(09-22-2022 11:24 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 10:26 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:16 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  If NC joined the SEC, would the B10 still want to invite Duke without them?

In nearly every scenario where Duke joins the B10, they're paired with NC.

It's starting to sound like NC and NC State might potentially be paired to the SEC instead.

In that case, would the B10 still be interested in Duke?

About the bolded, I am not sure why the SEC would want NC and NC State rather than NC and Duke. The latter is IMO much more appealing.

I do confess though that I have always been skeptical about NC State - to - the - SEC talk. I have never seen any value to the SEC in NC State, just as I have never seen any value in Kansas either.

Just MO.

Yeah, I've never understood why people act like NCSU is a more valuable property than Duke. Conferences would actually prefer having Duke going 1-8 in football conference play every year and going to Final Fours over having NCSU go 3-6 in football conference play every year and having a basketball team that usually goes about 6-12 in conference play every year. Duke is a much better academic school than NCSU, to boot.

And if Rutgers sports can seriously generate NYC cable fees for the Big Ten, I see no reason why Duke basketball can't generate NYC cable fees for the SEC. Duke basketball would also solidify the Big Ten's claim to the entire NYC market for in case the cable providers are tempted to only give Rutgers credit for NJ as is frequently rumored.

Ummm, because that's not how it works.

Network cable fees usually are based on local markets, but Notre Dame football and Duke basketball are probably the only two college sports teams with a national following. A conference that invites Duke actually would have a very good case to claim the NYC market.

(09-21-2022 07:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In a vacuum, yes, I think the Big Ten would be interested in Duke. It might be one of the few (if not only) basketball programs where it’s so engrained as a power in that sport. I’ve said many times that for my generation and younger, the school that nationally enflames the most passionate hate even when they’re not anywhere close to North Carolina is Duke - more than Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State or anyone else. They are akin to the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers as a national brand that everyone has a strong opinion on that has nothing to do with local rivalries.

However, as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there as a free agents without a GOR, it’s also very hard for me to see the Big Ten really prioritizing anyone from the ACC outside of the FSU/Miami combo (and that’s purely for football reasons as they’re not perfect academic fits.)

As someone that made my realignment trade with a lot of analysis of academics and markets, even I can admit that we’re entering into a different phase of realignment. I don’t want to hear about schools with a “great market and academics” profile being added to the Big Ten as long as Stanford and Cal are out there because those two schools have both better academics and a better market than every other conceivable option.

I'm surprised that Clemson still gets almost no mention from B1G teams, their academics are very nearly the equal of FSU and they're basically the same in football (though Clemson's recent arc is enormously better). Miami would be a distant 3rd in that discussion.

However, if we're just talking about the top picks then I could see the B1G looking at UW and FSU. I know, I know, no regional travel partners etc etc, but they're both big brands and they both fit the B1G mold. If they want 4 instead of 2 then Stanford + Clemson, with Miami or UO as backups if Clemson as expected looks at the SEC.

All of this assumes that the ACC schools somehow get out of their GoR, which I still find to be extremely unlikely.

(09-21-2022 08:31 PM)1Dukie Wrote:  The Duke-UNC rivalry is greater than 1 program by itself. ($)

Duke would likely needed to be invited along with a combination of other schools (Duke, UNC, UVa) or Duke and UNC combo.

Is the Duke-UNC rivalry in basketball, which is at most 15% of this discussion, as powerful as the Texas A&M-texas rivalry in football? I'd say that it is, but it's still only 15% as impactful. A&M and then texas made it into the SEC each on our own merits. Any team being considered for the P2 now or in the future will need to carry its own weight, not rely on a rivalry with another school.

If Kansas can't get admitted in the Big Ten based primarily on the merits of its basketball program, I don't think Duke can get in. That said, I think both schools may have a better chance at admission as part of a package of schools. For example, Kansas, Colorado, Stanford and Cal. Or UVA, UNC, Duke and GT. The schools in play are in the west. So that favors Kansas at the moment.

