(12-18-2023 10:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-17-2023 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-17-2023 01:39 PM)ken d Wrote:  When I asked the question, I was pretty sure the premise wouldn't hold up, because the SEC and ESPN wouldn't let it happen. But let's turn it around. If the B1G were making overtures to those schools, the schools themselves would make sure the SEC had a chance to offer before they committed to the B1G.

So, let's say the SEC/ESPN makes FSU, UNC, UVa and Miami to the SEC happen. Then what is left for the B1G that's better than standing pat at 18? All their first choices would be off the table.

From ESPN's point of view, the remaining ACC schools make a viable conference. I doubt NC State and Virginia Tech would move the needle far enough for the B1G, and IMO Clemson by itself isn't as attractive to the B1G as it would be as a partner to FSU, UNC et al. It's one thing to put USCLA on an island, but quite another to just put the Tigers on one.

I think that 4 school move by the SEC shuts the door unless the B1G wants to have a bigger west wing and a bay area presence (which I doubt).

I can't disagree with that logic, and should Vanderbilt opt not to pursue the upper tier, and doing so would be quite costly for them, then Clemson has a slot as well. But truly if UNC and UVa are happy with staying with the ACC, why not just move Florida State, consider the money you would have spent moving 4 or 6, and just give the ACC a renegotiated bump? You backfill FSU with USF and upgrade your academic standing in the process. The natural pairing for the SEC at that point is Kansas. The ACC loses its major irritant and if everyone else is happy that's security as well. The SEC will always have an opening for UVa or UNC if they needed one.

I can't argue with that logic either. But FSU + Kansas feels like a third inning two run double, while the ACC4 seems more like a walk-off grand slam to me.

I look back at the Pac-12 situation: everyone actually *was* happy with what their league represented (high academic institutions of the West playing power conference sports), but all of those same schools went looking for a new home after USC/UCLA announced they were leaving and the dam completely broke after Washington/Oregon defected. Recall the Arizona State president’s comments after the school left for the Big 12: you can tell that he *really* didn’t want to leave for the Big 12 but felt that it was the only choice.

If it had its choice, I totally believe that UNC would prefer maximizing revenue with today’s ACC lineup forever. I don’t think UNC *wants* to go the SEC or Big Ten. The problem, though, is that FSU leaving would irreparably harm that ACC lineup to the point where it’s impossible to maximize revenue there going forward. In that scenario, it’s highly unlikely that UNC would stand pat.

Agree. IMO the biggest unknown with the ACC is the domino affect from someone leaving. It can be unstabilized because of the proximity and connections to seemingly stronger conferences. What keeps the ACC together is the blend of lots of championship caliber brands in football (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.) and basketball (UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc.), but there are no true football blue bloods to anchor the conference.

After Maryland announced that it was leaving in November 2012, lots of schools immediately explored free agency. FSU and Clemson vetted the B12; UVa and Georgia Tech were in discussions with the B1G; and UNC and Duke may have connected with the SEC. It took until March 2013 to get the schools to re-commit to the ACC.

IMO, different schools within the ACC have different motivations for staying together. For the Carolina Core plus the Virginia schools, it is because it is their natural cultural and historical home.

For the southern and northern additions of the past 30 years, it is just the sheer fact of making $30m+ a year in media and being regarded as in a "major" or "power" conference. For these schools, the motivation is IMO essentially the same as that for the nB12 schools. They have no cultural/historical loyalty to the ACC. It is just a "power" home port in a turbulent realignment sea. Or has been, until now.

Both though face the same pressure - as the gap with the SEC/B1G grows in terms of $$$ and status, that tie is weakened/loosened.

IMO, FSU not getting the CFP bid was a big identity/status blow to the ACC. It shattered any illusions/denial some members may have had that the new configuration is a "P4" instead of a P2/M2. And even more than $$$, status matters most in the collegiate realm, IMO.

(12-18-2023 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 10:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-17-2023 02:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can't disagree with that logic, and should Vanderbilt opt not to pursue the upper tier, and doing so would be quite costly for them, then Clemson has a slot as well. But truly if UNC and UVa are happy with staying with the ACC, why not just move Florida State, consider the money you would have spent moving 4 or 6, and just give the ACC a renegotiated bump? You backfill FSU with USF and upgrade your academic standing in the process. The natural pairing for the SEC at that point is Kansas. The ACC loses its major irritant and if everyone else is happy that's security as well. The SEC will always have an opening for UVa or UNC if they needed one.

I can't argue with that logic either. But FSU + Kansas feels like a third inning two run double, while the ACC4 seems more like a walk-off grand slam to me.

I look back at the Pac-12 situation: everyone actually *was* happy with what their league represented (high academic institutions of the West playing power conference sports), but all of those same schools went looking for a new home after USC/UCLA announced they were leaving and the dam completely broke after Washington/Oregon defected. Recall the Arizona State president’s comments after the school left for the Big 12: you can tell that he *really* didn’t want to leave for the Big 12 but felt that it was the only choice.

If it had its choice, I totally believe that UNC would prefer maximizing revenue with today’s ACC lineup forever. I don’t think UNC *wants* to go the SEC or Big Ten. The problem, though, is that FSU leaving would irreparably harm that ACC lineup to the point where it’s impossible to maximize revenue there going forward. In that scenario, it’s highly unlikely that UNC would stand pat.

Agree. IMO the biggest unknown with the ACC is the domino affect from someone leaving. It can be unstabilized because of the proximity and connections to seemingly stronger conferences. What keeps the ACC together is the blend of lots of championship caliber brands in football (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.) and basketball (UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc.), but there are no true football blue bloods to anchor the conference.

After Maryland announced that it was leaving in November 2012, lots of schools immediately explored free agency. FSU and Clemson vetted the B12; UVa and Georgia Tech were in discussions with the B1G; and UNC and Duke may have connected with the SEC. It took until March 2013 to get the schools to re-commit to the ACC.

IMO, different schools within the ACC have different motivations for staying together. For the Carolina Core plus the Virginia schools, it is because it is their natural cultural and historical home.

