(09-24-2022 04:30 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:10 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  Eight seems like an extremely generous number. The Big 12 has only managed to lose 6 so far, and I'm not sure that number changes. The PAC has only lost 2 to date, though that could increase. The ACC already lost one in Maryland. Are we really thinking there are eight more ACC schools the Big 10/SEC would be interested in? If the ACC is really that loaded, it would be getting a lot more money. I think most would have considered the old Big 12 a superior football conference by far. So if that conference has only lost 6, then you have to really lower your standards to get that many out of the ACC

Oh, and as to the original post. No, I don't think Duke makes the cut on its own. As many have stated, it's just another Kansas.

I think it really comes down to: If I don't add you as a member, will someone else, and as ooc scheduling gets tighter, I lose opportunities for my schools to schedule games with you.

And this without even talking about adding content for potential media deals.

It's really just a question of where the escalation stops.

And if the ACC schools suddenly become available, does the SEC sit on its hands while the B10 adds all the schools which are perceived to be the better ones? And vice versa for the B10?

I think the best move for the ACC (and SEC and espn) right now is to vote to allow Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, so that they can join the SEC, while still leaving the GoR agreement in place for each of the rest of the schools, and backfill 4 for 2 - Cin, WV, UCF, and either USF or Memphis.

This would stabilize the ACC, pushing the P2 vultures away.

It would also get the B12 looking west, rather than east.

And espn gets access to more content and additional matchups, including the moving of several long-standing rivalry games in-conference for the ACC and the SEC.

it's a win-win for both conferences, and the schools involved.

I would disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Did UCLA and USC leaving "stabilize" the PAC? Most would say no. So why would letting two valuable programs like FSU and Clemson leave "stabilize" the ACC? It makes the conference as a whole weaker. While the conference can add more schools, it's not valuable content. So the ACC loses out. ESPN loses out because the ACC is far less valuable without those two schools. They used to have games like Clemson vs. UNC. And Clemson vs. FSU. And FSU vs. Miami. Now it gets Miami vs. SFU. And UNC vs. Memphis. And Memphis vs. SFU. Does anyone think those are remotely equal? At best, ESPN ends up paying more money for the same basic content. So ESPN loses. Unless you're a fan of Clemson, FSU, or the SEC you lose out.

Also, I don't really follow your idea of adding schools to avoid losing "opportunities for schools to schedule games with you." There's literally over 100 division FBS football schools. You can't add them all. No conference is going to keep adding schools just on the slim effect it has on OOC games. No one is thinking I have to go add Louisville now and paying them $100 million per year because one school might want to play them five years down the road and we don't want (insert other conference) poaching them.

Okay, I know that taking Oregon, Washington, Cal & Stanford stabilizes the PAC. I also know that taking FSU, Clemson, and Miami out stabilizes the ACC. Maybe fuse the leftovers together??

As I mentioned, the PAC is different. This isn't about pressure release in this case.

In this case it's the complete loss of LA market schools. And if WA and OR leave, it will further destabilize the PAC - probably to a mass exodus.

2 entirely different situations.

Although it presumably would not help UCLA's debt situation, if UCLA stayed in the PAC, that would likely be a stabilizing force, which should help the PAC remain together. (Presuming the Big10 doesn't invite OR/WA, of course.)

In both cases, this isn't so much about individual schools, as it is more about group dynamics and how the keeping or removing of a school can be a disruptive or a stabilizing force.

And conferences prefer stability - preferably long-term stability.

I know we in this forum want to move things around like a child's abc-blocks, but the conferences would prefer to build relationships between schools over the long term, rather than treating a conference like a revolving door. In general, it's just better for the schools and the conference. This is a primary difference between most of the G5 and the P5. Though the MAC seems to prefer it as well.

All that said, if the media companies continue to pay some conferences dramatically differently than others, greed and discontent will not surprisingly continue to set in - which of course fuels continued disruption, and therefore realignment.

