(09-04-2022 07:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 06:02 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 12:06 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 03:33 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-03-2022 01:43 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Pitt is way more enticing to the SEC than B1G b/c PSU already covers that area. But the SEC has others as a higher priority, Pitt is pretty far into B1G territory. It's actually even closer to Columbus than Happy Valley. I wouldn't say "never", but I'm confident that we're not in the market for teams that are a distant 3rd in their geographical region.

Neither is the B1G ofc, which is one reason that I've been skeptical of teams like Duke, GT or Miami eventually getting an invite to the P2. At least Kansas, as horrible as they are in football, is #1 in their market.

What's wrong with "being pretty far into B1G territory"? I can tell you as a Big Ten fan I have no problems targeting schools in "SEC territory". I think it's the point, why should the Big Ten concede say Florida or Georgia to the SEC or even North Carolina and Virginia? If you're going to let the Big 10 have Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, etc all to ourselves, thank you. We're not going to do the same. If you want to keep us out of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, etc, be prepared to have a conference of 24 or more.

My apologies to Skyhawk; thought he wrote this. Still is a good post. So why should the B1G concede Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, or Virginia to the SEC?? I would say because outside of maybe two, possibly three teams, the vast majority have no interest in the B1G. But, I do welcome the B1G to try. I am actually surprised that the B1G never bothered to make a run at Kentucky, especially when you consider that UK has been recruiting a lot of Ohio talent lately. Kentucky is also a genuine basketball blue blood which should make UK even more attractive to the B1G. And, not only is Kentucky in a contiguous state for the B1G, it also has a rivalry with a B1G member as well, Indiana. Kentucky used to compete for three rivalry trophies until some football athletes died in an alcohol-related accident: the Beer Barrel with Tennessee (marked "ice water "), the Governor's Cup with Louisville, and the Bourbon Barrel with Indiana. After the incident, both the Beer Barrel and the Bourbon Barrel trophies were discontinued at UK's request. The rivalry with Tennessee continues, but the trophy is no longer awarded. However, for some reason, the rivalry with IU was put on indefinite hiatus, so Kentucky would still have a rivalry even if it went to the B1G. That being said, I have yet to see anything that would indicate UK having interest in the B1G.
In addition, I think it might be possible for the SEC to expand northward, even though it would be hard to prod the league in that direction for awhile. But I don't believe it's top priority for the SEC.

But still, Schmolik does have a legit point: nothing should be conceded to a rival until the rival wins outright, fair & square. I just see the BIG getting a lot of "no's" from southern schools.

It's not about conceding territory, it's that the territory doesn't matter as much to us anymore. We've been sharing territory with the ACC for almost a century, and with the big 12 for over a decade now. Neither presents any kind of threat to us. And both of them have been significantly more competitive on the field than the B1G, which isn't saying much.

We are now the hunters, we play offense instead of defense. We don't worry about protecting our own turf, we worry about conquering others' turf. The B1G is the same way. It's just that there aren't many juicy targets left that we'd both want, even including the ACC.

This simply isn't true. The SEC isn't worried about Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, or Oklahoma and Texas now. It is concerned about Georgia and Florida.

Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M give you every major city in Texas and L.S.U. helps with domination of Houston.

Georgia the State is 85% Dawg! Atlanta has over 6 million. UGa delivers 51% of it. Tech another 42% And Auburn, Clemson, and Tennessee along with South Carolina and Alabama most of the rest. That 42% Tech has is the difference in a lot of ad revenue because in Big 10 hands the advertisers will pay to reach the NMW as well as Atlanta. The SEC will not give its main rival a fat check for taking Tech. In Florida the Gator's hold the plurality of the State. FSU gives us control delivering with the Gators another 35% to their 42%. We make money in Florida by taking FSU. The ACC makes money in Florida, but they don't watch an event in Florida as a conference in the %'s the SEC or B1G does. Miami and FSU in Florida would give the Big 10 the advantage in total # of viewers at 54%. I toy with USF because they have a good shot at hitting AAU metrics and with SEC or B1G money would jump in viewers by association.

The ACC has trouble making money because it is not cohesive in fan interest. It is segmented in regions covered and main interest in hoops over football and vice versa. This is not true of the Big Ten or the SEC.

