JRsec,

The current situation is that FSU is not out of the ACC and is not getting that far in their lawsuit to untangle themselves. But most important only FSU has been working on financing a possible exit with a high $200M (give or take) exit fee. Nobody else is even trying, and there doesn't seem to be much stomach for that kind of exit fee. Schools would rather kick the can down the road a few years rather than take that cost on. Only Florida State and maybe Clemson are thinking about trying that.

Net result, ESPN will re-up with the ACC, shutting the door on a collapse.

ESPN is far more interested in throwing money at a UEFA (CBS/Paramount has the US contract for this; NBC/Peacock has BPL which is the most followed Euro domestic league in the US) rival in Europe. It's virgin territory and far bigger return that a minor change in CFB. They even see this soccer challenge as a bigger potential than keeping MLB.

You look far too small picture at maximizing a slowly shrinking value product (compared to the total market) in college football. It's just not the center of mouse world. Big picture ESPN wants their contracts in CFB to be fixed for the rest of the decade, as does everyone else. There is no big value add to be had with a shuffle.

(04-17-2024 05:28 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  JRsec,

The current situation is that FSU is not out of the ACC and is not getting that far in their lawsuit to untangle themselves. But most important only FSU has been working on financing a possible exit with a high $200M (give or take) exit fee. Nobody else is even trying, and there doesn't seem to be much stomach for that kind of exit fee. Schools would rather kick the can down the road a few years rather than take that cost on. Only Florida State and maybe Clemson are thinking about trying that.

Net result, ESPN will re-up with the ACC, shutting the door on a collapse.

ESPN is far more interested in throwing money at a UEFA (CBS/Paramount has the US contract for this; NBC/Peacock has BPL which is the most followed Euro domestic league in the US) rival in Europe. It's virgin territory and far bigger return that a minor change in CFB. They even see this soccer challenge as a bigger potential than keeping MLB.

You look far too small picture at maximizing a slowly shrinking value product (compared to the total market) in college football. It's just not the center of mouse world. Big picture ESPN wants their contracts in CFB to be fixed for the rest of the decade, as does everyone else. There is no big value add to be had with a shuffle.

College football sells cable subs, period. The CFP is a cash cow which will more than double their outlay. They care. It's the rest of Disney that has been losing money as the theme parks start showing signs of life again. And in the South/Southeast it (college football) is the only ticket to selling tiers in cable subs. It just depends on where you are and what you like and literally nobody of any age that I know personally (anecdotal as that may seem) watches European soccer. Ted Lasso? Yes, soccer? No. And my saying that doesn't make you wrong for where you are, but what you related doesn't mean beans in the Southeast, maybe in Southernmost Florida and parts of Virginia and North Carolina.

(04-17-2024 08:14 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 03:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 09:00 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC gets Florida St and Clemson now, does it even make sense for them to add more in the future?

Is there really much value for them in programs like NC St, Duke, UVA, VT, GT, Miami, L’ville, or Kansas? I really don’t see anyone there that paired with UNC that would be all that lucrative. Taking UNC and UVA really serves more to keep the Big 10 and their media partners out of those states.

I think the Big 10 could justify a move to 24 that netted them UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, ND, +1 as part of their national strategy but really the big gets in that move are just ND and a massive amount of BTN subscribers:

FL 3rd
GA 8th
NC 9th
VA 12th

Add those to the 7 of the top 15 most populous states and that’s a lot of Americans in the Big 10 sports sphere.

Adding UNCCH to the B10 doesn't really "get you" the state of NC. There are a lot of schools in the state, 6 of which play at the highest level of D1. Where CH to go to the B10 I can only imagine how average to below average they will be, worse than they are now for sure. People aren't going to be inclined sit in front of their TVs on a Saturday afternoon to watch them play Northwestern, Indiana or Iowa. Or watch them get trounced by Oregan, Ohio State or Michigan. If they are going to sit in front of the TV on a Saturday afternoon it's much more likely to be a game like ASU vs ECU, NCSU v Wake Forest, or even Charlotte vs James Madison. Heck folks might even be more inclined to actually attend a game at Campbell, Elon, Western Carolina or the like. But honestly the lack of natural rivalries UNCCH would take a lukewarm football fanbase to a new level of ho hum and gravitate more casual fans towards more interesting games within the region.