What you are trying to do is basically force the genie back into the bottle. Too late to do that. However, if you take out the four PAC schools that I mentioned, you are left with Oregon State, Washington State, and the four corners schools. I think that those six schools can get along with each other as long as they have some recruiting grounds and some stability. San Diego State might be needed also, but I am not positive on that.

(09-24-2022 05:07 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:30 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:10 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  I think it really comes down to: If I don't add you as a member, will someone else, and as ooc scheduling gets tighter, I lose opportunities for my schools to schedule games with you.

And this without even talking about adding content for potential media deals.

It's really just a question of where the escalation stops.

And if the ACC schools suddenly become available, does the SEC sit on its hands while the B10 adds all the schools which are perceived to be the better ones? And vice versa for the B10?

I think the best move for the ACC (and SEC and espn) right now is to vote to allow Clemson and FSU out of the GOR, so that they can join the SEC, while still leaving the GoR agreement in place for each of the rest of the schools, and backfill 4 for 2 - Cin, WV, UCF, and either USF or Memphis.

This would stabilize the ACC, pushing the P2 vultures away.

It would also get the B12 looking west, rather than east.

And espn gets access to more content and additional matchups, including the moving of several long-standing rivalry games in-conference for the ACC and the SEC.

it's a win-win for both conferences, and the schools involved.

I would disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Did UCLA and USC leaving "stabilize" the PAC? Most would say no. So why would letting two valuable programs like FSU and Clemson leave "stabilize" the ACC? It makes the conference as a whole weaker. While the conference can add more schools, it's not valuable content. So the ACC loses out. ESPN loses out because the ACC is far less valuable without those two schools. They used to have games like Clemson vs. UNC. And Clemson vs. FSU. And FSU vs. Miami. Now it gets Miami vs. SFU. And UNC vs. Memphis. And Memphis vs. SFU. Does anyone think those are remotely equal? At best, ESPN ends up paying more money for the same basic content. So ESPN loses. Unless you're a fan of Clemson, FSU, or the SEC you lose out.

Also, I don't really follow your idea of adding schools to avoid losing "opportunities for schools to schedule games with you." There's literally over 100 division FBS football schools. You can't add them all. No conference is going to keep adding schools just on the slim effect it has on OOC games. No one is thinking I have to go add Louisville now and paying them $100 million per year because one school might want to play them five years down the road and we don't want (insert other conference) poaching them.

Okay, I know that taking Oregon, Washington, Cal & Stanford stabilizes the PAC. I also know that taking FSU, Clemson, and Miami out stabilizes the ACC. Maybe fuse the leftovers together??

As I mentioned, the PAC is different. This isn't about pressure release in this case.

In this case it's the complete loss of LA market schools. And if WA and OR leave, it will further destabilize the PAC - probably to a mass exodus.

2 entirely different situations.

Although it presumably would not help UCLA's debt situation, if UCLA stayed in the PAC, that would likely be a stabilizing force, which should help the PAC remain together. (Presuming the Big10 doesn't invite OR/WA, of course.)

In both cases, this isn't so much about individual schools, as it is more about group dynamics and how the keeping or removing of a school can be a disruptive or a stabilizing force.

And conferences prefer stability - preferably long-term stability.

I know we in this forum want to move things around like a child's abc-blocks, but the conferences would prefer to build relationships between schools over the long term, rather than treating a conference like a revolving door. In general, it's just better for the schools and the conference. This is a primary difference between most of the G5 and the P5. Though the MAC seems to prefer it as well.

All that said, if the media companies continue to pay some conferences dramatically differently than others, greed and discontent will not surprisingly continue to set in - which of course fuels continued disruption, and therefore realignment.

What you are trying to do is basically force the genie back into the bottle. Too late to do that. However, if you take out the four PAC schools that I mentioned, you are left with Oregon State, Washington State, and the four corners schools. I think that those six schools can get along with each other as long as they have some recruiting grounds and some stability. San Diego State might be needed also, but I am not positive on that.

It's never too late to try (until it is, of course : )

As for taking 4 and leaving the rest - espn lowballed them 240M, merely without the LA schools. What sort of deal would you imagine they would get, even if they added the best possible available (presumably G5) schools?

discontent = potential disruption, unless it's worked out.

