Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
Author Message
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 06:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 09:45 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  
(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  
(08-09-2022 11:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Here's the thing: the ACC was actually "proactive" in getting the GOR and long-term ESPN contract into place.

They're serving their intended purpose: keeping the conference together!

Remember that the ACC feared that there were going to be more defectors from the league after Maryland went to the Big Ten, so that's why the league signed the GOR and entered into such a long-term deal with ESPN. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson signed off on the GOR and long-term ESPN deal because they cared more about the security of the league than flexibility in seeking other conference options as free agents. The fact that it's now a disadvantage to those schools a few years later doesn't mean that the GOR and ESPN contract aren't doing *exactly* what they're supposed to do.

I'm constantly perplexed by people's surprise that conferences are set up to protect the "screwed" (e.g. Wake Forest and similarly situated schools at the bottom of the ACC totem pole) as opposed to advantaging the "screwers". Bylaws and contracts are create to *protect* the conference in virtually every way possible as opposed to finding loopholes or easy ways to destroy them. Schools like FSU, UNC and Clemson can't turn around and get mad at the ACC for not being "proactive" when the league took the exact steps that it needed to in order to preserve the league after the Maryland defection.

Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

An insular nature around the core leaders has been resistant to many opportunities which less threatened conferences would have been open. If you only add that which does not challenge the status quo, what are your chances at real growth. FSU has been the exception to this rule. It was a large State school in a large State. IMO, this is why FSU has been the whipping boy for a core which can't overcome its own fears, or its need to rule in what is supposed to be a confederation of equals.

This is just spin. It’s the value of Tier 1 media content that is driving the explosion of payouts. The B1G has Ohio State and Michigan anchoring its offering; the SEC has Alabama and Georgia (plus Florida & LSU). The B12 had Texas and Oklahoma as foundational pieces, and couldn’t keep-up in this round of realignment. The PAC had the Rocky Mountains protecting its turf, and couldn’t retain its two best brands.

You can criticize the country club nature of the ACC core for many things, but you’re missing the forrest for the trees. Schools can extract more money from media by consolidating brands. The B1G and SEC have always had the best football foundations to consolidate these brands.

And you are simply making an excuse after reading the last post in a thread in which the discussion includes a lot more history than simply this set of moves. Mistakes made because of the insular nature of the old core of the ACC go back 30 years and are consistent. Spin that! Only one addition challenged the small private-ish nature of the ACC in any kind of major way, FSU, and that was only because the ACC recognized the growth potential in Florida.

Boston College and Syracuse were small privates. Pitt was a smallish private/state hybrid. Miami was a smallish private. Virginia Tech was not but was helped by Virginia for state reasons.

When you lost a solid state school in Maryland only then did you miss your M.O. and take Louisville. Even Georgia Tech was a smallish state elite school.

All of it speaks to the nature of staying within a comfort zone for what Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest are. Clemson and N.C. State simply missed the boat when the So Con broke up and then mostly due to geography, state ties, and ease of transportation in what was truly a different era.

Why did you not pursue Penn State when the ACC was making enough money and with an academic record as good as anyone's? They were a massive state school!

When you can't find but one school which was both large (for ACC norms) which has been added and a second which was a state matter (Va Tech), you have to live in denial not to see what happened. The core schools never selected but one school outside of their sphere of influence, and comfort zone, which wasn't like themselves! And they still can't get comfortable with Florida State.

Well guess what? Smallish state schools and privates don't produce the alumni at the rate of large state schools. And they don't fill large venues. And both are priorities in consolidation. Duke and UNC are fortunate to be national brands in hoops. Without that Duke would be impossible to consider and North Carolina would be way down the pecking order.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2022 09:51 AM by JRsec.)
08-13-2022 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #42
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
I haven't entirely given up any hope that the P5 will continue to be viable for the next decade or more. While the following scenario may be unlikely if the B1G and SEC want to continue in a quest for a more or less separate P2, the following is at least still plausible - that is, no major previously announced commitments would have to be upended for it to come to pass.

Both the SEC and B1G have clearly separated from the pack, but still have a couple of strategic gaps in their membership. I suggest a modest filling in of those gaps - not the cosmic change many predict and some hope for.

The B1G benefits from taking USCLA off their tiny island. They can do that by also taking Stanford and Cal and "owning" the state of California (and avoid political interference from that state's government).

The SEC doesn't have a presence in the populous southeastern states of Virginia and North Carolina. They could fill that gap by taking NC State and Virginia Tech without doing irreparable harm to one of ESPN's wholly owned properties or breaking up UNC, UVa and Duke. In exchange for their release, the ACC receives exit fees and reparations of $24 million from each departing school for the remaining 12 years of the existing GoR and media contracts. That gives the remaining 12 ACC schools an additional $4 million a year for those 12 years.