When it comes to T3 revenue for the BTN you don’t need to capture 100% of the market. UNC certainly delivers enough to justify instate rates for the BTN.

UVA, Maryland, and GT would all be good regional opponents and they could keep a rotation of Duke/NC St/WF on the OOC portion.

Well I'm talking about if UNCCH went and there was no big migration from the ACC to the power 2, just 3 or 4 schools. Playing rivals OOC just doesn't have the same vibe. I hate to use the term, but "Wal Mart fans" will decline in the state when the natural rivals are lost, at least in terms of football. They will make more money, but at what cost?

I would think the " Wal-Mart" fans would care less about local rivalries right?

(04-17-2024 08:00 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  I would think the " Wal-Mart" fans would care less about local rivalries right?

Quite the contrary

(04-17-2024 05:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 12:33 PM)tf8693 Wrote:  Going forward, I would be willing to bet money that ND-USC will now be on NBC every year. Perhaps not a direct threat to ESPN, but it does mean that a larger share of ND's football inventory will now be shown on NBC. Also, while this is only my opinion, I believe that ND will remain independent for football going forward, but will play an increased number of games vs. Big 10 and a decreased number of games vs. ACC. Of course, if ND were to pick up a road game vs. an SEC opponent, or even a Big XII or AAC opponent to offset the loss of a road game against the ACC,That's no sweat off ESPN's back either. But it could underscore the ACC's relative lack of importance to ESPN.

I agree with this.

ND's football scheduling agreement with the new ACC may be pared back to 4 games a year.

Likewise, ND and the Big Ten may enter into a 4 game scheduling agreement as well (despised by Big Ten fans but brokered by NBC).

The USC game being on NBC every year is an interesting idea......

The crux of your fellow alum's argument was that ESPN is not really interested in holding onto to Notre Dame. My argument with him has been that they are, because what is not fully in the Big 10's hands only helps ESPN's position.

So, are you also saying that ESPN isn't interested in keeping some rights to the Notre Dame?

No, I am not saying that. I could see a scheduling adjustment, though.

I think that ND could utilize the "uncertainty" of the new ACC to possibly lever a reduced ACC football scheduling deal to 4 games, while keeping its other sports there.

More probable than that, though, might be a NBC brokered deal wherein ND plays more Big Ten teams going forward, either with individual scheduling deals or a 4 game scheduling agreement with the conference.

Neither is likely, both are possible.

Why would the ACC agree to less games? What incentive do they have, much less legal obligation? ND pushed for Stanford and Cal, I imagine they just slide into F -$ “u” and Clempson’s spots

I can think of a few reasons:

1. If ND's agreement with the ACC is subsumed within the GoR, it may have to be renegotiated when the ACC's TV deal expires.

2. ND got a substantial raise in its latest NBC contract. In light of that, they may be willing to give up $1-3 million/year from the ACC to get out of one game per year.

3. If ND maintains its football independence, it probably could leave the ACC relatively cheaply (certainly far cheaper than Florida State or Clemson.)

(04-18-2024 08:10 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 05:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I agree with this.

ND's football scheduling agreement with the new ACC may be pared back to 4 games a year.

Likewise, ND and the Big Ten may enter into a 4 game scheduling agreement as well (despised by Big Ten fans but brokered by NBC).

The USC game being on NBC every year is an interesting idea......

The crux of your fellow alum's argument was that ESPN is not really interested in holding onto to Notre Dame. My argument with him has been that they are, because what is not fully in the Big 10's hands only helps ESPN's position.

So, are you also saying that ESPN isn't interested in keeping some rights to the Notre Dame?

No, I am not saying that. I could see a scheduling adjustment, though.

I think that ND could utilize the "uncertainty" of the new ACC to possibly lever a reduced ACC football scheduling deal to 4 games, while keeping its other sports there.