In this case, the ones who can, are going to try for a different conference, in order to better their money, prestige, scheduling, etc.

If you remove WA and OR, the PAC as you once knew it, is toast - it is backfilled into being a G5 conference, or is just dissolved.

Compare that to the ACC.

they could lose FSU and Clemson, backfill 4 for 2, the same way the B12 did, and be just fine. no panic, no instability.

Add losing NC to the mix, and a lot more schools get concerned. And remember, for this to work for the ACC, it requires a (negotiated) vote to let departing schools out of the conference GoR. That's very unlikely with NC.

And that without even considering whether NC might be interested in staying, as I mentioned above.

Look. all the current disruption among the so called M3 could lead to 1 or all of them breaking up.

I don't think the SEC, the B10, espn, fox, etc are stupid. I think they all see this.

And the question they each need to ask - is such a thing happening in the best interest of each stakeholder, and also, is it in the best interests of college sports as a whole. And I think the answer to that is likely - no. Especially not with the new CFP deal that was just done.

I have no doubt that they are aware that there will be fan outcry at some of the big school moves to the P2. But if you'll notice, removing Texas actually had a stabilizing effect on the B12.

And I think the USC move was likely supposed to do the same for the PAC, but UCLA has become a bit of a wrinkle. And notice, that pretty much stopped the B10 realignment moves in its tracks. We're hearing leaks and rumours of talks. But movement stopped. And will likely wait until whatever is going on behind-the-scenes is resolved.

And I would be surprised if decision-makers are not discussing these same options behind-the-scenes. Who knows what they decide, of course : )

(09-24-2022 05:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 05:07 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:30 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:10 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  I would disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Did UCLA and USC leaving "stabilize" the PAC? Most would say no. So why would letting two valuable programs like FSU and Clemson leave "stabilize" the ACC? It makes the conference as a whole weaker. While the conference can add more schools, it's not valuable content. So the ACC loses out. ESPN loses out because the ACC is far less valuable without those two schools. They used to have games like Clemson vs. UNC. And Clemson vs. FSU. And FSU vs. Miami. Now it gets Miami vs. SFU. And UNC vs. Memphis. And Memphis vs. SFU. Does anyone think those are remotely equal? At best, ESPN ends up paying more money for the same basic content. So ESPN loses. Unless you're a fan of Clemson, FSU, or the SEC you lose out.

Also, I don't really follow your idea of adding schools to avoid losing "opportunities for schools to schedule games with you." There's literally over 100 division FBS football schools. You can't add them all. No conference is going to keep adding schools just on the slim effect it has on OOC games. No one is thinking I have to go add Louisville now and paying them $100 million per year because one school might want to play them five years down the road and we don't want (insert other conference) poaching them.

Okay, I know that taking Oregon, Washington, Cal & Stanford stabilizes the PAC. I also know that taking FSU, Clemson, and Miami out stabilizes the ACC. Maybe fuse the leftovers together??

As I mentioned, the PAC is different. This isn't about pressure release in this case.

In this case it's the complete loss of LA market schools. And if WA and OR leave, it will further destabilize the PAC - probably to a mass exodus.

2 entirely different situations.

Although it presumably would not help UCLA's debt situation, if UCLA stayed in the PAC, that would likely be a stabilizing force, which should help the PAC remain together. (Presuming the Big10 doesn't invite OR/WA, of course.)

In both cases, this isn't so much about individual schools, as it is more about group dynamics and how the keeping or removing of a school can be a disruptive or a stabilizing force.

And conferences prefer stability - preferably long-term stability.

I know we in this forum want to move things around like a child's abc-blocks, but the conferences would prefer to build relationships between schools over the long term, rather than treating a conference like a revolving door. In general, it's just better for the schools and the conference. This is a primary difference between most of the G5 and the P5. Though the MAC seems to prefer it as well.

All that said, if the media companies continue to pay some conferences dramatically differently than others, greed and discontent will not surprisingly continue to set in - which of course fuels continued disruption, and therefore realignment.

