(03-13-2024 08:41 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 10:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 09:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn’t be too proud of those 3 expansion schools. They only add value for tier 3 revenue and will sink T1 and T2 value if there’s still an ACC around for the next contract negotiation. Realistically, we’re talking about 3 programs for whom landing in the middle third of the conference standings would be considered a good season. They aren’t quality adds.

I've posted before, but Stanford was the most successful Pac football program for a decade. They've got a top 30 class coming in. They are a WORLD renowned university. They are a gem. Cal is their travel partner, and I've heard a pretty good school as well. SMU is paying to play and they have deep NIL collectives. They will be more competitive than you think and will rise to the level of the Big XII Texas schools.

All three create an ACC after dark option. So more flexible time slots hurt only the ACC I suppose.

The ACC is shaping itself into what it will be, schools which have a like-minded approach to the new reality of college athletics and Notre Dame will play a huge role whether Big Ten fans want to accept that or not. Will Carolina be a part? I'm not sure. Carolina 100% deserves to be making more money than the majority of the SEC and Big Ten, so I'm really not concerned, it will unfold the way it unfolds. I can say I have zero desire to watch the Heels play a bunch of cold weather Midwestern teams and I don't think the Big Ten offers us the 100 year conference. That would be the SEC if it came down to it. It would be a terrible mistake to do what Maryland did to their athletic dept.

What did Maryland do to their athletic department other than improve since joining the Big Ten? Athletic revenue is up. They’re spending more on football and the program has improved as a result. They’ve built and renovated athletic facilities, including performance centers and academic centers for athletes.

They’ve won more B1G championships and NCAA titles since joining the league than any team not named Michigan and Ohio State. And not just lacrosse and soccer. Baseball, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball have all won Big Ten championships.

Sure, there is more travel and new opponents but the Big Ten is a drastically better situation than the ACC was for Maryland. I don’t understand the random strays my alma mater catches on this board from ACC fans.

I agree. As painful as it was to some Terps fans to lose the ACC athletic ties, Maryland clearly IMO made the right move in taking the B1G bid.

Maryland joining the B1G is one of the best decisions any school has ever made in realignment history. They are safe and secure in a P2, and competitive in that league as well, while schools like FSU and UNC twist in the wind in the ACC.

(03-13-2024 08:41 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  What did Maryland do to their athletic department other than improve since joining the Big Ten? Athletic revenue is up. They’re spending more on football and the program has improved as a result. They’ve built and renovated athletic facilities, including performance centers and academic centers for athletes.

They’ve won more B1G championships and NCAA titles since joining the league than any team not named Michigan and Ohio State. And not just lacrosse and soccer. Baseball, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball have all won Big Ten championships.

Sure, there is more travel and new opponents but the Big Ten is a drastically better situation than the ACC was for Maryland. I don’t understand the random strays my alma mater catches on this board from ACC fans.

People forget details of the settlement, but everybody knows now who won Maryland versus ACC.

Maryland.

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:02 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 10:09 PM)esayem Wrote:  Actually that’s not what I said at all

In conference realignment, Brand means Football Brand, so that is what you were saying.

The main reason UNC is so desired is not so much its football, or even its basketball.brands, or its academics or that UNC is located in a state not yet a part of either the SEC or the B1G, though all of those attributes are highly significant. The main reason UNC is so valuable is that it is the capstone of the conference due to historical rivalries. Whichever conference gets UNC, also gets UVA, any NC it wants and most likely Clemson, GT or VT, if desired. Only the Florida schools could go to a different P2 conference and not really care much about not being in the same conference as any of their former conference mates, except FSU and Clemson would miss playing each other. Miami and FSU would continue playing each other no matter what. It's not your brand. it's your historical rivalries, then everything else.

I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:02 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  In conference realignment, Brand means Football Brand, so that is what you were saying.

