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

[Cusefan0307]

Can’t wait until Belichick has UNC sucking his year.

 

[HtownOrange]

Your school? I always mention the two biggest dead weights in the ACC, which are BC and Wake. Which one is your school?

What I do think most Syracuse fans do not want to see is how little value there is in the entire Northeast for Major CFB. It is not a recent problem, and there is no sign it ever will get better.

That Big East way of seeing things, which means missing how deep and wide are the regional problems, is also found, in a different form, in much of the Old Guard ACC. I grew up in SEC country, not in NC. So I see what the ACC always has lacked and has refused to act wisely and forcefully to get (except when landing FSU). I can see that about the ACC because I know SEC football very well.

And look at the results: now, SEC basketball rules the national roost. How did that happen? Because football is so MUCH BIGGER than basketball, eventually in a free market for conferences, any league with huge football fan bases would be able to buy out even the most successful basketball-first leagues.

And it is all about the passionate football fan bases. TV pays for viewers. Quite simply, a 6-6 Auburn team (#2 football program and fan base in its own small state) will always be a better TV draw than a 9-3 Syracuse team. Per capita, nobody in NY gives a half damn about Major CFB. And New England is even worse. And almost all those north easterners who do watch a lot of Major CFB root first for ND or PSU. TV knows that - hence the SEC TV deal compared to the ACC deal.

The ACC is facing an existential crisis. This is about surviving. But that has 2 basic meanings. The Pac survives, but it never again will be close to being seen as Major (its 2 least valuable members of the 12 are the only old members left). The SWC has been dead for a long time. Either fate could await the ACC. Or the ACC could get wildly aggressive and save itself as MAJOR. But that will require very tough leadership that is determined to keep the ACC as MAJOR.

That need to aggressively remain MAJOR holds true even if SEC and BT agree to never add another school. As things now stand, they will keep on getting new TV deals that get ever more above the ACC deals. Before long that disparity will mean everybody agrees that we have only 2 MAJOR conferences, and then all the rest. None of which really matters, most of which definitely matter zilch.

Here are things that I know to be true:

1. Major CFB wealth and power are very much about state flagship and land grant schools: 17 of 18 BT members and 15 of 16 SEC members. In contrast, the ACC has 3 Flagships and 3 Land Grants among 17 members. Almost all those schools are quite large, all in the BT are very large.

2. The South and the Midwest are the two regions with the largest numbers of and most passionate CFB fans. Per capita, the northeast has so few passionate CFB fans that it really does not register. Literally, save for PSU, a network can afford to just ignore the Northeast. That no longer can be said of the MT zone, nor can it be said of the PT zone, though per capita that area watches less college sports than it did 30 and 40 years ago.

3. Passion for CBB means nothing in this. As football is worth about 10 times more than basketball, a league could have UNC, Dook, UK, Louisville, IU, Purdue, Syracuse, UConn, and KU and still die very quickly because its football would not be worth runny compared to the BT and SEC.

4. Having teams in states that have large numbers of passionate CFB fans and also produce a lot of HS football talent makes it much easier for that league to be good or great on the field and acquire and keep passionate fans. Conversely the more teams a league has in states and regions with poor HS football and per capita poor CFB TV viewing, the harder it will be for that league to be very good on the field year after year and to acquire and maintain large TV fan bases.

ACC leaders must come to accept all that and know it is futile to deny or fight any of it, and then figure out how to better position the ACC to compete against the SEC and BT for TV viewers at least as much on football fields.

See your post at #8825. Again, don't let facts get in the way of your false narrative.

Your "insight" into SU fans' stated above and copied here for your convenience as you are not able to recall your nonsense:

What I do think most Syracuse fans do not want to see is how little value there is in the entire Northeast for Major CFB. It is not a recent problem, and there is no sign it ever will get better.

To believe you we must ignore facts.

Let's ignore the fact that CFB was originally a huge sport in the northeast, long before your Tar Heels thought of playing competitive football ... oh, wait, your Tar Heels have yet to be truly competitive and relevant in college football.

Let's ignore the fact that you fail to define the northeast and seem to change the definition as it fits your argument of the moment. For clarification, let's take everything north of Virginia as most southern fans believe Maryland is a northern state for football, some believe Virginia is, too.

Let's ignore the fact that you ignore the usual assessment that ACC football does not fit the usual TV ratio of 75/25 of football to hoops and is more likely 50/50.

Let's ignore the fact that the northeast, even under your VERY flexible definitions, is very pro-college hoops.

Let's ignore the fact that ESPN makes money off the ACC, especially in the populace NORTHEAST!

Let's ignore the fact that ESPN would not have given the ACC a network without SU and PITT (and for what it's worth, BC and Louisville, another northern school, like ND!)

