The way I see it, you basically have three tiers of ACC teams who have a chance to get called up:

Tier 1- locks, schools that would bring a lot to both the SEC or the BTN and would increase viewership:
Clemson
Florida State
North Carolina* (I put an asterisk because if UNC truly is tied to NCST then that may make it difficult for them.)

Tier 2- possible additions, schools that may benefit one or both conferences depending on the situation:
Miami
NC State
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Tier 3- outside shots, schools that have a chance depending on the strategic goals of the conferences:
Duke
Georgia Tech
Louisville

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.

It’s fun to speculate but it seems to me that there are going to be a lot of
disappointed fan bases out there. The SEC has so many big brands and fans bases, who can they add that would make the more money? Outside of ND/UNC I’m not seeing it. I don’t think Carolina and state would be a money maker for them.The more freight you add the less the Texas’s, LSUs, Bamas etc will play each other. Same with the BIG. Oregon was a tweener for them. Not many acc/XII teams can meet that high bar.

Jackson

(04-15-2024 03:06 PM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  Two comments:

1) It surprises me that most people think the B1G will standby and let all the remaining brands go to the SEC.

2) It’s remarkable to me that people think Duke University has a spot in the P2. I think Duke has to be sweating it out right now.

1. The B1G added more schools than the SEC. The SEC wants to digest what we just added, but the B1G NEEDS to. If they add 2 more in the next couple of years, then every current member will have 43% less voting power than they do today. What about culture? Fit? Bowl money? It’s not impossible that the B1G would add more, of course, but I’d bet against them doing anything before 2030.

2. Duke is like Stanford East, but with more up side. Even when Stanford wins big, they don’t get very many eyeballs. Duke’s value is unlocked if basketball revenues rise dramatically. I, personally still don’t think they get an invite, but as we do not know exactly how high basketball revenues will rise, it’s impossible to know for sure. Duke may also be a more palatable UNC partner than NC St for SEC Presidents who are keen to bring their rivalry in-house and hope to raise our Academic stature further.

(04-15-2024 03:06 PM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote:  Two comments:

1) It surprises me that most people think the B1G will standby and let all the remaining brands go to the SEC.

2) It’s remarkable to me that people think Duke University has a spot in the P2. I think Duke has to be sweating it out right now.

Well, you have an uphill battle on your hands. ESPN controls those rights 100% and controls the rights of the SEC 100% and they are the ones who could easily have a great deal to use as leverage for an outcome suitable to them. If the ACC had T1 rights with CBS, and T2 rights with NBC, and T3 rights with FOX then absolutely it would be open season, but it's not that way. ESPN's interest in the ACC lineup 100% with their interests in the SEC. ESPN controls an option to end it in 2027 or extend it to 2036. They will exercise that option according to what is best for them.

The PAC was a 50/50 lease between FOX and ESPN for T1 and T2 and the PACN was self owned.

The Big 12 was a 50/50 split between FOX and ESPN for T1 and T2 rights with ESPN ending up owning all of the T3. Cooperation between interests were involved at the network level there, and likely with the PAC since ESPN sat back after the initial offering and did nothing to thwart the moves by FOX and the Big 10.

Where they are with the ACC is where their bread is buttered. They aren't going to do a thing to upset the SEC and want to keep the ACC.

This thread is an interesting thought exercise, but my money says just FSU moves and to another ESPN held property because there's too much advertising money at stake in Florida for ESPN to let anything else happen. Clemson is suing and could be serious and may accompany them, but Clemson has twice before approached the brink to leave and stepped back. Old habits die hard and they are a founding member of the ACC, but as a Terp fan you know that already.

I'm thinking no more than 2 leave, refills are made, the extension is signed and we are onto 2036. The SEC could add FSU and Kansas and be money ahead at the same 18 the Big 10 has.

(04-15-2024 11:37 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 11:08 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

Round 1
FSU + Clemson

Round 2
UNC + NC State

Round 3
UVA + Va Tech

Round 4
Duke + GA Tech

That would work a treat. But I think Birmingham would take a quick peek at Wallace Wade Outdoor, compare notes with what they see in Nashville, and opt instead for Kansas in Duke's spot. It would make Missouri less awkward, reinstate the Border War, and the 4 divisions of 6 teams would fall into place quite naturally:

Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Florida State, Florida, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Football: Everybody in your division, 1 in each of the other divisions.
Basketball: Home and Home in your division, home and home in 1 each of the other divisions
Baseball: Home and home series in your division. OR Series against everyone in your division, then 2 series against each of the other divisions.

In all honesty, I can't wrap my brain around the fascination with divisions around here, when the clear trend is in the opposite direction: divisionless. Simply put, if you're in a "conference" where you play the majority of teams in football and average of twice every 12 years, you have forfeited your right to be called a conference. What you are is an athletic conglomerate formed for the purpose of maximizing television revenue.

The future trend will be 1-3 protected annual conference opponents, so you'll have the opportunity to play other conference opponents more frequently.

(04-16-2024 07:41 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 11:37 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 11:08 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

Round 1
FSU + Clemson

Round 2
UNC + NC State

Round 3
UVA + Va Tech

Round 4
Duke + GA Tech

That would work a treat. But I think Birmingham would take a quick peek at Wallace Wade Outdoor, compare notes with what they see in Nashville, and opt instead for Kansas in Duke's spot. It would make Missouri less awkward, reinstate the Border War, and the 4 divisions of 6 teams would fall into place quite naturally:

Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri
LSU, Ole Miss, Miss State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Florida State, Florida, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech
Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Football: Everybody in your division, 1 in each of the other divisions.
Basketball: Home and Home in your division, home and home in 1 each of the other divisions
Baseball: Home and home series in your division. OR Series against everyone in your division, then 2 series against each of the other divisions.

