(01-11-2023 08:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 07:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Since ESPN owns the rights to both leagues, they’d essentially be paying more for content they already own.

Unless there’s a way to extricate just the 4 most valuable brands, I think ESPN and the SEC just wait out the ACC GOR.

I don’t think the SEC is quite ready to explore 20-24 members but a decade from now I think that will be the plan. They will shore up the South and try to keep Fox and the Big 10 out while building a larger portfolio that they can take to streaming or help bolster the value of ESPN+ within the Mickey Empire.

Well Muskie that's kind of the point, they won't! Not when all factors are figured in. Streamlining the 3 networks saves them about as much as they would spend on the 5-million-dollar bump for the weakest 8 ACC schools. Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Virginia Tech would earn their difference playing a better schedule. Miami and Louisville get a more moderate boost, more than the weakest, not as much as the strongest. ESPN gets 2 more years on the SEC GOR in the merger, the ad rates are dominant in every state save perhaps New York and Pennsylvania.

And Muskie, keep up! Nobody is waiting a decade for this when the most supportive and fervent donors are statistically gone and replaced by a generation which watches less, has less savings, and does not donate. The smart money is on sooner rather than later. What's more you eliminate one entire conference overhead and share the cost of the one among twice as many. Efficiency!

Like it or not, this is a path forward.
It is a way that no ACC or SEC school gets left out or left behind.
The cost? It allows ESPN to sew up exclusive rights to the most important football properties in the most football crazed area in the country.
To get access to those rights, whatever the cost, is a small price for ESPN to pay for guaranteed inventory until 2036.

And a much better mix of games for baseball, basketball, and football. We are literally all ESPN needs besides a Pacific time slot which the Big 12 can give them. The interest, the reunited rivalries, the regional synergy, we are all each other needs. Heck I'd be more jazzed about the baseball than anything else. Both leagues play superior baseball!

Part of the value in this entity is not just the synergy, but the ease with which you could increase the content. We're not just talking about pooling the rights of all these schools, we're talking about increasing the number of conference games because there arises very little reason to play many schools outside this consortium.

For football, I think you should probably move to 10 conference games. I mean, why not? Maximize the regional advantages.

For basketball, I think 20 conference games or more.

For baseball and softball, you grow the conference season, but you also bring these sports closer to true revenue sports in doing so. News came out today that the NCAA is loosening up the rules on volunteer coaches. It is a sure sign that they recognize the revenue potential. If nothing else, we're just entering a phase of the sport where the reduced number of minor league clubs is having a consistent impact on roster quality for the schools that take baseball more seriously.

Can you imagine the conference postseason for this thing? All the major sports that people watch consistently and there's going to be a bevy of ways to create content just from that.

(01-11-2023 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Part of the value in this entity is not just the synergy, but the ease with which you could increase the content. We're not just talking about pooling the rights of all these schools, we're talking about increasing the number of conference games because there arises very little reason to play many schools outside this consortium.

For football, I think you should probably move to 10 conference games. I mean, why not? Maximize the regional advantages.

For basketball, I think 20 conference games or more.

For baseball and softball, you grow the conference season, but you also bring these sports closer to true revenue sports in doing so. News came out today that the NCAA is loosening up the rules on volunteer coaches. It is a sure sign that they recognize the revenue potential. If nothing else, we're just entering a phase of the sport where the reduced number of minor league clubs is having a consistent impact on roster quality for the schools that take baseball more seriously.

Can you imagine the conference postseason for this thing? All the major sports that people watch consistently and there's going to be a bevy of ways to create content just from that.

At 32 we should just play all regular seasons against each other. 12 conference football games, 24 basketball games, ever how many baseball games. Baseball would be pretty interesting. You could play your division mates on the weekends and play cross division games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But you are absolutely right about the massive potential and interest it would generate regionally.

(01-11-2023 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Part of the value in this entity is not just the synergy, but the ease with which you could increase the content. We're not just talking about pooling the rights of all these schools, we're talking about increasing the number of conference games because there arises very little reason to play many schools outside this consortium.

For football, I think you should probably move to 10 conference games. I mean, why not? Maximize the regional advantages.

For basketball, I think 20 conference games or more.