ESPN successfully obtains 100% of the rights to Notre Dame, the PAC 12 and the Big 12. ESPN brokers the move of BYU to the PAC, replacing them with USF to add to the Big 12 presence in Florida. The PAC then adds Boise State, San Diego State and Fresno State, at which point all three of the lesser P5 conferences are at 12 members and the B1G and SEC are at 18, with Notre Dame remaining independent. ESPN "owns" 55 of those 73 schools which now function as a separate division for football matters.

Because of that control, you can't have a CFP without ESPN being the dominant (but not exclusive) media partner. They propose the adoption of the 12 team CFP format, with each of the P5 champions getting a guaranteed seat at the table. The remaining 7 teams are all selected at large based on their rank. No school outside the P5 gets an invite unless they are one of the seven highest ranked non-champions.

Ranking schools and conferences by their 10 year MSR (mean Sagarin rating) yields this. The highest ranked school outside this P5 is Utah State at #57. The P5 conferences are ranked as follows (with approximate per team media revenues in parentheses):

80 SEC ($80 MM)
76 B1G ($80 MM)
75 ACC ($35 MM)
75 B12 ($30 MM)
74 PAC ($30 MM)

Whoever emerges as the CFP winner will be universally recognized as the NCAA champion (assuming the NCAA still exists in some emasculated form).

That's my dream. I haven't given up on it yet.
08-13-2022 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wahoowa84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,418
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 486
I Root For: UVa
Location:
Post: #43
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 09:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 06:50 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 10:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 09:45 AM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  
(08-10-2022 07:08 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Sometimes I believe it's the fans more than the actual schools that are mad They have a GOR. I don't recall any administration complaign the SEC,B1G are having huge payouts when it was Themselves that signed it.

ACC fans being very disappointed is only natural given the results. Past leaders made some bad bets. Looking back (my perspective), they should have been all-in on enticing a program like Penn State to the conference. Then go from there. It's easy to look at the SEC and B1G as behemoths from the present position...20 years ago they didn't hold such a huge advantage. Perhaps the end result would have been the same but the ACC obviously should have been more bold/creative in landing a big brand or two.

An insular nature around the core leaders has been resistant to many opportunities which less threatened conferences would have been open. If you only add that which does not challenge the status quo, what are your chances at real growth. FSU has been the exception to this rule. It was a large State school in a large State. IMO, this is why FSU has been the whipping boy for a core which can't overcome its own fears, or its need to rule in what is supposed to be a confederation of equals.

This is just spin. It’s the value of Tier 1 media content that is driving the explosion of payouts. The B1G has Ohio State and Michigan anchoring its offering; the SEC has Alabama and Georgia (plus Florida & LSU). The B12 had Texas and Oklahoma as foundational pieces, and couldn’t keep-up in this round of realignment. The PAC had the Rocky Mountains protecting its turf, and couldn’t retain its two best brands.

You can criticize the country club nature of the ACC core for many things, but you’re missing the forrest for the trees. Schools can extract more money from media by consolidating brands. The B1G and SEC have always had the best football foundations to consolidate these brands.

And you are simply making an excuse after reading the last post in a thread in which the discussion includes a lot more history than simply this set of moves. Mistakes made because of the insular nature of the old core of the ACC go back 30 years and are consistent. Spin that! Only one addition challenged the small private-ish nature of the ACC in any kind of major way, FSU, and that was only because the ACC recognized the growth potential in Florida.

Boston College and Syracuse were small privates. Pitt was a smallish private/state hybrid. Miami was a smallish private. Virginia Tech was not but was helped by Virginia for state reasons.

When you lost a solid state school in Maryland only then did you miss your M.O. and take Louisville. Even Georgia Tech was a smallish state elite school.

All of it speaks to the nature of staying within a comfort zone for what Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest are. Clemson and N.C. State simply missed the boat when the So Con broke up and the mostly due to geography, state ties and ease of transportation in what was truly a different era.

Why did you not pursue Penn State when the ACC was making enough money and with an academic record as good as anyone's? They were a massive state school!

When you can't find but one school which was both large (for ACC norms) which has been added and a second which was a state matter (Va Tech), you have to live in denial not to see what happened. The core schools never selected but one school outside of their sphere of influence which wasn't like themselves! And they still can't get comfortable with Florida State.

Well guess what? Smallish state schools and privates don't produce the alumni at the rate of large state schools. And they don't fill large venues. And both are priorities in consolidation. Duke and UNC are fortunate to be national brands in hoops. Without that Duke would be impossible to consider and North Carolina would be way down the pecking order.

The ACC was formed after the Big Ten and SEC…the two conferences that already had the largest flagship schools. Although I agree that Penn State would have helped, I’m not convinced that Penn State alone would have changed this course (to a consolidation of brands towards the Big Ten and SEC). If Ohio State (and Michigan) ever came calling, Penn State would be a flight risk…similar to FSU and the SEC.