For the southern and northern additions of the past 30 years, it is just the sheer fact of making $30m+ a year in media and being regarded as in a "major" or "power" conference. For these schools, the motivation is IMO essentially the same as that for the nB12 schools. They have no cultural/historical loyalty to the ACC. It is just a "power" home port in a turbulent realignment sea. Or has been, until now.

Both though face the same pressure - as the gap with the SEC/B1G grows in terms of $$$ and status, that tie is weakened/loosened.

IMO, FSU not getting the CFP bid was a big identity/status blow to the ACC. It shattered any illusions/denial some members may have had that the new configuration is a "P4" instead of a P2/M2. And even more than $$$, status matters most in the collegiate realm, IMO.

The loss of Florida State is not a threat to break up the ACC. It has never fully integrated itself into the ACC in mindset. It wanted out in 2011 in a big way. The closest relationship it had formed in the ACC was with Clemson, but Clemson's association with the ACC's other schools is a core association. The best graft into the ACC to date has been Georgia Tech. Beyond that the ACC is essentially Old Big East football playing members where there is still cohesion, and core ACC members. Louisville has an oblique association as a second generation Old Big East tie, but otherwise is just happy to be there. If Florida State left the rest could hold together.

Whether FSU leaves or not isn't the question pressuring North Carolina and Virginia, or even Clemson or Miami. What threatens to blow them apart is exactly the same thing which threatened to blow apart the PAC 12, where USC leaving alone would not have been enough but the other issue would have, Pay for Play and the related NIL question in that both raise the costs of playing football at the top tier, but not only football, but basketball as well. The existential struggle was not being paid less than the SEC and Big 10, but the looming reality that they needed a lot more revenue to stay in the game of playing big time college sports.

If the ACC succumbs it will be because they need more revenue to remain in the upper tier and in the public eye at a time when enrollment is naturally down and the competition for enrollees will be vicious. It's not graduate students they will lack for as their academic standing will be enough to attract those, but rather the sports front porch is for the attracting of undergraduates, and growing undergraduate enrollment at a time of financial uncertainty, tight Federal and State budgets, and a decline in the numbers of undergraduate aged students while simultaneously facing the budget threat from court rulings on the paying of athletes and the rights of athletes to make their cut of NIL, is the issue. Not whether USC or FSU leaves for a new conference. The latter may alter perception but the former alters reality.

Make no mistake, USC and UCLA left because the coming realities of the court rulings and the PAC 12's forward anticipation and planning for it, and its willingness to push first for proactive action in that direction illuminated the financial reality of their and our futures. USC had long been the pampered party with a wandering eye, but the looming reality of the legalities shoved them out the door.

FSU has been a grumbler in much the same way for a long time, but one easily placated with status quo, until now.

I always thought that the financial horizon's uncertainties were going to lead to further consolidation. It is the natural reaction to uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty. But the court cases in favor of the athletes cinched it. Why? Cutting overhead is one thing administrations can do, and cutting extraneous overhead is the easiest target. Your typical college response is first to freeze salaries (no C.O.L.A.s) for a while. Second is the hiring freeze. Third are overhead operating expenses and the easiest ones to cut are those which are duplicated in some way. In athletics that is Conference support (salaries, their overhead which is covered by member schools, and officials for the games played, etc.). Conferences themselves are duplicated expenses which when shared by more schools reduces the overhead of operations more than the additional schools add. This is why I can see a conference of 20 to 28 members as being possible. The Big 10 has already breached the final barrier to size, equal revenue distributions are no longer their norm. Should the SEC breach the same self imposed barrier of equal revenue sharing then size is no longer a factor for them either.

Both the SEC and Big 10 are questioning their internal principles and the futures they wish to embrace, though both are fully intent upon participation in sports at the highest level and each conference risks only losing 0 to 2 schools opting out of that participation. The affordability of participation for the PAC and ACC schools varies to a higher degree. The Big 12 schools seem committed as well, including the new ones. But clearly the Big 10 and SEC will pay more in terms of media revenue.

Florida State is the only school besides Notre Dame, and perhaps very oddly Duke, which makes enough athletic revenue to be included prima facia without having to take a reduced share.

Notre Dame philosophically likes its current stance. Duke's emphasis is likely more aligned with that of Stanford and Notre Dame than it is with the Big 10 or SEC. The cheese that stands alone is Florida State and it wants to be with either the Farmer in the Dale up North or down South simply for the revenue to continue to be who they are, a second state school who catapulted its status in the world of universities through athletics which then empowered their academic growth. And that makes them unique among those most likely to leave their conferences.

They might already be out the door except for a failed plan in 2011 which was extraneous to their sphere of control, and for the fact that leaving now could economically disadvantage the rest of the ACC, and the only reason they appear to be the villain in this matter is that North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Miami have not been the vocal ones though I am aware that 3 of those schools have actively held discussions about making such a move too.

But if the ACC cracks apart, it will be because schools other than Florida State are concerned about their economic situation due to a decline in undergraduate enrollment which will come if they don't keep high visibility in athletics, which are about to cost them a lot more money.

You left off the most obvious value for either, Notre Dame.

(12-18-2023 12:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You left off the most obvious value for either, Notre Dame.

You didn't read far enough into the thread. I left Notre Dame out because Notre Dame is, by their own declaration, not interested, and I acknowledged they were the most valuable potential for either. They are just a skosh behind Oklahoma as a value to either conference and the only top 10 revenue generator left unaffiliated.

(12-18-2023 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 10:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  I can't argue with that logic either. But FSU + Kansas feels like a third inning two run double, while the ACC4 seems more like a walk-off grand slam to me.

I look back at the Pac-12 situation: everyone actually *was* happy with what their league represented (high academic institutions of the West playing power conference sports), but all of those same schools went looking for a new home after USC/UCLA announced they were leaving and the dam completely broke after Washington/Oregon defected. Recall the Arizona State president’s comments after the school left for the Big 12: you can tell that he *really* didn’t want to leave for the Big 12 but felt that it was the only choice.

If it had its choice, I totally believe that UNC would prefer maximizing revenue with today’s ACC lineup forever. I don’t think UNC *wants* to go the SEC or Big Ten. The problem, though, is that FSU leaving would irreparably harm that ACC lineup to the point where it’s impossible to maximize revenue there going forward. In that scenario, it’s highly unlikely that UNC would stand pat.