For baseball and softball, you grow the conference season, but you also bring these sports closer to true revenue sports in doing so. News came out today that the NCAA is loosening up the rules on volunteer coaches. It is a sure sign that they recognize the revenue potential. If nothing else, we're just entering a phase of the sport where the reduced number of minor league clubs is having a consistent impact on roster quality for the schools that take baseball more seriously.

Can you imagine the conference postseason for this thing? All the major sports that people watch consistently and there's going to be a bevy of ways to create content just from that.

At 32 we should just play all regular seasons against each other. 12 conference football games, 24 basketball games, ever how many baseball games. Baseball would be pretty interesting. You could play your division mates on the weekends and play cross division games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But you are absolutely right about the massive potential and interest it would generate regionally.

For identification purposes the larger entity (conference/league) would continue to be broken down into two distinct conferences/divisions (SEC/ACC). If for no other reason this continues to bind Notre Dame to the ACC through 2036.
I doubt that the number of "conference" games would go beyond the current 8 for both leagues in football or the ACC's current 20 in basketball. The main differences would come in OOC scheduling and how those monies would be divided.
Likely what you would see is one or two annual crossover games much like what is seen with Clemson/South Carolina (perhaps one static and one rotating).

(01-12-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Part of the value in this entity is not just the synergy, but the ease with which you could increase the content. We're not just talking about pooling the rights of all these schools, we're talking about increasing the number of conference games because there arises very little reason to play many schools outside this consortium.

For football, I think you should probably move to 10 conference games. I mean, why not? Maximize the regional advantages.

For basketball, I think 20 conference games or more.

For baseball and softball, you grow the conference season, but you also bring these sports closer to true revenue sports in doing so. News came out today that the NCAA is loosening up the rules on volunteer coaches. It is a sure sign that they recognize the revenue potential. If nothing else, we're just entering a phase of the sport where the reduced number of minor league clubs is having a consistent impact on roster quality for the schools that take baseball more seriously.

Can you imagine the conference postseason for this thing? All the major sports that people watch consistently and there's going to be a bevy of ways to create content just from that.

At 32 we should just play all regular seasons against each other. 12 conference football games, 24 basketball games, ever how many baseball games. Baseball would be pretty interesting. You could play your division mates on the weekends and play cross division games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But you are absolutely right about the massive potential and interest it would generate regionally.

For identification purposes the larger entity (conference/league) would continue to be broken down into two distinct conferences/divisions (SEC/ACC). If for no other reason this continues to bind Notre Dame to the ACC through 2036.
I doubt that the number of "conference" games would go beyond the current 8 for both leagues in football or the ACC's current 20 in basketball. The main differences would come in OOC scheduling and how those monies would be divided.
Likely what you would see is one or two annual crossover games much like what is seen with Clemson/South Carolina (perhaps one static and one rotating).

Honestly, why even worry about Notre Dame, they'll stick around for access to the Southeast recruiting. And X, it would make more money if we just played all schedules for sports among ourselves. There's the over the top value to ESPN, and quite frankly to us as well. Also, if we couldn't break down into regional divisions UNC would have a harder time of it, and it wouldn't be like getting the Gamecocks back.

(01-12-2023 06:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-12-2023 05:37 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Part of the value in this entity is not just the synergy, but the ease with which you could increase the content. We're not just talking about pooling the rights of all these schools, we're talking about increasing the number of conference games because there arises very little reason to play many schools outside this consortium.

For football, I think you should probably move to 10 conference games. I mean, why not? Maximize the regional advantages.

For basketball, I think 20 conference games or more.

For baseball and softball, you grow the conference season, but you also bring these sports closer to true revenue sports in doing so. News came out today that the NCAA is loosening up the rules on volunteer coaches. It is a sure sign that they recognize the revenue potential. If nothing else, we're just entering a phase of the sport where the reduced number of minor league clubs is having a consistent impact on roster quality for the schools that take baseball more seriously.

Can you imagine the conference postseason for this thing? All the major sports that people watch consistently and there's going to be a bevy of ways to create content just from that.

At 32 we should just play all regular seasons against each other. 12 conference football games, 24 basketball games, ever how many baseball games. Baseball would be pretty interesting. You could play your division mates on the weekends and play cross division games on Tuesday and Wednesday.

But you are absolutely right about the massive potential and interest it would generate regionally.

