(02-23-2024 08:52 AM)Yosef181 Wrote:  People here still think ACC leftovers are going to the Big 12, even though:

1) The ACC makes more money. Even with Texas + Oklahoma, the money gap between the Big 12 and ACC wasn't large.
2) The trend is to move east, not west.
3) There are ACC backfill candidates east of the general Big 12 footprint.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm skeptical.

Yeah, I’m with you. It’s like the ACC will end up like the Pac with many leaving, but there will be more than 4 left over so they will be able to rebuild with other higher research schools. They may not make as much as the Big12 after bigger ACC schools leave, but the new ACC would be close enough in revenue and still hold onto their well-established ACCNetwork.

It’s about timing and when a way is found through or around the ACC’s GOR. And I think that will happen before 2031 and enough ACC schools remain and pick up Tulane and USF and allow ACC to be in a position to steal the higher academic Big12’s from the Big12 right before Big12 tv deal expires. Before ACC raids better academic schools from Big12, they will make a little less than Big12. Then after 2031, back on pace to what ACC was making per school prior to P2 raiding of.

Big12 then backfills with best MWC, AAC and some other G5s…including all 3 military academies.

Or!….it is VERY possible just a few M2 schools make it to P2 and we end up having P2 + G3-5 with many G5s dropping to FCS because they couldn’t handle all the changes in players’ (deserved) demands/lawsuits/etc.

(02-23-2024 11:43 AM)kundrky Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 06:19 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it'll be two leagues of 30.

But how would you address the fact that the current Big 10 and SEC schools are a whole lot more profitable than the schools they could add and that the additions would have a dilutive effect?

What about those who claim that academic/research dollars are a magnitude higher than athletic dollars? Depending on how tight-knit the academic alliances (BTAA/SCAC) can become, would it make more sense to add those highly funded schools (ie Cal) despite their (lack of) athletic contributions? Sports dollars become saturated at a certain point. Federal research funding is a tree that grows to the sky.

Then I’d say that programs like Cal, Stanford, Duke, GT, etc that bring little in terms of athletic dollars need to build a joint proposal that illustrates how they can offset that with academic dollars.

The problem for the Big 10 in particular when it comes to adding these schools with academic upsides but weak football is that too many of these type of additions makes their collective product look considerably weaker than the SEC. The SEC could more easily absorb a Duke or a GT but why add them when you could take more attractive ACC programs instead?

(02-23-2024 11:42 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:37 AM)Fresno Fanatic Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 06:19 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it'll be two leagues of 30.

Ultimately I think that’s where it’s headed. Kind of seems like a law of physics in there. So the question to this thread should read “who doesn’t make the 60 to 64-team P2 Association consisting of a 30-32 team BigTen and a 30-32 team SEC?”.

If you see things getting that big, then obviously your response is to select every option.

Clearly there are lots of folks that aren’t voting for everyone’s that means many see those leagues being smaller.

Yeah, I should have clarified that 2-30ish’s is “possible”.

I’ll also clarify NOBODY on here know what’s gonna happen. There are no experts on here and even so-called experts don’t have a clue.

(02-23-2024 11:58 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:43 AM)kundrky Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 11:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 06:19 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think it'll be two leagues of 30.

But how would you address the fact that the current Big 10 and SEC schools are a whole lot more profitable than the schools they could add and that the additions would have a dilutive effect?

What about those who claim that academic/research dollars are a magnitude higher than athletic dollars? Depending on how tight-knit the academic alliances (BTAA/SCAC) can become, would it make more sense to add those highly funded schools (ie Cal) despite their (lack of) athletic contributions? Sports dollars become saturated at a certain point. Federal research funding is a tree that grows to the sky.

Then I’d say that programs like Cal, Stanford, Duke, GT, etc that bring little in terms of athletic dollars need to build a joint proposal that illustrates how they can offset that with academic dollars.

The problem for the Big 10 in particular when it comes to adding these schools with academic upsides but weak football is that too many of these type of additions makes their collective product look considerably weaker than the SEC. The SEC could more easily absorb a Duke or a GT but why add them when you could take more attractive ACC programs instead?

The Big Ten has two football national championships in the last 20 years. Everyone would say it already is considerably weaker than the SEC. The thing that keeps them on the same financial footing is the strength of their markets and alumni, not the on-field product. They might as well just lean into their academics and institutional priorities with "peer" schools.

Bump