(04-05-2024 07:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Why are you personally attacking me? Can you have an actual conversation without bringing in my avatar?

The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

Stanford/Cal/SMU make money for the ACCN just like Rutgers and UMd did for the BTN. Is the Big Ten going to buy them out once the conference network isn't as valuable? Were they shortsighted additions as well considering they are bottom third brands in the B18 and being subsidized otherwise?

You are constantly going out of your way to defend the ACC until Kingdom Come. It's like a conspiracy theorist debunker who has to go out of his way to prove something is a conspiracy. You bring this onto yourself.

Rutgers and Maryland are B1G in name only. I have no interest in Rutgers playing B1G teams in football and BBall honestly (outside of an OOC game or two). We need to be playing ACC schools, BE schools, WVU, etc. But it is what it is... we cash the checks and say, "Yes, sir!" Chapel Hill isn't necessarily in that unenviable position, but maybe they will be soon...

I love watching the Tobacco Road rivalries. The BBall is great, and not even the Big East rivalries have the same juice at least nationally. I don't want to see that break up. But there is a systemic problem here with the academic snobbery and the deprioritizing football and marginalization by its own distributor, as evidenced with its all-in SEC deal.

I've laid out the game plan for Phillips. Become a BBall power. Keep the football respectable. Get rid of Clemson and FSU. If you are going to piss off Chapel Hill by adding Stanford and Cal, unless they move to some unequal revenue split, the conference is basically dead. They need to keep that nucleus together. Nonetheless, I will have no interest watching football games in that conference without Clemson/FSU. The football will be dead, even if ND is still playing a handful of games in there. That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves.

It's a doom loop that no school will want to ride if they have other options.

The real ironic thing with these UNC posters is that they are probably parroting the old talking points. The UNC, and quite possibly, the NCST higher ups have most likely already decided they need to get into a P2 as fast as possible, if indeed it's possible. These posters might want to check in with Chapel Hill brass for a what's our position update.

You might be surprised to find that some of us are in constant contact with "Chapel Hill brass".

(04-04-2024 11:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

The Ivy League is very sustainable.

The Big East is sustainable because it is comprised of 10 schools that are not targets elsewhere--the Big 12 isn't calling Georgetown or Butler. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the MAC.

The Ivy League will need to adapt, ask the unions.

The Big East is sustainable as a basketball-first conference, I agree. I'm not sure membership won't change though.

(04-04-2024 11:23 AM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 07:02 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 04:52 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Big 12 is in no position to target 6 ACC schools any more that the ACC is in a position to target 6 Big 12 schools. Neither conference's media situation would support that much addition.
The ACC has utilized three of their pro rata additions allowed by their ESPN contract and IIRC the Big 12 has spent all of theirs.
Is Florida State going to leave the ACC? They think so, but it has yet to be determined if they will be able to afford to leave. Then there is that question as to where they would go. If it is discovered that there has been any communication between FSU and either ESPN/SEC or FOX/B1G that will trigger another round of legal proceedings for tortuous interference.
It's going to take time for each conference to digest the moves that have been made. Texas and Oklahoma have yet to play a single SEC game, the same holds true for USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington in the B1G. Probably neither conference is ready or willing to disrupt that assimilation process by trying to add more teams now.

TCU and Kansas would have been great additions to the ACC, no doubt. More than likely it was ESPN that was not ready to support those moves as opposed to the ACC not having any desire for either to join the ACC.

At this moment, you are 100% correct. Won't argue with any of it.

However, Stanford and Cal was a massive mistake, as evidenced by the top 3/14 members voting against it. Now, 3/14 doesn't win you any majority elections, but that 3/14 represents maybe 30-35% of the entire valuation of the conference.

And (as an aside) on a purely anecdotal and hypothetical note, I think Stanford and Cal could have saved the PAC10 by inviting BYU. As long as BYU was willing to buy out of the Big 12, that combo of SDSU and BYU would have salvaged it for at least another cycle. Cal actually lost 50% of their revenue (I am sure UW played a role as well) with their current ACC deal per annum, by not authorizing GK to extend to BYU if we estimate a new PAC12 deal would have been anywhere from 25-30 million per school. Is a 50% cut (likely more) in athletic revenue really worth it for staying true to principles? The Berkley president decided to sacrifice the athletic department unilaterally, essentially.

