ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment | Page 100 | Syracusefan.com

ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

Brett McMurphy says this in the case. As far as I know, he is the source of this info.

Here is a link to his article.


The nugget appears near the end of the story. I have copied and pasted the relevant section...

What can the ACC do as a league?

The only way the ACC can receive significantly more money from ESPN is by expanding. Sources told Action Network that if the ACC adds additional teams — whether from the Power 5 or Group of Five — ESPN contractually must pay the ACC a pro-rata amount for each new member.
Ha, I forgot that he was the source for that. If McMurphy said it, it's very likely correct.
 
SDSU is the only one that brings even close to the needed $$. Fresno is a hard NO due to their academics.
Just curious , does A and M have a board where you can post your thoughts?
 
But the next sentence pretty much goes on to say whatever it is isn't worth it.

Otherwise McMurphy make Brent Axe look like Jimmy Breslin, it's so poorly written.
McMurphy has been right about a whole lot in Realignment over the last decade +. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something he says. He's a real journalist, he fact checks his sources, and all of his sources have proven knowledgeable over the years.
 
I get your point. Please recall that SU was vetted by the B1G, as were Pitt, ND and several others. However, the ACC offered first and SU accepted catching the B1G off guard to the point they believed they had to take Rutgers. SU never mentioned the B1G or the ACC and made the move to everyone's surprise. Historically speaking, and observing many other SU decisions, I believe SU is on top of the matter, to a greater extent than most on here would believe.

The seven teams are blowing smoke, if they could have made a move, they would have done so already. Attorneys who specialize in this type of law have analyzed the GOR and ESPN's options and not one recommendation or theory of how the GOR May be broken in an economically reasonable fashion has been put forth. This has been discussed and is resolved by lack of action. Only internet talkers, on this site and throughout the internet, keep the idea of breaking the GOR alive.
Yeah, the only realistic way anything happens before 2036 is if EVERYBODY wants it to. All ACC teams, ESPN, the SEC, maybe even the B1G and the big 12...it's a lot to put together, and it's hard to see how everybody wins.

More realistic is some teams announce they're leaving around 2032 and try to negotiate a buyout a year or 2 early.
 
McMurphy has been right about a whole lot in Realignment over the last decade +. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something he says. He's a real journalist, he fact checks his sources, and all of his sources have proven knowledgeable over the years.

The hyperbole is flat out awful.

Lawyers review contracts, that's the story.

And some of those schools aren't like the others.
 
I said before that the SEC and Big 10 better pay attention to the Golf Merger.
Congress is already starting to state Monopoly, and is asking regulators to check closely.
They have also mentioned that the PGA should no longer be tax exempt
If they are doing this with Golf, imagine the Super Conferences, with no representation in most of the state's.
I'm surprised that this doesn't get more discussion time in Realignment circles. I, for one, think that it's best for football to keep FBS, or a theoretical "breakaway", as large as possible. Certainly all of the current P5, but also much of the current g5. Put a requirement for membership and actually stick to that, then allow any left out of the original group to join if they meet the requirements.

I'm just spitballing here, but you include every single P5, then for g5s you could include one or several of the following:

30k seat on campus stadium, or nearby NFL stadium for home games
minimum 100 scholarship players
each scholarship player gets full room/board tuition plus 36k a year salary when/if pay for play comes to pass
every current member of the P5 exempted
every former member of a major conference, including the old SWC and BE exempted
every team that's won a major bowl in the past 30 years exempted
every team that's finished in the top 25 AP poll in the past 30 years exempted

I'm not sure how many teams that gives you, but in my mind I'm thinking that about 100 teams would ensure that everybody who wanted in would in fact be in. It would ensure that every region of the country was covered, in most cases by several teams. It probably brings along too many schools. However, including a few too many and avoiding a bunch of congressional interference would be preferable to bringing in only "major" programs.
 
They want freedom to manipulate the schedule to help ensure the B1G gets two teams in the playoffs each year.
How much manipulating do they need to do? They would have gotten 3 in last year if it was a 12 team format.
 
USC's 2024 schedule is bonkers. They play LSU and Notre Dame out of conference along with a full Big Ten schedule.
Riley left OU, in large part, because he knew that he would be exposed in the SEC. He may or may not be exposed in the B1G, but that 2024 schedule certainly looks daunting.
 
If FSWho and Clempsun want more $$$, then the solution is simple: win some championships in the next 10 years. The same goes for other schools winning hoops championships.

When ESPN negotiates wth the ACC to extend the current arrangements, $$$ will go up. It will not match $EC amounts, but it will be closer, as well as provide easier access to the CFP... potentially for 2-3 schools per year. Whining for more $$ to get attention is annoying but understandable. Hopefully, it'll be resolved in 8 years or so. If Loserville wants to leave, who cares. Possibly swap them for WVU. If Maryland wants to come back, that's fine too.
I disagree. Current big 12 schools look to have competitive tv ratings to the ACC as currently constituted. Once you take out your top 2-6 earners, the ACC numbers will look a lot more Pac-like than big 12-like.
 