More probable than that, though, might be a NBC brokered deal wherein ND plays more Big Ten teams going forward, either with individual scheduling deals or a 4 game scheduling agreement with the conference.

Neither is likely, both are possible.

Why would the ACC agree to less games? What incentive do they have, much less legal obligation? ND pushed for Stanford and Cal, I imagine they just slide into F -$ “u” and Clempson’s spots

I can think of a few reasons:

1. If ND's agreement with the ACC is subsumed within the GoR, it may have to be renegotiated when the ACC's TV deal expires.

2. ND got a substantial raise in its latest NBC contract. In light of that, they may be willing to give up $1-3 million/year from the ACC to get out of one game per year.

3. If ND maintains its football independence, it probably could leave the ACC relatively cheaply (certainly far cheaper than Florida State or Clemson.)

So essentially all of this is built on 1) the unlikely event ESPN doesn't pick up the option and 2) your fantasy that ND would prefer another Olympic sports conference despite pushing for Stanford and Cal?

I think you need to accept the PTB at ND thoroughly enjoy their relationship with the nation's premier Olympic sports conference and they're not going to blow that up over a single football game. Your former AD hated Tally anyway.

(04-18-2024 09:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 08:10 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 05:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The crux of your fellow alum's argument was that ESPN is not really interested in holding onto to Notre Dame. My argument with him has been that they are, because what is not fully in the Big 10's hands only helps ESPN's position.

So, are you also saying that ESPN isn't interested in keeping some rights to the Notre Dame?

No, I am not saying that. I could see a scheduling adjustment, though.

I think that ND could utilize the "uncertainty" of the new ACC to possibly lever a reduced ACC football scheduling deal to 4 games, while keeping its other sports there.

More probable than that, though, might be a NBC brokered deal wherein ND plays more Big Ten teams going forward, either with individual scheduling deals or a 4 game scheduling agreement with the conference.

Neither is likely, both are possible.

Why would the ACC agree to less games? What incentive do they have, much less legal obligation? ND pushed for Stanford and Cal, I imagine they just slide into F -$ “u” and Clempson’s spots

I can think of a few reasons:

1. If ND's agreement with the ACC is subsumed within the GoR, it may have to be renegotiated when the ACC's TV deal expires.

2. ND got a substantial raise in its latest NBC contract. In light of that, they may be willing to give up $1-3 million/year from the ACC to get out of one game per year.

3. If ND maintains its football independence, it probably could leave the ACC relatively cheaply (certainly far cheaper than Florida State or Clemson.)

So essentially all of this is built on 1) the unlikely event ESPN doesn't pick up the option and 2) your fantasy that ND would prefer another Olympic sports conference despite pushing for Stanford and Cal?

I think you need to accept the PTB at ND thoroughly enjoy their relationship with the nation's premier Olympic sports conference and they're not going to blow that up over a single football game. Your former AD hated Tally anyway.

Honestly, I think ND's position in all of this will be reactive. Specifically, I don't think ND will do anything to blow the ACC up, but I also think (perhaps hope is the better word) that if the ACC were to lose enough members, ND might realize that it has reached the point of no return (as an aside, I happen to think that the PAC is at this point, but I realize there are plenty of people here who disagree with me.). At that point, I believe ND's interests would be better served by finding a new home for basketball and olympic sports.

But it need not come to that, necessarily. I happen to think that ND giving up $1-3 million/year in payments from the ACC in exchange for a reduction in their football obligation to the ACC by one game/year is not an unreasonable tradeoff for either side. You apparently disagree. That's fine, reasonable minds can differ.

As for Jack, he may not like Tally. But I would think (again, perhaps hope is the better word) that he would prefer to see Florida State coming to Notre Dame Stadium for a football game as opposed to, say, Wake Forest.

(04-18-2024 10:49 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 09:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 08:10 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 05:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  No, I am not saying that. I could see a scheduling adjustment, though.

I think that ND could utilize the "uncertainty" of the new ACC to possibly lever a reduced ACC football scheduling deal to 4 games, while keeping its other sports there.

