(08-14-2023 11:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  And who is going to tell ND they're going to the Big Ten lol

Ridiculous

They may be last to finally cave fall in line..but they will

FSU is under an hour to announce that BOT meeting for tomorrow....

(08-14-2023 03:19 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  FSU is under an hour to announce that BOT meeting for tomorrow....

Unless it's Top Secret?

(08-14-2023 03:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 03:19 PM)dgrace4cards Wrote:  FSU is under an hour to announce that BOT meeting for tomorrow....

Unless it's Top Secret?

This is true!

So it's after 5pm EST and no BOT meeting for FSU tomorrow. Does that mean the threat to leave has passed?

(08-14-2023 04:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 04:11 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 10:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 07:55 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:45 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Put USF and SMU on speed dial

Goodness No….

Give me Stanford, Cal, Washington State and Oregon State any day over just about anyone else available except perhaps Memphis.

USF, SMU, Tulane, UAB, ECU aren’t going anywhere. They’ll be available if they are need in the next 10 years or so.

Agree on all except USF. If FSU leaves, the ACC needs to have USF to replace them - which might require "reaching" for them a bit. Really need 2 teams in Florida, though.

Mark why would you care who The ACC expands with? VaTech is a lock for The SEC. Louisville is stuck in whatever The ACC will become.

VT folks who think the school is a lock are delusional, IMO. I see the Hokies as a bubble team.

Here's what people outside the ACC think:

> ND in a conference
> GT and Duke and Syracuse not even in Big 12


You need better outside sources.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-14-2023 09:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:47 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 04:58 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 04:11 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 10:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Agree on all except USF. If FSU leaves, the ACC needs to have USF to replace them - which might require "reaching" for them a bit. Really need 2 teams in Florida, though.

Mark why would you care who The ACC expands with? VaTech is a lock for The SEC. Louisville is stuck in whatever The ACC will become.

VT folks who think the school is a lock are delusional, IMO. I see the Hokies as a bubble team.

Here's what people outside the ACC think:

You’re in a state that isn’t presently part of The SEC or The Big Ten.

In Virginia The Big Ten will take UVA and The SEC will take your program. The same thing happens in North Carolina when The Big Ten takes UNC and The SEC takes NC State.

After that everything else is window dressing. Clemson and Florida State to The SEC with Miami and Duke or Georgia Tech jumping to The Big Ten.

When that happens, put a fork in it, ACC football is done.

While I would jump to that Big 12 conference in the tweet you shared in a minute, I doubt The Big 12 includes VaTech or NC State for the aforementioned reasons.

No. In North Carolina UNC and N.C. State will wind up in the SEC and Duke will go to the Big 10.

ESPN will have more say in all of this if schools move because they can mitigate the GOR damages. Exit fees will be applicable and ESPN will protect the programs it considers vital to its business strategy for any movement prior to 2034 and all of this will be finished before the new expanded CFP begins.

I agree with you on the Virginia schools but negotiations for N.C. State with UNC seem already to be underway.

If the Big 10 moves to 24 and the do take Cal and Stanford, and I believe they will, there will only be 4 slots left for the ACC. ESPN will protect UNC and their leverage will rescue N.C. State. Clemson and FSU will likely be the SEC's first choices, Virginia Tech would be third but if that issue is decided they just won't appear to be third.

Virginia, Duke, Georgia Tech, and maybe Miami to the Big 10. They will want a slot for a run at N.D.

And remember at 24 the SEC has 8 to spend. I think 7 will go to the ACC. If I had to guess, I'd say ESPN protects their monopoly of Florida schools.

Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech would be the 7 from the ACC and Kansas possibly the 8th.

For the record that's 6 of the top 8 in valuation in the ACC.

In this scenario, happy to have a seat at the P2 table. Quite bitter there's only Duke in the South in the conference. Two drivable road games in the entire conference. Yuck.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using CSNbbs mobile app

I can see why a merger would benefit ESPN and certainly the ACC, but not quite sure what would be in it for the SEC? Would the combined ACC-SEC networks (assuming there would still be 2 channels) be able to double up on the in-state carriage rates for the states that are not currently already overlapping (NY, PA, VA, NC, AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, MO)? I guess that would be something.

Maybe ESPN would give everyone a bump to keep schools away from BIG (&FOX/CBS/NBC.)

