(03-16-2022 04:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The first option is obviously to try to maintain the ACC intact and be paid at least 80% of their main competitors media rights levels. That keeps long-standing affiliation with Wake Forest, plus the northern ex-Big East schools.

Plan B is to get as many schools as possible into the top tier conferences. The SEC accommodating the 9 core Southern members resolves a lot of worries. Lines of demarcation would be useful in this scenario. Otherwise, there is a need to get both the B1G and SEC interested in expansion. Lines of demarcation hurt the ACC if it leaves too many high potential programs stranded in inferior conferences. Carolina is the key program in this discussion.

IF:

the B1G absorbed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke;

the SEC took in Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech;

and the remaining seven full-member ACC schools ended up in some sort of reconfigured "P-5 lite" conference (maybe even still called the ACC), do you think most fans of and/or administrators from UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, FSU, NCSU and VT would be good with it?

(03-16-2022 04:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 05:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2022 06:00 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Sherrill does seem prophetic in predicting that conferences would continue to expand and there would be consolidation to four power conferences. There is no magic number for membership size. So long as payouts increase, the size of the conference can be managed.

IMO, so long as the ACC is nationally relevant, UNC, UVa and Duke will be happy in the ACC. Nationally relevant means that the ACC champion is considered a viable candidate for the national championship. Clemson, and FSU previously, proves that the ACC provides a solid path for national title aspirants. With OU and UT joining the SEC, I don’t believe that the SEC is seeking more football brands. There is a really good chance that Clemson and Florida State remain in the ACC…enhancing the chances that UNC, UVa and Duke also remain in the ACC.

With regards to academic reputation, this is not the SEC of 30+ years ago. Universities in Florida (UF and FSU) and Georgia (GT and UGA) have dramatically improved. The schools are increasingly selective and building strong research programs. In addition, the expansions with Texas and TAMU are academic home runs. They have resources, large enrollments and bright futures. Plus, Vanderbilt is always there to provide shade in academic matters. IMO, academic affiliation would not be the major concern of UVa, UNC and Duke…they honestly prefer the ACC over other options.

After the OU and UT announcements, the SEC is probably not too anxious for expansion. Interest in a game changing, 4 or 6 school, scenario is more likely to come from the B1G. Something like ND, UVa, UNC, Duke, GT and FSU. Very much a long-shot, but it addresses the B1G’s needs for recruits and Southern growth markets.

If the GOR's are broken by the SCOTUS would conference contracts be voided because they would no longer be enforceable? Too much legal stuff for me to understand.

A game changing expansion to 20 by the B1G would include:
UVa
Carolina
Duke
Georgia Tech
Kansas
Notre Dame

I doubt the B1G would attempt to reach down into Florida for FSU.

If that were to occur, the SEC is left with limited options. NC State and Virginia Tech for sure. The SEC probably needs a second Florida School (Florida State is the safe choice, but it sure would be better to have something further down the coast...Miami opens up South Florida). Then it's a choice between two redundant markets: Louisville to double up in Kentucky or Clemson in South Carolina.

With future SEC (OUT) expansion, I believe that B1G leaders realize that FSU has to be an option. It opens a huge market for students, recruits, and revenue…with a true football brand. If Notre Dame resists going all-in, then the alternative is UVa, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and Miami.

It also opens the possibility for NC State, VT, Clemson and Miami (or Kansas) to be considered by the SEC / ESPN.

If the GOR is broken and ESPN is unwilling to pay more for the ACC, then it’s best to maximize the schools that can find homes in the top tier. No doubt that boosters at some of these schools would prefer the SEC, but it’s difficult to see the SEC needing too many schools.

Here is a line of demarcation in all of this that most do not grasp. The SEC wants to be the only conference in its region if the ACC breaks apart. ESPN wants total control of markets extending from North Carolina across Tennessee across Arkansas into Oklahoma and South. I think they would be okay with divided loyalties north of that very definitive line.

I believe whatever happens, and only if the ACC succumbs to monetary disparity, will uphold that line of demarcation. It could extend from Virginia through Kentucky into Missouri and Kansas, but IMO that is much less likely.

If Armageddon occurs and the SEC could provide homes for all the larger ACC (mainly Southern) schools, that would be wonderful.