Are you seeing a trend or common denominator with any of this? You have failed every attempt to explain why SU fans should follow your "logic", which often contradicts your "logic" elsewhere.

No one on this site believes that SU will carry the ACC's day, nor believes that the SEC and B1G are begging SU to join. Most fans on this site understand the importance of college football to TV revenue. HINT: Several fans on this site, courtesy of the #1 communications school!, are LITERALLY experts in all facets of TV, media, print, etc., you may wish to tread lightly. We non-media types on this site believe the site experts far more than we will believe a fan of an irrelevant college football team.

Anyway, have at it. Maybe you change your handle to "Don Quixote".

 

[orangefog]

See your post at #8825. Again, don't let facts get in the way of your false narrative.

Your "insight" into SU fans' stated above and copied here for your convenience as you are not able to recall your nonsense:

What I do think most Syracuse fans do not want to see is how little value there is in the entire Northeast for Major CFB. It is not a recent problem, and there is no sign it ever will get better.

To believe you we must ignore facts.

Let's ignore the fact that CFB was originally a huge sport in the northeast, long before your Tar Heels thought of playing competitive football ... oh, wait, your Tar Heels have yet to be truly competitive and relevant in college football.

Let's ignore the fact that you fail to define the northeast and seem to change the definition as it fits your argument of the moment. For clarification, let's take everything north of Virginia as most southern fans believe Maryland is a northern state for football, some believe Virginia is, too.

Let's ignore the fact that you ignore the usual assessment that ACC football does not fit the usual TV ratio of 75/25 of football to hoops and is more likely 50/50.

Let's ignore the fact that the northeast, even under your VERY flexible definitions, is very pro-college hoops.

Let's ignore the fact that ESPN makes money off the ACC, especially in the populace NORTHEAST!

Let's ignore the fact that ESPN would not have given the ACC a network without SU and PITT (and for what it's worth, BC and Louisville, another northern school, like ND!)

Are you seeing a trend or common denominator with any of this? You have failed every attempt to explain why SU fans should follow your "logic", which often contradicts your "logic" elsewhere.

No one on this site believes that SU will carry the ACC's day, nor believes that the SEC and B1G are begging SU to join. Most fans on this site understand the importance of college football to TV revenue. HINT: Several fans on this site, courtesy of the #1 communications school!, are LITERALLY experts in all facets of TV, media, print, etc., you may wish to tread lightly. We non-media types on this site believe the site experts far more than we will believe a fan of an irrelevant college football team.

Anyway, have at it. Maybe you change your handle to "Don Quixote".

I smell a "bless your heart" coming.

 

[kcsu]

Your school? I always mention the two biggest dead weights in the ACC, which are BC and Wake. Which one is your school?

What I do think most Syracuse fans do not want to see is how little value there is in the entire Northeast for Major CFB. It is not a recent problem, and there is no sign it ever will get better.

That Big East way of seeing things, which means missing how deep and wide are the regional problems, is also found, in a different form, in much of the Old Guard ACC. I grew up in SEC country, not in NC. So I see what the ACC always has lacked and has refused to act wisely and forcefully to get (except when landing FSU). I can see that about the ACC because I know SEC football very well.

And look at the results: now, SEC basketball rules the national roost. How did that happen? Because football is so MUCH BIGGER than basketball, eventually in a free market for conferences, any league with huge football fan bases would be able to buy out even the most successful basketball-first leagues.

And it is all about the passionate football fan bases. TV pays for viewers. Quite simply, a 6-6 Auburn team (#2 football program and fan base in its own small state) will always be a better TV draw than a 9-3 Syracuse team. Per capita, nobody in NY gives a half damn about Major CFB. And New England is even worse. And almost all those north easterners who do watch a lot of Major CFB root first for ND or PSU. TV knows that - hence the SEC TV deal compared to the ACC deal.

The ACC is facing an existential crisis. This is about surviving. But that has 2 basic meanings. The Pac survives, but it never again will be close to being seen as Major (its 2 least valuable members of the 12 are the only old members left). The SWC has been dead for a long time. Either fate could await the ACC. Or the ACC could get wildly aggressive and save itself as MAJOR. But that will require very tough leadership that is determined to keep the ACC as MAJOR.

That need to aggressively remain MAJOR holds true even if SEC and BT agree to never add another school. As things now stand, they will keep on getting new TV deals that get ever more above the ACC deals. Before long that disparity will mean everybody agrees that we have only 2 MAJOR conferences, and then all the rest. None of which really matters, most of which definitely matter zilch.

Here are things that I know to be true:

1. Major CFB wealth and power are very much about state flagship and land grant schools: 17 of 18 BT members and 15 of 16 SEC members. In contrast, the ACC has 3 Flagships and 3 Land Grants among 17 members. Almost all those schools are quite large, all in the BT are very large.