To the OP point, BIG is so obviously the bigger villain. That is why it was so crazy to go against the SEC with the stupid alliance. ACC was in a period of pretty good cohesion with the SEC (8-game schedules to allow for rivalries, common bowls, common strategy playing through Covid, ACC was having success in CFP, similar footprint, ESPN schools with new networks).

It just makes so much more sense to align with the SEC rather than the BIG. There was also no reason really to pile on the a Big XII at that time (by keeping them out of the alliance) if you weren’t planning to raid them.

(08-14-2023 05:48 PM)KRoach11 Wrote:  I can see why a merger would benefit ESPN and certainly the ACC, but not quite sure what would be in it for the SEC? Would the combined ACC-SEC networks (assuming there would still be 2 channels) be able to double up on the in-state carriage rates for the states that are not currently already overlapping (NY, PA, VA, NC, AL, MS, LA, TX, AR, MO)? I guess that would be something.

Maybe ESPN would give everyone a bump to keep schools away from BIG (&FOX/CBS/NBC.)

To the OP point, BIG is so obviously the bigger villain. That is why it was so crazy to go against the SEC with the stupid alliance. ACC was in a period of pretty good cohesion with the SEC (8-game schedules to allow for rivalries, common bowls, common strategy playing through Covid, ACC was having success in CFP, similar footprint, ESPN schools with new networks).

It just makes so much more sense to align with the SEC rather than the BIG. There was also no reason really to pile on the a Big XII at that time (by keeping them out of the alliance) if you weren’t planning to raid them.

The SEC benefits from keeping the Big 10 out of its region via ACC schools because the impact upon the SEC ad rates in a key state like Florida might be impacted. Also, you are missing the point of a combined network. It cuts overhead and overhead is subtracted before the profits for the networks are split. And it would mean that every state between the ACC and SEC would receive the instate rate, which is higher for both the SEC and ACC schools who have subscriptions in each other's states. Less overhead and higher rates = more money. And with a tiered payout system for the current ACC members the key brands make what they need which kills the impetus for the ACC being raided or dissolving and the added inventory of games between SEC Key brands (think 9 of them) vs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, and to a lesser extent Va Tech) yields a lot more high dollar inventory for the merged conference to sell at the highest value, which in the SEC is about 24 million per game.

(08-14-2023 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...you are missing the point of a combined network. It cuts overhead and overhead is subtracted before the profits for the networks are split. And it would mean that every state between the ACC and SEC would receive the instate rate, which is higher for both the SEC and ACC schools who have subscriptions in each other's states. Less overhead and higher rates = more money. And with a tiered payout system for the current ACC members the key brands make what they need which kills the impetus for the ACC being raided or dissolving and the added inventory of games between SEC Key brands (think 9 of them) vs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, and to a lesser extent Va Tech) yields a lot more high dollar inventory for the merged conference to sell at the highest value, which in the SEC is about 24 million per game.

I'm working through combining the ACCN and SECN, and I'm not seeing all that much savings, TBH.

Case 1: Shutter the ACCN
Saves lots of costs, but also loses all ACCN revenue (est. $300M to $500M) - especially in overlap states and ACC states where the ACC school would not be joining the SEC.

Case 2: Keep both on air.
Some cost savings, but not all that much - still have to operate 2 studios, 2 sets of on-air employees.

Bottom Line: Somewhat better profits, but likely not game-changing.

(08-14-2023 08:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...you are missing the point of a combined network. It cuts overhead and overhead is subtracted before the profits for the networks are split. And it would mean that every state between the ACC and SEC would receive the instate rate, which is higher for both the SEC and ACC schools who have subscriptions in each other's states. Less overhead and higher rates = more money. And with a tiered payout system for the current ACC members the key brands make what they need which kills the impetus for the ACC being raided or dissolving and the added inventory of games between SEC Key brands (think 9 of them) vs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, and to a lesser extent Va Tech) yields a lot more high dollar inventory for the merged conference to sell at the highest value, which in the SEC is about 24 million per game.

I'm working through combining the ACCN and SECN, and I'm not seeing all that much savings, TBH.

Case 1: Shutter the ACCN
Saves lots of costs, but also loses all ACCN revenue (est. $300M to $500M) - especially in overlap states and ACC states where the ACC school would not be joining the SEC.