They should be terrified of their basketball program imploding in either league SEC hoops is very good top to bottom these days. Nebraska to the Big Ten is what Duke and UNC are looking at if they leave the ACC for hoops.

FB probably no change and they're the usual Mac Brown 7-5 team. Hire the wrong coach after him and you might go winless. I could see UVA being fine if they moved over to either and coming out way ahead of UNC. Remember what happened to BC athletics and VT when they moved conferences it worked out great for the best part of a decade and Miami was the big loser who's glory days ended for good immediately.
I really don't like Mac Brown, and he's certainly lost his fastball, but he was a really good coach in his prime. He led UNC to prominence once upon a time, he went 10-4 against my Aggies, he beat OU 7 times, and he won a National Title. He had 4 other top 5 finishes at UT. He's been ranked 5 times as the UNC coach, including 2 top 10s. He went 9-5 last year, which is a whole lot better than Jimbo did at A&M.

Ugh, I feel dirty now. Thanks a lot.
 
There won't be any additions, ESP will not agree to them nor will most, if not all, ACC schools. Let posters have their fun. However, the GOR is too expensive to buyout and there is no incentive for ESPN to let any of the ACC schools go. This has been discussed on this site and at present it will be in excess of a billion dollars to break the GOR, assuming ESPN agrees to allow it.

Even in 2031, there will be too many years left for schools to buy out the GOR. And yet, ESPN will still have no interest in allowing the ACC to collapse. It is more likely that ESPN will be thinking of merging the SEC and ACC than to breaking up the ACC and letting schools go to the B1G and giving up the northeast completely, the markets are too valuable to have no ESPN footprint. As it is the B1G and Big East belong to Fox covering the two profitable sports. It is bad business to simply give a competitor profit generating properties.

Further, no talking heads have done basic math, though ESPN, Fox, and the conferences have. The SEC will have several of big name schools becoming middle of the pack and many middle of the pack fall to losing records, even when they have a 4-game OOC schedule. Saban is not a fool, he knows this, as do the SEC voters, which explains his adamant argument for 4 OOC games in lieu of three. The one extra OOC game provides a little breathing room to prop up a couple more teams. Conference play is a zero sum game, and inflation of records for the middle and bottom must come from outside the conference.

Before arguing with me, do the math and present it here. There is no mathematical possibility that Bama, LSU, UGA, UT, TAMU, OU, UF, Auburn, and Tennessee in which they are all top 25. In fact, at least one will become a loser each year, probably more than one. Nor will all of the former middle of the pack be happy being perpetual losers. No one will care that Ole Miss, MState, USC, Arkansas, Mizzou (east, not Rutgers - inside joke, a Rutgers fan once claimed Rutgers was USC on Saturdays) is in the SEC when they can't win 6 games annually. Only UK and Vandy will remain unscathed because they historically are the SEC bottom feeders of the SEC.

The same is true in the B1G, just different names. Both conferences will either have to split for the biggest names to have annual success that they are accustomed to, or more likely, both expand to include more middle of the pack and a couple bottom feeders to prop up the biggest names.

Again, before you whine and complain in an attempt to convince us that the SEC is all that and a bag of chips, do the math, show your work and prove absolutely that your response will work. As it stands, it won't. By 2031, everyone will understand this point.
I think that everyone understands it pretty well already. Auburn has a losing record in SEC play since we joined. Arky is 1-10 against us in league play. And we're a weak 3rd best in the SECW over that time period, far behind #2 LSU and even further behind #1 bama of course. However, schools adapt. Alabama's Saban years will prove to be a historical anomaly, he had better bagmen and was able to out-talent everybody for 10 years. Now? The transfer portal and NIL have turned football on its head, anybody with a Phil Knight or Tillman Fertitta can dream of being the next Alabama, but nobody can outspend all the others by huge margins year in and year out. Who has more money than Texas Oilmen, or billionaire ND or USC grads? Alabama furniture salesmen certainly don't.

We don't have to win big every year, but we all want to be in the conversation at the start of the year, and at least some years we want to be in the conversation at the end of it. Bigger programs will demand more success from their coaches of course, but that's unlikely to do much to change the fact that there are only a few teams from a 16 team conference that will qualify each year for a 12 team CFP.
 
I disagree. Current big 12 schools look to have competitive tv ratings to the ACC as currently constituted. Once you take out your top 2-6 earners, the ACC numbers will look a lot more Pac-like than big 12-like.
The current Big XII schools (minus Texas and Oklahoma) haven’t won a national football championship since the 1930s, thanks to TCU.