Agree. IMO the biggest unknown with the ACC is the domino affect from someone leaving. It can be unstabilized because of the proximity and connections to seemingly stronger conferences. What keeps the ACC together is the blend of lots of championship caliber brands in football (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.) and basketball (UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc.), but there are no true football blue bloods to anchor the conference.

After Maryland announced that it was leaving in November 2012, lots of schools immediately explored free agency. FSU and Clemson vetted the B12; UVa and Georgia Tech were in discussions with the B1G; and UNC and Duke may have connected with the SEC. It took until March 2013 to get the schools to re-commit to the ACC.

IMO, different schools within the ACC have different motivations for staying together. For the Carolina Core plus the Virginia schools, it is because it is their natural cultural and historical home.

For the southern and northern additions of the past 30 years, it is just the sheer fact of making $30m+ a year in media and being regarded as in a "major" or "power" conference. For these schools, the motivation is IMO essentially the same as that for the nB12 schools. They have no cultural/historical loyalty to the ACC. It is just a "power" home port in a turbulent realignment sea. Or has been, until now.

Both though face the same pressure - as the gap with the SEC/B1G grows in terms of $$$ and status, that tie is weakened/loosened.

IMO, FSU not getting the CFP bid was a big identity/status blow to the ACC. It shattered any illusions/denial some members may have had that the new configuration is a "P4" instead of a P2/M2. And even more than $$$, status matters most in the collegiate realm, IMO.

The loss of Florida State is not a threat to break up the ACC. It has never fully integrated itself into the ACC in mindset. It wanted out in 2011 in a big way. The closest relationship it had formed in the ACC was with Clemson, but Clemson's association with the ACC's other schools is a core association. The best graft into the ACC to date has been Georgia Tech. Beyond that the ACC is essentially Old Big East football playing members where there is still cohesion, and core ACC members. Louisville has an oblique association as a second generation Old Big East tie, but otherwise is just happy to be there. If Florida State left the rest could hold together.

Whether FSU leaves or not isn't the question pressuring North Carolina and Virginia, or even Clemson or Miami. What threatens to blow them apart is exactly the same thing which threatened to blow apart the PAC 12, where USC leaving alone would not have been enough but the other issue would have, Pay for Play and the related NIL question in that both raise the costs of playing football at the top tier, but not only football, but basketball as well. The existential struggle was not being paid less than the SEC and Big 10, but the looming reality that they needed a lot more revenue to stay in the game of playing big time college sports.

If the ACC succumbs it will be because they need more revenue to remain in the upper tier and in the public eye at a time when enrollment is naturally down and the competition for enrollees will be vicious. It's not graduate students they will lack for as their academic standing will be enough to attract those, but rather the sports front porch is for the attracting of undergraduates, and growing undergraduate enrollment at a time of financial uncertainty, tight Federal and State budgets, and a decline in the numbers of undergraduate aged students while simultaneously facing the budget threat from court rulings on the paying of athletes and the rights of athletes to make their cut of NIL, is the issue. Not whether USC or FSU leaves for a new conference. The latter may alter perception but the former alters reality.

Make no mistake, USC and UCLA left because the coming realities of the court rulings and the PAC 12's forward anticipation and planning for it, and its willingness to push first for proactive action in that direction illuminated the financial reality of their and our futures. USC had long been the pampered party with a wandering eye, but the looming reality of the legalities shoved them out the door.

FSU has been a grumbler in much the same way for a long time, but one easily placated with status quo, until now.

I always thought that the financial horizon's uncertainties were going to lead to further consolidation. It is the natural reaction to uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty. But the court cases in favor of the athletes cinched it. Why? Cutting overhead is one thing administrations can do, and cutting extraneous overhead is the easiest target. Your typical college response is first to freeze salaries (no C.O.L.A.s) for a while. Second is the hiring freeze. Third are overhead operating expenses and the easiest ones to cut are those which are duplicated in some way. In athletics that is Conference support (salaries, their overhead which is covered by member schools, and officials for the games played, etc.). Conferences themselves are duplicated expenses which when shared by more schools reduces the overhead of operations more than the additional schools add. This is why I can see a conference of 20 to 28 members as being possible. The Big 10 has already breached the final barrier to size, equal revenue distributions are no longer their norm. Should the SEC breach the same self imposed barrier of equal revenue sharing then size is no longer a factor for them either.

Both the SEC and Big 10 are questioning their internal principles and the futures they wish to embrace, though both are fully intent upon participation in sports at the highest level and each conference risks only losing 0 to 2 schools opting out of that participation. The affordability of participation for the PAC and ACC schools varies to a higher degree. The Big 12 schools seem committed as well, including the new ones. But clearly the Big 10 and SEC will pay more in terms of media revenue.

Florida State is the only school besides Notre Dame, and perhaps very oddly Duke, which makes enough athletic revenue to be included prima facia without having to take a reduced share.

Notre Dame philosophically likes its current stance. Duke's emphasis is likely more aligned with that of Stanford and Notre Dame than it is with the Big 10 or SEC. The cheese that stands alone is Florida State and it wants to be with either the Farmer in the Dale up North or down South simply for the revenue to continue to be who they are, a second state school who catapulted its status in the world of universities through athletics which then empowered their academic growth. And that makes them unique among those most likely to leave their conferences.

They might already be out the door except for a failed plan in 2011 which was extraneous to their sphere of control, and for the fact that leaving now could economically disadvantage the rest of the ACC, and the only reason they appear to be the villain in this matter is that North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Miami have not been the vocal ones though I am aware that 3 of those schools have actively held discussions about making such a move too.

But if the ACC cracks apart, it will be because schools other than Florida State are concerned about their economic situation due to a decline in undergraduate enrollment which will come if they don't keep high visibility in athletics, which are about to cost them a lot more money.

IMO, FSU has a love-hate relationship with the ACC.

Deep down, I think FSU likes two things about the ACC. First, though they'd never admit it, I think they know the ACC is just an easier path to a national championship, the only thing they care about (ACC title trophies are probably used as doorstops and paperweights at the FSU athletic facilities, I imagine).