For better or worse, the East Coast has a lot of private and midsize public universities…so the ACC has grown with the best available options. We can debate whether BC is too small or if WVU would have been a better fit, but second guessing realignment options misses the underlying reality. Ohio State and Michigan are the core of the Big Ten; Alabama and Georgia are the core of SEC…to maximize T1 revenue, conferences need to compete against that level of football power.

IMO, the ACC messed-up in terms of understanding media rights. The SEC made similar media rights mistakes, but has been able to masterfully take B12 brands to claw-back some errors. Maybe the exodus of top brands from the PAC or B12 will provide better options for the ACC.
08-13-2022 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,637
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #44
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 10:37 AM)ken d Wrote:  I haven't entirely given up any hope that the P5 will continue to be viable for the next decade or more. While the following scenario may be unlikely if the B1G and SEC want to continue in a quest for a more or less separate P2, the following is at least still plausible - that is, no major previously announced commitments would have to be upended for it to come to pass.

Both the SEC and B1G have clearly separated from the pack, but still have a couple of strategic gaps in their membership. I suggest a modest filling in of those gaps - not the cosmic change many predict and some hope for.

The B1G benefits from taking USCLA off their tiny island. They can do that by also taking Stanford and Cal and "owning" the state of California (and avoid political interference from that state's government).

The SEC doesn't have a presence in the populous southeastern states of Virginia and North Carolina. They could fill that gap by taking NC State and Virginia Tech without doing irreparable harm to one of ESPN's wholly owned properties or breaking up UNC, UVa and Duke. In exchange for their release, the ACC receives exit fees and reparations of $24 million from each departing school for the remaining 12 years of the existing GoR and media contracts. That gives the remaining 12 ACC schools an additional $4 million a year for those 12 years.

ESPN successfully obtains 100% of the rights to Notre Dame, the PAC 12 and the Big 12. ESPN brokers the move of BYU to the PAC, replacing them with USF to add to the Big 12 presence in Florida. The PAC then adds Boise State, San Diego State and Fresno State, at which point all three of the lesser P5 conferences are at 12 members and the B1G and SEC are at 18, with Notre Dame remaining independent. ESPN "owns" 55 of those 73 schools which now function as a separate division for football matters.

Because of that control, you can't have a CFP without ESPN being the dominant (but not exclusive) media partner. They propose the adoption of the 12 team CFP format, with each of the P5 champions getting a guaranteed seat at the table. The remaining 7 teams are all selected at large based on their rank. No school outside the P5 gets an invite unless they are one of the seven highest ranked non-champions.

Ranking schools and conferences by their 10 year MSR (mean Sagarin rating) yields this. The highest ranked school outside this P5 is Utah State at #57. The P5 conferences are ranked as follows (with approximate per team media revenues in parentheses):

80 SEC ($80 MM)
76 B1G ($80 MM)
75 ACC ($35 MM)
75 B12 ($30 MM)
74 PAC ($30 MM)

Whoever emerges as the CFP winner will be universally recognized as the NCAA champion (assuming the NCAA still exists in some emasculated form).

That's my dream. I haven't given up on it yet.

I like this.

The main trouble I see is FSU and Clemson.

Everyone else in the ACC (even NC) might be able to swallow others getting into the SEC before them, but I really don't think those two would.

So to just substitute those two:

SEC - gains FSU, Clemson
B10 - gains Stanford, Cal
PAC - gains BYU, Boise State, San Diego State, and Fresno State
B12 - gains USF

That said, the more I look at the current environment and circumstances, the more I think Swarbrick's statement of 20 for the P2 is probably likely.

So if you're willing to allow for 20 instead of 18 (and 16 instead of 12), for your plan, I think it could work.

Though backfills based on this would likely eliminate the PAC.

So first, the money. You suggest: ACC gains 2M, per school, per year. So for 4 schools that's 8M per year. Though I think it might need to be paired with an overall increase by espn for the conference, due to fears of revenues being lowered due to FSU and Clemson leaving. And to keep ND from thinking about leaving. And for adding PAC schools, the B12 goes up a bit as well.

As for school movements:

Let's presume that the B10 (with no leverage with or from espn) isn't able to gain anything from ACC.

So:

SEC - gains VA tech, NC state, FSU, Clemson = 20
B10 - gains Stanford, Cal, WA, OR = 20
ACC - gains Memphis, Cin, UCF, USF, WV = 15+ND
B12 - gains SDSU, SMU, Boise state, AZ, AZ state, CO, UT = 16

Personally, I'd switch Kansas for Cal. And I prefer AZ state and CO, over WA and OR for the B10.