The main reason UNC is so desired is not so much its football, or even its basketball.brands, or its academics or that UNC is located in a state not yet a part of either the SEC or the B1G, though all of those attributes are highly significant. The main reason UNC is so valuable is that it is the capstone of the conference due to historical rivalries. Whichever conference gets UNC, also gets UVA, any NC it wants and most likely Clemson, GT or VT, if desired. Only the Florida schools could go to a different P2 conference and not really care much about not being in the same conference as any of their former conference mates, except FSU and Clemson would miss playing each other. Miami and FSU would continue playing each other no matter what. It's not your brand. it's your historical rivalries, then everything else.

I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

how is any team additive to any league?? How are Stanford & Cal additive to the ACC?

The above is the typical ACC response to everything, IMO.

(03-13-2024 08:41 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 10:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 09:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn’t be too proud of those 3 expansion schools. They only add value for tier 3 revenue and will sink T1 and T2 value if there’s still an ACC around for the next contract negotiation. Realistically, we’re talking about 3 programs for whom landing in the middle third of the conference standings would be considered a good season. They aren’t quality adds.

I've posted before, but Stanford was the most successful Pac football program for a decade. They've got a top 30 class coming in. They are a WORLD renowned university. They are a gem. Cal is their travel partner, and I've heard a pretty good school as well. SMU is paying to play and they have deep NIL collectives. They will be more competitive than you think and will rise to the level of the Big XII Texas schools.

All three create an ACC after dark option. So more flexible time slots hurt only the ACC I suppose.

The ACC is shaping itself into what it will be, schools which have a like-minded approach to the new reality of college athletics and Notre Dame will play a huge role whether Big Ten fans want to accept that or not. Will Carolina be a part? I'm not sure. Carolina 100% deserves to be making more money than the majority of the SEC and Big Ten, so I'm really not concerned, it will unfold the way it unfolds. I can say I have zero desire to watch the Heels play a bunch of cold weather Midwestern teams and I don't think the Big Ten offers us the 100 year conference. That would be the SEC if it came down to it. It would be a terrible mistake to do what Maryland did to their athletic dept.

What did Maryland do to their athletic department other than improve since joining the Big Ten? Athletic revenue is up. They’re spending more on football and the program has improved as a result. They’ve built and renovated athletic facilities, including performance centers and academic centers for athletes.

They’ve won more B1G championships and NCAA titles since joining the league than any team not named Michigan and Ohio State. And not just lacrosse and soccer. Baseball, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball have all won Big Ten championships.

Sure, there is more travel and new opponents but the Big Ten is a drastically better situation than the ACC was for Maryland. I don’t understand the random strays my alma mater catches on this board from ACC fans.

Pardon me for forgetting the 2020 Big Ten championship that lead to nothing.

Maryland has been irrelevant on the national stage and football has not improved as it was actually better the last ten years in the ACC (57 wins vs 53) and had higher attendance.

Maryland spends more because it makes more. Congrats.

(03-13-2024 09:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

how is any team additive to any league?? How are Stanford & Cal additive to the ACC?

The above is the typical ACC response to everything, IMO.

Wow lol. Have you actually had your morning coffee? Don't get upset and block me, but surely you know the difference between additive a pro-rata?

Stanford and co. made themselves additive to membership by taking a pay cut. Hence, membership got pieces of the pro-rata addition.

Clemson and FSU can be added to the SEC pro-rata, and maybe they can be convinced to take a less-than share for a time period, but it would be difficult considering they will be paying an exit fee and GOR penalties. Plus, ESPN would have to increase their total payment because the ACC will surely replace them at pro-rata—so not saving any money—while upping the SEC payment, which is quite large.

Oregon and Washington are neither additive nor are they pro-rata. They are literally being paid less than Big Ten membership until they strike another deal at the end of the decade.

Make sense?

(03-12-2024 05:19 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 11:10 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:26 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:10 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  Those schools are followers not leaders, and they know they're likely to lose their longtime north star, UNC. Appears they're going to convert and become devout disciples of the leprechaun.

"QUICK! Somebody find me a shillelagh..." (overheard on Tobacco Road)

Meanwhile, Poor Jim Phillips to his constituents:

It should be fine for another 2 years then the party is over.

FIFY

Citing what? ESPN is dissolving in 2 years?