Case 2: Keep both on air.
Some cost savings, but not all that much - still have to operate 2 studios, 2 sets of on-air employees.

Bottom Line: Somewhat better profits, but likely not game-changing.

Your point #1 is in error. The payout is the from a 50/50 split in the profits after overhead. You lose no subscriptions in just rolling the ACCN subscribers into the SECN. You lose 1/2 of the combined overhead. That is an increase of about 100 million (roughly the annual operating expense of the SECN and the ACCN each.) If you had ACCN subscribers in any of the SEC states, and you know you do, you now earn a $1.50 for every one of those subscribers instead of .25 cents. Likewise, the SEC earns $1.25 for every SECN subscriber in ACC states instead of .50 cents. The outlying subscribers beyond the combined SEC and ACC footprints will still earn the OOC rate. So, you've increased your in-state share through the union of the two networks. If 100 million is saved half of that savings goes to ESPN and half to the schools. If split equally that's 1.62 million each for the 30 schools and Notre Dame. The added subscription rate increase for ACC viewers in SEC states would be the number of those subscribers x $1.25 for the ACC schools and the number of SEC subscribers in ACC states x .75 cents for SEC schools. The combined increases would also be split equally and then ESPN could give us a new rate. Perhaps 1.40 in the combined footprint and .35 cents for those beyond it. ESPN arrived at those figures by averaging the information and weighting the split between the two to yield the highest profit.

Now if the ACC Commissioner, staff, and buildings are also cut, or blended with that of the SEC with cuts to both, the resulting profits from the sale of ACC commercial property would be split between only ACC members.

That Mark is where you pick up money by the merger of the two.

(08-14-2023 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...you are missing the point of a combined network. It cuts overhead and overhead is subtracted before the profits for the networks are split. And it would mean that every state between the ACC and SEC would receive the instate rate, which is higher for both the SEC and ACC schools who have subscriptions in each other's states. Less overhead and higher rates = more money. And with a tiered payout system for the current ACC members the key brands make what they need which kills the impetus for the ACC being raided or dissolving and the added inventory of games between SEC Key brands (think 9 of them) vs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, and to a lesser extent Va Tech) yields a lot more high dollar inventory for the merged conference to sell at the highest value, which in the SEC is about 24 million per game.

I'm working through combining the ACCN and SECN, and I'm not seeing all that much savings, TBH.

Case 1: Shutter the ACCN
Saves lots of costs, but also loses all ACCN revenue (est. $300M to $500M) - especially in overlap states and ACC states where the ACC school would not be joining the SEC.

Case 2: Keep both on air.
Some cost savings, but not all that much - still have to operate 2 studios, 2 sets of on-air employees.

Bottom Line: Somewhat better profits, but likely not game-changing.

Your point #1 is in error. The payout is the from a 50/50 split in the profits after overhead. You lose no subscriptions in just rolling the ACCN subscribers into the SECN. You lose 1/2 of the combined overhead. That is an increase of about 100 million (roughly the annual operating expense of the SECN and the ACCN each.) If you had ACCN subscribers in any of the SEC states, and you know you do, you now earn a $1.50 for every one of those subscribers instead of .25 cents. Likewise, the SEC earns $1.25 for every SECN subscriber in ACC states instead of .50 cents. The outlying subscribers beyond the combined SEC and ACC footprints will still earn the OOC rate. So, you've increased your in-state share through the union of the two networks. If 100 million is saved half of that savings goes to ESPN and half to the schools. If split equally that's 1.62 million each for the 30 schools and Notre Dame. The added subscription rate increase for ACC viewers in SEC states would be the number of those subscribers x $1.25 for the ACC schools and the number of SEC subscribers in ACC states x .75 cents for SEC schools. The combined increases would also be split equally and then ESPN could give us a new rate. Perhaps 1.40 in the combined footprint and .35 cents for those beyond it. ESPN arrived at those figures by averaging the information and weighting the split between the two to yield the highest profit.

Now if the ACC Commissioner, staff, and buildings are also cut, or blended with that of the SEC with cuts to both, the resulting profits from the sale of ACC commercial property would be split between only ACC members.

That Mark is where you pick up money by the merger of the two.

JR, if you roll the ACCN into the SECN, what happens in Florida, Georgia, SC and KY, where fans currently pay for both subs? Do you think they'd charge $2.75 just for the SECN there?