(And ACC should probably go to 16+ND, but the choices are not as clear - UConn? Temple? ECU? etc.)

But either way, I think it's doable.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2022 11:52 AM by Skyhawk.)
08-13-2022 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #45
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 11:36 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  The main trouble I see is FSU and Clemson.

Everyone else in the ACC (even NC) might be able to swallow others getting into the SEC before them, but I really don't think those two would.

Clemson and FSU might have trouble swallowing this. But if anybody is going to move from the ACC to the SEC, four conditions must be met.

First, the ACC schools must be willing to go. Second, the SEC must be willing to take them. Third, the other ACC schools must be willing to let them go. And fourth, ESPN must be willing to pay the SEC to take them.

The SEC might prefer Clemson and FSU. For that matter, they may prefer UNC and Virginia (or Duke). But I don't think the ACC schools would let them go. Va Tech and NCSU might not be their first choice, but they do fill a strategic interest in bringing the only two southeastern states under their umbrella.

So, it could come down to whether ESPN wants to preserve a P5 or to accelerate the process of neutering every conference except the SEC and B1G. That's the $64 question.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022 06:49 AM by ken d.)
08-13-2022 03:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 03:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 11:36 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  The main trouble I see is FSU and Clemson.

Everyone else in the ACC (even NC) might be able to swallow others getting into the SEC before them, but I really don't think those two would.

Clemson and FSU might have trouble swallowing this. But if anybody is going to move from the ACC to the SEC, four conditions must be met.

First, the ACC schools must be willing to go. Second, the SEC must be willing to take them. Third, the other ACC schools must be willing to let them go. And fourth, ESPN must be willing to pay the SEC to take them.

The SEC might prefer Clemson and FSU. For that matter, they may prefer UNC and Virginia (or Duke). But I don't think the ACC schools would let them go. Va Tech and NCSU might not be their first choice, but they do fill a strategic interest in bringing the only two southeastern states under their umbrella.

So, it could come down to whether ESPN wants to preserve a P5 or to accelerate the process of neutering every conference except the SEC and B1G. That's the $64 question.

From ESPN's

Three of those conditions were met in 2011 when the ESPN crawler announced FSU and Clemson would move to the SEC, and the ACC's approval was not one of them. The GOR makes it one now. But clearly lacking the larger deal which fell through ESPN felt that Clemson and FSU would be worth more in the SEC. They likely still feel that way and may even feel they owe a little consideration to Clemson and FSU for yanking the matt out from under their feet in 2011 in order to satisfy conditions Notre Dame laid down for joining partially when the bigger deal collapsed, a deal which would have seen N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. So interestingly ESPN has likely agreed to N.C. State and Virginia Tech in principle as well.

However, ESPN could have a backup to Clemson and FSU. ESPN was long desirous of Kansas, enough so to give them a nice T3 deal all of their own. Now that Colorado is unspoken for the question in my mind is how much might ESPN covet the Denver market?

Perhaps if the B1G takes Oregon and Washington to 18 and the ACC remains at impasse the SEC moves to 18 with Kansas and Colorado and in the process reunites half of the old Big 8 with 2 more AAU schools adding markets and the #2 hoops brand in earnings to the #1 hoops brand in earnings, Kentucky.

If that is done, then Clemson and Florida State becomes a solid move to 20. Would the offer of N.C. State and Virginia Tech prove a successful enough lure to circumvent that? Possibly. They do provide competitive programs toward the middle of the SEC and access to nearly 23 million potential viewers. If it ends at 24 a second Florida school would be in the mix and Clemson would be claimed. Then who? Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville. Pick 2 of the 3.

Why do I pursue 24? Why wouldn't the SEC be sated with 4 new states? Because it still leaves our back door open and that simply cannot be!

Our preference is for the ACC to remain whole and healthy. It is whole, but so far from healthy that the SEC dares not to depend upon it remaining whole. Therefore, the interest in FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. The SEC brand is centered on high end competition in the Deep South. That is the brand. If a North Carolina and Virginia school come along then great! If not fine. The value in the ACC which the SEC covets is in brand defense. That need does not exist North of South Carolina.
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022 09:47 AM by JRsec.)
08-13-2022 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,637
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #47
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 03:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 11:36 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  The main trouble I see is FSU and Clemson.

Everyone else in the ACC (even NC) might be able to swallow others getting into the SEC before them, but I really don't think those two would.

Clemson and FSU might have trouble swallowing this. But if anybody is going to move from the ACC to the SEC, four conditions must be met.

First, the ACC schools must be willing to go. Second, the SEC must be willing to take them. Third, the other ACC schools must be willing to let them go. And fourth, ESPN must be willing to pay the SEC to take them.