(03-13-2024 05:40 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Football brands outside of P2
Notre Dame
Clemson
FSU
UNC
Arizona
BYU
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St
Miami
Va Tech

Texas Tech?
Oklahoma State?

This is serious?

(03-13-2024 09:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:46 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

how is any team additive to any league?? How are Stanford & Cal additive to the ACC?

The above is the typical ACC response to everything, IMO.

Wow lol. Have you actually had your morning coffee? Don't get upset and block me, but surely you know the difference between additive a pro-rata?

Stanford and co. made themselves additive to membership by taking a pay cut. Hence, membership got pieces of the pro-rata addition.

Clemson and FSU can be added to the SEC pro-rata, and maybe they can be convinced to take a less-than share for a time period, but it would be difficult considering they will be paying an exit fee and GOR penalties. Plus, ESPN would have to increase their total payment because the ACC will surely replace them at pro-rata—so not saving any money—while upping the SEC payment, which is quite large.

Oregon and Washington are neither additive nor are they pro-rata. They are literally being paid less than Big Ten membership until they strike another deal at the end of the decade.

Make sense?

Not upset, and have had morning coffee, three cups to be exact. :) Actually, my question was more rhetorical than actual.

Cal & Stanford were actually touted as "an academic fit." To me, that translates to academic rivalry. From my time on this board and others, I am well aware that Cal and Stanford are academic giants and AAU members, plus what does "SAT" stand for? Stanford Achievement Test, if memory serves me well. To academic giants like UNC & UVa, who wouldn't like to have Stanford as company?? Which makes UNC's no vote in Stanford's expansion bid a bit more of a mystery. NC State's motivation to flip its vote is obvious: AAU membership, baby!! In addition, Cal has been an AAU stalwart for years.

Now, how does this to apply to the SEC & Clemson?? Try rivalries again, this time athletic rivalries. If you do some serious historical research on both Clemson and Auburn, you would see that they are pretty much cut from the same athletic "cloth," IMO, Dabo's comments about NIL notwithstanding. Basically, Auburn is to Clemson what Texas A&M is to Alabama. That's one rivalry. UGA and Clemson, roughly 60 miles apart, both heavy agricultural schools, have a rivalry that dates back to the turn of the 20th century. That's two rivalries. South Carolina and Clemson have been at each other's throats for years, so there's rivalry number 3. Both LSU and Clemson claim their stadium is "Death Valley." Do I smell rivalry #4?? This is what Clemson brings to the SEC: hstory and comaraderie, not to mention a lock on the South Carolina media markets and a solidified hold on Charlotte, IMO.

(03-13-2024 10:06 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 05:40 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Football brands outside of P2
Notre Dame
Clemson
FSU
UNC
Arizona
BYU
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St
Miami
Va Tech

Texas Tech?
Oklahoma State?

This is serious?

Nielsons 23 ratings Non P2s in the top 32
Colorado
Florida St
Clemson
Notre Dame
Miami
Duke
Utah
Navy
Oregon St
Louisville
Washington St

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/...975148007/

(03-13-2024 10:43 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:06 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 05:40 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  Football brands outside of P2
Notre Dame
Clemson
FSU
UNC
Arizona
BYU
Texas Tech
Oklahoma St
Miami
Va Tech

Texas Tech?
Oklahoma State?

This is serious?

Nielsons 23 ratings Non P2s in the top 32
Colorado
Florida St
Clemson
Notre Dame
Miami
Duke
Utah
Navy
Oregon St
Louisville
Washington St

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/...975148007/

Medium rank Top 50
Colorado
Florida St
Notre Dame
Oregon St
Clemson
Utah
TCU
Louisville
Miami
Duke
Kansas
BYU
Iowa St
Oklahoma St
West Va
Navy
Washington St
Texas Tech

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-zach...81ef62d3bf

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:02 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  In conference realignment, Brand means Football Brand, so that is what you were saying.

