(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  How will it act with the albatross of a contract?

What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.

Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

lol the ACC's GoR is #3. The ACC would very likely already look a lot different right now if it ended in 2026 and not 2036.

The pied Pieper leading all blue chip teams into one place…

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  How will it act with the albatross of a contract?

What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.

Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

1.) not in pay or perception with a forgotten/unwatched championship game. It is nothing more than conference that has schools yet to go to P2.

2.) it is FAR more inefficient to have 4 conferences. Particularly one that is in the apathetic west without USC and another that is largely coterminous with the P2. Off-brand everywhere except Northeast. It also means more conference scheduling constraints preventing the desired matchups, more schools. It’s worse product identification. Worse for those outside the P2, as one conference can be the “other guy” at the top. Multiple conferences is just the other division. Fox is not interested in non-P2 schools, and ESPN having 3 conferences is inefficient.

Consolidation will continue so there’s a north-south P2, it just may take awhile if an OTA has a Big 16. Or not, if ESPN cashes out of it’s regrettable ACC long position.

(08-06-2022 07:47 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

1.) not in pay or perception with a forgotten/unwatched championship game. It is nothing more than conference that has schools yet to go to P2.

2.) it is FAR more inefficient to have 4 conferences. Particularly one that is in the apathetic west without USC and another that is largely coterminous with the P2. Off-brand everywhere except Northeast. It also means more conference scheduling constraints preventing the desired matchups, more schools. It’s worse product identification. Worse for those outside the P2, as one conference can be the “other guy” at the top. Multiple conferences is just the other division. Fox is not interested in non-P2 schools, and ESPN having 3 conferences is inefficient.

Consolidation will continue so there’s a north-south P2, it just may take awhile if an OTA has a Big 16. Or not, if ESPN cashes out of it’s regrettable ACC long position.

Do you think 2 24 school P2 SEC and BIG (48 schools) would be more valuable to the networks than 5 16 P5 conferences SEC, BIG, ACC, PAC, Big12 (80 schools).

(08-06-2022 07:33 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

lol the ACC's GoR is #3. The ACC would very likely already look a lot different right now if it ended in 2026 and not 2036.

But it doesn't........and they are!

(08-06-2022 07:47 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

1.) not in pay or perception with a forgotten/unwatched championship game. It is nothing more than conference that has schools yet to go to P2.

2.) it is FAR more inefficient to have 4 conferences. Particularly one that is in the apathetic west without USC and another that is largely coterminous with the P2. Off-brand everywhere except Northeast. It also means more conference scheduling constraints preventing the desired matchups, more schools. It’s worse product identification. Worse for those outside the P2, as one conference can be the “other guy” at the top. Multiple conferences is just the other division. Fox is not interested in non-P2 schools, and ESPN having 3 conferences is inefficient.

Consolidation will continue so there’s a north-south P2, it just may take awhile if an OTA has a Big 16. Or not, if ESPN cashes out of it’s regrettable ACC long position.

1: To whom? Accountants? Clemson beating Alabama or Ohio State is not an upset. Miami getting back on track with the Monopoly Man should have their neighbors shook. The fact UNC is raking in the recruiting classes they are is utterly shocking considering the stadium size and the basketball crazy fanbase.

Most ACC fans have been preaching the top brands need to get back to consistency. FSU has the perfect opportunity to do that next season with a coach in Mississippi.

(08-06-2022 08:55 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:47 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

1.) not in pay or perception with a forgotten/unwatched championship game. It is nothing more than conference that has schools yet to go to P2.

2.) it is FAR more inefficient to have 4 conferences. Particularly one that is in the apathetic west without USC and another that is largely coterminous with the P2. Off-brand everywhere except Northeast. It also means more conference scheduling constraints preventing the desired matchups, more schools. It’s worse product identification. Worse for those outside the P2, as one conference can be the “other guy” at the top. Multiple conferences is just the other division. Fox is not interested in non-P2 schools, and ESPN having 3 conferences is inefficient.

Consolidation will continue so there’s a north-south P2, it just may take awhile if an OTA has a Big 16. Or not, if ESPN cashes out of it’s regrettable ACC long position.

Do you think 2 24 school P2 SEC and BIG (48 schools) would be more valuable to the networks than 5 16 P5 conferences SEC, BIG, ACC, PAC, Big12 (80 schools).

A P2 of 40 or 48 schools, split north-south, BIG vs SEC is far more valuable to ESPN and Fox. It’s already a P2 era, it’s just a matter of how many schools are relevant and included in that tent. The networks want polarity as much as possible. I don’t think they really want the others, outside of avoiding potential legal issues and having mass over the other networks during the disruption of postseasons (although espn could be looking for a new conference given the ACC voted with Fox). .