The SEC might prefer Clemson and FSU. For that matter, they may prefer UNC and Virginia (or Duke). But I don't think the ACC schools would let them go. Va Tech and NCSU might not be their first choice, but they do fill a strategic interest in bringing the only two southeastern states under their umbrella.

So, it could come down to whether ESPN wants to preserve a P5 or to accelerate the process of neutering every conference except the SEC and B1G. That's the $64 question.

From ESPN's

I don't disagree on any of your 4 points, though a 5th might be that espn might need to pay ACC to let them go.

I dunno.

I think that ACC teams would likely be fine with FSU and Clemson leaving. (And USF and Memphis would be fairly simple-to-get replacements)

a couple - mostly ND, and maybe Miami - might be concerned about loss of playing those schools, but I'm pretty sure ND and Miami would be able to get OOC matchups.

I think the fear isn't those two leaving, I think it's more likely the question of whether those two leaving means espn pays them less money. They aren't blind - everyone can see what's going on with the PAC right now.

If they get reassurance about the media deal, I think the vote is likely unanimous.

They're leaving at some point anyway, might as well use the GoR to get some stability (a raise) from espn.
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2022 04:55 PM by Skyhawk.)
08-13-2022 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XOVERX Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 68
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Texas
Location:
Post: #48
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2022 09:16 PM by XOVERX.)
08-13-2022 08:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,477
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #49
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
Kentucky explored joining The ACC back in the ‘90s. CM Newton actually met with Gene Corrigan and Tom Butters. After much exploration CM and UK decided to stay in The SEC.
08-13-2022 08:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #50
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 03:37 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 11:36 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  The main trouble I see is FSU and Clemson.

Everyone else in the ACC (even NC) might be able to swallow others getting into the SEC before them, but I really don't think those two would.

Clemson and FSU might have trouble swallowing this. But if anybody is going to move from the ACC to the SEC, four conditions must be met.

First, the ACC schools must be willing to go. Second, the SEC must be willing to take them. Third, the other ACC schools must be willing to let them go. And fourth, ESPN must be willing to pay the SEC to take them.

The SEC might prefer Clemson and FSU. For that matter, they may prefer UNC and Virginia (or Duke). But I don't think the ACC schools would let them go. Va Tech and NCSU might not be their first choice, but they do fill a strategic interest in bringing the only two southeastern states under their umbrella.

So, it could come down to whether ESPN wants to preserve a P5 or to accelerate the process of neutering every conference except the SEC and B1G. That's the $64 question.

From ESPN's

Three of those conditions were met in 2011 when the ESPN crawler announced FSU and Clemson would move to the SEC, and the ACC's approval was not one of them. The GOR makes it one now. But clearly lacking the larger deal which fell through ESPN felt that Clemson and FSU would be worth more in the SEC. They likely still feel that way and may even feel they owe a little consideration to Clemson and FSU for yanking the matt out from under their feet in 2011 in order to satisfy conditions Notre Dame laid down for joining partially when the bigger deal collapsed, a deal which would have seen N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. So interestingly ESPN has likely agreed to N.C. State and Virginia Tech in principle as well.

However, ESPN could have a backup to Clemson and FSU. ESPN was long desirous of Kansas, enough so to give them a nice T3 deal all of their own. Now that Colorado is unspoken for the question in my mind is how much might ESPN covet the Denver market?

Perhaps if the B1G takes Oregon and Washington to 18 and the ACC remains at impasse the SEC moves to 18 with Kansas and Colorado and in the process reunites half of the old Big 8 with 2 more AAU schools adding markets and the #2 hoops brand in earnings to the #1 hoops brand in earnings, Kentucky.

If that is done, then Clemson and Florida State becomes a solid move to 20. Would the offer of N.C. State and Virginia Tech prove a successful enough lure to circumvent that? Possibly. Thye do provide competitive programs toward the middle of the SEC and access to nearly 23 million potential viewers. If it ends at 24 a second Florida school would be in the mix and Clemson would be claimed. Then who? Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville. Pick 2 of the 3.

Why do I pursue 24? Why wouldn't the SEC be sated with 4 new states? Because it still leaves our back door open and that simply cannot be!

Our preference is for the ACC to remain whole and healthy. It is whole, but so far from healthy that the SEC dares not to depend upon it to remaining whole. Therefore, the interest in FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. The SEC brand is centered on high end competition in the Deep South. That is the brand. If a North Carolina and Virginia school come along then great! If not fine. The value in the ACC which the SEC covets is in brand defense. That need does not exist North of South Carolina.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the premise of my original post was a scenario in which all current P5 conference could remain as viable participants in a future CFP. A 24 team SEC precludes that.
08-14-2022 06:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AssKickingChicken Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,373
Joined: Jan 2022
Reputation: 204
I Root For: Jax State
Location:
Post: #51
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 06:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 05:57 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  
(08-10-2022 03:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-09-2022 10:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

The "trade" idea was intended as a way to try to avoid certain precedents.

