor a small private school getting a golden ticket over either of the public schools? UNC must play Suke but not be in a conference with them.

As to the SEC side of the equation, which is the side that matters; Duke has certain things going against it. First, their basketball success has almost entirely been under Coach K. There is no guarantee that Duke will be a basketball brand in 10 years. Probably, but no guarantee. Second, they're small. Large fan bases provide sufficient fan attendance and viewership even in bad years. Third, they would be the third invite from the same state. It would be hard to go with 3 schools from the same state, except maybe Texas or Florida. It's possible Duke gets a SEC invite but not to a SEC24 or less conference.




We agree that blocking the B1G is imperative, but want happens if VT gets AAU status shortly after UVA joins the SEC, which could certainly happen. Then B1G is not blocked. Taking both Virginia schools is the only way to block the B1G. The B1G is mot going to leap frog the State of Virginia to get a small private school no matter how academically prestigious or how good it's basketball has been the last 25 years.

Money is what matters the most. So does cultural fit and geography. Academics is a tiebreaker. When the SEC was courting TAMU, the SEC had WV waiting as a possible second, then Mizzou popped up and said what about us? Mizzou's academics trumped WV's so they got the invite.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Duke's academics in the conference, and I'm sure we would crow about how academically better we are with them and the other additions if they were made members, but the overall benefit academics do not get you the golden ticket. Too much money is at stake and no one wants to watch Duke football.

The Board of Governors oversees all 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. This board is made up of political appointees. All of them know the importance of the RTP to the North Carolina economy. Their decisions will reflect what's best for the entire state, not for any one or two institutions.

(06-18-2022 11:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 11:12 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:38 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve heard a lot of people say that Clemson and Florida St are more valuable to ESPN in the ACC than the SEC. This is only true if ESPN controls them both and is getting a discount rate

on ACC content. If The ACC moves to another network and suddenly FOX/NBC/CBS have advertising access to southern college football fans, ruining the ESPN monopoly, then that’s not such a good deal for the mouse.

In order to maintain control of the south I think ESPN is going to have to facilitate the move of the ACC’s top brands to the SEC.

At that point it won’t matter who has the rights to the ACC—it will be so stripped of market share that ESPN won’t care if they retain it on the cheap or if someone else does.

The value of Clemson and FSU playing their SEC neighbors cannot be underestimated and would dwarf whatever value ESPN still had to pay the ACC. Those two schools playing any of the top half or more of the current SEC16 would be bank. That would be 5 games per year against the historical better SEC teams every year. Half of those games would be against schools that have been rivals, or at least geographical adversaries in recruiting, for generations. Look at the map. Fans would certainly travel and not only fill stadiums but parking lots around stadiums for generations to come. It would be must see tv.

Sankey would be a damn fool to let the B1G inside the SEC footprint. If anyone inside the SEC headquarters thinks it's a good idea to allow the B1G to get UNC or UVA they should be shown the door yesterday. Creating a lawful monopoly across the South must be the prime directive. Claim the value pieces while such are affordable. The end game is not Texas and OU. The end game is owning one half of a NFL lite league.

As of right now ESPN does own 30/64th of the P5 plus 5/12th of Notre Dame football and all of the rest of the Irish Athletic department (except Ice Hockey).

This, of course does not include the Big 12 rights that ESPN shares with FOX until 2025.

Not true, Lance.

ND only plays 2 road games some years against ACC opponents. Some years it plays 3.

So, it is more like 2/12 or 3/12, not 5/12.

(06-18-2022 05:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 04:54 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:52 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

I understand your point of view. I simply don't think the solution will be as monolithic as money. And finding a solution which appeases those which would have options should 2035 arrive without a solution, and isolating competition, and still selling the moves to presidents at Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, A&M, and Texas as well as those at Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma will be essential. Now add to that mix the Head Coaches who think we may be getting too strong and you find harmony outside of just money.