5 conferences of 80 schools isn’t consolidation, it’s cannibalism and dilution. It misses on the macro benefits of the P2

If there are two middle class conferences, it is as a precursor to separation. Top level Big vs SEC. the rest, who cares.

A P3 setup may not stop that, but a near step change of nearly all leftover P5s in a singular “other guy” conference in which decades of CFB seeing these programs as mostly peers can be leveraged. That’s very fleeting, and already diminished. That singular block of 24 schools needs to be working now to get spots at the table in CFP. It will be harder for P2 to push around that group than two or three weak conferences.

If it’s a 48 P2, there’s room for a few selective G5 schools in 3rd, but that widens the gap between P2 and 3rd.

(08-06-2022 10:48 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 08:55 AM)AztecNation Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:47 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

1-The ACC is already the undisputed #3.

2-The networks don't want a P3, they want a clear delineation of east/west and north/south (P4). It also save them a lot of money. Why pay two 24 team leagues top dollar and one "other" 24 team league a lesser amount, when they could market to 4 distinct areas of the country while only paying 2 sixteen team leagues top dollar and two "other" sixteen or eighteen team leagues a lesser but acceptable amount?

1.) not in pay or perception with a forgotten/unwatched championship game. It is nothing more than conference that has schools yet to go to P2.

2.) it is FAR more inefficient to have 4 conferences. Particularly one that is in the apathetic west without USC and another that is largely coterminous with the P2. Off-brand everywhere except Northeast. It also means more conference scheduling constraints preventing the desired matchups, more schools. It’s worse product identification. Worse for those outside the P2, as one conference can be the “other guy” at the top. Multiple conferences is just the other division. Fox is not interested in non-P2 schools, and ESPN having 3 conferences is inefficient.

Consolidation will continue so there’s a north-south P2, it just may take awhile if an OTA has a Big 16. Or not, if ESPN cashes out of it’s regrettable ACC long position.

Do you think 2 24 school P2 SEC and BIG (48 schools) would be more valuable to the networks than 5 16 P5 conferences SEC, BIG, ACC, PAC, Big12 (80 schools).

A P2 of 40 or 48 schools, split north-south, BIG vs SEC is far more valuable to ESPN and Fox. It’s already a P2 era, it’s just a matter of how many schools are relevant and included in that tent. The networks want polarity as much as possible. I don’t think they really want the others, outside of avoiding potential legal issues and having mass over the other networks during the disruption of postseasons (although espn could be looking for a new conference given the ACC voted with Fox). .

5 conferences of 80 schools isn’t consolidation, it’s cannibalism and dilution. It misses on the macro benefits of the P2

If there are two middle class conferences, it is as a precursor to separation. Top level Big vs SEC. the rest, who cares.

A P3 setup may not stop that, but a near step change of nearly all leftover P5s in a singular “other guy” conference in which decades of CFB seeing these programs as mostly peers can be leveraged. That’s very fleeting, and already diminished. That singular block of 24 schools needs to be working now to get spots at the table in CFP. It will be harder for P2 to push around that group than two or three weak conferences.

If it’s a 48 P2, there’s room for a few selective G5 schools in 3rd, but that widens the gap between P2 and 3rd.

Just a few things.

1. The ACC is #3 but it’s not undisputable at this point. Just a month ago, I debated with some posters who believed the Pac 12 had been a clear #3. The ACC is underpaid for its value. A small pay raise at the expense of other conference(s) would be helpful.

2. Yes, the P2 era will officially start in 2025 (earlier if UT and OU can leave the B12 early). But, two 24 school P2 won’t happen unless they adopt a serious unequal revenue sharing because there are not that many non P2 schools that would raise the average payout. I repeat this many times. UO, and UW doesn’t bring enough value. I seriously doubt UNC or UVa would either. The only real candidates are ND and ND’s tag along (Stanford?) and maybe FSU/Miami/GT.

3. That doesn’t mean that consolidation at the next level won’t happen. The media always want to save money but the P12 and the B12 doesn’t want to get a big paycut. As noted by many B12 posters, the P12 is not a good platform. The west coast market is smaller although they offer the valuable late evening programmings. The efficient strategy for the media is to move the West Coast schools to other conferences so the other conferences can provide the late night programmings. The best west coast schools (USC, UCLA, and hopefully Stanford) go to the BIG. The next level schools may join the ACC and some of the leftover P12 schools may be acquired by the B12.

4. I personally hope the ACC go big by adding six schools (Cincy and 5 from Pac or 4 from pac plus one Texas school). This means 20 football schools with the west wing (5 pac schools or 4 pac plus one Texas sdhool) and they can play 4-5-5-5.

(08-05-2022 09:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 12's network is ESPN+. Conference networks are a dying model. The ACC is anchored to a mediocre one. It is also anchored to a long term contract. Its not going to make notably more and because it is tied up for another 14 years, will probably make less than the Pac and Big 12.