2. The South and the Midwest are the two regions with the largest numbers of and most passionate CFB fans. Per capita, the northeast has so few passionate CFB fans that it really does not register. Literally, save for PSU, a network can afford to just ignore the Northeast. That no longer can be said of the MT zone, nor can it be said of the PT zone, though per capita that area watches less college sports than it did 30 and 40 years ago.

3. Passion for CBB means nothing in this. As football is worth about 10 times more than basketball, a league could have UNC, Dook, UK, Louisville, IU, Purdue, Syracuse, UConn, and KU and still die very quickly because its football would not be worth runny compared to the BT and SEC.

4. Having teams in states that have large numbers of passionate CFB fans and also produce a lot of HS football talent makes it much easier for that league to be good or great on the field and acquire and keep passionate fans. Conversely the more teams a league has in states and regions with poor HS football and per capita poor CFB TV viewing, the harder it will be for that league to be very good on the field year after year and to acquire and maintain large TV fan bases.

ACC leaders must come to accept all that and know it is futile to deny or fight any of it, and then figure out how to better position the ACC to compete against the SEC and BT for TV viewers at least as much on football fields.

Other than completely ignoring the fact that the ACC has the largest population base which also happens to be growing I think you nailed it.

 

[sufandu]

Why would they do that? The SEC currently has 9 of their 16 teams ranked in the top 22. Possibly 10 or 11 of their teams could make the NCAAT.

They don't need ACC hoops.

When has enough been enough for them? They added Texas and Oklahoma for football when they didn't need them. It's like Microsoft buying up any small tech company it sees as potential competition.

 

[orange79]

When has enough been enough for them? They added Texas and Oklahoma for football when they didn't need them. It's like Microsoft buying up any small tech company it sees as potential competition.

The entire point was basketball doesn't drive the bus. It's like sitting in the row over the wheel well.

 

[sufandu]

The entire point was basketball doesn't drive the bus. It's like sitting in the row over the wheel well.

Sure. But once they get the football monopoly, why not go after basketball. When has any money making organization turned down more money making potential?

 

[HtownOrange]

Sure. But once they get the football monopoly, why not go after basketball. When has any money making organization turned down more money making potential?

Your point is why it is hard to fathom ESPN destroying the ACC, the ACC makes too much money. Not as much as the SEC, but far more than the G5 conferences. Further, letting half the ACC go to their prime competitor - as well as ceding territory to said competitor - and decreasing that income and profits, makes the idea of ESPN destroying the ACC much harder to fathom.

Whether the ACC implodes later remains to be seen, but not likely at the hands of ESPN.

 

[kcsu]

Your point is why it is hard to fathom ESPN destroying the ACC, the ACC makes too much money. Not as much as the SEC, but far more than the G5 conferences. Further, letting half the ACC go to their prime competitor - as well as ceding territory to said competitor - and decreasing that income and profits, makes the idea of ESPN destroying the ACC much harder to fathom.

Whether the ACC implodes later remains to be seen, but not likely at the hands of ESPN.

They just renewed. Now would have been the time if they wanted to. Unless the ACC is stupid they will remain the third conf. Also the ND deal is huge. ESPN doesnt want ND going solo because they will not control any of it,

 

[HtownOrange]

They just renewed. Now would have been the time if they wanted to. Unless the ACC is stupid they will remain the third conf. Also the ND deal is huge. ESPN doesnt want ND going solo because they will not control any of it,

Agreed. The "if" is dependent on FSU, Clemson, and UNC, primarily. Though, with FSU's Alford being the ^%$ that he is, if the B1G or SEC still hold power and makes overtures to any other ACC teams, those teams have to take a serious look as did USC. UCLA, UT, and OU when their deals were nearing their end.

Anyway, SU needs to improved football and hoops and provide a reason for the B1G or SEC to want SU.

 

[kcsu]

Agreed. The "if" is dependent on FSU, Clemson, and UNC, primarily. Though, with FSU's Alford being the ^%$ that he is, if the B1G or SEC still hold power and makes overtures to any other ACC teams, those teams have to take a serious look as did USC. UCLA, UT, and OU when their deals were nearing their end.

Anyway, SU needs to improved football and hoops and provide a reason for the B1G or SEC to want SU.

Im good hanging another 10 years.

 

[sufandu]

Your point is why it is hard to fathom ESPN destroying the ACC, the ACC makes too much money. Not as much as the SEC, but far more than the G5 conferences. Further, letting half the ACC go to their prime competitor - as well as ceding territory to said competitor - and decreasing that income and profits, makes the idea of ESPN destroying the ACC much harder to fathom.

Whether the ACC implodes later remains to be seen, but not likely at the hands of ESPN.

That makes sense.

Do you think there is a scenario where killing the ACC doesn't lose espn money?