(08-14-2023 09:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 07:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ...you are missing the point of a combined network. It cuts overhead and overhead is subtracted before the profits for the networks are split. And it would mean that every state between the ACC and SEC would receive the instate rate, which is higher for both the SEC and ACC schools who have subscriptions in each other's states. Less overhead and higher rates = more money. And with a tiered payout system for the current ACC members the key brands make what they need which kills the impetus for the ACC being raided or dissolving and the added inventory of games between SEC Key brands (think 9 of them) vs (FSU, Clemson, Miami, and to a lesser extent Va Tech) yields a lot more high dollar inventory for the merged conference to sell at the highest value, which in the SEC is about 24 million per game.

I'm working through combining the ACCN and SECN, and I'm not seeing all that much savings, TBH.

Case 1: Shutter the ACCN
Saves lots of costs, but also loses all ACCN revenue (est. $300M to $500M) - especially in overlap states and ACC states where the ACC school would not be joining the SEC.

Case 2: Keep both on air.
Some cost savings, but not all that much - still have to operate 2 studios, 2 sets of on-air employees.

Bottom Line: Somewhat better profits, but likely not game-changing.

Your point #1 is in error. The payout is the from a 50/50 split in the profits after overhead. You lose no subscriptions in just rolling the ACCN subscribers into the SECN. You lose 1/2 of the combined overhead. That is an increase of about 100 million (roughly the annual operating expense of the SECN and the ACCN each.) If you had ACCN subscribers in any of the SEC states, and you know you do, you now earn a $1.50 for every one of those subscribers instead of .25 cents. Likewise, the SEC earns $1.25 for every SECN subscriber in ACC states instead of .50 cents. The outlying subscribers beyond the combined SEC and ACC footprints will still earn the OOC rate. So, you've increased your in-state share through the union of the two networks. If 100 million is saved half of that savings goes to ESPN and half to the schools. If split equally that's 1.62 million each for the 30 schools and Notre Dame. The added subscription rate increase for ACC viewers in SEC states would be the number of those subscribers x $1.25 for the ACC schools and the number of SEC subscribers in ACC states x .75 cents for SEC schools. The combined increases would also be split equally and then ESPN could give us a new rate. Perhaps 1.40 in the combined footprint and .35 cents for those beyond it. ESPN arrived at those figures by averaging the information and weighting the split between the two to yield the highest profit.

Now if the ACC Commissioner, staff, and buildings are also cut, or blended with that of the SEC with cuts to both, the resulting profits from the sale of ACC commercial property would be split between only ACC members.

That Mark is where you pick up money by the merger of the two.

JR, if you roll the ACCN into the SECN, what happens in Florida, Georgia, SC and KY, where fans currently pay for both subs? Do you think they'd charge $2.75 just for the SECN there?

Would those not be offset by adding in state rates in Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Alabama, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Tennessee? ESPN would have those numbers. And don't forget, the SECN makes more than the ACCN.

Focusing on the T3 profit margins which won't vary but plus or minus 2 million tops, with 1.62 million of that accounted for by elimination of overhead and you are focusing on the most minor of potentialities. I still believe it would come out ahead both in overhead reduction and in having the combined in footprint rate of all of the states, and I left out Indiana.

We are talking about measure taken to preserve the maximized advertising rates which come from ESPN's holding all of the rights to every school below Virginia and Kentucky and Missouri of note all the way to the Atlantic in East, The Gulf to the South, and the top 3 brands in Texas and Oklahoma which dominate those combined states.

Notre Dame for years has backdoored the Big 10 costing them a little bit on ad rates by providing a cheaper backdoor from which advertisers can reach many Big 10 cities without paying Big 10 rates.

We don't want that in the South or it costs all of us. Merger is the only absolute way to protect it. Remember ESPN holds 100% of the rights to the ACC, SEC, and AAC, and now greater than 50% of the Big 12. Let the Big 10 into that and it costs us all, including ESPN.

I'm guessing but the reconstitution of the old Southern Conference would be able to charge $5 a month and get it in Florida, Georgia, SC, VA, NC, KY, TN, Bama, La, Texas, Mizzou, and Oklahoma.

You could charge $3 a month in Pa, Indiana, NY, and Mass.