(09-22-2022 02:11 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  If Kansas can't get admitted in the Big Ten based primarily on the merits of its basketball program, I don't think Duke can get in. That said, I think both schools may have a better chance at admission as part of a package of schools. For example, Kansas, Colorado, Stanford and Cal. Or UVA, UNC, Duke and GT. The schools in play are in the west. So that favors Kansas at the moment.

I don’t think Duke getting a Power 2 invite is that likely. I just think they’re more likely to get a P2 invite than NC State and some other supposed contenders for the Power 2.

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

Except that completely leaves out the part of the equation that UNC is really the crown jewel as far as realignment goes. Yeah, FSU and Clemson have great brands, but UNC has everything you want when you're looking for new school: premier academics, blueblood in one of the two major sports while still being at least decent at the other, national brand recognition and following, and, most importantly, get you into a new state/region/market that is pretty sizable already and growing quickly. Realignment discussions out of the ACC for both the SEC and B1G begin with UNC at the top of that list.

So, UNC, knowing they're at the top of both lists, is just going to walk away from all that money and P2 status while also voting to elevate 2 current conference members?

(09-24-2022 08:44 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

Except that completely leaves out the part of the equation that UNC is really the crown jewel as far as realignment goes. Yeah, FSU and Clemson have great brands, but UNC has everything you want when you're looking for new school: premier academics, blueblood in one of the two major sports while still being at least decent at the other, national brand recognition and following, and, most importantly, get you into a new state/region/market that is pretty sizable already and growing quickly. Realignment discussions out of the ACC for both the SEC and B1G begin with UNC at the top of that list.

So, UNC, knowing they're at the top of both lists, is just going to walk away from all that money and P2 status while also voting to elevate 2 current conference members?

And if that's the deal breaker, it's probably just as easy to move 3 as it is two.

however, NC really is a linchpin to quite a few schools. I don't think that the others would vote to allow NC out of the GoR.

But even if they did, I'm not sure that - under these specific circumstances - that NC would be eager to go. I don't think money is as much of an issue. And they really do seem to value their local rivalries.

Plus, look at Nebraska. Top of their game in the B12 - and yes, I'm aware there are other factors - that said, they left all their long-term rivals from the G8 days behind. It's difficult to look at that and not see that that could be a contributing issue to at least some of their current circumstances.

Missouri at least has the former swc members as sort-of familiar opponents. And OK is incoming.

So I dunno. NC seems to have made a home for themselves that they like.

So yes, they might want to go, but I think it's just as likely that they might want to stay in the home that they've made for themselves.

and when you consider the new cfp of 6+6, there's less of a reason to join the SEC, unless you really think you want to try to beat Alabama/Georgia/etc. every year to try to get to the conference finals.

Plus, unlike the other two, I think espn would probably prefer NC stay in the conference with its popular matchups. That's where the money/ratings are. If NC stays, and they do the backfill I mentioned, I could imagine a talk with espn to make sure that each school doesn't lose any money. They might even up the amount a little - they want this boat to stay afloat til the 2030s. So it's worth it to espn for the bulk of the conference to stay together and be stable.

So I'll stick with thinking that, if they get a vote to let FSU and Clemson join the SEC, I think the ACC can do a simple backfill, and will stabilize and they can ignore this realignment thing and go back to playing sports.

I know it isn't as complicated as we on the forum would like, but it's a lot calmer and conservative - which seems to be what conferences prefer.

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

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.

Isn't UNC and NCSU the same deal as Cal/UCLA? I would get some bylaws in place to hedge against UNC bolting solo and leaving NCSU behind. I actually have both going to the SEC in the event the SEC has to take two from that state, thus leaving behind Duke and UVa (assuming FSU Clemson already added).

The B1G would certainly pass on UNC if forced to take NCSU, but not so clear the SEC would do the same. B1G turns to UVa and KU/Colorado/UA after the PN4.

(09-24-2022 11:12 AM)bryanw1995 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:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

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.