 

[HtownOrange]

That makes sense.

Do you think there is a scenario where killing the ACC doesn't lose espn money?

No, I don't. I also am confident that ESPN realizes this and must either bring the ACC close enough to the SEC and B1G or they break up in 2036, maybe shortly before that. (UCLA, USC, OU, and UT proved that buying out isn't as cheap as advertised.). Once schools can leave without penalty, there is nothing ESPN can do to stop movement unless they can control growth of the conferences (refusing to pay for any additional schools) or entice ACC schools to stay together with enough money. If the ACC falls apart, I think ESPN keeps whatever they can to merge with the SEC and attempts to keep SU, Pitt, BC, and Louisville for the northeast presence. I don't see ESPN pulling any B1G schools for the ACC or the SEC.

People have speculated several hypotheses to move certain schools but refuse to put real numbers for review to support their hypotheses so it never really works. Ex. Some claim ESPN can get out of hundreds of $MM in expense to the ACC by moving FSU and Clemson to the SEC and pay the increase to the SEC. However, assuming the numbers are real, that means losing nearly $700MM to make $120MM. Why lose the remaining $580MM? It's still $580MM more in ESPN coffees.
No one can explain that to me.

Virtually any hypothesis presented can only work under perfect circumstances if they could work at all. Such as:

1) FSU buys their way out for less than $100MM and the ACC takes annual payments out of FSU's increased revenue. FSU's buyout is about $140MM and their rights buy back is nearly $600MM. Why would the losing ACC teams not maximize the money from FSU on the way out the door to benefit FSU? They will never get that money back in any way so take the FSU full buyout and let FSU take decades to earn back their buyout.
2) Clemson and FSU are picked up by the SEC and the ACC moves money to ESPN to pay for the move. What team will take a lesser annual payment so FSU and Clemson can earn more?
3) All of the "premium" schools move and then the ACC raids the Big 12 and ESPN magically pays the same rate as agreed to the ACC.

There are more but they have less details than listed above. All require a perfect storm of idiocy by the remaining ACC schools on favor of the "premium" schools. Examples: Markets matter, except for NY, which is nearly twice that or more any market in play. Sports history matters except for VATech and NC State, both paper tigers that fall short when it matters. Football rules except for UNC and UVA, both of which are barely able to make an appearance let alone be significant. Etc. etc , etc.

I am willing to listen to anyone who will show the work to prove their points. Once "logic" applied here is disproved by new "logic" applied there, I cease listening because the proponent just defeated themselves. See Woad Blue, Rutgers fans, WVU fans, FSU fans, etc.

 

[AcAndAc]

No, I don't. I also am confident that ESPN realizes this and must either bring the ACC close enough to the SEC and B1G or they break up in 2036, maybe shortly before that. (UCLA, USC, OU, and UT proved that buying out isn't as cheap as advertised.). Once schools can leave without penalty, there is nothing ESPN can do to stop movement unless they can control growth of the conferences (refusing to pay for any additional schools) or entice ACC schools to stay together with enough money. If the ACC falls apart, I think ESPN keeps whatever they can to merge with the SEC and attempts to keep SU, Pitt, BC, and Louisville for the northeast presence. I don't see ESPN pulling any B1G schools for the ACC or the SEC.

People have speculated several hypotheses to move certain schools but refuse to put real numbers for review to support their hypotheses so it never really works. Ex. Some claim ESPN can get out of hundreds of $MM in expense to the ACC by moving FSU and Clemson to the SEC and pay the increase to the SEC. However, assuming the numbers are real, that means losing nearly $700MM to make $120MM. Why lose the remaining $580MM? It's still $580MM more in ESPN coffees.
No one can explain that to me.

Virtually any hypothesis presented can only work under perfect circumstances if they could work at all. Such as:

1) FSU buys their way out for less than $100MM and the ACC takes annual payments out of FSU's increased revenue. FSU's buyout is about $140MM and their rights buy back is nearly $600MM. Why would the losing ACC teams not maximize the money from FSU on the way out the door to benefit FSU? They will never get that money back in any way so take the FSU full buyout and let FSU take decades to earn back their buyout.
2) Clemson and FSU are picked up by the SEC and the ACC moves money to ESPN to pay for the move. What team will take a lesser annual payment so FSU and Clemson can earn more?
3) All of the "premium" schools move and then the ACC raids the Big 12 and ESPN magically pays the same rate as agreed to the ACC.

There are more but they have less details than listed above. All require a perfect storm of idiocy by the remaining ACC schools on favor of the "premium" schools. Examples: Markets matter, except for NY, which is nearly twice that or more any market in play. Sports history matters except for VATech and NC State, both paper tigers that fall short when it matters. Football rules except for UNC and UVA, both of which are barely able to make an appearance let alone be significant. Etc. etc , etc.