For identification purposes the larger entity (conference/league) would continue to be broken down into two distinct conferences/divisions (SEC/ACC). If for no other reason this continues to bind Notre Dame to the ACC through 2036.
I doubt that the number of "conference" games would go beyond the current 8 for both leagues in football or the ACC's current 20 in basketball. The main differences would come in OOC scheduling and how those monies would be divided.
Likely what you would see is one or two annual crossover games much like what is seen with Clemson/South Carolina (perhaps one static and one rotating).

Honestly, why even worry about Notre Dame, they'll stick around for access to the Southeast recruiting. And X, it would make more money if we just played all schedules for sports among ourselves. There's the over the top value to ESPN, and quite frankly to us as well. Also, if we couldn't break down into regional divisions UNC would have a harder time of it, and it wouldn't be like getting the Gamecocks back.

Two thoughts there JR:

A)ESPN spent a lot of time and money chasing Notre Dame. I'm not sure they would flush all of that effort, but I have been wrong before. From what I have seen, the Irish are not the same "draw" they were their first time through, so from the perspective of a fan it has ceased to be a "must see game".

B)The ACC getting South Carolina has always been about two things:
1)adding neighbors. We mingle a lot; beach property neighbors, mountain property neighbors, some business. Interestingly, the Clemson people are much more sophisticated.
2}moving the SEC out of South Carolina

I personally have no stake in returning the Gamecocks to the conference, it's always been about ACC "fit" and security.

I don't see a problem with adding Kansas in this scenario. WVU is a non issue especially when combined with Pitt. The only hurdles I see are BC and SYR. Maybe keeping ND around provides the value to stomach inclusion of school well outside the footprint.

Geographically and traditionally speaking, this makes the most sense to me.

Arkansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas A&M

Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Miss State
Ole Miss

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

Clemson
Florida St.
Georgia Tech
Miami
South Carolina

Duke
North Carolina
NC State
Virginia
Wake Forest

Boston College
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Virginia Tech

ND plays 1 school from each pod for 6 games. I suspect though the bottom 3 pods may have some gripes so alternatively, I think you could have it like this.

Duke
Georgia Tech
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia

Boston College
Clemson
Florida St.
NC State
Wake Forest

Louisville
Miami
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Virginia Tech

Overall, everyone plays their pod rivals and rotates the other 5 pods for 9 conference games, then allow teams to schedule 1-2 opponents within conference they consider annual rivals they wish to keep. Probably not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with.

(01-12-2023 02:02 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't see a problem with adding Kansas in this scenario. WVU is a non issue especially when combined with Pitt. The only hurdles I see are BC and SYR. Maybe keeping ND around provides the value to stomach inclusion of school well outside the footprint.

The total lockdown of the Southeast and Southwest is worth the price of Syracuse and B.C. I do understand why you say this, but they are ACC, and would have little to no hope of becoming B1G. It's what in my younger life was called the cost of doing business and in this case really only B.C. would be difficult and then in a minor degree. Syracuse puts the SECN into New York legitimately and is a hoops plus, B.C. place it into Massachusetts. And Pitt works just fine either way, especially if you have WVU.

IMO, it's extremely workable with unequal media revenue sharing, and could be organized rather easily to be more profitable for every school involved, and consummately defining for the SEC.

If we are going all out.
Big8/SWC
Arkansas
Texas
A&M
Oklahoma
Missouri
Kansas
Nebraska "We all know they belong here."

SEC West
LSU
Ole Miss
MSU
Tennessee
Vandy
Kentucky
Louisville

SEC East
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
FSU
Miami
Georgia
GT

ACC
Clemson
USC
UNC
NC ST
Duke
WF
UVA

Big East
VT
WVU
Pitt
Syracuse
BC
Uconn
Notre Dame "They gotta play six games, right?"

Kentucky schools to ACC, SC schools to the SEC East, Bama schools to SEC West could also work.

(01-10-2023 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Both are wholly owned by ESPN. There are properties in the ACC which ESPN could make more money with if they played more SEC schools. Those schools would be subject to leaving the ACC and ESPN if forced to dwell long term under a contract that they could better. What about the revenue discrepancy? Well if ESPN moved the ACC and SEC under one banner and paid the lesser valued ACC schools a slight bump (think 5 million) and paid the stars SEC level money, and paid a couple of more an amount in between those two amounts just look what could be accomplished:

Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Notre Dame could remain a partial or not. Yes I added West Virginia and Kansas to get to 32.