I mean, take this year. IMO no way does this 13-0 FSU team lose less than two games with Travis and four without him. Yes, they beat up LSU, but LSU is the fifth-best SEC team. Four SEC teams are playing in NY6 bowls and none of them are LSU. So not that big of a deal, IMO. And FSU had some very close calls versus some very mediocre ACC teams. They shoulda lost to Clemson, barely scraped by Boston College (BC!) and were losing to Duke until Duke's QB went out. They would have been about #10 in the CFP, with Missouri and Ole Miss, if they had played an SEC schedule, I think, rather than being in the CFP conversation.

Likewise, I don't think the 2013 team makes and therefore wins the BCS title game if they were in the SEC either. They rampaged through the ACC that season, slaughtered just about everyone 45-0, but were down 21-3 to Auburn and needed a ton of luck to scrape by them, easily the worst SEC champ of the past 15 years, in the BCS title game. Both Winston teams, 2013 and 2014, were paper tigers IMO, and would have been exposed in the SEC in 2013, whereas it took until the Rose Bowl the next year for it to happen in the ACC.

The second thing I think FSU likes about the ACC is that it allows them to remain distinct from Florida. And make no mistake, despite the hype and history of the Miami rivalry, FSU benchmarks themselves in all ways against Florida, not Miami or anyone else. FSU has fashioned an entire culture, not just athletic but also social and academic, as different and distinct from Florida. Being in a different conference serves that purpose. Being independent did too.

So IMO there are some important undercurrents in the FSU psyche that run counter to being in the SEC.

That said, IMO those counter-currents are currently being overwashed by the disenchantment with ACC football, and the mega-strength of the SEC, and B1G.

Just MO. And I brace for criticism from members of the FSU family, IMO.

(12-18-2023 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 10:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I look back at the Pac-12 situation: everyone actually *was* happy with what their league represented (high academic institutions of the West playing power conference sports), but all of those same schools went looking for a new home after USC/UCLA announced they were leaving and the dam completely broke after Washington/Oregon defected. Recall the Arizona State president’s comments after the school left for the Big 12: you can tell that he *really* didn’t want to leave for the Big 12 but felt that it was the only choice.

If it had its choice, I totally believe that UNC would prefer maximizing revenue with today’s ACC lineup forever. I don’t think UNC *wants* to go the SEC or Big Ten. The problem, though, is that FSU leaving would irreparably harm that ACC lineup to the point where it’s impossible to maximize revenue there going forward. In that scenario, it’s highly unlikely that UNC would stand pat.

Agree. IMO the biggest unknown with the ACC is the domino affect from someone leaving. It can be unstabilized because of the proximity and connections to seemingly stronger conferences. What keeps the ACC together is the blend of lots of championship caliber brands in football (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.) and basketball (UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc.), but there are no true football blue bloods to anchor the conference.

After Maryland announced that it was leaving in November 2012, lots of schools immediately explored free agency. FSU and Clemson vetted the B12; UVa and Georgia Tech were in discussions with the B1G; and UNC and Duke may have connected with the SEC. It took until March 2013 to get the schools to re-commit to the ACC.

IMO, different schools within the ACC have different motivations for staying together. For the Carolina Core plus the Virginia schools, it is because it is their natural cultural and historical home.

For the southern and northern additions of the past 30 years, it is just the sheer fact of making $30m+ a year in media and being regarded as in a "major" or "power" conference. For these schools, the motivation is IMO essentially the same as that for the nB12 schools. They have no cultural/historical loyalty to the ACC. It is just a "power" home port in a turbulent realignment sea. Or has been, until now.

Both though face the same pressure - as the gap with the SEC/B1G grows in terms of $$$ and status, that tie is weakened/loosened.

IMO, FSU not getting the CFP bid was a big identity/status blow to the ACC. It shattered any illusions/denial some members may have had that the new configuration is a "P4" instead of a P2/M2. And even more than $$$, status matters most in the collegiate realm, IMO.

The loss of Florida State is not a threat to break up the ACC. It has never fully integrated itself into the ACC in mindset. It wanted out in 2011 in a big way. The closest relationship it had formed in the ACC was with Clemson, but Clemson's association with the ACC's other schools is a core association. The best graft into the ACC to date has been Georgia Tech. Beyond that the ACC is essentially Old Big East football playing members where there is still cohesion, and core ACC members. Louisville has an oblique association as a second generation Old Big East tie, but otherwise is just happy to be there. If Florida State left the rest could hold together.

Whether FSU leaves or not isn't the question pressuring North Carolina and Virginia, or even Clemson or Miami. What threatens to blow them apart is exactly the same thing which threatened to blow apart the PAC 12, where USC leaving alone would not have been enough but the other issue would have, Pay for Play and the related NIL question in that both raise the costs of playing football at the top tier, but not only football, but basketball as well. The existential struggle was not being paid less than the SEC and Big 10, but the looming reality that they needed a lot more revenue to stay in the game of playing big time college sports.

If the ACC succumbs it will be because they need more revenue to remain in the upper tier and in the public eye at a time when enrollment is naturally down and the competition for enrollees will be vicious. It's not graduate students they will lack for as their academic standing will be enough to attract those, but rather the sports front porch is for the attracting of undergraduates, and growing undergraduate enrollment at a time of financial uncertainty, tight Federal and State budgets, and a decline in the numbers of undergraduate aged students while simultaneously facing the budget threat from court rulings on the paying of athletes and the rights of athletes to make their cut of NIL, is the issue. Not whether USC or FSU leaves for a new conference. The latter may alter perception but the former alters reality.

Make no mistake, USC and UCLA left because the coming realities of the court rulings and the PAC 12's forward anticipation and planning for it, and its willingness to push first for proactive action in that direction illuminated the financial reality of their and our futures. USC had long been the pampered party with a wandering eye, but the looming reality of the legalities shoved them out the door.

FSU has been a grumbler in much the same way for a long time, but one easily placated with status quo, until now.