I am willing to listen to anyone who will show the work to prove their points. Once "logic" applied here is disproved by new "logic" applied there, I cease listening because the proponent just defeated themselves. See Woad Blue, Rutgers fans, WVU fans, FSU fans, etc.

It all comes down to markets vs. actual viewership. For the B1G, it has always been markets for their network. So they covet North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Florida. That makes UNC, UVa, Ga Tech, and one of Miami/FSU their highest target.

But the SEC also covets UNC. So could be a bidding war there. Not sure if the SEC would take NC State just to land UNC. Nor do I think the B1G would. If SEC wants markets... then UNC and UVa would be the big adds. If they want viewership, then FSU and Clemson. If they want to merge both... then UNC, UVa, FSU, and Clemson. If that happened, maybe the B1G would go with Va Tech, Duke, Ga Tech, and Miami.

That would leave an ACC with BC, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, SMU, Cal, and Stanford. If the B1G just leaves Va Tech and Duke, that would be much better. In that scenario, we would backfill with UConn to get to 12. Either way, a potential merger with the B12 and Pac into some unwieldly thing that rests a clear level (or three) below the SEC/B1G in prestige. With numbers, maybe we could get a 16-team playoff with 4 SEC, 4 B1G, 3 from that monstrosity, and 1 from all other conferences... plus 4 at larges that almost always would be Notre Dame plus 3 more from the SEC or B1G.

This whole thing will suck until the SEC and B1G merge, along with whatever else is allowed to go with that... and we get back to regional sanity.

 

[HtownOrange]

It all comes down to markets vs. actual viewership. For the B1G, it has always been markets for their network. So they covet North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Florida. That makes UNC, UVa, Ga Tech, and one of Miami/FSU their highest target.

But the SEC also covets UNC. So could be a bidding war there. Not sure if the SEC would take NC State just to land UNC. Nor do I think the B1G would. If SEC wants markets... then UNC and UVa would be the big adds. If they want viewership, then FSU and Clemson. If they want to merge both... then UNC, UVa, FSU, and Clemson. If that happened, maybe the B1G would go with Va Tech, Duke, Ga Tech, and Miami.

That would leave an ACC with BC, Pitt, Syracuse, NC State, Wake Forest, Louisville, SMU, Cal, and Stanford. If the B1G just leaves Va Tech and Duke, that would be much better. In that scenario, we would backfill with UConn to get to 12. Either way, a potential merger with the B12 and Pac into some unwieldly thing that rests a clear level (or three) below the SEC/B1G in prestige. With numbers, maybe we could get a 16-team playoff with 4 SEC, 4 B1G, 3 from that monstrosity, and 1 from all other conferences... plus 4 at larges that almost always would be Notre Dame plus 3 more from the SEC or B1G.

This whole thing will suck until the SEC and B1G merge, along with whatever else is allowed to go with that... and we get back to regional sanity.

You just defeated your own argument.

Start with "it comes down to markets vs. actual viewership.". NY is nearly twice the market of NC. It's simple math, 20MM v. 11MM. Then you argue the SEC wants FSU, but the SEC has the FL market via U of Florida.

You then go into other reasoning that defeat your arguments. In the net, your argument is SU sucks everyone else is better. Now prove it with hard numbers and formulas so we can discuss your conclusions.

Please be sure to factor the losses to ESPN in detail and the gains for Fox in detail. Then explain why ESPN is simply going to let its strongest competitor take away revenue and profits without a fight.

Too many people think the SEC and B1G are making decisions in a vacuum, they aren't. They have partners, ESPN and Fox, who are equals not minions. Both partners have investors that cannot be abused in the investor's desire for profits. If ESPN or Fox of their own decision harm the profit bottom line, the lawsuits will fly.

Anyway, believe what you like, please don't expect people to buy into specious arguments that ignore all other facts. This does not mean facts won't change, some likely will. However, it does mean that the facts will affect the change itself and ignoring them makes forecasts less likely to happen as predicted.

 

[Moontan]

We'll have to see when the B12 contract nears its end.
Would the ACC consider becoming the All Coast Conference and adding Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and TCU .. and possibly another? Or possibly just TCU to add another weekend basketball travel partner.

As long as the $ improves a bit and Clemson, and possibly FSWho, stays then I'm fine with things as they are. Hopefully, the ACC directors will make the best choices.

 

[DoctorBombay]

We'll have to see when the B12 contract nears its end.
Would the ACC consider becoming the All Coast Conference and adding Arizona, Arizona State, Utah and TCU .. and possibly another? Or possibly just TCU to add another weekend basketball travel partner.

As long as the $ improves a bit and Clemson, and possibly FSWho, stays then I'm fine with things as they are. Hopefully, the ACC directors will make the best choices.