The main reason UNC is so desired is not so much its football, or even its basketball.brands, or its academics or that UNC is located in a state not yet a part of either the SEC or the B1G, though all of those attributes are highly significant. The main reason UNC is so valuable is that it is the capstone of the conference due to historical rivalries. Whichever conference gets UNC, also gets UVA, any NC it wants and most likely Clemson, GT or VT, if desired. Only the Florida schools could go to a different P2 conference and not really care much about not being in the same conference as any of their former conference mates, except FSU and Clemson would miss playing each other. Miami and FSU would continue playing each other no matter what. It's not your brand. it's your historical rivalries, then everything else.

I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

Are you Rip Van Winkle? Clemson has been ranked the last 12 years. 6 of those years they finished in the top 5. They have 2 CFP titles and one other in 1981. In the Sic-Em TV ratings analysis over 10 years, they are #10. Only Alabama and Ohio St. are well ahead of them.

It improves matchups and quality games.

The SEC doesn't need to expand just as the Big 10 didn't need to go to 18. But adding Clemson and FSU will bring them more money.

There aren't many schools that add value. Clemson is 1.

In the Sic-em TV rankings, non P2 schools
7 Notre Dame
9 FSU
10 Clemson
23 Miami
24 Oklahoma St.
27 Stanford
28 Baylor
Do we really need to go beyond Baylor???
But for those who think UNC is valuable:
30 Virginia Tech
31 TCU
34 Louisville
35 Navy
38 West Virginia
41 Georgia Tech
42 North Carolina

(03-13-2024 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

Are you Rip Van Winkle? Clemson has been ranked the last 12 years. 6 of those years they finished in the top 5. They have 2 CFP titles and one other in 1981. In the Sic-Em TV ratings analysis over 10 years, they are #10. Only Alabama and Ohio St. are well ahead of them.

It improves matchups and quality games.

The SEC doesn't need to expand just as the Big 10 didn't need to go to 18. But adding Clemson and FSU will bring them more money.

There aren't many schools that add value. Clemson is 1.

In the Sic-em TV rankings, non P2 schools
7 Notre Dame
9 FSU
10 Clemson
23 Miami
24 Oklahoma St.
27 Stanford
28 Baylor
Do we really need to go beyond Baylor???
But for those who think UNC is valuable:
30 Virginia Tech
31 TCU
34 Louisville
35 Navy
38 West Virginia
41 Georgia Tech
42 North Carolina

Link? Only found 22 numbers

(03-13-2024 11:06 AM)Gemofthehills Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

Are you Rip Van Winkle? Clemson has been ranked the last 12 years. 6 of those years they finished in the top 5. They have 2 CFP titles and one other in 1981. In the Sic-Em TV ratings analysis over 10 years, they are #10. Only Alabama and Ohio St. are well ahead of them.

It improves matchups and quality games.

The SEC doesn't need to expand just as the Big 10 didn't need to go to 18. But adding Clemson and FSU will bring them more money.

There aren't many schools that add value. Clemson is 1.

In the Sic-em TV rankings, non P2 schools
7 Notre Dame
9 FSU
10 Clemson
23 Miami
24 Oklahoma St.
27 Stanford
28 Baylor
Do we really need to go beyond Baylor???
But for those who think UNC is valuable:
30 Virginia Tech
31 TCU
34 Louisville
35 Navy
38 West Virginia
41 Georgia Tech
42 North Carolina

Link? Only found 22 numbers

https://sicem365.com/s/13048/how-many-vi...am-attract
The overall ranking covering 2013-2021 is towards the end of the article.

(03-13-2024 06:50 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

he mad

he mad and also he wrong. It's more like:

ND
(big gap)
FSU
Clemson
Miami
UNC
(another gap)
a bunch of others in the ACC and Big 12

You can argue about whether UNC is #5 or #2 or something in between, but the difference is negligible. If we'll take FSU then we'll take any of the 4 in the that group.

(03-13-2024 08:41 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 10:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 09:17 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wouldn’t be too proud of those 3 expansion schools. They only add value for tier 3 revenue and will sink T1 and T2 value if there’s still an ACC around for the next contract negotiation. Realistically, we’re talking about 3 programs for whom landing in the middle third of the conference standings would be considered a good season. They aren’t quality adds.