I always thought that the financial horizon's uncertainties were going to lead to further consolidation. It is the natural reaction to uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty. But the court cases in favor of the athletes cinched it. Why? Cutting overhead is one thing administrations can do, and cutting extraneous overhead is the easiest target. Your typical college response is first to freeze salaries (no C.O.L.A.s) for a while. Second is the hiring freeze. Third are overhead operating expenses and the easiest ones to cut are those which are duplicated in some way. In athletics that is Conference support (salaries, their overhead which is covered by member schools, and officials for the games played, etc.). Conferences themselves are duplicated expenses which when shared by more schools reduces the overhead of operations more than the additional schools add. This is why I can see a conference of 20 to 28 members as being possible. The Big 10 has already breached the final barrier to size, equal revenue distributions are no longer their norm. Should the SEC breach the same self imposed barrier of equal revenue sharing then size is no longer a factor for them either.

Both the SEC and Big 10 are questioning their internal principles and the futures they wish to embrace, though both are fully intent upon participation in sports at the highest level and each conference risks only losing 0 to 2 schools opting out of that participation. The affordability of participation for the PAC and ACC schools varies to a higher degree. The Big 12 schools seem committed as well, including the new ones. But clearly the Big 10 and SEC will pay more in terms of media revenue.

Florida State is the only school besides Notre Dame, and perhaps very oddly Duke, which makes enough athletic revenue to be included prima facia without having to take a reduced share.

Notre Dame philosophically likes its current stance. Duke's emphasis is likely more aligned with that of Stanford and Notre Dame than it is with the Big 10 or SEC. The cheese that stands alone is Florida State and it wants to be with either the Farmer in the Dale up North or down South simply for the revenue to continue to be who they are, a second state school who catapulted its status in the world of universities through athletics which then empowered their academic growth. And that makes them unique among those most likely to leave their conferences.

They might already be out the door except for a failed plan in 2011 which was extraneous to their sphere of control, and for the fact that leaving now could economically disadvantage the rest of the ACC, and the only reason they appear to be the villain in this matter is that North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Miami have not been the vocal ones though I am aware that 3 of those schools have actively held discussions about making such a move too.

But if the ACC cracks apart, it will be because schools other than Florida State are concerned about their economic situation due to a decline in undergraduate enrollment which will come if they don't keep high visibility in athletics, which are about to cost them a lot more money.

IMO, FSU has a love-hate relationship with the ACC.

Deep down, I think FSU likes two things about the ACC. First, though they'd never admit it, I think they know the ACC is just an easier path to a national championship, the only thing they care about (ACC title trophies are probably used as doorstops and paperweights at the FSU athletic facilities, I imagine).

I mean, take this year. IMO no way does this 13-0 FSU team lose less than two games with Travis and four without him. Yes, they beat up LSU, but LSU is the fifth-best SEC team. Four SEC teams are playing in NY6 bowls and none of them are LSU. So not that big of a deal, IMO. And FSU had some very close calls versus some very mediocre ACC teams. They shoulda lost to Clemson, barely scraped by Boston College (BC!) and were losing to Duke until Duke's QB went out. They would have been about #10 in the CFP, with Missouri and Ole Miss, if they had played an SEC schedule, I think, rather than being in the CFP conversation.

Likewise, I don't think the 2013 team makes and therefore wins the BCS title game if they were in the SEC either. They rampaged through the ACC that season, slaughtered just about everyone 45-0, but were down 21-3 to Auburn and needed a ton of luck to scrape by them, easily the worst SEC champ of the past 15 years, in the BCS title game. Both Winston teams, 2013 and 2014, were paper tigers IMO, and would have been exposed in the SEC in 2013, whereas it took until the Rose Bowl the next year for it to happen in the ACC.

The second thing I think FSU likes about the ACC is that it allows them to remain distinct from Florida. And make no mistake, despite the hype and history of the Miami rivalry, FSU benchmarks themselves in all ways against Florida, not Miami or anyone else. FSU has fashioned an entire culture, not just athletic but also social and academic, as different and distinct from Florida. Being in a different conference serves that purpose. Being independent did too.

So IMO there are some important undercurrents in the FSU psyche that run counter to being in the SEC.

That said, IMO those counter-currents are currently being overwashed by the disenchantment with ACC football, and the mega-strength of the SEC, and B1G.

Just MO. And I brace for criticism from members of the FSU family, IMO.

Keep in mind that FSU could draw better players and more NIL outside of the ACC. Over time this would allow for the Noles to compete with the Alabama and Georgia types since, at least with Alabama, they will struggle once Saban retires.

(12-18-2023 12:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 10:57 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:15 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 09:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  I can't argue with that logic either. But FSU + Kansas feels like a third inning two run double, while the ACC4 seems more like a walk-off grand slam to me.

I look back at the Pac-12 situation: everyone actually *was* happy with what their league represented (high academic institutions of the West playing power conference sports), but all of those same schools went looking for a new home after USC/UCLA announced they were leaving and the dam completely broke after Washington/Oregon defected. Recall the Arizona State president’s comments after the school left for the Big 12: you can tell that he *really* didn’t want to leave for the Big 12 but felt that it was the only choice.

If it had its choice, I totally believe that UNC would prefer maximizing revenue with today’s ACC lineup forever. I don’t think UNC *wants* to go the SEC or Big Ten. The problem, though, is that FSU leaving would irreparably harm that ACC lineup to the point where it’s impossible to maximize revenue there going forward. In that scenario, it’s highly unlikely that UNC would stand pat.

Agree. IMO the biggest unknown with the ACC is the domino affect from someone leaving. It can be unstabilized because of the proximity and connections to seemingly stronger conferences. What keeps the ACC together is the blend of lots of championship caliber brands in football (FSU, Clemson, Miami, etc.) and basketball (UNC, Duke, Syracuse, etc.), but there are no true football blue bloods to anchor the conference.

After Maryland announced that it was leaving in November 2012, lots of schools immediately explored free agency. FSU and Clemson vetted the B12; UVa and Georgia Tech were in discussions with the B1G; and UNC and Duke may have connected with the SEC. It took until March 2013 to get the schools to re-commit to the ACC.

IMO, different schools within the ACC have different motivations for staying together. For the Carolina Core plus the Virginia schools, it is because it is their natural cultural and historical home.