The point is nobody is left out, the four division champs would stand in good order to make the playoffs.

What is gained for:
The SEC: It insures that the Southeast and Southwest remains essentially under their control. If ACC schools, and new additions are paid more than they earn now, and those which do add an equal share, then taking all doesn't hurt the original SEC members. It is the only easy way to bypass a GOR. The SEC gets instant basketball bona fides.

ESPN: They gain a streamlining of overhead between the ACCN, SECN, and LHN and they essentially sew up the top ad rates in all of their member states. ESPN is now free to fully monetize Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State. The SEC extends its GOR from 2034 to 2036 to coincide with the ACC. The cost? 40 million for the lower value ACC schools. 40 million for the mid tier ACC schools, 200 million for the top ACC brands. And roughly 20 million more for WVU and 20 million more for Kansas. Total 320 million most of which is made up in streamlining overhead, maxing out ad rates, and their share in an expanded footprint for T3, and added revenue for T1 games.

With Kansas and WVU moving the New Big 12 is open for business to give ESPN those late nighttime slots they want.

The ACC: They get to stay together, be part of something which will make them more money, and the games will stay, thanks to divisions, close by. The give up nothing. The shared third tier footprint profits everyone.

In terms of AAU it is an upgrade in association even though the overall ACC academic standing is higher. Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Florida, Vanderbilt, Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Virginia.

Regional bowls can be utilized for the SEC championship series. And as far as our corner of the woods is concerned realignment is over.

Different pay for the same work seems like grounds for instability.
That Alabama/Georgia/Florida grouping is a coach killer.
Think you would put MSU west and leave out KU. Find somebody else to fill into the coach killer division. Alternatively add Okie St. or Texas Tech to the west and leave out WVU and stick Miami north.

(01-12-2023 03:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-10-2023 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Both are wholly owned by ESPN. There are properties in the ACC which ESPN could make more money with if they played more SEC schools. Those schools would be subject to leaving the ACC and ESPN if forced to dwell long term under a contract that they could better. What about the revenue discrepancy? Well if ESPN moved the ACC and SEC under one banner and paid the lesser valued ACC schools a slight bump (think 5 million) and paid the stars SEC level money, and paid a couple of more an amount in between those two amounts just look what could be accomplished:

Boston College, Kentucky, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Notre Dame could remain a partial or not. Yes I added West Virginia and Kansas to get to 32.

The point is nobody is left out, the four division champs would stand in good order to make the playoffs.

What is gained for:
The SEC: It insures that the Southeast and Southwest remains essentially under their control. If ACC schools, and new additions are paid more than they earn now, and those which do add an equal share, then taking all doesn't hurt the original SEC members. It is the only easy way to bypass a GOR. The SEC gets instant basketball bona fides.

ESPN: They gain a streamlining of overhead between the ACCN, SECN, and LHN and they essentially sew up the top ad rates in all of their member states. ESPN is now free to fully monetize Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State. The SEC extends its GOR from 2034 to 2036 to coincide with the ACC. The cost? 40 million for the lower value ACC schools. 40 million for the mid tier ACC schools, 200 million for the top ACC brands. And roughly 20 million more for WVU and 20 million more for Kansas. Total 320 million most of which is made up in streamlining overhead, maxing out ad rates, and their share in an expanded footprint for T3, and added revenue for T1 games.

With Kansas and WVU moving the New Big 12 is open for business to give ESPN those late nighttime slots they want.

The ACC: They get to stay together, be part of something which will make them more money, and the games will stay, thanks to divisions, close by. The give up nothing. The shared third tier footprint profits everyone.

In terms of AAU it is an upgrade in association even though the overall ACC academic standing is higher. Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, Florida, Vanderbilt, Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Virginia.

Regional bowls can be utilized for the SEC championship series. And as far as our corner of the woods is concerned realignment is over.

Different pay for the same work seems like grounds for instability.
That Alabama/Georgia/Florida grouping is a coach killer.
Think you would put MSU west and leave out KU. Find somebody else to fill into the coach killer division. Alternatively add Okie St. or Texas Tech to the west and leave out WVU and stick Miami north.

Valuations set the price at what the product is worth Bullet! It has never been anything but different values for, now hold onto your britches, different qualities of work.

I can see some adjustments for strength, I just tossed out the most regional divisions to begin with for the purposes of this exercise.