It would net about $1.2 billion and the 30 teams would get about $30 m just from the network, just for in state rates.


The market gets effectively cornered in about a third of the country and the third that counts most.

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous B1G commissioners for being that smart. USC and UCLA both came to the B1G to ask to join. USC specifically asked that Oregon and Washington would not be asked to join. The B1G took advantage of Maryland being a financial basket case and having a former Big 10 alumni president of Maryland. The ACC commissioner let Rutgers fall into the B1G conference. It didn't take a genius to realize how good a state New Jersey was for football and basketball and the big population there but the ACC commissioner just did not see it that way and neither did the ACC school presidents.
The B1G commissioner then parlayed getting Rutgers in the B1G into getting on the cable package in New York City. He also used Maryland to get on the cable package in Washington DC and Baltimore. When Oregon and Washington became available at 50% off the B1G took them for the rest of the TV contract. Good deal on the B1G's part.
The B1G is not the villain that everyone thinks they are, they are just smarter than the commissioners of the ACC, Pac-12 and Big XII.

(08-14-2023 11:19 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous B1G commissioners for being that smart. USC and UCLA both came to the B1G to ask to join. USC specifically asked that Oregon and Washington would not be asked to join. The B1G took advantage of Maryland being a financial basket case and having a former Big 10 alumni president of Maryland. The ACC commissioner let Rutgers fall into the B1G conference. It didn't take a genius to realize how good a state New Jersey was for football and basketball and the big population there but the ACC commissioner just did not see it that way and neither did the ACC school presidents.
The B1G commissioner then parlayed getting Rutgers in the B1G into getting on the cable package in New York City. He also used Maryland to get on the cable package in Washington DC and Baltimore. When Oregon and Washington became available at 50% off the B1G took them for the rest of the TV contract. Good deal on the B1G's part.
The B1G is not the villain that everyone thinks they are, they are just smarter than the commissioners of the ACC, Pac-12 and Big XII.

The Big Ten is BIG. Big, old, schools, with BIG alumni bases and legions of Go State U t-shirt fans. It's apples to oranges. You can't compare them to the northeast where private schools run the show and have deemphasized football or the ACC where football was deemphasized and then put on the back burner. One doesn't need to be smart to run the Big Ten this day in age, no offense, Delany. One just needs to avoid crashing the yacht.

(08-14-2023 11:19 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous DEVIOUS B1G commissioners for being that smart...

Props to the Big Ten for having a plan (the ACC, not so much).
No credit for LYING about the "Alliance" -- deception is not the same as smarts, it's just plain dishonest and treacherous and evil.
[/soapbox]

(08-15-2023 12:20 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 11:19 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous B1G commissioners for being that smart. USC and UCLA both came to the B1G to ask to join. USC specifically asked that Oregon and Washington would not be asked to join. The B1G took advantage of Maryland being a financial basket case and having a former Big 10 alumni president of Maryland. The ACC commissioner let Rutgers fall into the B1G conference. It didn't take a genius to realize how good a state New Jersey was for football and basketball and the big population there but the ACC commissioner just did not see it that way and neither did the ACC school presidents.
The B1G commissioner then parlayed getting Rutgers in the B1G into getting on the cable package in New York City. He also used Maryland to get on the cable package in Washington DC and Baltimore. When Oregon and Washington became available at 50% off the B1G took them for the rest of the TV contract. Good deal on the B1G's part.
The B1G is not the villain that everyone thinks they are, they are just smarter than the commissioners of the ACC, Pac-12 and Big XII.

The Big Ten is BIG. Big, old, schools, with BIG alumni bases and legions of Go State U t-shirt fans. It's apples to oranges. You can't compare them to the northeast where private schools run the show and have deemphasized football or the ACC where football was deemphasized and then put on the back burner. One doesn't need to be smart to run the Big Ten this day in age, no offense, Delany. One just needs to avoid crashing the yacht.

True that the B1G has a different alumni base from the ACC but that is not the reason why the B1G is in the position it is today. The B1G had a smart commissioner who understood how cable packages worked while this concept escaped the grasp of the the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC. Getting established on cable packages in New York, Baltimore, Washington and getting big payouts for the B1G now makes life easy for the new commissioner of the B1G. I think it is pretty clear that the B1G commissioners have outsmarted the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC in the past. It could have just as easily been the ACC in a dominant situation if the ACC presidents and commissioners had a better understanding of how cable TV worked and how content was priced. It could have been the
ACC who offered Rutgers and kept Maryland and ended up on the cable packages in New York City, Baltimore and Washington DC but they didn't do it for whatever reason.