And yes, as I said, for it to work, SC would have needed some sort of significant pay off.

And, once voted out, they could potentially choose to accept the invite of any conference.

But the SEC can vote out a member if they so choose.

As I noted at the top, the espn contract is presumably with the sec, not with the individual member schools.

So while it could of of course be argued that the sec wouldn't vote to remove the non-founding member SC, I don't think your other assertions apply.

Can you provide a link to an article that says the SEC can kick someone out?

It's a standard in most organizations.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2017/0822/201...Bylaws.pdf

Quote:*3.1.4 Termination of Membership. Membership may be terminated voluntarily by the resignation of a member or involuntarily
at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two -thirds of the members is required to terminate membership.
Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

And while we're at it:

Quote:*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a meeting of the Chief Executive
Officers. A vote of at least three-fourths of the members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised: 5/30/91]
[Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

Quote:*4.1.1 Chief Executive Officers. The President or Chancellor of each member shall be a Chief Executive Officer of the
Conference. Accordingly, there shall be one Chief Executive Officer for each member. The Chief Executive Officers shall act at
the regular annual meeting of the Conference or at specially called meetings of the Conference, as set forth in Article 5.
[Clarified/Conformed/Renumbered 6/1/11]

Thank you, I was unaware of this. However, I don't see the SEC kicking someone out.
08-14-2022 08:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #52
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 08:04 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 06:13 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-12-2022 05:57 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  
(08-10-2022 03:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-09-2022 10:46 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  There is no universe in which South Carolina would return to the ACC. The idea that the Gamecocks would be expelled by the other SEC schools simply to make room for Clemson is beyond risible. Moreover, if ESPN attempted to even try to orchestrate that, South Carolina would be able to annihilate ESPN in court for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, since the net impact of trying to force an SEC school into the ACC would be to decrease that school’s contractually-secured, annual SEC membership media share, which would be on the order of $40m or more per annum than the ACC’s payout.

The "trade" idea was intended as a way to try to avoid certain precedents.

And yes, as I said, for it to work, SC would have needed some sort of significant pay off.

And, once voted out, they could potentially choose to accept the invite of any conference.

But the SEC can vote out a member if they so choose.

As I noted at the top, the espn contract is presumably with the sec, not with the individual member schools.

So while it could of of course be argued that the sec wouldn't vote to remove the non-founding member SC, I don't think your other assertions apply.

Can you provide a link to an article that says the SEC can kick someone out?

It's a standard in most organizations.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2017/0822/201...Bylaws.pdf

Quote:*3.1.4 Termination of Membership. Membership may be terminated voluntarily by the resignation of a member or involuntarily
at a meeting of the Chief Executive Officers. A vote of at least two -thirds of the members is required to terminate membership.
Any motion to terminate membership shall specify the effective date of the proposed termination. [Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

And while we're at it:

Quote:*3.1.2 Granting of Membership. Membership may be granted by invitation of the Conference at a meeting of the Chief Executive
Officers. A vote of at least three-fourths of the members is required to extend an invitation for membership. [Revised: 5/30/91]
[Clarified/Conformed 6/1/11]

Quote:*4.1.1 Chief Executive Officers. The President or Chancellor of each member shall be a Chief Executive Officer of the
Conference. Accordingly, there shall be one Chief Executive Officer for each member. The Chief Executive Officers shall act at
the regular annual meeting of the Conference or at specially called meetings of the Conference, as set forth in Article 5.
[Clarified/Conformed/Renumbered 6/1/11]

Thank you, I was unaware of this. However, I don't see the SEC kicking someone out.

I agree that most organizations have a provision for removing members. I don't know that it's standard to be able to remove them without cause (like failing to adhere to membership rules). What constitutes "cause" would normally be spelled out in some other paragraph or section of the bylaws.

Does the SEC permit expulsion without any cause? If so, two thirds is a pretty low threshold.
08-14-2022 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #53
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will they cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

The obligatory grouping:

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

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022 10:56 AM by JRsec.)
08-14-2022 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,637
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 550
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #54
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will the cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

I think you're right that Colorado could be a stretch. Perhaps swap in NC state instead

I think CO has more of a chance to go to the B10, than the SEC
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022 10:56 AM by Skyhawk.)
08-14-2022 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #55
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 10:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-14-2022 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will the cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

I think you're right that Colorado could be a stretch. Perhaps swap in NC state instead

I think CO has more of a chance to go to the B10, than the SEC

Before ESPN decided not to pursue B1G rights I would have considered Colorado a definite no go for the SEC and probable for the B1G. Now I have to consider that ESPN would covet Denver. It is just that simple and what the SEC would prefer could still be obtained and while doing ESPN a solid. Now I have to consider such a move could happen.
08-14-2022 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,264
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1205
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #56
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-09-2022 10:37 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  
(08-09-2022 10:08 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(08-09-2022 10:05 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The networks do not have the kind of power people imagine here. They indirectly very much effect things since they pay the bills, but they pay what they do because the properties are valuable and because there is competion for them.