What you are trying to do is basically force the genie back into the bottle. Too late to do that. However, if you take out the four PAC schools that I mentioned, you are left with Oregon State, Washington State, and the four corners schools. I think that those six schools can get along with each other as long as they have some recruiting grounds and some stability. San Diego State might be needed also, but I am not positive on that.

It's never too late to try (until it is, of course : )

As for taking 4 and leaving the rest - espn lowballed them 240M, merely without the LA schools. What sort of deal would you imagine they would get, even if they added the best possible available (presumably G5) schools?

discontent = potential disruption, unless it's worked out.

In this case, the ones who can, are going to try for a different conference, in order to better their money, prestige, scheduling, etc.

If you remove WA and OR, the PAC as you once knew it, is toast - it is backfilled into being a G5 conference, or is just dissolved.

Compare that to the ACC.

they could lose FSU and Clemson, backfill 4 for 2, the same way the B12 did, and be just fine. no panic, no instability.

Add losing NC to the mix, and a lot more schools get concerned. And remember, for this to work for the ACC, it requires a (negotiated) vote to let departing schools out of the conference GoR. That's very unlikely with NC.

And that without even considering whether NC might be interested in staying, as I mentioned above.

Look. all the current disruption among the so called M3 could lead to 1 or all of them breaking up.

I don't think the SEC, the B10, espn, fox, etc are stupid. I think they all see this.

And the question they each need to ask - is such a thing happening in the best interest of each stakeholder, and also, is it in the best interests of college sports as a whole. And I think the answer to that is likely - no. Especially not with the new CFP deal that was just done.

I have no doubt that they are aware that there will be fan outcry at some of the big school moves to the P2. But if you'll notice, removing Texas actually had a stabilizing effect on the B12.

And I think the USC move was likely supposed to do the same for the PAC, but UCLA has become a bit of a wrinkle. And notice, that pretty much stopped the B10 realignment moves in its tracks. We're hearing leaks and rumours of talks. But movement stopped. And will likely wait until whatever is going on behind-the-scenes is resolved.

And I would be surprised if decision-makers are not discussing these same options behind-the-scenes. Who knows what they decide, of course : )

You act like ESPN is somehow to blame for the ACC and Pac struggles. I blame the lack of football enthusiasm on the west coast and short-sighted decision making over the past decade by Stanford and other pac members for the pac’s woes. As far as the ACC, they’ve done a great job to get where they are, but the dramatic increase in football’s importance combined with their focus on basketball has relegated them to 2nd class status.

Blaming networks for the current realignment drama is barking at the moon.

(09-24-2022 05:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 05:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 05:07 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:30 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 04:10 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Okay, I know that taking Oregon, Washington, Cal & Stanford stabilizes the PAC. I also know that taking FSU, Clemson, and Miami out stabilizes the ACC. Maybe fuse the leftovers together??

As I mentioned, the PAC is different. This isn't about pressure release in this case.

In this case it's the complete loss of LA market schools. And if WA and OR leave, it will further destabilize the PAC - probably to a mass exodus.

2 entirely different situations.

Although it presumably would not help UCLA's debt situation, if UCLA stayed in the PAC, that would likely be a stabilizing force, which should help the PAC remain together. (Presuming the Big10 doesn't invite OR/WA, of course.)

In both cases, this isn't so much about individual schools, as it is more about group dynamics and how the keeping or removing of a school can be a disruptive or a stabilizing force.

And conferences prefer stability - preferably long-term stability.

I know we in this forum want to move things around like a child's abc-blocks, but the conferences would prefer to build relationships between schools over the long term, rather than treating a conference like a revolving door. In general, it's just better for the schools and the conference. This is a primary difference between most of the G5 and the P5. Though the MAC seems to prefer it as well.

All that said, if the media companies continue to pay some conferences dramatically differently than others, greed and discontent will not surprisingly continue to set in - which of course fuels continued disruption, and therefore realignment.