For the southern and northern additions of the past 30 years, it is just the sheer fact of making $30m+ a year in media and being regarded as in a "major" or "power" conference. For these schools, the motivation is IMO essentially the same as that for the nB12 schools. They have no cultural/historical loyalty to the ACC. It is just a "power" home port in a turbulent realignment sea. Or has been, until now.

Both though face the same pressure - as the gap with the SEC/B1G grows in terms of $$$ and status, that tie is weakened/loosened.

IMO, FSU not getting the CFP bid was a big identity/status blow to the ACC. It shattered any illusions/denial some members may have had that the new configuration is a "P4" instead of a P2/M2. And even more than $$$, status matters most in the collegiate realm, IMO.

The loss of Florida State is not a threat to break up the ACC. It has never fully integrated itself into the ACC in mindset. It wanted out in 2011 in a big way. The closest relationship it had formed in the ACC was with Clemson, but Clemson's association with the ACC's other schools is a core association. The best graft into the ACC to date has been Georgia Tech. Beyond that the ACC is essentially Old Big East football playing members where there is still cohesion, and core ACC members. Louisville has an oblique association as a second generation Old Big East tie, but otherwise is just happy to be there. If Florida State left the rest could hold together.

Whether FSU leaves or not isn't the question pressuring North Carolina and Virginia, or even Clemson or Miami. What threatens to blow them apart is exactly the same thing which threatened to blow apart the PAC 12, where USC leaving alone would not have been enough but the other issue would have, Pay for Play and the related NIL question in that both raise the costs of playing football at the top tier, but not only football, but basketball as well. The existential struggle was not being paid less than the SEC and Big 10, but the looming reality that they needed a lot more revenue to stay in the game of playing big time college sports.

If the ACC succumbs it will be because they need more revenue to remain in the upper tier and in the public eye at a time when enrollment is naturally down and the competition for enrollees will be vicious. It's not graduate students they will lack for as their academic standing will be enough to attract those, but rather the sports front porch is for the attracting of undergraduates, and growing undergraduate enrollment at a time of financial uncertainty, tight Federal and State budgets, and a decline in the numbers of undergraduate aged students while simultaneously facing the budget threat from court rulings on the paying of athletes and the rights of athletes to make their cut of NIL, is the issue. Not whether USC or FSU leaves for a new conference. The latter may alter perception but the former alters reality.

Make no mistake, USC and UCLA left because the coming realities of the court rulings and the PAC 12's forward anticipation and planning for it, and its willingness to push first for proactive action in that direction illuminated the financial reality of their and our futures. USC had long been the pampered party with a wandering eye, but the looming reality of the legalities shoved them out the door.

FSU has been a grumbler in much the same way for a long time, but one easily placated with status quo, until now.

I always thought that the financial horizon's uncertainties were going to lead to further consolidation. It is the natural reaction to uncertainty, especially economic uncertainty. But the court cases in favor of the athletes cinched it. Why? Cutting overhead is one thing administrations can do, and cutting extraneous overhead is the easiest target. Your typical college response is first to freeze salaries (no C.O.L.A.s) for a while. Second is the hiring freeze. Third are overhead operating expenses and the easiest ones to cut are those which are duplicated in some way. In athletics that is Conference support (salaries, their overhead which is covered by member schools, and officials for the games played, etc.). Conferences themselves are duplicated expenses which when shared by more schools reduces the overhead of operations more than the additional schools add. This is why I can see a conference of 20 to 28 members as being possible. The Big 10 has already breached the final barrier to size, equal revenue distributions are no longer their norm. Should the SEC breach the same self imposed barrier of equal revenue sharing then size is no longer a factor for them either.

Both the SEC and Big 10 are questioning their internal principles and the futures they wish to embrace, though both are fully intent upon participation in sports at the highest level and each conference risks only losing 0 to 2 schools opting out of that participation. The affordability of participation for the PAC and ACC schools varies to a higher degree. The Big 12 schools seem committed as well, including the new ones. But clearly the Big 10 and SEC will pay more in terms of media revenue.

Florida State is the only school besides Notre Dame, and perhaps very oddly Duke, which makes enough athletic revenue to be included prima facia without having to take a reduced share.

Notre Dame philosophically likes its current stance. Duke's emphasis is likely more aligned with that of Stanford and Notre Dame than it is with the Big 10 or SEC. The cheese that stands alone is Florida State and it wants to be with either the Farmer in the Dale dell up North or down South simply for the revenue to continue to be who they are, a second state school who catapulted its status in the world of universities through athletics which then empowered their academic growth. And that makes them unique among those most likely to leave their conferences.

They might already be out the door except for a failed plan in 2011 which was extraneous to their sphere of control, and for the fact that leaving now could economically disadvantage the rest of the ACC, and the only reason they appear to be the villain in this matter is that North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Miami have not been the vocal ones though I am aware that 3 of those schools have actively held discussions about making such a move too.

But if the ACC cracks apart, it will be because schools other than Florida State are concerned about their economic situation due to a decline in undergraduate enrollment which will come if they don't keep high visibility in athletics, which are about to cost them a lot more money.

FIFY

The SEC has an expansion problem.
Sure they could entice FSU to join, and the 'Noles would be a good fit for that league.
BUT, the SEC has always expanded in pairs, and there is just not another "SEC like" school out there in which to pair with Florida State.
MR SEC's dream was North Carolina, but the Tar Heels don't really "fit" the SEC profile. Clemson keeps getting mentioned, but..........
There is a reason that the Southern Conference broke apart and the teams to the west and south of the Appalachians went their separate way.

The most realistic approach for the SEC/ESPN would be to rid the SEC of one of their two outliers (Missouri or South Carolina) should they really want to add FSU and continue on as a 16 team conference. Lots of money (already contracted) with fewer mouths to feed, is a move that would end up burying the Big Ten.
If the SEC continues to grow, the essence of the conference will be altered to the point that it will not survive as the SEC we know today.
Bigger is not always better.

(12-19-2023 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC has an expansion problem.
Sure they could entice FSU to join, and the 'Noles would be a good fit for that league.
BUT, the SEC has always expanded in pairs, and there is just not another "SEC like" school out there in which to pair with Florida State.
MR SEC's dream was North Carolina, but the Tar Heels don't really "fit" the SEC profile. Clemson keeps getting mentioned, but..........
There is a reason that the Southern Conference broke apart and the teams to the west and south of the Appalachians went their separate way.