More probable than that, though, might be a NBC brokered deal wherein ND plays more Big Ten teams going forward, either with individual scheduling deals or a 4 game scheduling agreement with the conference.

Neither is likely, both are possible.

Why would the ACC agree to less games? What incentive do they have, much less legal obligation? ND pushed for Stanford and Cal, I imagine they just slide into F -$ “u” and Clempson’s spots

I can think of a few reasons:

1. If ND's agreement with the ACC is subsumed within the GoR, it may have to be renegotiated when the ACC's TV deal expires.

2. ND got a substantial raise in its latest NBC contract. In light of that, they may be willing to give up $1-3 million/year from the ACC to get out of one game per year.

3. If ND maintains its football independence, it probably could leave the ACC relatively cheaply (certainly far cheaper than Florida State or Clemson.)

So essentially all of this is built on 1) the unlikely event ESPN doesn't pick up the option and 2) your fantasy that ND would prefer another Olympic sports conference despite pushing for Stanford and Cal?

I think you need to accept the PTB at ND thoroughly enjoy their relationship with the nation's premier Olympic sports conference and they're not going to blow that up over a single football game. Your former AD hated Tally anyway.

Honestly, I think ND's position in all of this will be reactive. Specifically, I don't think ND will do anything to blow the ACC up, but I also think (perhaps hope is the better word) that if the ACC were to lose enough members, ND might realize that it has reached the point of no return (as an aside, I happen to think that the PAC is at this point, but I realize there are plenty of people here who disagree with me.). At that point, I believe ND's interests would be better served by finding a new home for basketball and olympic sports.

But it need not come to that, necessarily. I happen to think that ND giving up $1-3 million/year in payments from the ACC in exchange for a reduction in their football obligation to the ACC by one game/year is not an unreasonable tradeoff for either side. You apparently disagree. That's fine, reasonable minds can differ.

As for Jack, he may not like Tally. But I would think (again, perhaps hope is the better word) that he would prefer to see Florida State coming to Notre Dame Stadium for a football game as opposed to, say, Wake Forest.

The fallacy in your thinking is ND would somehow increase Wake games. That’s not the case. In this hypothetical, ND would replace games vs FSU and Clemson with Stanford, Cal, and SMU. So ND ends up with more variety, plus the Stanford series which was scheduled annually anyway.

Plus, ND doesn’t have to travel to Tally and Clemson, SC (find that on a map) and instead visits more populous hubs of the Bay and Dallas.

ND didn’t join the ACC and accept five games for the conference’s heavyweights. That’s the deal they had with the Big East (kind of). They joined to play in the nation’s premier Olympic sports conference with institutional peers and gain East Coast exposure. Now they get Texas and NoCal. I don’t see how this isn’t a big win especially considering they can schedule beefcakes with the other seven games.

(04-18-2024 08:10 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 05:24 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 07:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 01:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I agree with this.

ND's football scheduling agreement with the new ACC may be pared back to 4 games a year.

Likewise, ND and the Big Ten may enter into a 4 game scheduling agreement as well (despised by Big Ten fans but brokered by NBC).

The USC game being on NBC every year is an interesting idea......

The crux of your fellow alum's argument was that ESPN is not really interested in holding onto to Notre Dame. My argument with him has been that they are, because what is not fully in the Big 10's hands only helps ESPN's position.

So, are you also saying that ESPN isn't interested in keeping some rights to the Notre Dame?

No, I am not saying that. I could see a scheduling adjustment, though.

I think that ND could utilize the "uncertainty" of the new ACC to possibly lever a reduced ACC football scheduling deal to 4 games, while keeping its other sports there.

More probable than that, though, might be a NBC brokered deal wherein ND plays more Big Ten teams going forward, either with individual scheduling deals or a 4 game scheduling agreement with the conference.

Neither is likely, both are possible.