UNC is possibly accretive in brand and market. Clemson is a solid brand and a content multiplier and added to an SEC schedule would produce 5 million plus viewers a game with about half their SEC schedule or a couple of more depending upon who is hot at the time.

Georgia Tech is already an SEC defensive add on a plan our presidents have had for 30 years. FSU is a must if we are to earn in Florida what UT & A&M with OU can deliver in Texas and Oklahoma.

With FSU Miami isn't a must, by why miss the whole Southern end of the State?

FSU, Georgia Tech, UNC, Clemson, and Miami would be the pecking order and after those either of Virginia Tech/UVa.

The issue with 3 schools in Florida is unlike in Texas you don't cover with dominance every major market within the state with just 2 schools. And Miami/Dade/Broward is a big damn market.

With our growth the defensive adds are now limited to Ga. Tech (Atlanta Market) and Clemson (as a major brand). FSU because of how much of Florida the deliver and because they are also an offensive move. Miami as Forrest Gump would say, "It's a whole 'nother city somewhere near Cuba or somethin'."

But in 1990 Kramer and the presidents formulated a defensive strategy to protect revenue producing regions we essentially controlled as the largest viewed brand in the region. The Big Ten in these areas matters much, much more in revenue loss to competition than the ACC, because the reach almost as many as we do.

Slive discussed our offensive strategy, but the defensive one remained operational. And I know your young self can't grasp it but UT and A&M first talked to Kramer and Arkansas was an intentional setup to get into Texas. And in 1990-2 UT had a silent Big 8 partner involved backdoor, Oklahoma.

But to say we aren't interested in protecting our revenue in the city where we hold our CCG and the largest most influential city in the South is plain wrong! Ditto for Florida. Clemson is a much lower priority mostly because they likely would not pass B1G muster. They aren't AAU and don't deliver a massive market. The would be a content multiplier for the Big Ten but would hold more value to a network in the SEC.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: If the ACC remains viable the SEC would only have interest in 2 schools: Florida State and North Carolina. So, since UNC never leaves a stable ACC that leaves just the Seminoles. This is why I suggest that if the ACC and ESPN could agree to let FSU leave and make some fitting additions like 3 of USF, UCF, Cincinnati or West Virginia they might find life more peaceful.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m well aware that the SEC has long contemplated defensive moves. What I’m saying is that we are in a different world today. We’ve gone from an oligopoly of 5 relatively strong conferences down to a duopoly. I know that GT has long history with us, but if we worry about smaller brands and take defensive moves like GT or Miami then that will weaken us relative to the B1G. I was on board from day 1 with adding my most hated rival by far bc I knew that it would make us a stronger conference. I, and no doubt many others from many schools, do not wish to waste that addition by diluting it with schools that don’t move the needle for us. We already know that at least Iowa and tOSU feel the same way about the B1G adding schools that don’t move the needle for them. I’d be surprised if that wasn’t the consensus in most P2 schools today.

Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t have many options when it comes to looking at our next targets, it just means that we perhaps should put a higher priority on certain moves than we would have in the past, and a lower priority on other moves.

A NC school, a Virginia school, even maybe ASU, those are schools that are directly adjacent to our footprint, or very nearly so in the case of ASU. All of those are worth a look. FSU locks down the state of Florida and would strangle the others, including Miami, on the vine. Clemson makes sense in the same way that OU made sense, they’re a true Football School and a huge national brand. If we’re expanding within our current footprint then they’re the overwhelming choice, and if we’re looking for new markets then I’d still rank them #2 or 3 to get.

I would prioritize all of those, even ASU, over contemplating any sort of defensive moves. I don’t know if you still have sources in the SEC office, but I’ll wager that if you do then their current thinking is probably not too far off from mine.

(09-04-2022 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 04:16 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 06:02 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  It's not about conceding territory, it's that the territory doesn't matter as much to us anymore. We've been sharing territory with the ACC for almost a century, and with the big 12 for over a decade now. Neither presents any kind of threat to us. And both of them have been significantly more competitive on the field than the B1G, which isn't saying much.

We are now the hunters, we play offense instead of defense. We don't worry about protecting our own turf, we worry about conquering others' turf. The B1G is the same way. It's just that there aren't many juicy targets left that we'd both want, even including the ACC.

This simply isn't true. The SEC isn't worried about Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, or Oklahoma and Texas now. It is concerned about Georgia and Florida.

Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M give you every major city in Texas and L.S.U. helps with domination of Houston.

Georgia the State is 85% Dawg! Atlanta has over 6 million. UGa delivers 51% of it. Tech another 42% And Auburn, Clemson, and Tennessee along with South Carolina and Alabama most of the rest. That 42% Tech has is the difference in a lot of ad revenue because in Big 10 hands the advertisers will pay to reach the NMW as well as Atlanta. The SEC will not give its main rival a fat check for taking Tech. In Florida the Gator's hold the plurality of the State. FSU gives us control delivering with the Gators another 35% to their 42%. We make money in Florida by taking FSU. The ACC makes money in Florida, but they don't watch an event in Florida as a conference in the %'s the SEC or B1G does. Miami and FSU in Florida would give the Big 10 the advantage in total # of viewers at 54%. I toy with USF because they have a good shot at hitting AAU metrics and with SEC or B1G money would jump in viewers by association.

The ACC has trouble making money because it is not cohesive in fan interest. It is segmented in regions covered and main interest in hoops over football and vice versa. This is not true of the Big Ten or the SEC.

UNC is possibly accretive in brand and market. Clemson is a solid brand and a content multiplier and added to an SEC schedule would produce 5 million plus viewers a game with about half their SEC schedule or a couple of more depending upon who is hot at the time.

Georgia Tech is already an SEC defensive add on a plan our presidents have had for 30 years. FSU is a must if we are to earn in Florida what UT & A&M with OU can deliver in Texas and Oklahoma.

With FSU Miami isn't a must, by why miss the whole Southern end of the State?

FSU, Georgia Tech, UNC, Clemson, and Miami would be the pecking order and after those either of Virginia Tech/UVa.

The issue with 3 schools in Florida is unlike in Texas you don't cover with dominance every major market within the state with just 2 schools. And Miami/Dade/Broward is a big damn market.

With our growth the defensive adds are now limited to Ga. Tech (Atlanta Market) and Clemson (as a major brand). FSU because of how much of Florida the deliver and because they are also an offensive move. Miami as Forrest Gump would say, "It's a whole 'nother city somewhere near Cuba or somethin'."

But in 1990 Kramer and the presidents formulated a defensive strategy to protect revenue producing regions we essentially controlled as the largest viewed brand in the region. The Big Ten in these areas matters much, much more in revenue loss to competition than the ACC, because the reach almost as many as we do.

Slive discussed our offensive strategy, but the defensive one remained operational. And I know your young self can't grasp it but UT and A&M first talked to Kramer and Arkansas was an intentional setup to get into Texas. And in 1990-2 UT had a silent Big 8 partner involved backdoor, Oklahoma.

But to say we aren't interested in protecting our revenue in the city where we hold our CCG and the largest most influential city in the South is plain wrong! Ditto for Florida. Clemson is a much lower priority mostly because they likely would not pass B1G muster. They aren't AAU and don't deliver a massive market. The would be a content multiplier for the Big Ten but would hold more value to a network in the SEC.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: If the ACC remains viable the SEC would only have interest in 2 schools: Florida State and North Carolina. So, since UNC never leaves a stable ACC that leaves just the Seminoles. This is why I suggest that if the ACC and ESPN could agree to let FSU leave and make some fitting additions like 3 of USF, UCF, Cincinnati or West Virginia they might find life more peaceful.

With the assumption that ESPN would like to keep control of the area of the US that still cares about football and produces most of the football players, that can produce solid basketball, and delivers the very best of baseball/softball to provide year-round content for their networks (and deliver it on a budget), and at the same time look out for the best interests of both of it's 100% owned conferences:

I'm just spitballing here....
What would the SEC be willing to give up to get Florida State? What does the SEC have that could enhance the ACC?
Since it is widely recognized that Florida State and North Carolina are the most valuable of all of the ACC properties, either one would be difficult to replace and have the conference maintain the same level of national gravitas, and moving FSU to the SEC would mean the ACC would need to either get paid more or get somewhat equal compensation (which is probably not feasible).
I would keep the ACC and SEC at 16 members each:
Moving FSU to the SEC along With West Virginia and moving Vanderbilt and South Carolina out of the SEC into the ACC (I believe Kentucky would really be the stronger move to benefit the ACC, but would detract too much from the SEC), and replacing additional Florida presence with UCF.
Pitt/WVU replaces the Clemson/So. Carolina matchup and the Mountaineers can play Syracuse often as an OOC opponent.
With this ESPN can keep North Carolina from moving to the B1G and utilize FSU to generate more income.
While the addition of Vanderbilt and South Carolina by no means replaces the value to the ACC of Florida State, it is better than trying to build value with multiple G5 schools.