(08-15-2023 09:10 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-15-2023 12:20 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 11:19 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous B1G commissioners for being that smart. USC and UCLA both came to the B1G to ask to join. USC specifically asked that Oregon and Washington would not be asked to join. The B1G took advantage of Maryland being a financial basket case and having a former Big 10 alumni president of Maryland. The ACC commissioner let Rutgers fall into the B1G conference. It didn't take a genius to realize how good a state New Jersey was for football and basketball and the big population there but the ACC commissioner just did not see it that way and neither did the ACC school presidents.
The B1G commissioner then parlayed getting Rutgers in the B1G into getting on the cable package in New York City. He also used Maryland to get on the cable package in Washington DC and Baltimore. When Oregon and Washington became available at 50% off the B1G took them for the rest of the TV contract. Good deal on the B1G's part.
The B1G is not the villain that everyone thinks they are, they are just smarter than the commissioners of the ACC, Pac-12 and Big XII.

The Big Ten is BIG. Big, old, schools, with BIG alumni bases and legions of Go State U t-shirt fans. It's apples to oranges. You can't compare them to the northeast where private schools run the show and have deemphasized football or the ACC where football was deemphasized and then put on the back burner. One doesn't need to be smart to run the Big Ten this day in age, no offense, Delany. One just needs to avoid crashing the yacht.

True that the B1G has a different alumni base from the ACC but that is not the reason why the B1G is in the position it is today. The B1G had a smart commissioner who understood how cable packages worked while this concept escaped the grasp of the the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC. Getting established on cable packages in New York, Baltimore, Washington and getting big payouts for the B1G now makes life easy for the new commissioner of the B1G. I think it is pretty clear that the B1G commissioners have outsmarted the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC in the past. It could have just as easily been the ACC in a dominant situation if the ACC presidents and commissioners had a better understanding of how cable TV worked and how content was priced. It could have been the
ACC who offered Rutgers and kept Maryland and ended up on the cable packages in New York City, Baltimore and Washington DC but they didn't do it for whatever reason.

RISK AVERSION.
It remains a problem to this day.

(08-15-2023 08:27 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 11:19 PM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:55 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-08-2023 11:22 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  The B10 is a real villain.

1. The Big 10 began targeting schools in stable conferences when they added Nebraska.
2. That triggered TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado to run.
3. They thought that would shake Texas loose, but it did not.
4. Then they sought to target the ACC and thereby apply the kill shot to the Big East.
5. They caused MD and Rutgers to move, killing off the Big East and sending Louisville to the ACC.
6. They tampered with the P12's tv renewal by taking UCLA and USC.
7. That triggered Colorado to move again
8. That triggered UA to move which fully destabilized the PAC allowing the Big 10 to kill it by taking Washington and Oregon cheap.
9. Now they seek to destabilize the ACC by sweet talking it's intellectually weakest member

10. The next B10 play is to destabilize the core of the ACC in attempt to cut the Gordian Knot. They will do this sometime in the next 4-5 years by tinkering with VT and NC State in an effort to shake UNC.

I really do not think the B1G is the villain. They took advantage of the situation that was handed to them. It isn't their fault that their commissioner is smarter than the Pac-12, Big XII and ACC commissioners. The B1G commissioner has outsmarted all of them other commissioners without question other than the SEC commissioner. You can't fault the two previous DEVIOUS B1G commissioners for being that smart...

Props to the Big Ten for having a plan (the ACC, not so much).
No credit for LYING about the "Alliance" -- deception is not the same as smarts, it's just plain dishonest and treacherous and evil.
[/soapbox]

I am not sure whether the Alliance really changed anything. USC and UCLA came to the B1G on their own. The Alliance didn't change that. Coming up with the idea to fight against the SEC with the Alliance was likely the B1G's idea because based past performance the Pac-12 and ACC commissioners do not think strategically and don't like to take the initiative on these types of things. Still the alliance isn't the reason that the Pac-12 has been destroyed, that was the work of smarter commissioners in the Big XII and B1G.