(07-31-2023 09:50 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 09:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 08:59 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 04:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Clemson's stock will prove to be as resilient as FSU's has been. Clemson already packs in as many fans as the average SEC team right now. Put them in the SEC, even with a bunch of 7-9 win seasons, and they'll be drawing 90k +. FSU is the only other school that can reasonably expect to see a big boost to their stock in the SEC, they've been mostly bad since Jimbo left yet they still pull good ratings and have the 2nd highest attendance (after Clemson) of the non-P2.

Clemson won a title in '81 and kept packing them in for 30 years until Dabo came along and started winning Big again, there's no reason to think that they'll fall off after he's gone.

I wouldn't bet on Clemson and Florida State stock values if they head to the Big 10. They would be fish out of water and their fan bases will be divided, some angrily.

Clemson isn’t going to the B1G. Scratch it from any realignment scenario. SEC or bust for the Tigers.

Something is coming. The seemingly imminent breakup of the PAC 12 is only going to ratchet up the pressure on the ACC. It is obvious to most now that the Big 12 will be the best of the rest conference.

While I initially dismiss the rumors about FSU and Clemson, at the same time when I flip the chess board, they make some sense. Ohio State, even with the additions of USC and UCLA is still by the time USC and UCLA join, the only Big 10 member to win a national championship in the past 20 years. USCs in 2004 was vacated. If they are looking to add branding in football, which they need, who is left? We all know Notre Dame, but who is left who has won at the top level? Clemson and Florida State. If they join the Big 10 does that upset the balance of power in the SEC? No. If the Big 10's additions are Oregon, Washington, Clemson and Florida State they are adding the best of the last football options on the board. I'd put Utah creeping into that bracket but that's it.

Therefore, I will not dismiss the concept out of hand. And what does that free the SEC to do? Duke, UNC, Virginia, Miami. The top branding left in hoops in the ACC and a second Florida school which is AAU.

Why would ESPN do this? With Florida and South Carolina they own the state flagships in every state in the Southeast and they still have 2 schools in Florida and a third in USF through the AAC.

If Vanderbilt opts not to go all in on football, Kansas waits in the wings.

If Virginia and North Carolina insist on Virginia Tech and N.C. State the SEC can add Kansas and look to fill that final slot with Georgia Tech, Louisville, T.C.U., or South Florida. There are esoteric reasons for each, but not compelling reasons for any of them.

I always try to play my opponent's side of the board. It's more revealing of the possible permutations than simply looking at his past moves. It also makes your weaknesses pop out.

No doubt there’s a bigger storm brewing. It just won’t blow Clemson into the B1G.

Without Florida State there may be no room for them in the SEC. Small state of 5 million where each school flips between 49 to 51% of the viewers depending upon who is winning and the SEC has one of the schools. Without FSU our picking priorities would likely change. If we are taking FSU we are going for the top football brands in our region: Florida State, Clemson, Miami. Without FSU we likely take Miami but as a market add, and we pivot and go after national brand hoops programs which add new markets.

There is an emphasis to each approach depending upon which school as a #1 choice is available and amenable. FSU is a #1 for football pickups. North Carolina is a #1 for basketball pickups. Miami as a Florida #2 and new market with solid hoops, baseball and football is one of the few who fits either way and meets a need.

(07-31-2023 01:48 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 12:50 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 12:00 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  

(07-31-2023 11:50 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  [quote='bullet' pid='19042959' dateline='1690817197']

Or maybe 8 or 4 or none. I don't believe there is money to justify going to 24 each.

If Colorado is worth $32 per year in the new B12 I'm pretty sure the average of Clemson, FSU, Miami, Miami and 4 other southern ACC schools in the SEC would be worth $80 million per year or more. 24 teams is 10 games per week. ESPN has enough channels to broadcast 10 games per week.

The thing is ESPN already owns the exclusive broadcasting right to the ACC for ~33 million per school. Why would they pay more for what they already own.

Because no one is watching those games. People will watch FSU play Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. Same with the other ACC schools to a varying degree, but more than in the ACC.

ESPN is not primarily paid by the viewer. The lionshare of their revenue comes from cable subscribers whether they watch ESPN ACC network or none of them. Advertising rates are indirectly linked to viewership, but again this is not the majority of revenue. ESPN wants to be profitable not most viewed. Paying more for what you already own is the opposite of that.
.

There is nothing ESPN wants more than 3.5 million viewers for its programing, except programing that gets 4M, 4.5M, 5M, etc. That is why the SEC and the B1G get large media contract deals. Apparently you forgot the egg comes before the chicken that produces the egg. If ESPN didn't have viewership for its sports, especially live action sports, it would not have such high carriage rates. When discussing sports and media viewership is king. Always.