Okay, good. The aliens returned you. On a more serious note, you do know that the chances of South Carolina leaving the SEC are about as good as your chances of winning the lottery, right?? If you got Carolina on board the SEC train, you could probably plau them every year. One thing is for sure, South Carolina isn't joining the B1G. Print it!!!

Let's see, the ACC trades their most valuable property to the SEC for the two least valuable properties in the SEC and about $10 million per team. Sounds like a pretty good trade to me. FSU gets out, ESPN adds a true football property to the SEC, the ACC gets to stay together and solidifies their position as the #3 conference.
The one thing that you are correct about, the B1G would NEVER invite South Carolina.

I see that you’re in the bargaining phase now.

We aren’t trading. We aren’t negotiating. We will do to you what we’ve done to the big 12 and what the B1G did to the Pac 12. We will take what we want, and we can wait a decade or more if necessary.

(09-05-2022 02:29 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 04:16 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This simply isn't true. The SEC isn't worried about Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, or Oklahoma and Texas now. It is concerned about Georgia and Florida.

Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M give you every major city in Texas and L.S.U. helps with domination of Houston.

Georgia the State is 85% Dawg! Atlanta has over 6 million. UGa delivers 51% of it. Tech another 42% And Auburn, Clemson, and Tennessee along with South Carolina and Alabama most of the rest. That 42% Tech has is the difference in a lot of ad revenue because in Big 10 hands the advertisers will pay to reach the NMW as well as Atlanta. The SEC will not give its main rival a fat check for taking Tech. In Florida the Gator's hold the plurality of the State. FSU gives us control delivering with the Gators another 35% to their 42%. We make money in Florida by taking FSU. The ACC makes money in Florida, but they don't watch an event in Florida as a conference in the %'s the SEC or B1G does. Miami and FSU in Florida would give the Big 10 the advantage in total # of viewers at 54%. I toy with USF because they have a good shot at hitting AAU metrics and with SEC or B1G money would jump in viewers by association.

The ACC has trouble making money because it is not cohesive in fan interest. It is segmented in regions covered and main interest in hoops over football and vice versa. This is not true of the Big Ten or the SEC.

UNC is possibly accretive in brand and market. Clemson is a solid brand and a content multiplier and added to an SEC schedule would produce 5 million plus viewers a game with about half their SEC schedule or a couple of more depending upon who is hot at the time.

Georgia Tech is already an SEC defensive add on a plan our presidents have had for 30 years. FSU is a must if we are to earn in Florida what UT & A&M with OU can deliver in Texas and Oklahoma.

With FSU Miami isn't a must, by why miss the whole Southern end of the State?

FSU, Georgia Tech, UNC, Clemson, and Miami would be the pecking order and after those either of Virginia Tech/UVa.

The issue with 3 schools in Florida is unlike in Texas you don't cover with dominance every major market within the state with just 2 schools. And Miami/Dade/Broward is a big damn market.

With our growth the defensive adds are now limited to Ga. Tech (Atlanta Market) and Clemson (as a major brand). FSU because of how much of Florida the deliver and because they are also an offensive move. Miami as Forrest Gump would say, "It's a whole 'nother city somewhere near Cuba or somethin'."

But in 1990 Kramer and the presidents formulated a defensive strategy to protect revenue producing regions we essentially controlled as the largest viewed brand in the region. The Big Ten in these areas matters much, much more in revenue loss to competition than the ACC, because the reach almost as many as we do.

Slive discussed our offensive strategy, but the defensive one remained operational. And I know your young self can't grasp it but UT and A&M first talked to Kramer and Arkansas was an intentional setup to get into Texas. And in 1990-2 UT had a silent Big 8 partner involved backdoor, Oklahoma.