The most realistic approach for the SEC/ESPN would be to rid the SEC of one of their two outliers (Missouri or South Carolina) should they really want to add FSU and continue on as a 16 team conference. Lots of money (already contracted) with fewer mouths to feed, is a move that would end up burying the Big Ten.
If the SEC continues to grow, the essence of the conference will be altered to the point that it will not survive as the SEC we know today.
Bigger is not always better.

Kansas and Missouri both fit with the new West.

I think FSU Miami to the B1G and Clemson UNC UVa VaTech NCSU Duke to the SEC makes the most sense, but there will be some partial membership deals involved. 22 full members, and then you can think about adding affiliate members for Olympic sports and go to 8 regional divisions. Somebody is going to end up with Tobacco Road, and the price is probably too rich for the B1G.

I think both P2s will be at 22 in very short order. We will see those conferences sending four teams every year. Big 12/ACC team will pre-qualify. That's ten teams. Then G5 and highest ranked ND/non-P2 FBS At-Large.

(12-19-2023 06:17 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC has an expansion problem.
Sure they could entice FSU to join, and the 'Noles would be a good fit for that league.
BUT, the SEC has always expanded in pairs, and there is just not another "SEC like" school out there in which to pair with Florida State.
MR SEC's dream was North Carolina, but the Tar Heels don't really "fit" the SEC profile. Clemson keeps getting mentioned, but..........
There is a reason that the Southern Conference broke apart and the teams to the west and south of the Appalachians went their separate way.

The most realistic approach for the SEC/ESPN would be to rid the SEC of one of their two outliers (Missouri or South Carolina) should they really want to add FSU and continue on as a 16 team conference. Lots of money (already contracted) with fewer mouths to feed, is a move that would end up burying the Big Ten.
If the SEC continues to grow, the essence of the conference will be altered to the point that it will not survive as the SEC we know today.
Bigger is not always better.

Kansas and Missouri both fit with the new West.

One has to wonder if Prime wasn't sent to Colorado to get the program "up to snuff" to get ready for "the new West".
A combo of Colorado and Kansas would fill out the west nicely for ESPN and provide a foothold in the MTZ.
Colorado's population is growing faster than Georgia's or North Carolina's and is only behind #18 ranked Missouri by about 300,000 people.
Colorado could be an effective long term strategy for the SEC/ESPN.

(12-19-2023 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC has an expansion problem.
Sure they could entice FSU to join, and the 'Noles would be a good fit for that league.
BUT, the SEC has always expanded in pairs, and there is just not another "SEC like" school out there in which to pair with Florida State.
MR SEC's dream was North Carolina, but the Tar Heels don't really "fit" the SEC profile. Clemson keeps getting mentioned, but..........
There is a reason that the Southern Conference broke apart and the teams to the west and south of the Appalachians went their separate way.

The most realistic approach for the SEC/ESPN would be to rid the SEC of one of their two outliers (Missouri or South Carolina) should they really want to add FSU and continue on as a 16 team conference. Lots of money (already contracted) with fewer mouths to feed, is a move that would end up burying the Big Ten.
If the SEC continues to grow, the essence of the conference will be altered to the point that it will not survive as the SEC we know today.
Bigger is not always better.

IMO, it is unrealistic to expect that the SEC could get rid of Missouri or South Carolina. I it is possible the B1G might do the SEC a massive favor one day and invite Missouri, but sans a B1G invitation I don't think they would ever leave the SEC no matter what. South Carolina isn't going anywhere because they don't have anywhere to possibly go.

IMO, either Clemson or UNC would be a great match with FSU for the SEC. UNC would be better, but as you note, UNC has a different culture, and if they joined it would be out of necessity, rather than enthusiasm as I believe Clemson would.

But critically, IMO the lack of fit with the SEC is all on UNC's part. UNC IMO has always seen itself as "above" the SEC. For the SEC, the fit is IMO perfect - state flagship (check), of a southern state (double check), a
southern state the SEC currently has no presence in (triple check), blue chip hoops (we always need help there!), elite academics (ditto!) and a better football pedigree than many think.

But even on UNC's side, I think things have changed a bit. SEC schools have gotten better academically. IMO UNC can see schools like Georgia and Florida as peers, and now Texas, everyone wants to be affiliated with Texas. So IMO that has softened some.

But IMO, outside of ND, UNC is easily the biggest realignment prize on the table, and either the SEC or B1G would want them over anyone, including FSU.

(12-17-2023 01:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Consensus for the SEC:
1. Florida State
2. North Carolina
3. Virginia / Virginia Tech
4. Kansas
5. Miami
6. Georgia Tech
7. Possibly Clemson or Duke

If it ever came down to those two for number 7 .... I don't think it's a hard decision for the SEC. The New Jersey market isn't that valuable to the SEC.

(12-19-2023 11:28 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 06:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  The SEC has an expansion problem.
Sure they could entice FSU to join, and the 'Noles would be a good fit for that league.
BUT, the SEC has always expanded in pairs, and there is just not another "SEC like" school out there in which to pair with Florida State.
MR SEC's dream was North Carolina, but the Tar Heels don't really "fit" the SEC profile. Clemson keeps getting mentioned, but..........
There is a reason that the Southern Conference broke apart and the teams to the west and south of the Appalachians went their separate way.

The most realistic approach for the SEC/ESPN would be to rid the SEC of one of their two outliers (Missouri or South Carolina) should they really want to add FSU and continue on as a 16 team conference. Lots of money (already contracted) with fewer mouths to feed, is a move that would end up burying the Big Ten.
If the SEC continues to grow, the essence of the conference will be altered to the point that it will not survive as the SEC we know today.
Bigger is not always better.

IMO, it is unrealistic to expect that the SEC could get rid of Missouri or South Carolina. I it is possible the B1G might do the SEC a massive favor one day and invite Missouri, but sans a B1G invitation I don't think they would ever leave the SEC no matter what. South Carolina isn't going anywhere because they don't have anywhere to possibly go.