1. Demographics and the economy say things happen sooner, not 2034-6.

2. Wherever UNC goes Duke will go as their value is in basketball and they define each other. Kansas however is the 2nd most valuable hoops program in the nation behind only Kentucky. That said, North Carolina is a major market addition from a market they dominate. The SEC was willing to take Duke with UNC in 2010. They would still do it and so would the Big Ten. Any conference would take 2/3rds of the research Triangle.

3. Florida State gives the SEC 77% of the viewership of Florida college football watchers. FSU is a no brainer anytime they can move. That means ad increases in Florida pay for the Noles inclusion. Furthermore, everyone in the SEC wants games in Florida. FSU doubles the chances for all conference teams to do so and helps the SEC office with the major problem of gripes from those AD's whose schools are infrequent in their Florida visits. This is why Miami makes sense as well. With 3 Florida schools everyone could manage a game there within a 2 year cycle.

Clemson is an SEC like school and fits. Clemson is however revenue neutral.

4. Either Virginia school is a worthy addition.

(09-24-2022 11:20 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Isn't UNC and NCSU the same deal as Cal/UCLA? I would get some bylaws in place to hedge against UNC bolting solo and leaving NCSU behind. I actually have both going to the SEC in the event the SEC has to take two from that state, thus leaving behind Duke and UVa (assuming FSU Clemson already added).

The B1G would certainly pass on UNC if forced to take NCSU, but not so clear the SEC would do the same. B1G turns to UVa and KU/Colorado/UA after the PN4.

Neither of the P2 needs 2 teams in NC or VA. If we're looking to add additional teams in a state then GT or Miami make more sense than a 2nd school in NC or VA. It's possible that each of the P2 take 1 from both states however.

I know a lot of people are enthusiastic about Duke, but they get more fans to basketball than football games and have a tiny student body. They would cost either of the P2 so much money that they'd render UNC, at best, revenue neutral. If either of us want a pure basketball school then KU makes a lot more sense.

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.

Different situation in the PAC.

And conference stability doesn't have much of anything to do with a programs monetary value.

And your cherry-picked examples skipped over the long-term rivalries. Like Pitt-WV; or FL-FSU. Which would indeed bring value to espn.

As for your thoughts about espn and media deals - If you'd like similar examples, look to other conferences who recently lost members, but backfilled and were told that the backfills were enough so that they didn't lose money/their media deal. This isn't theoretical - it happens.

Anyway, I said, this is a bit of a different situation than the PAC.

It's a "pressure valve release".

If it's not done, the ACC is likely to lose far more than those two, as has been noted by far more people than me.

(09-22-2022 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In a vacuum, yes, I think the Big Ten would be interested in Duke. It might be one of the few (if not only) basketball programs where it’s so engrained as a power in that sport. I’ve said many times that for my generation and younger, the school that nationally enflames the most passionate hate even when they’re not anywhere close to North Carolina is Duke - more than Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State or anyone else. They are akin to the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers as a national brand that everyone has a strong opinion on that has nothing to do with local rivalries.

However, as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there as a free agents without a GOR, it’s also very hard for me to see the Big Ten really prioritizing anyone from the ACC outside of the FSU/Miami combo (and that’s purely for football reasons as they’re not perfect academic fits.)

As someone that made my realignment trade with a lot of analysis of academics and markets, even I can admit that we’re entering into a different phase of realignment. I don’t want to hear about schools with a “great market and academics” profile being added to the Big Ten as long as Stanford and Cal are out there because those two schools have both better academics and a better market than every other conceivable option.

I'm surprised that Clemson still gets almost no mention from B1G teams, their academics are very nearly the equal of FSU and they're basically the same in football (though Clemson's recent arc is enormously better). Miami would be a distant 3rd in that discussion.

However, if we're just talking about the top picks then I could see the B1G looking at UW and FSU. I know, I know, no regional travel partners etc etc, but they're both big brands and they both fit the B1G mold. If they want 4 instead of 2 then Stanford + Clemson, with Miami or UO as backups if Clemson as expected looks at the SEC.

All of this assumes that the ACC schools somehow get out of their GoR, which I still find to be extremely unlikely.