I've posted before, but Stanford was the most successful Pac football program for a decade. They've got a top 30 class coming in. They are a WORLD renowned university. They are a gem. Cal is their travel partner, and I've heard a pretty good school as well. SMU is paying to play and they have deep NIL collectives. They will be more competitive than you think and will rise to the level of the Big XII Texas schools.

All three create an ACC after dark option. So more flexible time slots hurt only the ACC I suppose.

The ACC is shaping itself into what it will be, schools which have a like-minded approach to the new reality of college athletics and Notre Dame will play a huge role whether Big Ten fans want to accept that or not. Will Carolina be a part? I'm not sure. Carolina 100% deserves to be making more money than the majority of the SEC and Big Ten, so I'm really not concerned, it will unfold the way it unfolds. I can say I have zero desire to watch the Heels play a bunch of cold weather Midwestern teams and I don't think the Big Ten offers us the 100 year conference. That would be the SEC if it came down to it. It would be a terrible mistake to do what Maryland did to their athletic dept.

What did Maryland do to their athletic department other than improve since joining the Big Ten? Athletic revenue is up. They’re spending more on football and the program has improved as a result. They’ve built and renovated athletic facilities, including performance centers and academic centers for athletes.

They’ve won more B1G championships and NCAA titles since joining the league than any team not named Michigan and Ohio State. And not just lacrosse and soccer. Baseball, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball have all won Big Ten championships.

Sure, there is more travel and new opponents but the Big Ten is a drastically better situation than the ACC was for Maryland. I don’t understand the random strays my alma mater catches on this board from ACC fans.

Maryland has been a bit better in basketball in their first 10 years in the B1G than they were in the last 10 years in the ACC, but they were GREAT in the 10 years before that. They've won 7 NCAAT games in the past decade, 3 in the decade before that in the ACC, but 20 in the decade before that, including 2 Final 4s and a National Title. So...not great, not terrible in 2 similarly strong basketball Conferences, though it's hard to imagine that joining the B1G has made their basketball team any better.

What about football? 53-65 in their decade in the B1G, 57-62 in their last decade in the ACC. Only ranked once over that entire 20 year period. You could convincingly argue that the B1G is stronger in football, so... mostly a wash, like in basketball?

Next, let's look at WBB. 24 NCAAT wins including a title and one other final 4 in their last decade in the ACC. 16 NCAAT wins including 1 final 4 in their first decade in the B1G, without much likelihood of any NCAAT success this year. A step back, but not a huge one.

Overall, I'd say that Maryland has been roughly the same program in their first decade of the B1G as they were in their last decade of the ACC in the money sports. Have they won more fencing and underwater ice dancing titles? Um, maybe? I'll take your word for it.

(03-13-2024 09:35 AM)IWantToTalkToRalphSampson Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 12:02 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  In conference realignment, Brand means Football Brand, so that is what you were saying.

The main reason UNC is so desired is not so much its football, or even its basketball.brands, or its academics or that UNC is located in a state not yet a part of either the SEC or the B1G, though all of those attributes are highly significant. The main reason UNC is so valuable is that it is the capstone of the conference due to historical rivalries. Whichever conference gets UNC, also gets UVA, any NC it wants and most likely Clemson, GT or VT, if desired. Only the Florida schools could go to a different P2 conference and not really care much about not being in the same conference as any of their former conference mates, except FSU and Clemson would miss playing each other. Miami and FSU would continue playing each other no matter what. It's not your brand. it's your historical rivalries, then everything else.

I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

I agree with this. IMO it is close, with UNC as #2 and FSU being #2A, it's close, but if you told me the SEC could have just one school, and given that Notre Dame isn't interested, it would be UNC.

What IMO some should consider is that, maybe paradoxically, FSU's clear-cut better football brand isn't a huge issue here, especially for the SEC. Yes, FSU's football brand is clearly better, but the SEC isn't desperate for football brands. It already has those in spades. With or without FSU the SEC is never going to be deficient by comparison with anyone, including the B1G, when it comes to football brands.