The fact that these ACC schools want to commingle their academic and athletic departments, and considering how the networks valued that rationale with the defunct PAC12, it's just not how you want to brand yourself going forward. There are literally zero options behind USF (when considering academics and the single pro-rata).

Now, if they can add UConn sans football along with some BE schools (Tulane probably doesn't help unless they SMU themselves), while avoiding defections beyond FSU/Clemson, then I will give Phillips his due, because he will have kept his constituents whole for a full decade further. But this thing can fall apart rapidly depending on the first rulings coming up here.

I don't think adding Stanford/Cal/SMU was a mistake. The top teams in the ACC were already unhappy and have already made up their minds about their desire to leave, it is just question of if they can and when it happens. Adding those three teams has insulated the ACC from a PAC situation and ensure the conference will continue and will continue to collect exit fees. It doesn't do anything for the top teams, but nothing was going to anything for the top teams. For the ACC bottom feeders, that was a huge win and creates a floor for their situation. For the middle tier teams, they have created options for themselves. They can look at the P2 and see if they can't work their way in as an edge case, they can look at the Big 12 and see if that might work better, or they can stay where they are and rebuild from there with a number of different options.

Those are all winning results for the conference IMO. People want to paint it a failure like the Big 12 adding the AAC teams, but those kinds of additions made future options possible and defused the chance of the conference completely imploding.

Exactly. Plus, it reinforces Notre Dame's commitment to the Olympic sports side of the conference.

(04-04-2024 07:45 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 07:32 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-02-2024 06:21 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 07:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-31-2024 06:32 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I've still never seen a reasonable explanation for why UNC could bring along NC St, but OU and Texas couldn't bring along their own little brothers, little brothers that are very NC State-like in what they bring a major Conference.

Because you don't read what people post explaining that those examples aren't relative to the UNC system.

All those explanations are why UNC could get held back, not why the P2 would want little brother.

One fact you’re missing is Texas and Oklahoma don’t actually have to care about their little brothers

Why does UNC have to care about NC St but not Charlotte or Greensboro?

It's the political power within the UNC's BOG. Carolina and State have the most people with power that care about them

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Why are you personally attacking me? Can you have an actual conversation without bringing in my avatar?

The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

Stanford/Cal/SMU make money for the ACCN just like Rutgers and UMd did for the BTN. Is the Big Ten going to buy them out once the conference network isn't as valuable? Were they shortsighted additions as well considering they are bottom third brands in the B18 and being subsidized otherwise?

You are constantly going out of your way to defend the ACC until Kingdom Come. It's like a conspiracy theorist debunker who has to go out of his way to prove something is a conspiracy. You bring this onto yourself.

Nonsense. I defended the Big XII for YEARS. Were you even here for that? I've made plenty of points on this board, but only this one gets questioned because of my avatar.

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland are B1G in name only. I have no interest in Rutgers playing B1G teams in football and BBall honestly (outside of an OOC game or two). We need to be playing ACC schools, BE schools, WVU, etc. But it is what it is... we cash the checks and say, "Yes, sir!" Chapel Hill isn't necessarily in that unenviable position, but maybe they will be soon...

I love watching the Tobacco Road rivalries. The BBall is great, and not even the Big East rivalries have the same juice at least nationally. I don't want to see that break up. But there is a systemic problem here with the academic snobbery and the deprioritizing football and marginalization by its own distributor, as evidenced with its all-in SEC deal.

I've laid out the game plan for Phillips. Become a BBall power. Keep the football respectable. Get rid of Clemson and FSU. If you are going to piss off Chapel Hill by adding Stanford and Cal, unless they move to some unequal revenue split, the conference is basically dead. They need to keep that nucleus together. Nonetheless, I will have no interest watching football games in that conference without Clemson/FSU. The football will be dead, even if ND is still playing a handful of games in there. That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves.

There is a lot here to pick over. You speak of systemic problems, academic snobbery, and not prioritizing football. Yet, here we have Florida State and Louisville. The FSU addition was in 1990 when FSU only had 28k enrollment and an opportunistic football program grown out of the fact FLA was ripe with talent and the ratio between the amount of talent and the amount of 1-A schools was drastic to the extreme. Let's just say they weren't known for their academic prowess.