As soon as Clemson moves their campus to Florida or the population of South Carolina skyrockets they will be lower at least on this Big Ten fan's list. Now if they keep winning I'll gladly take them. But I'd take a 7-5 Florida State way more than a 7-5 Clemson with "very nearly academics" and a 7-5 Miami even though they're a private school. Would I rather go to Miami or ... Clemson?

(09-24-2022 01:46 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 11:52 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:37 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  In a vacuum, yes, I think the Big Ten would be interested in Duke. It might be one of the few (if not only) basketball programs where it’s so engrained as a power in that sport. I’ve said many times that for my generation and younger, the school that nationally enflames the most passionate hate even when they’re not anywhere close to North Carolina is Duke - more than Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State or anyone else. They are akin to the Yankees, Cowboys and Lakers as a national brand that everyone has a strong opinion on that has nothing to do with local rivalries.

However, as long as Stanford and Cal are sitting out there as a free agents without a GOR, it’s also very hard for me to see the Big Ten really prioritizing anyone from the ACC outside of the FSU/Miami combo (and that’s purely for football reasons as they’re not perfect academic fits.)

As someone that made my realignment trade with a lot of analysis of academics and markets, even I can admit that we’re entering into a different phase of realignment. I don’t want to hear about schools with a “great market and academics” profile being added to the Big Ten as long as Stanford and Cal are out there because those two schools have both better academics and a better market than every other conceivable option.

I'm surprised that Clemson still gets almost no mention from B1G teams, their academics are very nearly the equal of FSU and they're basically the same in football (though Clemson's recent arc is enormously better). Miami would be a distant 3rd in that discussion.

However, if we're just talking about the top picks then I could see the B1G looking at UW and FSU. I know, I know, no regional travel partners etc etc, but they're both big brands and they both fit the B1G mold. If they want 4 instead of 2 then Stanford + Clemson, with Miami or UO as backups if Clemson as expected looks at the SEC.

All of this assumes that the ACC schools somehow get out of their GoR, which I still find to be extremely unlikely.

As soon as Clemson moves their campus to Florida or the population of South Carolina skyrockets they will be lower at least on this Big Ten fan's list. Now if they keep winning I'll gladly take them. But I'd take a 7-5 Florida State way more than a 7-5 Clemson with "very nearly academics" and a 7-5 Miami even though they're a private school. Would I rather go to Miami or ... Clemson?

Miami isn't in the same league as Clemson...they're barely playing the same sport. Miami plays their home games 20 miles from campus and was excited a couple years ago to finally get back into the top 25% in football attendance. Since joining the ACC 20 yrs ago they have lost at least 3 games every season and have only even won 10 games once. They were great in the '80s and 90s but since then have been a complete afterthought. Every year they lose more and more Brand value. They're in danger of slipping to 4th or even 5th in Florida if they don't turn things around ASAP.

But, hey, if you guys want Miami then you're welcome to them, we certainly don't want them.

(09-24-2022 10:55 AM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-24-2022 01:55 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 02:55 PM)Jericho Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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??

(09-24-2022 01:19 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Anyway, I said, this is a bit of a different situation than the PAC.

It's a "pressure valve release".

If it's not done, the ACC is likely to lose far more than those two, as has been noted by far more people than me.

A strategy of "let's sabotage the conference up front so we aren't worth raiding" strategy for the ACC doesn't hang together.

The SEC and Big Ten will want UNC when the ACC GOR expires, whether Clemson/FSU stays in the ACC or leaves it, and while it doesn't have the same high ceiling on its media value as USC, UNC has a similar position to USC in the PAC as far as being an appreciable part of why a number of conference partners want to be in the conference.

(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:  

(09-21-2022 07:10 AM)goofus Wrote:  Assuming the SEC and Big Ten will be taking around 8 teams at most from the ACC, including Notre Dame, that probably means ND, Clem, FSU, UNC, NCSU, VA all get taken first before Duke. That leaves VT, Miami, GT, Duke to compete for the final 2 spots.

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.