If a trade ever occured (and that is very unlikely), it would be inciated by the schools themselves most likely, then move to the conference level who would see how the networks would respond with pay. It wouldn't start at the networks and work down.

Remember the networks only have these school contracts for a set number of years and then can lose them. Their goals are actually far more limited than the conferences/schools themselves which is why structural changes tend to start with the conferences who have the most long term at stake.

This post should be pinned at the top of the OP.

chuckle.

Go watch the start of Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V. You know the part where the Bishops are "advising" the King about going after France.

It's his decision. Yet, who fomented and facilitated?

Yeah ok.

At some point, people on this board, maybe, just maybe, will realize that this is business.

and we are talking billions of dollars.

coming from media companies watching cord cutting, losses of subscribers, ota ratings dropping, etc. all across the board.

And if you think they aren't going to look for ways to minimize costs and maximize assets? you're out of your minds.

The schools know they have content, and do what they can to maximize that.

But there's a lot of product. and as espn showed with the big10 rights. they don't always have to try to buy it all.

Anyway.

I'm like the rest of you, and like to theorize on the possible and plausible.

this is very possible.

Will it happen?

dunno, it could.

but I think it's more likely the ACC loses a chunk of its members, if not the whole conference at some point.

ACC seems to prefer to act reactively than proactively. And when you do that, is anyone surprised when you're left with the leftovers?

c'est la vie. I guess.

The ACC has been the villain of modern realignment because they’ve acted proactively. Miami just failed miserably so it didn’t work out to the point it could have. NIL Miami is a whole new animal, so maybe the ACC will get what cost the round robin and traditional football rivalries.
08-14-2022 11:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
curtis0620 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,943
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #57
What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will they cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

The obligatory grouping:

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

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Then the Big Ten would counter with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, California, Utah, Virginia, Pitt & Notre Dame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
08-14-2022 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,906
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #58
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 11:46 AM)curtis0620 Wrote:  
(08-14-2022 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  Because I would like to see the SEC compete head-to-head with the B1G across all time slots going into the future, at least occasionally, I am hoping ESPN in fact does see value in Denver and the State of Colorado. If CU applied for SEC membership, I agree with others that Kansas would be a good SEC addition as well, mainly because of their basketball lineage and continued prowess, but the geography would be convenient to pair with Colorado as well. Both schools also happen to be decent academic institutions and that is a small plus, too. CU and KU seem like longshot additions to the SEC, but I note that at least one poster, on multiple sites, gives serious consideration to the potential additions of CU and KU to the SEC, particularly as a possible response to the B1G if the B1G goes to 18. If it happened, CU and KU would put the SEC at 18.

For the SEC to go beyond 18, and assuming key ACC schools are demonstrably additive to the SEC, there does not seem to be a viable path to further SEC expansion other than tearing out the heart of the ACC, right? And who knows when that happens? But if the ACC does someday unravel, and if various ACC schools are also additive to the B1G, does anyone expect the B1G to be passive observers?

I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will they cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

The obligatory grouping:

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

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech


Then the Big Ten would counter with Washington, Oregon, Stanford, California, Utah, Virginia, Pitt & Notre Dame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good, then maybe we could stop!04-cheers07-coffee3
08-14-2022 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,628
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 602
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #59
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
No trades - whether within or between networks and/or conferences - will occur. No school will ever willingly accept lower payouts for the greater good, nor will a conference unofficially boot a school for a perceived greater value due to historical and/or political reasons.

I still think two leagues of 24 teams is the end result, and each league having quarterfinals, semi-finals and conference finals, leading to an SEC/Big Ten NC. I believe the SEC ends up with Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Kansas and Louisville. The Big Ten would end up with Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Virginia, Duke, Miami and Notre Dame.
08-14-2022 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GarnetAndBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,821
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 412
I Root For: Retired
Location:
Post: #60
RE: What if Espn facilitated a trade between the ACC and the SEC?
(08-14-2022 10:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-13-2022 08:07 PM)XOVERX Wrote:  I think most of us agree that FSU, Clemson, and Miami are the premier football brands in the ACC; however, I doubt the B1G, due its pompous academic insistence, will vigorously contest FSU and Clemson with the SEC, Warren's recent comments about AAU membership notwithstanding. I could be wrong about this, but I expect the B1G to follow their historical path of expansion, which is to focus on AAU schools as much as possible, and which, in the case of the ACC, means UNC, UVA, GT, Duke, and, in order to enter Florida, possibly non-AAU FSU, but, IMO, more likely a non-AAU Miami. Furthermore, if the B1G adds UNC and UVA, I see no realistic chance that the B1G also adds a non-AAU NCSU or non-AAU VPI, do you? NCSU and VPI are almost certainly easy gets for the SEC, don't you think? FSU and Clemson put the SEC at 20.