ESPN is not marginalizing the ACC. It was leaked by the BC PTB that ESPN had been influencing expansion and conference building moves beginning with the Miami expansion. ESPN built the modern ACC and they understand the product.


"That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves."

LOL this might be the most misguided statement I've read in some time. Carolina pushed back against EVERY EXPANSION in order to keep the core stable. As I've already told you, ESPN convinced enough of the membership to expand with Miami, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Virginia Tech was an in-house political move and Louisville was a FSU/Clemson approved football-strength move.

Please don't rewrite the narrative.

(04-05-2024 07:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  The real ironic thing with these UNC posters is that they are probably parroting the old talking points. The UNC, and quite possibly, the NCST higher ups have most likely already decided they need to get into a P2 as fast as possible, if indeed it's possible. These posters might want to check in with Chapel Hill brass for a what's our position update.

The SEC or Big Ten would provide more money, but a vast increase in the cost to compete. Carolina has money, and makes a lot of money currently. Is more money better? Sure. Is it worth running the football program into the ground over? Is it worth sending the basketball team to conference tournaments in Indy, Chicago, or Minnesota?

Carolina is not in urgency mode. Plus, with credible journalists speculating a future of regulated media distributions at the Big Ten/SEC level, everything should work itself out.

(04-05-2024 09:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  "That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves."

LOL this might be the most misguided statement I've read in some time. Carolina pushed back against EVERY EXPANSION in order to keep the core stable. As I've already told you, ESPN convinced enough of the membership to expand with Miami, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Virginia Tech was an in-house political move and Louisville was a FSU/Clemson approved football-strength move.

Please don't rewrite the narrative.

When did I say UNC supported expansion? I never said they wanted UL and 'Cuse/BC before that. They did not want outsiders to detract from their center of mass. Once they added BC, and the ACC CG didn't really meet expectations over the long haul, the football expansion should have paused, or at the very least, they needed to reevaluate what they wanted to be. They just kept pushing into the northeast without a plan really. At least ESPN thought it was a genius move given the expansion of the network in new households/markets and what not. The move ultimately did not pan out in the long haul as they still fell behind the B1G/SEC.

I'm not necessarily sure if there was anything that could have prevented where we are at. Demographics are king. The football is lost, unfortunately. Nothing they can do now to change that. You can watch it as a fan of course. I won't be watching non-FSU/Clemson games.

(04-04-2024 11:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

The Ivy League is very sustainable.

The Big East is sustainable because it is comprised of 10 schools that are not targets elsewhere--the Big 12 isn't calling Georgetown or Butler. To a lesser extent, this also applies to the MAC.

I tend to agree with you that the 10 non-FBS Big East members will not be targeted by the P4 all-sports leagues. But I would not go so far as to say that such a targeting will never happen. Too many moves (Cal, Stanford and SMU to the ACC, for example) have unfolded recently that none of us saw coming five years ago (other than maybe JR).

Prior to adding Stanford, California and SMU, I believed that it was likely (if not inevitable) that the ACC would be picked apart by the SEC and B1G. However, thanks to those adds, it can sustain a raid (regardless of which members are remaining), and still add from other leagues to keep the conference going. It's possible that perhaps only FSU and Clemson depart; it's also possible more eventually leave. So much is dependent on who goes and who stays in determining the value of the conference. Regardless, academic-rich programs like Tulane and Rice will always be there to add, market additions like USF and Temple will always be there to add, and successful athletic programs like UConn and Memphis will also be there. Again, so much is dependent on the overall body of remaining members in determining who they would eventually seek.

I, for one, will continue to hope that a return of Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College and Notre Dame to the Big East one day happens. While a power NE conference is unlucky to ever form, there certainly is enough volume there to maintain a power Olympic sports conference with programs centered around the NE.

(04-05-2024 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Why are you personally attacking me? Can you have an actual conversation without bringing in my avatar?

The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

Stanford/Cal/SMU make money for the ACCN just like Rutgers and UMd did for the BTN. Is the Big Ten going to buy them out once the conference network isn't as valuable? Were they shortsighted additions as well considering they are bottom third brands in the B18 and being subsidized otherwise?

You are constantly going out of your way to defend the ACC until Kingdom Come. It's like a conspiracy theorist debunker who has to go out of his way to prove something is a conspiracy. You bring this onto yourself.