Thereln lies the rub.
FSU shot it's shot by directly confronting the GOR, and until that pillar of contractual obligation is defeated, all of this is speculative rhetoric. If the ACC would stick together as 1 entity, no telling how good a deal they could squeeze out of ESPN, & eventually Fox, et al. Patience is a dirty word when it comes to profit, and ACC directors have never shown a tendency to act on, and improve, the many advantages of the conference.

 

[AcAndAc]

You just defeated your own argument.

Start with "it comes down to markets vs. actual viewership.". NY is nearly twice the market of NC. It's simple math, 20MM v. 11MM. Then you argue the SEC wants FSU, but the SEC has the FL market via U of Florida.

You then go into other reasoning that defeat your arguments. In the net, your argument is SU sucks everyone else is better. Now prove it with hard numbers and formulas so we can discuss your conclusions.

Please be sure to factor the losses to ESPN in detail and the gains for Fox in detail. Then explain why ESPN is simply going to let its strongest competitor take away revenue and profits without a fight.

Too many people think the SEC and B1G are making decisions in a vacuum, they aren't. They have partners, ESPN and Fox, who are equals not minions. Both partners have investors that cannot be abused in the investor's desire for profits. If ESPN or Fox of their own decision harm the profit bottom line, the lawsuits will fly.

Anyway, believe what you like, please don't expect people to buy into specious arguments that ignore all other facts. This does not mean facts won't change, some likely will. However, it does mean that the facts will affect the change itself and ignoring them makes forecasts less likely to happen as predicted.

Last time I checked ESPN and Fox are competitors, as are the SEC and B1G. Regardless, there are two different dynamics.

B1G = Markets = money. In what world does RUTGERS and Maryland have more value to the Big Ten than other options? The one where they get to be on cable in NYC/NJ/MD. That is where UNC and UVa (and Georgia and Florida) add value to the B1G. Cable TV rights/market expansion.

For the SEC, it is not markets, but ratings. Florida State and Clemson add competition/ratings/viewers... but adding UNC and UVa blocks the B1G from expanding its markets... preventing the B1G from making additional revenue. Why would Alabama be cool with Ohio State getting more annual funds? The big dogs are all competing for players in an NIL world.

Meanwhile, what is more valuable to ESPN? Clemson v. Tennessee or Clemson v Louisville? Florida State-LSU or Florida State-North Carolina State. Whatever more they ESPN spend to slide Clemson/FSU to the SEC, they will just save by not paying the ACC once Clemson/FSU are gone.

Whatever is left of the ACC will be glad to still get good money, even if not as much as if the conference was in its current form... such as same $$$ as now, only 10 years later.

 

[AcAndAc]

You just defeated your own argument.

Start with "it comes down to markets vs. actual viewership.". NY is nearly twice the market of NC. It's simple math, 20MM v. 11MM. Then you argue the SEC wants FSU, but the SEC has the FL market via U of Florida.

You then go into other reasoning that defeat your arguments. In the net, your argument is SU sucks everyone else is better. Now prove it with hard numbers and formulas so we can discuss your conclusions.

Please be sure to factor the losses to ESPN in detail and the gains for Fox in detail. Then explain why ESPN is simply going to let its strongest competitor take away revenue and profits without a fight.

Too many people think the SEC and B1G are making decisions in a vacuum, they aren't. They have partners, ESPN and Fox, who are equals not minions. Both partners have investors that cannot be abused in the investor's desire for profits. If ESPN or Fox of their own decision harm the profit bottom line, the lawsuits will fly.

Anyway, believe what you like, please don't expect people to buy into specious arguments that ignore all other facts. This does not mean facts won't change, some likely will. However, it does mean that the facts will affect the change itself and ignoring them makes forecasts less likely to happen as predicted.

Also... where have I said that Syracuse sucks or everyone else is better? I just pointed out that the B1G and SEC have other primary targets (with UNC the primary overlap). Been studying conference expansion issues for way too long. You can believe what YOU want, but until the B1G or SEC start sniffing around us, I am skeptical.

 

[TexanMark]

UNC is overrated for delivering Football Ratings. There are literally 4 P4 and 3 high level G6 schools in NC

 

[HtownOrange]

Last time I checked ESPN and Fox are competitors, as are the SEC and B1G. Regardless, there are two different dynamics.

B1G = Markets = money. In what world does RUTGERS and Maryland have more value to the Big Ten than other options? The one where they get to be on cable in NYC/NJ/MD. That is where UNC and UVa (and Georgia and Florida) add value to the B1G. Cable TV rights/market expansion.

For the SEC, it is not markets, but ratings. Florida State and Clemson add competition/ratings/viewers... but adding UNC and UVa blocks the B1G from expanding its markets... preventing the B1G from making additional revenue. Why would Alabama be cool with Ohio State getting more annual funds? The big dogs are all competing for players in an NIL world.