Who is it that blocks the most reasonable football additions in the ACC? Which ACC schools tout elitism? You remove the obstacle with cash and other elite associations which don't require abandonment of rivalries and regional culture and which do not pose a major threat to their key sport.

With Duke along UNC keeps NC State OOC in football and Wake easily in hoops. And UNC elevates themselves even more over both. It's all in the "Art of the Deal". ESPN keeps what they want, regional advertising dominance. They hold all the product they've built. They have room left for major steals of dissatisfied properties in other conferences.

Both Slive and Sankey described what the conference desired in expansion candidates eas large public schools with large fan basis. That sounds more like NCS than Duke. UNC would not get to decide who it gets to bring along, bug the board of trustees that oversees both the UNC and NCS boards do. So do politicians. Do you think they would favor a small private school getting a golden ticket over either of the public schools? UNC must play Suke but not be in a conference with them.

As to the SEC side of the equation, which is the side that matters; Duke has certain things going against it. First, their basketball success has almost entirely been under Coach K. There is no guarantee that Duke will be a basketball brand in 10 years. Probably, but no guarantee. Second, they're small. Large fan bases provide sufficient fan attendance and viewership even in bad years. Third, they would be the third invite from the same state. It would be hard to go with 3 schools from the same state, except maybe Texas or Florida. It's possible Duke gets a SEC invite but not to a SEC24 or less conference.




We agree that blocking the B1G is imperative, but want happens if VT gets AAU status shortly after UVA joins the SEC, which could certainly happen. Then B1G is not blocked. Taking both Virginia schools is the only way to block the B1G. The B1G is mot going to leap frog the State of Virginia to get a small private school no matter how academically prestigious or how good it's basketball has been the last 25 years.

Money is what matters the most. So does cultural fit and geography. Academics is a tiebreaker. When the SEC was courting TAMU, the SEC had WV waiting as a possible second, then Mizzou popped up and said what about us? Mizzou's academics trumped WV's so they got the invite.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC would love to have Duke's academics in the conference, and I'm sure we would crow about how academically better we are with them and the other additions if they were made members, but the overall benefit academics do not get you the golden ticket. Too much money is at stake and no one wants to watch Duke football.

The Board of Governors oversees all 16 campuses of the University of North Carolina system. This board is made up of political appointees. All of them know the importance of the RTP to the North Carolina economy. Their decisions will reflect what's best for the entire state, not for any one or two institutions.

Which is why they will accept the SEC/ESPN offer. If Duke and UNC headed to the B1G with Virginia 1 state school gets taken care of, one. NC State loses money in a diminished ACC. There is not enough brand and market value for the SEC to take them. At that point the SEC safeguards the Deep South with Clemson, FSU, Ga Tech and to cut off Florida, perhaps Miami. Without games or access to the Deep South we strangle North Carolina and Virginia's recruiting and your in state rivals dwindle. Which means no games in Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana or Florida. We need those games for any new schools and any OOC games for those who work with us. And, I don't think ESPN would go out of their way to help either state out. The impact would be upon NC State and ECU. The others are negligibly impacted either way.

Your remark while true is comical. The real impact of any decision impacts 3 state schools potentially. Are there some viable workarounds? Sure, but all of them favor the SEC. And they were all hashed out in 2011. Nothing has changed, not even UNC donor sentiment. UNC's concern in 2011 was a spot for Duke, not Woofie. I prefer Virginia Tech but no UNC means no Tech, no NC State, and no interest in the area. I would jump on UNC, Va Tech and nobody else. Those are two ratings leaders. If the Big 10 took UVa and Duke great! The issue isn't SEC desires, it's ESPN's desire to hold onto the key schools whose rights it holds. And X, UNC contacted us both times, not the other way around.

The option for 14 more seasons is piss poor revenue or change as it benefits ESPN. That XLance is the whole gamut of options available to your board of governors.

The SEC has a viable plan either way. We're just waiting on you!