I’m not convinced that it’s financially realistic for the SEC to double-down on Virginia (UVa and VT), Georgia (UGA and GT) and South Carolina (USC and Clemson); as well as having three schools from North Carolina (UNC, NC State and Duke) and Florida (UF, FSU and Miami). That’s 9 core ACC schools that have the credentials of top tier college athletic programs.

The first option is obviously to try to maintain the ACC intact and be paid at least 80% of their main competitors media rights levels. That keeps long-standing affiliation with Wake Forest, plus the northern ex-Big East schools.

Plan B is to get as many schools as possible into the top tier conferences. The SEC accommodating the 9 core Southern members resolves a lot of worries. Lines of demarcation would be useful in this scenario. Otherwise, there is a need to get both the B1G and SEC interested in expansion. Lines of demarcation hurt the ACC if it leaves too many high potential programs stranded in inferior conferences. Carolina is the key program in this discussion.

Clemson and Florida State are accretive, just in different ways. Clemson at its current incarnation is a content multiplier against any brand school. Florida State gives the SEC ad rate leverage in a very large state. Georgia Tech with Georgia & Clemson & Auburn nails the largest city market in the South and puts schools not named Tech in Atlanta often enough. N.C. State would be less so, but as the cost of doing business with Duke and UNC workable. Virginia could be taken with either as Va Tech holds a skosh of an advantage in numbers. But UVa is an academic coup with history and synergy with the others involved so why not? Miami allows a triple dip of Florida on most Saturdays and the 3 tied to the SEC would only cement the brand in the state. So the issue here is how does the group profit the overall more than on a school by school basis? TV, a super regional monopoly on college sports, and hence ad rate dominance could easily be accretive enough for pro rata at worst and some additional money at best. And that's accretive to the 2026 SEC figures. Also when a CFP emerges you have a lot more money divided fewer ways with fewer conferences involved. And if hoops are monetized its value x 2 at least for that one revenue sport.

Where are the other benefits? 1 set of overhead expenses split 24 ways, ancillary value to ACC schools if the split the proceeds of selling ACC conference property, and much more regionality in scheduling all major sports.

ESPN gets to marry the 1st and 3rd largest markets with the 1st and 2nd highest saturation of viewers in the most college sports friendly regions of the country. And they get to roll the ACCN, SECN, and LHN into one cutting overhead and likely being able to sell 1 subscription for a little more (a lot more viewing options) to the public and a lot more Disney + bundles for streaming and ad rates maxed within the entire footprint.

(03-16-2022 05:16 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 04:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The first option is obviously to try to maintain the ACC intact and be paid at least 80% of their main competitors media rights levels. That keeps long-standing affiliation with Wake Forest, plus the northern ex-Big East schools.

Plan B is to get as many schools as possible into the top tier conferences. The SEC accommodating the 9 core Southern members resolves a lot of worries. Lines of demarcation would be useful in this scenario. Otherwise, there is a need to get both the B1G and SEC interested in expansion. Lines of demarcation hurt the ACC if it leaves too many high potential programs stranded in inferior conferences. Carolina is the key program in this discussion.

IF:

the B1G absorbed Virginia, North Carolina and Duke;

the SEC took in Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina State and Virginia Tech;

and the remaining seven full-member ACC schools ended up in some sort of reconfigured "P-5 lite" conference (maybe even still called the ACC), do you think most fans of and/or administrators from UVA, UNC, Duke, Clemson, FSU, NCSU and VT would be good with it?

This was probably a more realistic option if Texas and OU had gone to the PAC. It now seems unrealistic for the B1G to just add UVa, UNC and Duke. The B1G is now at a football deficit to the SEC, they now can't afford to dilute their football stature and put themselves at a major competitive disadvantage.

But I'll play the game...

Yes. Boosters in at least 6 of the 7 schools would be fine. UNC boosters would probably whine because NC State would have a plausible path to outshine their own school. Nevertheless, administrators at all 7 schools would approve. Miami and GT would be slighted believing that they deserved a better outcome. Combined with the other ACC schools, they would probably blend with B12 schools to form a new power-lite conference. Not an ideal outcome, but a potential scenario if the ACC breaks-up.

(03-16-2022 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 04:33 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 01:41 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-16-2022 05:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  If the GOR's are broken by the SCOTUS would conference contracts be voided because they would no longer be enforceable? Too much legal stuff for me to understand.

A game changing expansion to 20 by the B1G would include:
UVa
Carolina
Duke
Georgia Tech
Kansas
Notre Dame

I doubt the B1G would attempt to reach down into Florida for FSU.