Meanwhile, what is more valuable to ESPN? Clemson v. Tennessee or Clemson v Louisville? Florida State-LSU or Florida State-North Carolina State. Whatever more they ESPN spend to slide Clemson/FSU to the SEC, they will just save by not paying the ACC once Clemson/FSU are gone.

Whatever is left of the ACC will be glad to still get good money, even if not as much as if the conference was in its current form... such as same $$$ as now, only 10 years later.

You've not stated this before. However, again, if the B1G wants markets, they lack the two largest markets on their board, NY and FL. NC and VA roughly equal only one of NY or FL. Please do not pretend that Rutgers and PSU bring NY, they don't. And you have not factored in the fact that NY and NYC favor CBB heavily.

If you want ratings, UNC and UVA don't carry their weight in the SEC. Clemson and FSU will not improve ratings significantly in the SEC which already draws excellent ratings and has not yet realized the issue of a zero sum gain in adding UT and OU to a top heavy conference. It must be noted that several in the SEC, including Sankey, have indicated this is an issue, though not directly addressed the matter. Thus, FSU and Clemson will only serve to push other teams down lessening their ratings, assuming they are top tier, or become mediocre or bottom feeders within the SEC, neither of which will drive ratings. Do you honestly believe that bottom feeder games will improve in ratings if FSU and Clemson are added to the SEC? UVA v. USC east, or UNC v. Kentucky?

Your example of a one-off Clemson v. one team or another serves to prove my point as much as yours. We both can extrapolate the data, but one point and only one point means little.

To move the four said ACC properties to the SEC, ESPN must pay significantly more and lower the value of their other property, the ACC, it is essentially a wash. We can only dive deeper in this matter with inside info pertaining to ratings and revenue generation (which I do not possess), but destroying the ACC to bolster the SEC is not likely a win or enough of a win for ESPN. Further, if you remove FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA to block the B1G, you only make SU and Miami that much more attractive to the B1G, and possibly NCState/Duke and VATech. That literally moves triple the markets in (60MM for NY/FL//VA/NC v. 20MM for VA/NC, as the SEC already has FL/SC markets) from the ACC to the B1G. Again, ESPN is not likely to damage their northeast presence: First, ESPN makes money from the NE teams; Second, the NE ACC teams are a thorn in the B1G/Fox sides; Third, if ESPN cedes the NE to the B1G/Fox in college sports, they likely cannot regain a footing for several decades, literally losing the most concentrated population/bang for their buck region. Even a reduced buy in for these teams into the B1G would likely pay more than for the ACC leftovers, as you suggest.

Further, these moves are too insignificant to protect a P2 agreement, as you have too many states without representation at the "premium level". You essentially ask Congress to get involved, which no one wants. You also chase away most other CFB fans from watching what becomes NFL Lite, again a big ratings loser. (You did not bring up this point, I add it because it becomes material, if it isn't already, assuming the SEC and B1G expand).

 

[HtownOrange]

Also... where have I said that Syracuse sucks or everyone else is better? I just pointed out that the B1G and SEC have other primary targets (with UNC the primary overlap). Been studying conference expansion issues for way too long. You can believe what YOU want, but until the B1G or SEC start sniffing around us, I am skeptical.

You have not stated "Syracuse sucks" but have you have left that as your assessment. Syracuse factors nowhere in your assessments and UNC and UVA are ridiculously overvalued. Essentially, you parrot what the Locked On mouthpieces and the Homer-type bloggers state. Even the lazy reporters parrot this same assessment.

However, most on this site know that SU and Pitt were among those vetted for invite to the B1G prior to the ACC invite. Both had several votes but the then mid-west oriented conference wanted to avoid too much presence on the east coast. This point was accentuated by PSU demanding more of an east coast presence, having suffered some loss of influence. This was significant to the point that once SU and Pitt joined the ACC, UMD revealed the plan of the ACC to lure PSU and ESPN was on board. The BTN was not worth what it is today, the costs would have been much more palatable. In its reaction to the move, recall that the B1G invited UMD and Rutgers to pacify PSU.

History and the present show SU has more value than your assessments. Is SU guaranteed a soft landing? No. Is it likely SU has a soft landing? Yes.

Again, whether I agree with one's view on the future is immaterial as long as it is well reasoned. I am one fan trying to reason the future as best I can. Several to most posters on this site have opposing views from mine, but they present well reasoned arguments and look at deeper issues than what the click-baiting, knuckle dragging bloggers and lazy reporters repeat. Even we on this site do not know the extent of the matrix used by conferences and broadcasters to analyze the value of a school to a conference. While the knuckle-dragging bloggers and the lazy reporters are doing well to consider two variables for conference expansion, this site attempts to consider as many variables as possible. Even then, based on experience, we know the real decision-makers see matrices that will blow our minds, anywhere from twice to twenty the number of variables we consider. This understanding is why posters like Woad Blue are beaten down harshly and quickly, because they are here to troll, not add value to discussion.