Now Mississippi State stays with Alabama. The 2 are 90 miles apart share the same party spots on the strip in Tuscaloosa, rub elbows at the Golden Moon in Philadelphia, and have played each other forever! Rivalries need to be protected.

Certainly the last two slots are debatable, but adding OSU or TTU may have to be dealt with. But if hoops is liberated Kansas is more valuable, and hoops will be liberated.

In the time we've spent posting together I've always appreciated your opinion, but do you realize that you lead with the potential negatives as opposed to the positives about 90% of the time? In combat you want officers who look for ways to accomplish an objective, not ones who tell everyone why it cannot be done. Accountants tend to do that in business because it is just about the numbers. What they don't always see is how to maximize numbers. Synergy takes care of a lot of issues in any merger provided positives do exist for both sides.

In this case, you have 4-7 ACC schools which could benefit by leaving for another conference. What do you think happens to the other 7 when that happens? They know their value. They would embrace any solution which gave them a little bump and guaranteed their continued inclusion with the foes they are accustomed to playing.

In my corporate life the realities on the ground frequently exceeded the capacity of the home office's estimations because the home office looked backwards at numbers instead of forward to potentialities. When potentialities have little to no downside why not go for it?

Accountants sometimes keep the CEOs from bankrupting the company with their impulsive visions!

The kid who told the emperor he had no clothes probably grew up to be an accountant like Sherron Watkins.

(01-12-2023 05:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  The kid who told the emperor he had no clothes probably grew up to be an accountant like Sherron Watkins.

LOL! That's called personal damage control, but Enron had it coming!

If the SEC can secure all of its interests (and it can) and the sole cost is absorbing ACC schools at or near what they currently are paid, then ESPN and the SEC share a minimum risk and the synergy from the other acquisitions pays for it all. Accountants wouldn't have jobs without venture capitalists! Well, you might, but it would be in the employment of a socialist state so no upside! In a capitalist system you will always have solid job opportunities on either side of the ledger and as tax specialists. You are a decent lot as a whole, unlike attorneys.

(01-11-2023 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The SEC doesn’t need all 15 ACC schools to get around the GOR. Just merge with the 12 ACC teams to make a 28 team conference.

For football, 3 permanent rivals and 9 conference games: 3-6-6-6-6
For basketball, round robin with 3 rivals plus 12 conference games (total 18 games): 3x2-12-12

The problem is that some type of unequal revenue sharing has to be involved.

This is true, but there is something hidden in this total merger which may appeal to Sankey and ESPN but which would be hard to sell to the SEC presidents. The presidents have long held that the SEC should remain relatively Southeastern. They've also seen the need in protecting our core footprint. What they would not have agreed to do is add anyone from Pennsylvania, New York, or Boston. By having a full merger I think they would agree just to wholly sew up the Southeast and in doing so Sankey and ESPN will have put the SEC into the Northeast. Syracuse in the SEC might be a particularly tough pill for the Big 10 to swallow.

I'm with the Presidents and I oppose this, although it's fun for discussion. I want the ACC dead as much or more than anyone here, but not at the price of ruining the SEC to kill it. I personally don't want UVA, UNC or Duke, but I get that economics may mean they're coming. I don't want Wake or Louisville either, but if they have to come along too it isn't the end of the world. And Kansas and WVU I like as adds, we should do that. But a merger meaning BC, Syracuse and Pitt are now in the SEC is too much to swallow. I'd vote no on anybody north of Maryland and/or west of Arizona ever joining the SEC. If we have to wait until 6/30/36 to get the right parts, better to wait than have to absorb the whole lot of them.

(01-12-2023 11:10 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The SEC doesn’t need all 15 ACC schools to get around the GOR. Just merge with the 12 ACC teams to make a 28 team conference.

For football, 3 permanent rivals and 9 conference games: 3-6-6-6-6
For basketball, round robin with 3 rivals plus 12 conference games (total 18 games): 3x2-12-12

The problem is that some type of unequal revenue sharing has to be involved.

This is true, but there is something hidden in this total merger which may appeal to Sankey and ESPN but which would be hard to sell to the SEC presidents. The presidents have long held that the SEC should remain relatively Southeastern. They've also seen the need in protecting our core footprint. What they would not have agreed to do is add anyone from Pennsylvania, New York, or Boston. By having a full merger I think they would agree just to wholly sew up the Southeast and in doing so Sankey and ESPN will have put the SEC into the Northeast. Syracuse in the SEC might be a particularly tough pill for the Big 10 to swallow.