UNC provides valuable stuff that the SEC doesn't have in spades - blue blood hoops, elite academics, and presence in North Carolina. And it's a state flagship. None of those things characterize FSU, though it does come close with respect to academics (who knew?). That's largely true for the B1G too.

So looked at holistically, not just focusing on football, UNC is tops over FSU. And that IMO is how both of the P2 will view it, the SEC maybe a bit moreso.

Another way to think of it is IMO, if the B1G hadn't made the move to California, thus demonstrating that it will now go literally anywhere to get good brands, and is thus a threat to poach FSU, and if FSU was free of the ACC GOR of course, I think the SEC would be fine letting FSU simmer outside the conference longer. The primary drive to add FSU asap is the B1G threat to grab them. But while the SEC also would not like to see the B1G grab UNC in its backyard either, blocking that is not IMO the primary motivation to want UNC. The SEC would want to add UNC right now if it could, even if the B1G wasn't in the picture.

The SEC wants money. UNC doesn’t approach FSU or Clemson. 80% of the money is in football.

How is Clemson additive to the SEC? They'll be a middle to lower tier program in a big boy league where they aren't playing BC, Syracuse, and Georgia Tech every year, and they don't add any new markets. Their carnival barker head coach has made it clear he isn't into NIL and it isn't a particularly good school. Clemson and FSU seem to be forgetting their titles this century were made possible because of, not despite, the ACC's level of competition. And I've yet to see a compelling case made that ESPN will benefit by agreeing to pay tens of millions of dollars more a year to Clemson or FSU than they already have to while they're in the ACC. And don't bring up FSU's lawsuit, which is frivolous and, even if 'successful' in the sense that they buy their way out, it will be at the cost of giving VC people the right to gut the athletic department. And they'll be in the B1G playing luminaries like Maryland and Rutgers and squandering the extra money to fly women's volleyball teams to Eugene and Seattle. Brilliant.

You seem to forget all the recent success Clemson has had against everyone over the past 15 years. Dabo is 2-2 against Saban in the CFP. They pull 81,500 fans to every game. Top 5, unranked, whatever, the fans show up. So do the TV viewers. Will they win fewer games playing an SEC schedule? Sure. But with 7-8 wins and lots of hype, they'll still play in some big games every year, and in their big years they can draw as much as any school in the country. It's a safe bet that they'll be more like LSU than Arkansas or Miss St; ie, a top half SEC program.

(03-13-2024 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:50 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

he mad

he mad and also he wrong. It's more like:

ND
(big gap)
FSU
Clemson
Miami
UNC
(another gap)
a bunch of others in the ACC and Big 12

You can argue about whether UNC is #5 or #2 or something in between, but the difference is negligible. If we'll take FSU then we'll take any of the 4 in the that group.

Uh, depends. Let's look at Revenue where the gaps are the most stark:
1. Notre Dame: 215 million
2. Florida State: 162 million
3. Duke: 150 million
4. Miami: 148 million
5. Clemson: 140 million +
6. Louisville: 140 million -
7. Virginia: 128 million
8. Pittsburgh: 122 million
9. North Carolina: 119 million
10. Virginia Tech: 108 million

The SEC average is 155 million. If you want to see if an ACC school can pay it's way add the difference of 35 million to their total and then evaluate. Note: North Carolina falls 1 million short.

Now I'm not saying they aren't worth it because of just the revenue because their market value and hoops value and state Flagship AAU status say otherwise, but there's your ACC Mendoza line.

(03-13-2024 11:21 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:50 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 06:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  I appreciate you telling me what I said, but you’re wrong. I said Carolina is the second best brand outside the SEC and Big Ten. The first is Notre Dame. Period. Not football, total brand. Carolina > FSU

he mad

he mad and also he wrong. It's more like:

ND
(big gap)
FSU
Clemson
Miami
UNC
(another gap)
a bunch of others in the ACC and Big 12

You can argue about whether UNC is #5 or #2 or something in between, but the difference is negligible. If we'll take FSU then we'll take any of the 4 in the that group.

Nah, Tar Heel gear is everywhere. FSU? Clemson?? laughable