Why would the ACC agree to less games? What incentive do they have, much less legal obligation? ND pushed for Stanford and Cal, I imagine they just slide into F -$ “u” and Clempson’s spots

I can think of a few reasons:

1. If ND's agreement with the ACC is subsumed within the GoR, it may have to be renegotiated when the ACC's TV deal expires.

2. ND got a substantial raise in its latest NBC contract. In light of that, they may be willing to give up $1-3 million/year from the ACC to get out of one game per year.

3. If ND maintains its football independence, it probably could leave the ACC relatively cheaply (certainly far cheaper than Florida State or Clemson.)

Agree with these.

#1 was my main thought. If the entire ACC/GOR deals have to be re-negotiated, ND could take advantage and cut a fewer games deal in that process, having increased leverage with FSU, Clemson and perhaps NC gonzo.

ND joined the ACC because the BigEast exploded, and they wanted a home for their Olympic sports, and wanted to remain football independent.

And looking at the P5 conferences - at that time, apparently only the ACC was willing to do that.

Plus, several of the BigEast schools had already joined (been invited to) the ACC.

And, as far as I know, the P2 still are unlikely to add a school for Olympics-only - even ND.

So ND is likely where they want to be, and I would think they are motivated to keep the ACC intact.

And even if the ACC were to implode (which seems rather unlikely), I really doubt that ND goes to the Big12, I think the new BigEast is more likely.

YMMV, of course...

(04-17-2024 08:00 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(04-17-2024 08:14 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 03:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 09:00 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC gets Florida St and Clemson now, does it even make sense for them to add more in the future?

Is there really much value for them in programs like NC St, Duke, UVA, VT, GT, Miami, L’ville, or Kansas? I really don’t see anyone there that paired with UNC that would be all that lucrative. Taking UNC and UVA really serves more to keep the Big 10 and their media partners out of those states.

I think the Big 10 could justify a move to 24 that netted them UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, ND, +1 as part of their national strategy but really the big gets in that move are just ND and a massive amount of BTN subscribers:

FL 3rd
GA 8th
NC 9th
VA 12th

Add those to the 7 of the top 15 most populous states and that’s a lot of Americans in the Big 10 sports sphere.

Adding UNCCH to the B10 doesn't really "get you" the state of NC. There are a lot of schools in the state, 6 of which play at the highest level of D1. Where CH to go to the B10 I can only imagine how average to below average they will be, worse than they are now for sure. People aren't going to be inclined sit in front of their TVs on a Saturday afternoon to watch them play Northwestern, Indiana or Iowa. Or watch them get trounced by Oregan, Ohio State or Michigan. If they are going to sit in front of the TV on a Saturday afternoon it's much more likely to be a game like ASU vs ECU, NCSU v Wake Forest, or even Charlotte vs James Madison. Heck folks might even be more inclined to actually attend a game at Campbell, Elon, Western Carolina or the like. But honestly the lack of natural rivalries UNCCH would take a lukewarm football fanbase to a new level of ho hum and gravitate more casual fans towards more interesting games within the region.

When it comes to T3 revenue for the BTN you don’t need to capture 100% of the market. UNC certainly delivers enough to justify instate rates for the BTN.

UVA, Maryland, and GT would all be good regional opponents and they could keep a rotation of Duke/NC St/WF on the OOC portion.

Well I'm talking about if UNCCH went and there was no big migration from the ACC to the power 2, just 3 or 4 schools. Playing rivals OOC just doesn't have the same vibe. I hate to use the term, but "Wal Mart fans" will decline in the state when the natural rivals are lost, at least in terms of football. They will make more money, but at what cost?

I would think the " Wal-Mart" fans would care less about local rivalries right?

I think they would gravitate to schools the have some connection to that play each other, ECU, NCSU, App State would be the big winners I would think. I'm not saying UNCCH will lose all their fanbase, but rather that there would be a slippage because of a lack of local/regional connections.

(04-18-2024 02:51 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  And looking at the P5 conferences - at that time, apparently only the ACC was willing to do that.

Big XII was too

(04-18-2024 04:01 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-18-2024 02:51 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  And looking at the P5 conferences - at that time, apparently only the ACC was willing to do that.