But to say we aren't interested in protecting our revenue in the city where we hold our CCG and the largest most influential city in the South is plain wrong! Ditto for Florida. Clemson is a much lower priority mostly because they likely would not pass B1G muster. They aren't AAU and don't deliver a massive market. The would be a content multiplier for the Big Ten but would hold more value to a network in the SEC.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: If the ACC remains viable the SEC would only have interest in 2 schools: Florida State and North Carolina. So, since UNC never leaves a stable ACC that leaves just the Seminoles. This is why I suggest that if the ACC and ESPN could agree to let FSU leave and make some fitting additions like 3 of USF, UCF, Cincinnati or West Virginia they might find life more peaceful.

With the assumption that ESPN would like to keep control of the area of the US that still cares about football and produces most of the football players, that can produce solid basketball, and delivers the very best of baseball/softball to provide year-round content for their networks (and deliver it on a budget), and at the same time look out for the best interests of both of it's 100% owned conferences:

I'm just spitballing here....
What would the SEC be willing to give up to get Florida State? What does the SEC have that could enhance the ACC?
Since it is widely recognized that Florida State and North Carolina are the most valuable of all of the ACC properties, either one would be difficult to replace and have the conference maintain the same level of national gravitas, and moving FSU to the SEC would mean the ACC would need to either get paid more or get somewhat equal compensation (which is probably not feasible).
I would keep the ACC and SEC at 16 members each:
Moving FSU to the SEC along With West Virginia and moving Vanderbilt and South Carolina out of the SEC into the ACC (I believe Kentucky would really be the stronger move to benefit the ACC, but would detract too much from the SEC), and replacing additional Florida presence with UCF.
Pitt/WVU replaces the Clemson/So. Carolina matchup and the Mountaineers can play Syracuse often as an OOC opponent.
With this ESPN can keep North Carolina from moving to the B1G and utilize FSU to generate more income.
While the addition of Vanderbilt and South Carolina by no means replaces the value to the ACC of Florida State, it is better than trying to build value with multiple G5 schools.

Okay, good. The aliens returned you. On a more serious note, you do know that the chances of South Carolina leaving the SEC are about as good as your chances of winning the lottery, right?? If you got Carolina on board the SEC train, you could probably plau them every year. One thing is for sure, South Carolina isn't joining the B1G. Print it!!!

Let's see, the ACC trades their most valuable property to the SEC for the two least valuable properties in the SEC and about $10 million per team. Sounds like a pretty good trade to me. FSU gets out, ESPN adds a true football property to the SEC, the ACC gets to stay together and solidifies their position as the #3 conference.
The one thing that you are correct about, the B1G would NEVER invite South Carolina.

I see that you’re in the bargaining phase now.

We aren’t trading. We aren’t negotiating. We will do to you what we’ve done to the big 12 and what the B1G did to the Pac 12. We will take what we want, and we can wait a decade or more if necessary.

My spitball suggestion was just a take on something JR suggested with a few chairs rearranged.
North Carolina, more than likely would not leave a stable ACC. The question then becomes would three of West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF and USF added to the ACC after Florida State is moved to the SEC actually stabilize the ACC (school and money wise) to give them the clear #3 conference standing?
I somehow don't get the feeling that those additions will work to everyone's satisfaction. If that is the case and Carolina decides that the situation is not tenable and decides to leave, that destination, without a doubt, will be to the B1G and not the SEC.
Your biggest misconception is that these are SEC decisions, which they are not, but rather controlled by those that pay the bills.
It's always the newest members that try to show their importance and make definitive statements regarding their newfound conference.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-954386-post-18...id18419693

Another take on JR's suggestion, however I think it would take much more than $5 Million per team.

(09-05-2022 02:29 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 04:16 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 07:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This simply isn't true. The SEC isn't worried about Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, or Oklahoma and Texas now. It is concerned about Georgia and Florida.

Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M give you every major city in Texas and L.S.U. helps with domination of Houston.

Georgia the State is 85% Dawg! Atlanta has over 6 million. UGa delivers 51% of it. Tech another 42% And Auburn, Clemson, and Tennessee along with South Carolina and Alabama most of the rest. That 42% Tech has is the difference in a lot of ad revenue because in Big 10 hands the advertisers will pay to reach the NMW as well as Atlanta. The SEC will not give its main rival a fat check for taking Tech. In Florida the Gator's hold the plurality of the State. FSU gives us control delivering with the Gators another 35% to their 42%. We make money in Florida by taking FSU. The ACC makes money in Florida, but they don't watch an event in Florida as a conference in the %'s the SEC or B1G does. Miami and FSU in Florida would give the Big 10 the advantage in total # of viewers at 54%. I toy with USF because they have a good shot at hitting AAU metrics and with SEC or B1G money would jump in viewers by association.

