(09-01-2014 07:30 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-30-2014 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-30-2014 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  "Not everyone is as excited to join your league as you think"

I only say this because Big Ten fans just went through a painful lesson on this during realignment. Even obvious moves like FSU/Clemson to the SEC are not so obvious. Schools value the lesser things such as olympic sports, academic association, and having an easier SOS.

I think FSU wanting to leave the ACC was WAY overblown by people who had a clear agenda for the ACC to fail. I think if there was any consideration for FSU about leaving the ACC it was in the form of resentment about the way the ACC disregarded FSU's thoughts and feelings on how the conference should be run during conference realignment with SU/Pitt.

If money is a factor in forcing an ACC school to leave for the SEC, it will be due to a gap so massive that schools will feel that it is at the point of "do or die."

13/14 schools don't sign a GOR + $53 mill exit fee if they didn't have an extremely strong willpower to remain in their current league.

1. They signed out of fear of losing any leverage if things disintegrated. There is no leverage for better deals in a run. And it was very clear there wouldn't be spots for everyone.

2. The difference will wind up being 8 figures within a few years. Considering the starting earning points of the Big 10 and SEC and how they dominate the top twenty spots in total earnings, such a difference would only enhance a gigantic gap that already exists. Comparing a couple of million on a TV contract is not even 20% of the total picture John. But when the TV money gap grows then the top earners that gross over 100 million a year will have surpassed the top schools in the ACC by as much as 30 million a year, and in some case even a lot more, depending upon the schools compared.

3. I have no doubt but what the core of the ACC wants to stay together, but I wouldn't put much stock in how loyal the football first schools will remain in the face of a chasm that particularly affects Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Miami. Virginia Tech has some decisions to make too. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Big 10 goes to 16 with Virginia Tech and Kansas at some point. For Wake Forest, Virginia, and Duke it is a moot issue, they will try to stay together. North Carolina will have to do some soul searching at that time. But if the Heels stay as well then the ACC will survive and limp on as a great basketball conference inclusive of Pitt and Syracuse, but it will essentially become the best G6 conference in football and remain a power conference in hoops. Notre Dame? Who knows? I wouldn't even be surprised if Georgia Tech and Miami consciously made the decision to accept a de-emphasis in football and remain with a solid academic core.

But with the right influx of credentials in pigskin I think all of it changes and a solid P4 is born.

1. That is an inference but not a fact. We agree that the core-6 of the ACC has a strong attachment, but I believe you are painfully under estimating the rest of the league. There are benefits to being a large fish in a small pond, and their are academic considerations as well. I'm not saying that an ACC ==> SEC move won't happen, I'm just saying the desirability of ACC schools to do that is not as high as one would assume.

2. We like to think that the conferences are getting paid based on the value that they produce to the networks, but what conference realignment has shown so far is that conferences are getting paid based on what the MARKET is. Despite everything we have seen, the P5 are all sitting at 20 mill per school. That's insane to think about considering there is absolutely no way all the P5 conferences are equal in terms of the TV value they collectively own. TBH I think at this point, sooner or later the T1 & T2 revenue is going to balance out with only minor differences between the P5.

3. The revenue disparity is going to come in conference networks, which only helps my argument because that doesn't exactly help the argument that FSU/CU will leave the ACC. The SEC already has those states and the Big 12 isn't going to build a conference network anytime soon. While the ACC still doesn't have their own network, what we are seeing is a new trend where conferences are having a much easier time starting one up. This is evident with the Big Ten, Pac12, & SEC each progressively starting up their own networks with less hostility from the networks during negotiations.

1. The merits of this point aren't clear enough to warrant an argument either way.

2. Revenue disparity is going to be a prime motivating factor to further realignment. The inability to get a network going easily is another. And you are ignoring any property rights that ESPN might obtain due to the placement of product.

The ACC is cobbled together more so than any conference not named the Big 12. It consists of the following subsets some of which share members and some of which do not share members:
Former Big East: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech

Former Big East.2: Louisville

Core ACC: Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest

Former Independent: Georgia Tech and F.S.U.

Still quasi Independent: Notre Dame

Private: Boston College, Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Syracuse

Small Public: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech

Quasi Public: Pittsburgh

Larger Public: Virginia Tech, Florida State, and to a lesser extent Clemson, N.C. State and Louisville

Clearly Football First: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and to a lesser extent Miami, and independent Notre Dame

Clearly Basketball First: Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Leaning Basketball First: Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, N.C. State

Two Sport: Louisville

So John there is not much cohesion here.

Louisville's happy to be in because they "got nowhere else to go".
Notre Dame is happy to be affiliated because "I did it my way."
Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. just think it's better than the Big East but might be open to Big 10 overtures.
Virginia and North Carolina and Duke just want to rule.
Virginia Tech only feels obligated because Virginia got them in.
N.C. State doesn't have the pull to leave so they are stuck.
Wake Forest wouldn't be a part of any other P5.
Clemson may like the academics, but their interests aren't being optimized and there is dissension in the fan base over staying.
Florida State would leave if a better option truly was available.
Miami knows the ACC is their best chance for now.

In short I just don't buy your argument at all except for tobacco road and Virginia. Everything else is a graft both culturally and athletically. The best that can be said for Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. is that they would be a graft to the Big 10 as well and wouldn't be a perfect fit there either.

In fact the only part of your argument that I agree with totally is that it is the SEC's lack of need of a Georgia, South Carolina and Florida school that keeps things together in the ACC. But then that is because ESPN won't pay the SEC to take Clemson and F.S.U. for now. But if the Mouse could score long term rights to Big 10 product while shedding a portion of overhead to FOX that might change. If not holding onto a premier basketball conference is a must, but not so much that they will keep their most profitable product (the SEC and its new network) out of Virginia and North Carolina markets.

The compromise might be to swap a Vanderbilt for a N.C. State and to let the SEC add two to the West, or to pull that swap and let the SEC add an Oklahoma school and Virginia Tech while the ACC adds West Virginia. Or, for a swap that allows the SEC to add three to the west. But on that we'll see.

I'm not sure how this unfolds yet, but the options are all in ESPN's hands and not that of the SEC and ACC. I do know as the sole owner of ACC property that ESPN is right where they want to be, the sole broker of the best realignment property left on the board for the Big 10. That is why they acquired Pitt and Syracuse for the ACC and why they sewed up T3 for both Kansas and Texas as well. And why they paid the SEC to take Missouri. These chess moves were strategic blocks of Big 10 targets because Delany balked at their deal and started a network of his own which like that of the PAC suffered early distribution problems because of ESPN's pull.

This sure isn't about conferences and it sure is about corporate arm twisting and leveraging of product to secure both product placement and a more productive structure. ESPN knew when they signed the new ACC contract that a network would come up and that is why they so quickly sublet the property. Disparity is their tool, used or not, to either broker or secure the ACC depending on how bigger properties respond to their overtures.