Rutgers and Maryland are B1G in name only. I have no interest in Rutgers playing B1G teams in football and BBall honestly (outside of an OOC game or two). We need to be playing ACC schools, BE schools, WVU, etc. But it is what it is... we cash the checks and say, "Yes, sir!" Chapel Hill isn't necessarily in that unenviable position, but maybe they will be soon...

I love watching the Tobacco Road rivalries. The BBall is great, and not even the Big East rivalries have the same juice at least nationally. I don't want to see that break up. But there is a systemic problem here with the academic snobbery and the deprioritizing football and marginalization by its own distributor, as evidenced with its all-in SEC deal.

I've laid out the game plan for Phillips. Become a BBall power. Keep the football respectable. Get rid of Clemson and FSU. If you are going to piss off Chapel Hill by adding Stanford and Cal, unless they move to some unequal revenue split, the conference is basically dead. They need to keep that nucleus together. Nonetheless, I will have no interest watching football games in that conference without Clemson/FSU. The football will be dead, even if ND is still playing a handful of games in there. That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves.

It's a doom loop that no school will want to ride if they have other options.

The real ironic thing with these UNC posters is that they are probably parroting the old talking points. The UNC, and quite possibly, the NCST higher ups have most likely already decided they need to get into a P2 as fast as possible, if indeed it's possible. These posters might want to check in with Chapel Hill brass for a what's our position update.

You might be surprised to find that some of us are in constant contact with "Chapel Hill brass".

I guess I would be. My prediction is UNC announces it is leaving within weeks.

(04-05-2024 12:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 10:33 AM)esayem Wrote:  Why are you personally attacking me? Can you have an actual conversation without bringing in my avatar?

The Big Ten in its current form is not sustainable. In fact, nothing is college athletics is sustainable.

Stanford/Cal/SMU make money for the ACCN just like Rutgers and UMd did for the BTN. Is the Big Ten going to buy them out once the conference network isn't as valuable? Were they shortsighted additions as well considering they are bottom third brands in the B18 and being subsidized otherwise?

You are constantly going out of your way to defend the ACC until Kingdom Come. It's like a conspiracy theorist debunker who has to go out of his way to prove something is a conspiracy. You bring this onto yourself.

Rutgers and Maryland are B1G in name only. I have no interest in Rutgers playing B1G teams in football and BBall honestly (outside of an OOC game or two). We need to be playing ACC schools, BE schools, WVU, etc. But it is what it is... we cash the checks and say, "Yes, sir!" Chapel Hill isn't necessarily in that unenviable position, but maybe they will be soon...

I love watching the Tobacco Road rivalries. The BBall is great, and not even the Big East rivalries have the same juice at least nationally. I don't want to see that break up. But there is a systemic problem here with the academic snobbery and the deprioritizing football and marginalization by its own distributor, as evidenced with its all-in SEC deal.

I've laid out the game plan for Phillips. Become a BBall power. Keep the football respectable. Get rid of Clemson and FSU. If you are going to piss off Chapel Hill by adding Stanford and Cal, unless they move to some unequal revenue split, the conference is basically dead. They need to keep that nucleus together. Nonetheless, I will have no interest watching football games in that conference without Clemson/FSU. The football will be dead, even if ND is still playing a handful of games in there. That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves.

It's a doom loop that no school will want to ride if they have other options.

The real ironic thing with these UNC posters is that they are probably parroting the old talking points. The UNC, and quite possibly, the NCST higher ups have most likely already decided they need to get into a P2 as fast as possible, if indeed it's possible. These posters might want to check in with Chapel Hill brass for a what's our position update.

You might be surprised to find that some of us are in constant contact with "Chapel Hill brass".

I guess I would be. My prediction is UNC announces it is leaving within weeks.

Not even Clemson and FSU have announced they’re leaving

(04-05-2024 03:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 12:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 08:24 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 07:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 06:56 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  You are constantly going out of your way to defend the ACC until Kingdom Come. It's like a conspiracy theorist debunker who has to go out of his way to prove something is a conspiracy. You bring this onto yourself.