The ACC schools have done a bit better since then. ;)

Take out TCU and they have 0 national championships. The ACC has them well outnumbered.
 
Yeah, the only realistic way anything happens before 2036 is if EVERYBODY wants it to. All ACC teams, ESPN, the SEC, maybe even the B1G and the big 12...it's a lot to put together, and it's hard to see how everybody wins.

More realistic is some teams announce they're leaving around 2032 and try to negotiate a buyout a year or 2 early.
OU and UT paid more than 2X the annual value of their share of the TV revenue as their rights buy back; this was the cost when the two sides both benefitted by them leaving early. The ACC has a a buyout PLUS the rights buy-back, the buy-out is worth 3X the annual TV revenue, then add the value of more than 2X the annual TV. For a one year buy out, the total will be at least 5X the annual payout, a two year buy out will be at least 7X the annual payout. In present values, this amounts to about $210MM+ and $285MM+ respectively. These figures fail to include the likely increased cost ration for the TV rights buy back as it is not likely to benefit the remaining teams, nor is a rights deal likely to benefit ESPN.
 
I think that everyone understands it pretty well already. Auburn has a losing record in SEC play since we joined. Arky is 1-10 against us in league play. And we're a weak 3rd best in the SECW over that time period, far behind #2 LSU and even further behind #1 bama of course. However, schools adapt. Alabama's Saban years will prove to be a historical anomaly, he had better bagmen and was able to out-talent everybody for 10 years. Now? The transfer portal and NIL have turned football on its head, anybody with a Phil Knight or Tillman Fertitta can dream of being the next Alabama, but nobody can outspend all the others by huge margins year in and year out. Who has more money than Texas Oilmen, or billionaire ND or USC grads? Alabama furniture salesmen certainly don't.

We don't have to win big every year, but we all want to be in the conversation at the start of the year, and at least some years we want to be in the conversation at the end of it. Bigger programs will demand more success from their coaches of course, but that's unlikely to do much to change the fact that there are only a few teams from a 16 team conference that will qualify each year for a 12 team CFP.
Again, run the math and show who will drop and who will stay on top. I get your words, they are generic and hopeful, a bit Pollyanna-ish, but they will not hold water in the era of championships or bust. The SEC will have to add teams for the big names to remain big names. As it is, the big names cannot fill their stadiums when they are not ranked high. I live in Conroe, have friends with seasons to TAMU games, and have been there for Jimbo's less than stellar games - the stadiums are not full unless the respective team is winning. I tailgate with large donors and get their whispers and rumors and speculations. That is why I want you to do the math and show the work. It's very telling.
 
Just curious. Is this thread for Syracuse fans only, or is it for Realignment discussions?
No. It's for anyone really. It's just strange to see someone from A and M here. We never seem to play you guys in anything.
 
If this was actually Risk then those moves would make sense. However, in the real world, we have no interest in a distant 2nd or 3rd best school in North Carolina, and we'd take Clemson over anyone other than FSU and UNC. Clemson brings big ratings and they actually look like an SEC stadium on game day. Nobody else outside of the P2, even FSU, comes close.

The SEC took the 2nd Texas school A&M so there is a precedence regarding NCS. I see UNC being a better fit in the Big10.

Clemson...good point and I could see that.
 
SEC doesn’t even need ACC schools for basketball. If they add teams everyone will be upset they play traditional opponents so rarely.

The Big Ten added the LA schools because they saw attractive away games which their fans could take the stadiums over and 2 programs they could destroy like they did to Nebraska football. Added an entire time zone for the tv channel which will replace the nonexistent p12 network. They don’t need to go to the South now. It’s a great deal for them an awful for SC and UCLA.
 
I don’t know how many times this needs to be said. The Big 10 and SEC aren’t interested in expansion with schools like BC, Pitt, Louisville (laughable!), NC State or Va Tech. I think both conferences are content for now but none of those schools are in play if/when they do decide on expansion.

Big 10: Pitt an easy drive matches academically and a perfect play partner for PSU
BC...only if ND joins and they are included. Not sure they would be that important to ND but I added them if they possibly were.

SEC: VT and NCS gets them into NC and Virginia. Would they prefer UNC and UV, probably UNC but VT is more of a "football" and have more of an SEC environment

Are they both content, probably. Like I wrote, lawyers will be the ones manipulating this from here on through back channels...these are the next moves and when who knows.
 
No. It's for anyone really. It's just strange to see someone from A and M here. We never seem to play you guys in anything.
Dasher: Bryan is a regular poster over at the realignment board at CSNBBS.com. He isn't a hit n run troll.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
168,282
Messages
4,761,958
Members
5,946
Latest member
Foxda130

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
1,536
Total visitors
1,749


Top Bottom