The ACC has trouble making money because it is not cohesive in fan interest. It is segmented in regions covered and main interest in hoops over football and vice versa. This is not true of the Big Ten or the SEC.

UNC is possibly accretive in brand and market. Clemson is a solid brand and a content multiplier and added to an SEC schedule would produce 5 million plus viewers a game with about half their SEC schedule or a couple of more depending upon who is hot at the time.

Georgia Tech is already an SEC defensive add on a plan our presidents have had for 30 years. FSU is a must if we are to earn in Florida what UT & A&M with OU can deliver in Texas and Oklahoma.

With FSU Miami isn't a must, by why miss the whole Southern end of the State?

FSU, Georgia Tech, UNC, Clemson, and Miami would be the pecking order and after those either of Virginia Tech/UVa.

The issue with 3 schools in Florida is unlike in Texas you don't cover with dominance every major market within the state with just 2 schools. And Miami/Dade/Broward is a big damn market.

With our growth the defensive adds are now limited to Ga. Tech (Atlanta Market) and Clemson (as a major brand). FSU because of how much of Florida the deliver and because they are also an offensive move. Miami as Forrest Gump would say, "It's a whole 'nother city somewhere near Cuba or somethin'."

But in 1990 Kramer and the presidents formulated a defensive strategy to protect revenue producing regions we essentially controlled as the largest viewed brand in the region. The Big Ten in these areas matters much, much more in revenue loss to competition than the ACC, because the reach almost as many as we do.

Slive discussed our offensive strategy, but the defensive one remained operational. And I know your young self can't grasp it but UT and A&M first talked to Kramer and Arkansas was an intentional setup to get into Texas. And in 1990-2 UT had a silent Big 8 partner involved backdoor, Oklahoma.

But to say we aren't interested in protecting our revenue in the city where we hold our CCG and the largest most influential city in the South is plain wrong! Ditto for Florida. Clemson is a much lower priority mostly because they likely would not pass B1G muster. They aren't AAU and don't deliver a massive market. The would be a content multiplier for the Big Ten but would hold more value to a network in the SEC.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: If the ACC remains viable the SEC would only have interest in 2 schools: Florida State and North Carolina. So, since UNC never leaves a stable ACC that leaves just the Seminoles. This is why I suggest that if the ACC and ESPN could agree to let FSU leave and make some fitting additions like 3 of USF, UCF, Cincinnati or West Virginia they might find life more peaceful.

With the assumption that ESPN would like to keep control of the area of the US that still cares about football and produces most of the football players, that can produce solid basketball, and delivers the very best of baseball/softball to provide year-round content for their networks (and deliver it on a budget), and at the same time look out for the best interests of both of it's 100% owned conferences:

I'm just spitballing here....
What would the SEC be willing to give up to get Florida State? What does the SEC have that could enhance the ACC?
Since it is widely recognized that Florida State and North Carolina are the most valuable of all of the ACC properties, either one would be difficult to replace and have the conference maintain the same level of national gravitas, and moving FSU to the SEC would mean the ACC would need to either get paid more or get somewhat equal compensation (which is probably not feasible).
I would keep the ACC and SEC at 16 members each:
Moving FSU to the SEC along With West Virginia and moving Vanderbilt and South Carolina out of the SEC into the ACC (I believe Kentucky would really be the stronger move to benefit the ACC, but would detract too much from the SEC), and replacing additional Florida presence with UCF.
Pitt/WVU replaces the Clemson/So. Carolina matchup and the Mountaineers can play Syracuse often as an OOC opponent.
With this ESPN can keep North Carolina from moving to the B1G and utilize FSU to generate more income.
While the addition of Vanderbilt and South Carolina by no means replaces the value to the ACC of Florida State, it is better than trying to build value with multiple G5 schools.

Okay, good. The aliens returned you. On a more serious note, you do know that the chances of South Carolina leaving the SEC are about as good as your chances of winning the lottery, right?? If you got Carolina on board the SEC train, you could probably plau them every year. One thing is for sure, South Carolina isn't joining the B1G. Print it!!!