What you are trying to do is basically force the genie back into the bottle. Too late to do that. However, if you take out the four PAC schools that I mentioned, you are left with Oregon State, Washington State, and the four corners schools. I think that those six schools can get along with each other as long as they have some recruiting grounds and some stability. San Diego State might be needed also, but I am not positive on that.

It's never too late to try (until it is, of course : )

As for taking 4 and leaving the rest - espn lowballed them 240M, merely without the LA schools. What sort of deal would you imagine they would get, even if they added the best possible available (presumably G5) schools?

discontent = potential disruption, unless it's worked out.

In this case, the ones who can, are going to try for a different conference, in order to better their money, prestige, scheduling, etc.

If you remove WA and OR, the PAC as you once knew it, is toast - it is backfilled into being a G5 conference, or is just dissolved.

Compare that to the ACC.

they could lose FSU and Clemson, backfill 4 for 2, the same way the B12 did, and be just fine. no panic, no instability.

Add losing NC to the mix, and a lot more schools get concerned. And remember, for this to work for the ACC, it requires a (negotiated) vote to let departing schools out of the conference GoR. That's very unlikely with NC.

And that without even considering whether NC might be interested in staying, as I mentioned above.

Look. all the current disruption among the so called M3 could lead to 1 or all of them breaking up.

I don't think the SEC, the B10, espn, fox, etc are stupid. I think they all see this.

And the question they each need to ask - is such a thing happening in the best interest of each stakeholder, and also, is it in the best interests of college sports as a whole. And I think the answer to that is likely - no. Especially not with the new CFP deal that was just done.

I have no doubt that they are aware that there will be fan outcry at some of the big school moves to the P2. But if you'll notice, removing Texas actually had a stabilizing effect on the B12.

And I think the USC move was likely supposed to do the same for the PAC, but UCLA has become a bit of a wrinkle. And notice, that pretty much stopped the B10 realignment moves in its tracks. We're hearing leaks and rumours of talks. But movement stopped. And will likely wait until whatever is going on behind-the-scenes is resolved.

And I would be surprised if decision-makers are not discussing these same options behind-the-scenes. Who knows what they decide, of course : )

You act like ESPN is somehow to blame for the ACC and Pac struggles. I blame the lack of football enthusiasm on the west coast and short-sighted decision making over the past decade by Stanford and other pac members for the pac’s woes. As far as the ACC, they’ve done a great job to get where they are, but the dramatic increase in football’s importance combined with their focus on basketball has relegated them to 2nd class status.

Blaming networks for the current realignment drama is barking at the moon.

I'm not blaming the networks.

I'm actually not assigning "blame" anywhere.

To me it's merely a question of assessing the various circumstances and seeing what are causes and effects of certain circumstances.

And media money is just one thing of many.

A lot of this is "growing pains" - an over-century set of systems, processes, infrastructure, etc. which also have to interact with stresses, functions, technology, social dynamics, etc. of the ever changing, ever-progressing (and regressing) modern era.

If handled well - great. But decision have been made in the last 30-ish years (longer, but that works for this discussion), which did not foresee the future as they could have. Surprises happen. Things unaccounted for happen. And that's without talking about intentional self-serving, or short-sighted, or even malicious decisions.

So it can be a challenge.

But that's what makes all this interesting and fun to talk about : )

(09-24-2022 11:12 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Hey don't lump in the SEC with the winners in this equation. Clemson and FSU are good fits for the SEC, but they're probably only average in football enthusiasm. On the field, you can only have so many top teams, so if either Clemson or FSU is good enough to be in a featured game they'd just be replacing UGA, Bama, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc etc. ie, we'd still have several big games every week, but those games wouldn't necessarily draw any more viewers than the big games we would have had if they hadn't joined the league.

This looks like a loss for the ACC/ESPN, and probably neutral for the SEC. Oh, and even though it would be a revenues win for FSU/Clemson, they'd have significantly lower odds of making the new, expanded playoff. So, kind of a win for them?

I'm not saying that I don't want both of them in the SEC, I think they're perfect fits for us, but probably in 2034 instead of 2024.