After FSU and Clemson are gone, I think the SEC and B1G compete for the remaining value schools left in the ACC. Unlike some posters, I cannot imagine the SEC going void in the States of North Carolina and Virginia. I cannot imagine ESPN advising the SEC to go void in NC and VA. Pick any two from the States of VA and NC. Now the SEC at 22.

That leaves 2 to get to a 24-school SEC.

Does the SEC go "defensive", as some assert it will, taking GT and Miami? Maybe. I would not agree with such a move, but it might happen. Would the SEC become enticed to take more than 1 school from NC and/or VA in order to add UNC or UVA (another "defensive" move)? Maybe. Maybe, for example, the SEC might have to take Duke or NCSU in order to persuade UNC? As another scenario, rather than tripling up in FL and/or doubling up in GA, as some suggest, might the SEC take some northern schools in B1G country like Pitt or Syracuse, maybe Louisville? I doubt it, but maybe. The SEC in PA and NY would certainly vex the B1G, I imagine, and give the SEC a broader, more national appeal, especially running up the NE Corridor (to the horror of the B1G). I know Texas would love to play league games in the States of New York and Pennsylvania.

My wish list du jour for SEC expansion is: CU, KU, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Pitt, and Syracuse. This list creates ill-will among some of the more fanatical SEC old-timers, but oh well, I think it's a helluva lineup, capable of raising all SEC boats. I have no clue what ESPN might think, however. Maybe going past 16 or 20 is a mistake?

Which brings us full circle. Are CU and KU really in the running for SEC membership? It seems the only way CU and KU could possibly happen is for the B1G to eat more of the PAC, certainly a possibility (but less probable if ND stays ACC). Hurry up and wait on the B1G seems to be the current status of SEC expansion. OTOH, there's not much stopping CU and KU right now ... .

1. Reasons for the ESPN/SEC to consider adding Colorado and Kansas:

2 New markets (1 largish / 1 not).

#2 hoops brand in Kansas which is Missouri's chief rival.

Colorado is a familiar face for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri giving each fan base 3 games with an old home feel which creates stability and synergy for the 4 former Big 8 schools.

Texas and Colorado have some synergy and now the SEC is in the MTZ.

Issues with such a move: They aren't Southeastern or Southwestern but do have some ties. Culture is not really a match. Competitiveness is lacking, but with a SE/SW pipeline for recruits and SEC money that could change for the better.

2. Only the value of the whole matters, and then only to the network which is ESPN in this case. At over 80 million with a reasonable escalation to 100 million per school only the network has to worry about value and their estimations will be made upon a completed product which covers the markets and branding they desire included.

This is new. Individual accretive properties based upon how much is needed to move the needle on conference revenue is not applicable to the network. What they want in their completed league is.

3. As long as ESPN holds the rights to the ACC the Big 10 will be passive observers unless ESPN has a reason for them not to be. Since ESPN no longer has a stake in the B1G it is no longer in ESPN's self-interest to do anything which enhances the Big 10's value. There is every reason for them to do so for the SEC. And if/when the time comes for the ACC to be broken you can bet ESPN will have already sheltered what it wants to keep in the SEC or possibly a composite conference prior to the announcement of the breakup, which means if it happens it happens well before the grant of rights ends. And Xoverex I cannot see ESPN letting UNC go. Virginia? Yes as they are inconsequential to ESPN objectives. But ESPN won't cede Atlanta or Miami market control to FOX. Nor will they cede UNC's singular dominance in a state of 10 million plus, or Virginia Tech's better numbers in Virginia.

Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, UNC and Va Tech would be the six to 24 and the SEC wouldn't disagree with ESPN on any of them.

So, if the move is Kansas and Colorado to 18, the best remaining 6 to 24 are those.

The obligatory grouping:

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

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami

Clemson, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech[/b]

XOVERX: The B1G is smart enough to now understand the transient nature of AAU status. And rapidly changing demographic shifts that have been benefitting the South in recent decades. It's probably too late for them to pick off a school like FSU or Miami who both will likely be in the AAU within the next decade (along with UGA) based on trajectory and changes in institutional focus. It would be a shame for the B1G if that was all that stood in the way a decade ago. The late bloomers who got away.

JR: Can FSU please take a slightly lower payout to switch divisions with Clemson? Yikes! Even down years for that division would be death row!
(This post was last modified: 08-14-2022 01:19 PM by GarnetAndBlue.)
08-14-2022 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.