If that were to occur, the SEC is left with limited options. NC State and Virginia Tech for sure. The SEC probably needs a second Florida School (Florida State is the safe choice, but it sure would be better to have something further down the coast...Miami opens up South Florida). Then it's a choice between two redundant markets: Louisville to double up in Kentucky or Clemson in South Carolina.

With future SEC (OUT) expansion, I believe that B1G leaders realize that FSU has to be an option. It opens a huge market for students, recruits, and revenue…with a true football brand. If Notre Dame resists going all-in, then the alternative is UVa, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and Miami.

It also opens the possibility for NC State, VT, Clemson and Miami (or Kansas) to be considered by the SEC / ESPN.

If the GOR is broken and ESPN is unwilling to pay more for the ACC, then it’s best to maximize the schools that can find homes in the top tier. No doubt that boosters at some of these schools would prefer the SEC, but it’s difficult to see the SEC needing too many schools.

Here is a line of demarcation in all of this that most do not grasp. The SEC wants to be the only conference in its region if the ACC breaks apart. ESPN wants total control of markets extending from North Carolina across Tennessee across Arkansas into Oklahoma and South. I think they would be okay with divided loyalties north of that very definitive line.

I believe whatever happens, and only if the ACC succumbs to monetary disparity, will uphold that line of demarcation. It could extend from Virginia through Kentucky into Missouri and Kansas, but IMO that is much less likely.

If Armageddon occurs and the SEC could provide homes for all the larger ACC (mainly Southern) schools, that would be wonderful.

I’m not convinced that it’s financially realistic for the SEC to double-down on Virginia (UVa and VT), Georgia (UGA and GT) and South Carolina (USC and Clemson); as well as having three schools from North Carolina (UNC, NC State and Duke) and Florida (UF, FSU and Miami). That’s 9 core ACC schools that have the credentials of top tier college athletic programs.

The first option is obviously to try to maintain the ACC intact and be paid at least 80% of their main competitors media rights levels. That keeps long-standing affiliation with Wake Forest, plus the northern ex-Big East schools.

Plan B is to get as many schools as possible into the top tier conferences. The SEC accommodating the 9 core Southern members resolves a lot of worries. Lines of demarcation would be useful in this scenario. Otherwise, there is a need to get both the B1G and SEC interested in expansion. Lines of demarcation hurt the ACC if it leaves too many high potential programs stranded in inferior conferences. Carolina is the key program in this discussion.

Clemson and Florida State are accretive, just in different ways. Clemson at its current incarnation is a content multiplier against any brand school. Florida State gives the SEC ad rate leverage in a very large state. Georgia Tech with Georgia & Clemson & Auburn nails the largest city market in the South and puts schools not named Tech in Atlanta often enough. N.C. State would be less so, but as the cost of doing business with Duke and UNC workable. Virginia could be taken with either as Va Tech holds a skosh of an advantage in numbers. But UVa is an academic coup with history and synergy with the others involved so why not? Miami allows a triple dip of Florida on most Saturdays and the 3 tied to the SEC would only cement the brand in the state. So the issue here is how does the group profit the overall more than on a school by school basis? TV, a super regional monopoly on college sports, and hence ad rate dominance could easily be accretive enough for pro rata at worst and some additional money at best. And that's accretive to the 2026 SEC figures. Also when a CFP emerges you have a lot more money divided fewer ways with fewer conferences involved. And if hoops are monetized its value x 2 at least for that one revenue sport.

Where are the other benefits? 1 set of overhead expenses split 24 ways, ancillary value to ACC schools if the split the proceeds of selling ACC conference property, and much more regionality in scheduling all major sports.

ESPN gets to marry the 1st and 3rd largest markets with the 1st and 2nd highest saturation of viewers in the most college sports friendly regions of the country. And they get to roll the ACCN, SECN, and LHN into one cutting overhead and likely being able to sell 1 subscription for a little more (a lot more viewing options) to the public and a lot more Disney + bundles for streaming and ad rates maxed within the entire footprint.

I think the conglomeration is what does it. A lot of content under one roof with access to markets that pay the bills.

If ESPN can force ad rates higher then they win big.

As far as supplemental content, whatever the Big 12 turns into provides a change of pace with savings in payouts.

The 10th addition would be fascinating. Do you go for Kansas? Or try for an outlier?