Let's see, the ACC trades their most valuable property to the SEC for the two least valuable properties in the SEC and about $10 million per team. Sounds like a pretty good trade to me. FSU gets out, ESPN adds a true football property to the SEC, the ACC gets to stay together and solidifies their position as the #3 conference.
The one thing that you are correct about, the B1G would NEVER invite South Carolina.

I see that you’re in the bargaining phase now.

We aren’t trading. We aren’t negotiating. We will do to you what we’ve done to the big 12 and what the B1G did to the Pac 12. We will take what we want, and we can wait a decade or more if necessary.

Texas A&M fan thinking they have a say in SEC matters lol

Um, Bevo would like to chat

(09-05-2022 11:53 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 02:29 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 08:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 04:16 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-04-2022 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  With the assumption that ESPN would like to keep control of the area of the US that still cares about football and produces most of the football players, that can produce solid basketball, and delivers the very best of baseball/softball to provide year-round content for their networks (and deliver it on a budget), and at the same time look out for the best interests of both of it's 100% owned conferences:

I'm just spitballing here....
What would the SEC be willing to give up to get Florida State? What does the SEC have that could enhance the ACC?
Since it is widely recognized that Florida State and North Carolina are the most valuable of all of the ACC properties, either one would be difficult to replace and have the conference maintain the same level of national gravitas, and moving FSU to the SEC would mean the ACC would need to either get paid more or get somewhat equal compensation (which is probably not feasible).
I would keep the ACC and SEC at 16 members each:
Moving FSU to the SEC along With West Virginia and moving Vanderbilt and South Carolina out of the SEC into the ACC (I believe Kentucky would really be the stronger move to benefit the ACC, but would detract too much from the SEC), and replacing additional Florida presence with UCF.
Pitt/WVU replaces the Clemson/So. Carolina matchup and the Mountaineers can play Syracuse often as an OOC opponent.
With this ESPN can keep North Carolina from moving to the B1G and utilize FSU to generate more income.
While the addition of Vanderbilt and South Carolina by no means replaces the value to the ACC of Florida State, it is better than trying to build value with multiple G5 schools.

Okay, good. The aliens returned you. On a more serious note, you do know that the chances of South Carolina leaving the SEC are about as good as your chances of winning the lottery, right?? If you got Carolina on board the SEC train, you could probably plau them every year. One thing is for sure, South Carolina isn't joining the B1G. Print it!!!

Let's see, the ACC trades their most valuable property to the SEC for the two least valuable properties in the SEC and about $10 million per team. Sounds like a pretty good trade to me. FSU gets out, ESPN adds a true football property to the SEC, the ACC gets to stay together and solidifies their position as the #3 conference.
The one thing that you are correct about, the B1G would NEVER invite South Carolina.

I see that you’re in the bargaining phase now.

We aren’t trading. We aren’t negotiating. We will do to you what we’ve done to the big 12 and what the B1G did to the Pac 12. We will take what we want, and we can wait a decade or more if necessary.

Texas A&M fan thinking they have a say in SEC matters lol

Um, Bevo would like to chat

In the SEC they have the same voice as Alabama, 1 in 16. Alabama's advantages are usually in scheduling (less so today) and that has always been the AD's job, not the conference.

(09-05-2022 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  My spitball suggestion was just a take on something JR suggested with a few chairs rearranged. North Carolina, more than likely would not leave a stable ACC.

A "stable" ACC would require, at bare minimum, the departures of Clemson and FSU.

Think its fiefdom would mean enough to UNC-CH to stay put at that point?

(09-05-2022 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  ... My spitball suggestion was just a take on something JR suggested with a few chairs rearranged.

North Carolina, more than likely would not leave a stable ACC. The question then becomes would three of West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF and USF added to the ACC after Florida State is moved to the SEC actually stabilize the ACC (school and money wise) to give them the clear #3 conference standing? ...

I have seen a number of proposals on this board that if conference X takes some schools from roughly equivalent conference Y, it will make X move ahead of Y, and that will be the result that justifies the move to the target schools.

IMV, even the recent defections of schools from CUSA to the SBC happened after the SBC moved ahead of CUSA as far as football went, so it still represented the much, much more common scenario of schools wnted by a strong conference than the one they are in making the application to the stronger conference.