 

[AcAndAc]

You've not stated this before. However, again, if the B1G wants markets, they lack the two largest markets on their board, NY and FL. NC and VA roughly equal only one of NY or FL. Please do not pretend that Rutgers and PSU bring NY, they don't. And you have not factored in the fact that NY and NYC favor CBB heavily.

If you want ratings, UNC and UVA don't carry their weight in the SEC. Clemson and FSU will not improve ratings significantly in the SEC which already draws excellent ratings and has not yet realized the issue of a zero sum gain in adding UT and OU to a top heavy conference. It must be noted that several in the SEC, including Sankey, have indicated this is an issue, though not directly addressed the matter. Thus, FSU and Clemson will only serve to push other teams down lessening their ratings, assuming they are top tier, or become mediocre or bottom feeders within the SEC, neither of which will drive ratings. Do you honestly believe that bottom feeder games will improve in ratings if FSU and Clemson are added to the SEC? UVA v. USC east, or UNC v. Kentucky?

Your example of a one-off Clemson v. one team or another serves to prove my point as much as yours. We both can extrapolate the data, but one point and only one point means little.

To move the four said ACC properties to the SEC, ESPN must pay significantly more and lower the value of their other property, the ACC, it is essentially a wash. We can only dive deeper in this matter with inside info pertaining to ratings and revenue generation (which I do not possess), but destroying the ACC to bolster the SEC is not likely a win or enough of a win for ESPN. Further, if you remove FSU, Clemson, UNC, and UVA to block the B1G, you only make SU and Miami that much more attractive to the B1G, and possibly NCState/Duke and VATech. That literally moves triple the markets in (60MM for NY/FL//VA/NC v. 20MM for VA/NC, as the SEC already has FL/SC markets) from the ACC to the B1G. Again, ESPN is not likely to damage their northeast presence: First, ESPN makes money from the NE teams; Second, the NE ACC teams are a thorn in the B1G/Fox sides; Third, if ESPN cedes the NE to the B1G/Fox in college sports, they likely cannot regain a footing for several decades, literally losing the most concentrated population/bang for their buck region. Even a reduced buy in for these teams into the B1G would likely pay more than for the ACC leftovers, as you suggest.

Further, these moves are too insignificant to protect a P2 agreement, as you have too many states without representation at the "premium level". You essentially ask Congress to get involved, which no one wants. You also chase away most other CFB fans from watching what becomes NFL Lite, again a big ratings loser. (You did not bring up this point, I add it because it becomes material, if it isn't already, assuming the SEC and B1G expand).

The B1G makes money from its network. With the Rutgers expansion, they were able to get the channel on basic cable in NYC (in 2014). This means that they get a fee for every cable subscriber in that area--not just a fee from the few Rutgers fans that are willing to pay a bonus.

In other areas, they are not on basic cable. So someone needs to pay extra--limiting it to diehard fans. But if they expand their footprint into North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Florida... they can negotiate the addition of their network into those basic cable subscription plans.

The SEC makes its money with ESPN, with ratings driving the bus. If they can increase viewership for ESPN, ESPN can pay them more. The taking of UNC and UVa would be just to block the B1G. The SEC does not want to fall behind, nor would ESPN want to see that happen either. The B1G is not even ON ESPN anymore. So why would ESPN want those particular markets landing with Fox/B1G?

UNC is the big prize out there for both conferences. Sorry that FSU and Clemson have tried to convince everyone otherwise...

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Don’t like the new proposal. Non conference champ at larges shouldn’t happen. Also it doesn’t address the CCG issue. Unless you have it be 2 vs 3 for the at large in the B12/ACC and 4 vs 5 in the B1G/SEC. That makes the CCG de facto playoff games.

Also they are not addressing the playoff travel issue. Need to change it to Semis not Quarters as the start of neutral. It also makes being a higher seed meaningful.

What does Notre Dane do? With 9 conference and one crossover OOC that leaves no room for B1G/SEC teams to play any other OOC games besides bought homes vs G5s. Notre dame will have a hard time getting a quality schedule. That is on top of there only being 1 at large spot available.

 

[Consigliere]

The B1G makes money from its network. With the Rutgers expansion, they were able to get the channel on basic cable in NYC (in 2014). This means that they get a fee for every cable subscriber in that area-

If you are going to cite cable income, rights fees for in state subscribers are roughly double those for out of state subscribers. Rutgers brings in state fees for NJ but not NY.