I'm with the Presidents and I oppose this, although it's fun for discussion. I want the ACC dead as much or more than anyone here, but not at the price of ruining the SEC to kill it. I personally don't want UVA, UNC or Duke, but I get that economics may mean they're coming. I don't want Wake or Louisville either, but if they have to come along too it isn't the end of the world. And Kansas and WVU I like as adds, we should do that. But a merger meaning BC, Syracuse and Pitt are now in the SEC is too much to swallow. I'd vote no on anybody north of Maryland and/or west of Arizona ever joining the SEC. If we have to wait until 6/30/36 to get the right parts, better to wait than have to absorb the whole lot of them.

Fair points, I think.

Of course, it depends on how many votes are needed. All, or two-thirds?

If "all" this'll never happen.

If 2/3, then 10 out of 15.

I think the likely 5 would be: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, WF, and ND.

It would mean Kentucky would need to swallow the addition of Louisville, though.

I also think once the GoR is voted away, some of the 10 might defect to the B10.

I'm still dubious that SEC schools would want to add so many, but they could, I suppose.

(01-13-2023 12:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-12-2023 11:10 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The SEC doesn’t need all 15 ACC schools to get around the GOR. Just merge with the 12 ACC teams to make a 28 team conference.

For football, 3 permanent rivals and 9 conference games: 3-6-6-6-6
For basketball, round robin with 3 rivals plus 12 conference games (total 18 games): 3x2-12-12

The problem is that some type of unequal revenue sharing has to be involved.

This is true, but there is something hidden in this total merger which may appeal to Sankey and ESPN but which would be hard to sell to the SEC presidents. The presidents have long held that the SEC should remain relatively Southeastern. They've also seen the need in protecting our core footprint. What they would not have agreed to do is add anyone from Pennsylvania, New York, or Boston. By having a full merger I think they would agree just to wholly sew up the Southeast and in doing so Sankey and ESPN will have put the SEC into the Northeast. Syracuse in the SEC might be a particularly tough pill for the Big 10 to swallow.

I'm with the Presidents and I oppose this, although it's fun for discussion. I want the ACC dead as much or more than anyone here, but not at the price of ruining the SEC to kill it. I personally don't want UVA, UNC or Duke, but I get that economics may mean they're coming. I don't want Wake or Louisville either, but if they have to come along too it isn't the end of the world. And Kansas and WVU I like as adds, we should do that. But a merger meaning BC, Syracuse and Pitt are now in the SEC is too much to swallow. I'd vote no on anybody north of Maryland and/or west of Arizona ever joining the SEC. If we have to wait until 6/30/36 to get the right parts, better to wait than have to absorb the whole lot of them.

Fair points, I think.

Of course, it depends on how many votes are needed. All, or two-thirds?

If "all" this'll never happen.

If 2/3, then 10 out of 15.

I think the likely 5 would be: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, WF, and ND.

It would mean Kentucky would need to swallow the addition of Louisville, though.

I also think once the GoR is voted away, some of the 10 might defect to the B10.

I'm still dubious that SEC schools would want to add so many, but they could, I suppose.

3/4ths are needed to dissolve the conference. 12 votes needed. That's everyone below the Mason Dixon line plus Notre Dame.

IMO a full merger frees Notre Dame to make a decision. And I think it would be initially wrong to simply dump Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. Therefore, I don't see an option for a partial merger. A complete merger is the best way to deal with it. I think the Irish are freed either way. Now if FOX could work with ESPN to provide an entry into the Big 12 for Pitt, Cuse and B.C. and Notre Dame were free to associate or not as they see fit, and the Big 10 could assemble as they needed from the PAC and possibly Notre Dame, then the solutions are there. But that means that cooperation for key objectives trumps petty ones. Where people are concerned I'll never bet on that!

(01-13-2023 12:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-13-2023 12:26 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-12-2023 11:10 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The SEC doesn’t need all 15 ACC schools to get around the GOR. Just merge with the 12 ACC teams to make a 28 team conference.

For football, 3 permanent rivals and 9 conference games: 3-6-6-6-6
For basketball, round robin with 3 rivals plus 12 conference games (total 18 games): 3x2-12-12

The problem is that some type of unequal revenue sharing has to be involved.