There will be plenty of time for it to be determined whether the ACC and Big12 are roughly equal "Major" conferences, or one is seen as clearly ahead, but if its the former, I would be skeptical of the ACC being in a position to raid the Big12 following a loss of FSU and/or Clemson.

(09-05-2022 12:16 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  My spitball suggestion was just a take on something JR suggested with a few chairs rearranged. North Carolina, more than likely would not leave a stable ACC.

A "stable" ACC would require, at bare minimum, the departures of Clemson and FSU.

Think its fiefdom would mean enough to UNC-CH to stay put at that point?

I personally doubt that set up would be enough. We all know that Carolina is never going to care about football to the level of many of it's peers but the thing Carolina does care about is it's broad based athletic program. The only way to sponsor the amount of sports at the level the University/Boosters/Alumni want takes significant resources. Perception of being lesser is worst than actually making less conference revenue.

(09-05-2022 12:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-05-2022 11:22 AM)XLance Wrote:  ... My spitball suggestion was just a take on something JR suggested with a few chairs rearranged.

North Carolina, more than likely would not leave a stable ACC. The question then becomes would three of West Virginia, Cincinnati, UCF and USF added to the ACC after Florida State is moved to the SEC actually stabilize the ACC (school and money wise) to give them the clear #3 conference standing? ...

I have seen a number of proposals on this board that if conference X takes some schools from roughly equivalent conference Y, it will make X move ahead of Y, and that will be the result that justifies the move to the target schools.

IMV, even the recent defections of schools from CUSA to the SBC happened after the SBC moved ahead of CUSA as far as football went, so it still represented the much, much more common scenario of schools wnted by a strong conference than the one they are in making the application to the stronger conference.

There will be plenty of time for it to be determined whether the ACC and Big12 are roughly equal "Major" conferences, or one is seen as clearly ahead, but if its the former, I would be skeptical of the ACC being in a position to raid the Big12 following a loss of FSU and/or Clemson.

Conference USA was more valuable than the Sun Belt until last year (although the gap wasn’t as big as it was before 2013.) The main reason why the Sun Belt was able to raid Conference USA was precisely because C-USA teams were more valuable than Sun Belt teams, so the AAC raided C-USA, weakening the conference to the point that the Sun Bekt could also raid it.


It’s kind of like that scenario some Big East teams were suggesting in 2010-11 (before the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse) where the SEC might deplete the ACC to the point that the Big East could grab Boston College and Maryland from the ACC. Or what actually almost did happen in 2010 and 2011, where the PAC (and to a lesser extent the SEC and Big Ten) almost depleted the Big 12 enough that the abandoned Big 12 schools moved to the Big East. Basically an odd scenario where a previously weaker conference is able to raid a previously stronger conference precisely because the weaker conference’s teams weren’t attractive to other conferences.

FSU will accept either an SEC offer or a B1G offer - and FSU seems to make no bones about it.

Obviously, an FSU addition to the SEC channels Kramer's ancient "defensive theory", but I think an FSU addition is also part of an progressive SEC. Like the State of Texas, the State of Florida can certainly support two Florida schools. FSU is "defensive" only by happenstance, and, while true, would not be the primary reason to add Florida State to the SEC.

No matter which league FSU chooses - and, for a myriad of reasons, I think FSU chooses the SEC - traditional thinking suggests FSU leaving the ACC crashes the entire ACC (which also plays into the hands of both the SEC and the B1G). I agree with that traditional thinking.

If the ACC crashes, I think the SEC has an excellent opportunity to add FSU, Clemson, and then one out of NC and one out of VA. Those schools and states are both defensive and progressive additions.

However, money is money. Is 16 the sweet spot? 20? Maybe 16? Maybe 20? If 20 is the correct answer, one assumes 20 is financially accretive.

Anything beyond 20, I think, depends on whether there's a breakaway. If there's a breakaway, then I think 24 or 28 might happen. And to get to 24 or 28, if that happens, I don't think a full saturation of Kramer's 1990s thinking maximizes future profit under breakaway conditions, which Kramer never foresaw. An exception might be Duke, to strengthen SEC basketball.

Adding Miami, GT, NCSU, VPI to the SEC if the SEC is first able to add FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA? Other than possibly Duke on a fast break, I doubt it. If the B1G is the competition - and it is - the SEC needs a broader appeal than mere antebellum regionality.