The Big 12 and Pac 12 are further ahead of the G schools than they are behind the P2. And they are basically even with the ACC. Only an idiot would think the ACC is on a different tier. But ACC administrators did trust John Swofford.....

So… leagues that lost USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M are now even with The ACC who lost Maryland.

(08-06-2022 01:18 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 09:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 12's network is ESPN+. Conference networks are a dying model. The ACC is anchored to a mediocre one. It is also anchored to a long term contract. Its not going to make notably more and because it is tied up for another 14 years, will probably make less than the Pac and Big 12.

The Big 12 and Pac 12 are further ahead of the G schools than they are behind the P2. And they are basically even with the ACC. Only an idiot would think the ACC is on a different tier. But ACC administrators did trust John Swofford.....

So… leagues that lost USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M are now even with The ACC who lost Maryland.

Maybe that is the ACC's problem. They don't understand that. And you might not have noticed, but the ACC has lost FSU and Miami. FSU hasn't been ranked since 2016. Miami has only been ranked 4 times since 2005 and never higher than #13. They haven't won a division title in the ACC. Boston College, Wake Forest, Notre Dame who isn't even in the conference, Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Pitt have all made the ccg. Miami is with NCSU, Syracuse, and relative newby Louisville who haven't made it.

P2 $80 to $100 million
A3 $25-$40 million
G5 100k-$7 million

(08-05-2022 05:42 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 01:36 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

Act how?

ACC is #3 because they still have a couple of top tier teams in Clemson and FSU. The problem is that all other top tier targets are now in the BIG or SEC.

If we presume that the ACC can't steal from the BIG/SEC, which most of us agree with...

Then there is no hypothetical upside for the ACC, only downside. There is no one to steal that gets it out of 3rd. It can either stay the same and stay the 3rd, or lose teams and drop. Most of us see that as an eventuality, even if it's not for another decade.

And if/when the ACC loses its top brands, it's hard to see it being above #5. They will still have their basketball brands, but Kansas is still in the Big 12 for a reason.

(08-05-2022 12:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:49 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-05-2022 11:34 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  People on this board doesn’t want to believe, but the ACC is third in the pecking order (as the article indicates) and will act soon instead of waiting until it loses some members.

How will it act with the albatross of a contract?

What does ESPN want? What the ACC wants is mostly irrelevant at this point.

Both parites want money. If there is a realistic move that can enrich both parties, then they will do it.

I just cant figure out how it would ever make sense for ESPN. They have all the SEC and its a great league. They have all the ACC---and its a great league---and--better yet---ESPN has the ACC locked up for what is looking like an incredibly cheap long term price. When the realignment goal from BOTH the ACC and SEC is getting more money from ESPN and ESPN already owns the rights to every single school in both conferences---hard to see where there is going to be much enthusiasm for that project from ESPN. Now, once that ACC contract and GOR expire---then yeah---ESPN would be very interested---but I cant imagine they would be interested until that time.

People on this board talked a lot about B12 adding eight schools from the Pac but for some reason cannot fathom the idea of the Pac schools joining the ACC.

ESPN gave a low ball offer to Pac. It seems like Pac wants a lot more than. What if ESPN moves some of the valuable Pac schools to ACC?

1. ESPN will continue to have a coverage in the West Coast and the games for Pacific time zone. ESPN will drop the remaining Pac schools or give them very low payout, meaning some cost reduction for ESPN.

2. The ACC schools will get a few million dollar raise. Not much but still better than no raise. The move will also solidify the ACC’s status as undisputable #3 and provide the conference a better playoff access.

3. For the Pac schools moving to ACC, the ACC money, while much lower than the SEC money or BIG money, would be still a lot better than B12 money or Pac money. Again the playoff access will be a consideration for those schools.

We have all seen this movie before. What happened to the Big East after the ESPN had moved Pitt and Cuse to the ACC? The ESPN pays peanuts to AAC now.

Most people understand geography. A lot of us understand the GOR and a contract that lasts until 2036.

When you have a $100 million contract, geography is not a big issue. When you are 1/3 of that and offering about the same as a geographically friendly conference, an Atlantic & Pacific conference makes no sense. The Pac 12 and ACC quickly figured that out. And with a contract they are stuck with for 14 more years, the ACC has limited incentives to offer.

A P3 is a delusion. First, they won't be worth as much as the P2. Second any school in that group would join the Big 10 or SEC anytime they could. And without FSU, Clemson, Miami, there's not a clear king. And Washington and Oregon would probably be gone too. So you are left with a coast to coast mess.

Best case is a P2 + A2 mezzanine basically divided by the Mississippi.

There are 36 schools between the A3, 19 West of the Mississippi and 17 East.