This is true, but there is something hidden in this total merger which may appeal to Sankey and ESPN but which would be hard to sell to the SEC presidents. The presidents have long held that the SEC should remain relatively Southeastern. They've also seen the need in protecting our core footprint. What they would not have agreed to do is add anyone from Pennsylvania, New York, or Boston. By having a full merger I think they would agree just to wholly sew up the Southeast and in doing so Sankey and ESPN will have put the SEC into the Northeast. Syracuse in the SEC might be a particularly tough pill for the Big 10 to swallow.

I'm with the Presidents and I oppose this, although it's fun for discussion. I want the ACC dead as much or more than anyone here, but not at the price of ruining the SEC to kill it. I personally don't want UVA, UNC or Duke, but I get that economics may mean they're coming. I don't want Wake or Louisville either, but if they have to come along too it isn't the end of the world. And Kansas and WVU I like as adds, we should do that. But a merger meaning BC, Syracuse and Pitt are now in the SEC is too much to swallow. I'd vote no on anybody north of Maryland and/or west of Arizona ever joining the SEC. If we have to wait until 6/30/36 to get the right parts, better to wait than have to absorb the whole lot of them.

Fair points, I think.

Of course, it depends on how many votes are needed. All, or two-thirds?

If "all" this'll never happen.

If 2/3, then 10 out of 15.

I think the likely 5 would be: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, WF, and ND.

It would mean Kentucky would need to swallow the addition of Louisville, though.

I also think once the GoR is voted away, some of the 10 might defect to the B10.

I'm still dubious that SEC schools would want to add so many, but they could, I suppose.

3/4ths are needed to dissolve the conference. 12 votes needed. That's everyone below the Mason Dixon line plus Notre Dame.

IMO a full merger frees Notre Dame to make a decision. And I think it would be initially wrong to simply dump Syracuse, Pitt and B.C. Therefore, I don't see an option for a partial merger. A complete merger is the best way to deal with it. I think the Irish are freed either way. Now if FOX could work with ESPN to provide an entry into the Big 12 for Pitt, Cuse and B.C. and Notre Dame were free to associate or not as they see fit, and the Big 10 could assemble as they needed from the PAC and possibly Notre Dame, then the solutions are there. But that means that cooperation for key objectives trumps petty ones. Where people are concerned I'll never bet on that!

well, if it's 3/4, you could invite one school to help stack the vote.

then the SEC could add WF and still leave the other 4 behind.

But sure, another option could be to guarantee pitt (et al) an invite to the b12, to get their vote.

so sure, it's possible.

(01-12-2023 11:10 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-11-2023 12:21 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The SEC doesn’t need all 15 ACC schools to get around the GOR. Just merge with the 12 ACC teams to make a 28 team conference.

For football, 3 permanent rivals and 9 conference games: 3-6-6-6-6
For basketball, round robin with 3 rivals plus 12 conference games (total 18 games): 3x2-12-12

The problem is that some type of unequal revenue sharing has to be involved.

This is true, but there is something hidden in this total merger which may appeal to Sankey and ESPN but which would be hard to sell to the SEC presidents. The presidents have long held that the SEC should remain relatively Southeastern. They've also seen the need in protecting our core footprint. What they would not have agreed to do is add anyone from Pennsylvania, New York, or Boston. By having a full merger I think they would agree just to wholly sew up the Southeast and in doing so Sankey and ESPN will have put the SEC into the Northeast. Syracuse in the SEC might be a particularly tough pill for the Big 10 to swallow.

I'm with the Presidents and I oppose this, although it's fun for discussion. I want the ACC dead as much or more than anyone here, but not at the price of ruining the SEC to kill it. I personally don't want UVA, UNC or Duke, but I get that economics may mean they're coming. I don't want Wake or Louisville either, but if they have to come along too it isn't the end of the world. And Kansas and WVU I like as adds, we should do that. But a merger meaning BC, Syracuse and Pitt are now in the SEC is too much to swallow. I'd vote no on anybody north of Maryland and/or west of Arizona ever joining the SEC. If we have to wait until 6/30/36 to get the right parts, better to wait than have to absorb the whole lot of them.

Let's recap:
You're an ACC hater
But you do find that Miami, FSU, GT, NCSU, Clemson and VT are acceptable along with West Virginia and Kansas.