Big XII was too

Yes, but they were insisting on 6 games. However, that was with Texas and OU.

(04-16-2024 09:00 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC gets Florida St and Clemson now, does it even make sense for them to add more in the future?

Is there really much value for them in programs like NC St, Duke, UVA, VT, GT, Miami, L’ville, or Kansas? I really don’t see anyone there that paired with UNC that would be all that lucrative. Taking UNC and UVA really serves more to keep the Big 10 and their media partners out of those states.

I think the Big 10 could justify a move to 24 that netted them UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, ND, +1 as part of their national strategy but really the big gets in that move are just ND and a massive amount of BTN subscribers:

FL 3rd
GA 8th
NC 9th
VA 12th

Add those to the 7 of the top 15 most populous states and that’s a lot of Americans in the Big 10 sports sphere.

Adding UNCCH to the B10 doesn't really "get you" the state of NC.

It actually does... The entire point of pursuing the primary top universities of specific DMA is the fact that it gets the providers to carry the network in-State and within the associated DMA. This is why Rutgers was such a valuable addition to the B1G... certainly wasn't for the sports obviously, but due to the DMA penetration for the BTN, the #1 market in the entire US plus the entire state of NJ which by itself is like #7. And Maryland got the BTN into the DC Metro area DMA + State of Maryland, another highly populated state.

It's the same case with adding a Florida State or UNC.

Doesn't matter if the fans are split and there are many schools.

I can't see SEC or Big going to 24, the available teams don't bring in that kind of money. FSU does, Clemson, UM, NC, VA are even questionable. That said I think both will bring in 2 to 4 schools. Big at 22 and Sec at 20 is about as far as they go.

(04-19-2024 08:14 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I can't see SEC or Big going to 24, the available teams don't bring in that kind of money. FSU does, Clemson, UM, NC, VA are even questionable. That said I think both will bring in 2 to 4 schools. Big at 22 and Sec at 20 is about as far as they go.

I think that range is about right as to the number of schools, and would only hit 24 if ESPN and FOX wanted that much inventory with a Big 10 or SEC patch on the jersey, or if the goal of the networks is just 2 or 3 conferences instead of 4.

If it is football only driven 20 each is likely. If basketball factors in then 22, even possibly 24 could factor in.

(04-18-2024 05:12 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 09:00 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 04:25 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the SEC gets Florida St and Clemson now, does it even make sense for them to add more in the future?

Is there really much value for them in programs like NC St, Duke, UVA, VT, GT, Miami, L’ville, or Kansas? I really don’t see anyone there that paired with UNC that would be all that lucrative. Taking UNC and UVA really serves more to keep the Big 10 and their media partners out of those states.

I think the Big 10 could justify a move to 24 that netted them UVA, UNC, GT, Miami, ND, +1 as part of their national strategy but really the big gets in that move are just ND and a massive amount of BTN subscribers:

FL 3rd
GA 8th
NC 9th
VA 12th

Add those to the 7 of the top 15 most populous states and that’s a lot of Americans in the Big 10 sports sphere.

Adding UNCCH to the B10 doesn't really "get you" the state of NC.

It actually does... The entire point of pursuing the primary top universities of specific DMA is the fact that it gets the providers to carry the network in-State and within the associated DMA. This is why Rutgers was such a valuable addition to the B1G... certainly wasn't for the sports obviously, but due to the DMA penetration for the BTN, the #1 market in the entire US plus the entire state of NJ which by itself is like #7. And Maryland got the BTN into the DC Metro area DMA + State of Maryland, another highly populated state.

It's the same case with adding a Florida State or UNC.

Doesn't matter if the fans are split and there are many schools.

It "gets" them NC as long as the BTN is actively making money on the cable sub model. Same with the SEC and ACC. Otherwise it "gets" them less than half the football fans in the state, but the majority of hoops fans.

You also alluded to a point I have made several times: the BTN is already in the lucrative NOVA market, so adding UVa only "gets" the BTN Richmond, Norfolk, etc. Hardly the same as NOVA.