IMO, either Clemson or UNC would be a great match with FSU for the SEC. UNC would be better, but as you note, UNC has a different culture, and if they joined it would be out of necessity, rather than enthusiasm as I believe Clemson would.

But critically, IMO the lack of fit with the SEC is all on UNC's part. UNC IMO has always seen itself as "above" the SEC. For the SEC, the fit is IMO perfect - state flagship (check), of a southern state (double check), a
southern state the SEC currently has no presence in (triple check), blue chip hoops (we always need help there!), elite academics (ditto!) and a better football pedigree than many think.

But even on UNC's side, I think things have changed a bit. SEC schools have gotten better academically. IMO UNC can see schools like Georgia and Florida as peers, and now Texas, everyone wants to be affiliated with Texas. So IMO that has softened some.

But IMO, outside of ND, UNC is easily the biggest realignment prize on the table, and either the SEC or B1G would want them over anyone, including FSU.

I see a lot of similarities between UNC and Texas in terms of how they view themselves in the world. Texas really did have an academic bias against the SEC for a very long time. It wasn’t until only Kansas was the last fellow AAU member in the Big 12 that Texas moved. Academically, both Texas and UNC are more like Big Ten schools, but sports-wise, they’re more like SEC schools. The leadership at the schools are more Big Ten-oriented while the fan bases are likely more SEC-oriented.

One key difference that *may* come into play is that UT’s rivals were all in and/or clearly more suited for the SEC (A&M, OU, Arkansas), it’s likely the opposite for UNC where UVA and Duke are very much better suited for the Big Ten if they were to ever move. Now, I’ve already voiced my doubts about the financial viability of adding anyone to the Big Ten that isn’t a clear football brand, but that’s a consideration with the interplay of rivals that I don’t think has been raised very much here. The demographics of North Carolina as a state also look more and more as trending the same way as Virginia has over the past 20 years, which is to be a bit less pure Southern in nature (whereas the influx of new residents in the State of Texas is from so many regions that it’s not diluting the existing culture there to the same extent).

(12-19-2023 03:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 12:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You left off the most obvious value for either, Notre Dame.

You didn't read far enough into the thread. I left Notre Dame out because Notre Dame is, by their own declaration, not interested, and I acknowledged they were the most valuable potential for either. They are just a skosh behind Oklahoma as a value to either conference and the only top 10 revenue generator left unaffiliated.

I simply meant for completeness.

IMO the B1G is willing to wait and try again in five years with a combination of Notre Dame and Florida State or North Carolina.

I mean if the B1G can get Notre Dame, UNC, and FSU, I can see them add Miami for 22.

(12-19-2023 03:33 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(12-19-2023 03:26 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 12:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2023 12:25 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  You left off the most obvious value for either, Notre Dame.

You didn't read far enough into the thread. I left Notre Dame out because Notre Dame is, by their own declaration, not interested, and I acknowledged they were the most valuable potential for either. They are just a skosh behind Oklahoma as a value to either conference and the only top 10 revenue generator left unaffiliated.

I simply meant for completeness.

IMO the B1G is willing to wait and try again in five years with a combination of Notre Dame and Florida State or North Carolina.

I mean if the B1G can get Notre Dame, UNC, and FSU, I can see them add Miami for 22.

I can see Miami and that's about it unless N.D. does a 180 and then the Big 10 fits their sports needs better than the SEC and I'm not suggesting they would join the SEC, just that outside of independence the Big 10 is the fit.

North Carolina is a different matter and twice they have reached out to the SEC. Their administration has a Northern bent. Their donors decidedly do not. If the price of North Carolina is either Duke or N.C. State it will be met. Virginia is a coin toss but would likely opt to stay with UNC and Duke. But we speak as if conferences were in charge. They are not. They will take the ones they want from what the Networks decide they will pay for.

I think that ESPN will want to keep North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, and quite possibly Miami and Duke. It is the only reason I believe this goes above 18, let alone 20. Depending upon what the networks feel they must cobble together to get the alignment they most desire, the funds for the schools which allegedly "don't pay for themselves" will grow so that networks can land the ones they feel they need. They'll just keep it regional for the SEC and within AAU standards for the Big 10.

I have said and maintain the easiest team to break off the ACC core is Virginia. The second easiest is Duke.

I just now looked at this thread, and I'll say this: Clemson passes the eye test. If your criteria has Kansas and nearly half the ACC ahead of Clemson, then it's probably a good idea to do some fine tuning.

(12-19-2023 05:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I have said and maintain the easiest team to break off the ACC core is Virginia. The second easiest is Duke.

I keep mulling over the odd number of 22 which was tossed out by Swarbrick and Warren early on in this realignment.

If you consider Stanford, Duke, Miami, and Virginia to the Big 10 for 22, and Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech to the SEC what do you have? 22.

That's 10 schools taken out of 18. That's when the Big 12 picking up Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh and Syracuse comes in handy. That leaves Wake Forest, S.M.U. and Cal and Notre Dame.

If the Big 10 decides it can land Notre Dame it might also take another PAC 12 school, Cal could be the academic preference, or Colorado or Arizona could be the athletic preference. For the SEC picking up Kansas and Colorado could be a market and brand play.

For the SEC where Sankey has said regionality and rivalries would be preferred you now have FSU/UF, Clemson/U.S.C.e., UGa/GaTech, Kansas/Missouri and UNC/N.C. State all for football. Virginia Tech/Texas A&M could be a mid-season rivalry and UVa/Va Tech would remain a cross conference rivalry.

The Big 10 gets into Florida with Miami, into Virginia with UVa, and into North Carolina with Duke and picks up another Notre Dame lure with academic stalwart Stanford. That has to appease most of their objectives.

We'll see but getting to 22 each out of the ACC opens up how it could finish and the last couple of moves would become a much simpler wrap up if 24 is even pursued.

(12-19-2023 06:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just now looked at this thread, and I'll say this: Clemson passes the eye test. If your criteria has Kansas and nearly half the ACC ahead of Clemson, then it's probably a good idea to do some fine tuning.

Agree. Everything about Clemson screams "SEC ready", IMO. Just a look at their stadium on game days or nights shows that.

I have them behind only UNC for sure as a desirable SEC target. On a par with FSU and UVA, and UVA only because of market considerations.