Rutgers and Maryland are B1G in name only. I have no interest in Rutgers playing B1G teams in football and BBall honestly (outside of an OOC game or two). We need to be playing ACC schools, BE schools, WVU, etc. But it is what it is... we cash the checks and say, "Yes, sir!" Chapel Hill isn't necessarily in that unenviable position, but maybe they will be soon...

I love watching the Tobacco Road rivalries. The BBall is great, and not even the Big East rivalries have the same juice at least nationally. I don't want to see that break up. But there is a systemic problem here with the academic snobbery and the deprioritizing football and marginalization by its own distributor, as evidenced with its all-in SEC deal.

I've laid out the game plan for Phillips. Become a BBall power. Keep the football respectable. Get rid of Clemson and FSU. If you are going to piss off Chapel Hill by adding Stanford and Cal, unless they move to some unequal revenue split, the conference is basically dead. They need to keep that nucleus together. Nonetheless, I will have no interest watching football games in that conference without Clemson/FSU. The football will be dead, even if ND is still playing a handful of games in there. That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves.

It's a doom loop that no school will want to ride if they have other options.

The real ironic thing with these UNC posters is that they are probably parroting the old talking points. The UNC, and quite possibly, the NCST higher ups have most likely already decided they need to get into a P2 as fast as possible, if indeed it's possible. These posters might want to check in with Chapel Hill brass for a what's our position update.

You might be surprised to find that some of us are in constant contact with "Chapel Hill brass".

I guess I would be. My prediction is UNC announces it is leaving within weeks.

Not even Clemson and FSU have announced they’re leaving

You are correct. I misspoke. I meant file something like FSU or Clemson, or at least make a public statement that the present situation is no longer tenable and must change and meaning more than just revenue adjustments.

Studies have been done where they have found that after a certain income, happiness levels and quality of life, do not increase and in some cases actually decrease. Could that apply here? Even among the "haves" there is going to be the "have mores" and the "have less". At what point will schools and fans decide it's not worth it? In the future what will stop the top halves of the BIG and SEC from joining together to form the P1?
IMO, conferences should be 12 or less. Hopefully someday we will get back to that

(04-05-2024 10:00 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-05-2024 09:18 AM)esayem Wrote:  "That's the end result of very deliberate and intentional decisions made by the leadership at Chapel Hill and its affiliates.

They did it to themselves."

LOL this might be the most misguided statement I've read in some time. Carolina pushed back against EVERY EXPANSION in order to keep the core stable. As I've already told you, ESPN convinced enough of the membership to expand with Miami, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. Virginia Tech was an in-house political move and Louisville was a FSU/Clemson approved football-strength move.

Please don't rewrite the narrative.

When did I say UNC supported expansion? I never said they wanted UL and 'Cuse/BC before that. They did not want outsiders to detract from their center of mass. Once they added BC, and the ACC CG didn't really meet expectations over the long haul, the football expansion should have paused, or at the very least, they needed to reevaluate what they wanted to be. They just kept pushing into the northeast without a plan really. At least ESPN thought it was a genius move given the expansion of the network in new households/markets and what not. The move ultimately did not pan out in the long haul as they still fell behind the B1G/SEC.

I'm not necessarily sure if there was anything that could have prevented where we are at. Demographics are king. The football is lost, unfortunately. Nothing they can do now to change that. You can watch it as a fan of course. I won't be watching non-FSU/Clemson games.

They is ESPN and ESPN's plan was a conference network where they added a ton of content, added top-5 states NY and PA to footprint, and reaped 50% of the profits. That was ESPN's plan. Powerful figures at Syracuse resisted the ACC for years (and vice versa), but it seemed inevitable. Had Syracuse joined in 1990 or 2003, would BC have been added? I'm not so sure. I think Pitt still gets added for the network, but maybe a Cincinnati or Rutgers slips ahead of BC due to their larger state sizes.

(03-30-2024 05:59 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(03-27-2024 10:12 AM)mainejeff Wrote:  Call me crazy but I see the Big East as the biggest threat to the ACC.

Certainly some of them may think in an NIL dominated world that football is not worth it. I could see the following schools dropping football and going to the Big East:

Syracuse, Duke, Notre Dame (football stays independent)

We have too much history to ever drop football. Could we rejoin the big east and go independent in football? Yes but unlikely.

What is more likely is for the current P4 schools left over or unwilling to play semipro football all in a league together.