In all honesty, I can't wrap my brain around the fascination with divisions around here, when the clear trend is in the opposite direction: divisionless. Simply put, if you're in a "conference" where you play the majority of teams in football and average of twice every 12 years, you have forfeited your right to be called a conference. What you are is an athletic conglomerate formed for the purpose of maximizing television revenue.

The future trend will be 1-3 protected annual conference opponents, so you'll have the opportunity to play other conference opponents more frequently.

Divisions protect the annual conference opponents and helps everybody get what they want for this conglomerate to work.

(04-16-2024 07:41 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  In all honesty, I can't wrap my brain around the fascination with divisions around here, when the clear trend is in the opposite direction: divisionless. Simply put, if you're in a "conference" where you play the majority of teams in football and average of twice every 12 years, you have forfeited your right to be called a conference. What you are is an athletic conglomerate formed for the purpose of maximizing television revenue.

The future trend will be 1-3 protected annual conference opponents, so you'll have the opportunity to play other conference opponents more frequently.

The current trend away from divisions is because conferences are awkward and large and cover a large geographic area. But there aren't enough teams in the conferences for people to easily split into two divisions without ruining rivalries and historic matchups. With the SEC at 24 or 28, the divisions can go back to being tight geography like they use to be. A home and home basketball series against your division with those divisions will be wildly more popular, and generate more TV compelling matchups, than simply keeping 2 or 3 permanent rivals and rotating everybody else. Florida State and Miami will be a sellout in basketball even if both teams are bad. Florida State and LSU? Not so much.

(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.

(04-16-2024 08:22 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 07:41 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  In all honesty, I can't wrap my brain around the fascination with divisions around here, when the clear trend is in the opposite direction: divisionless. Simply put, if you're in a "conference" where you play the majority of teams in football and average of twice every 12 years, you have forfeited your right to be called a conference. What you are is an athletic conglomerate formed for the purpose of maximizing television revenue.

The future trend will be 1-3 protected annual conference opponents, so you'll have the opportunity to play other conference opponents more frequently.

The current trend away from divisions is because conferences are awkward and large and cover a large geographic area. But there aren't enough teams in the conferences for people to easily split into two divisions without ruining rivalries and historic matchups. With the SEC at 24 or 28, the divisions can go back to being tight geography like they use to be. A home and home basketball series against your division with those divisions will be wildly more popular, and generate more TV compelling matchups, than simply keeping 2 or 3 permanent rivals and rotating everybody else. Florida State and Miami will be a sellout in basketball even if both teams are bad. Florida State and LSU? Not so much.

I don't see any way that you can split these up in a manner that preserves all the important rivalries. Some of the more important SEC rivalries are omitted from the divisional alignment proposed, to wit:

Tennessee-Vandy: Perhaps not a rivalry per se, given the lopsided nature of the series. But it is intrastate, so kinda important.

Alabama-Tennessee

Auburn-Georgia: South's oldest rivalry. Perhaps as important for Auburn as Alabama. Arguably more important for Georgia than Florida.

(04-15-2024 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

Third, I would have to believe that if N.D. wants to continue its all but football relationship with the ACC that ESPN will not permit such a massive disruption of the conference to transpire.

ND's TV contract is with NBC, not ESPN. Given that fact, I don't see ESPN going out of its way to do ND any favors.

While it is true that ND plays 2-3 road games per year against ACC opponents, and those games are televised on ESPN-owned outlets, there are a few facts to consider:

1. Occasionally, one ND game per year lands on the ACC network. ESPN does have an ownership interest there, but the ACC network, by its nature, commands fewer eyeballs than either ABC or ESPN.

2. While none of us really knows what will happen to the ACC when the dust settles, I think the best they can hope for necessarily entails the loss of some of their more prominent football programs. It's hard for me to envision either Florida State or Clemson remaining in the ACC over the long term given the level of animosity each has demonstrated toward the ACC. At the same time, ND received a significant pay raise in its most recent contract with NBC. In light of these facts, it strikes me as entirely possible that NE's obligation to play ACC opponents could be modified downward, but not eliminated completely.

Opinion linked for entertainment:

Spencer McLaughlin, Lock On podcast. Columbus, Ohio is the locale for 10tv that carried the link.

“Florida State and Clemson are not going to be in the ACC for long, but they WILL be for 2024--and they should want to be. Is there really a deadline for them?“

He views Florida State and Clemson more likely to the BIG than SEC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7AOhvZmD-E

The model of having every major player in a state has worked well for both the Big10 and the SEC for years. That's why I don't buy the narrative that an NCSU or Miami don't add enough. The money comes from being the single source for major college sports in your region. That's why I see a 24 to 30 team SEC as the most valuable long term. The football is already great, adding the only 3 non-P2 national championship winners of the century will solidify the idea of the "power" leagues.

Adding: UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, GT, and FSU. Then most of: Louisville, Miami, Duke, Kansas, Oklahoma State, WVU, TX Tech
That gives you rivalries and market saturation through your entire footprint. The Big10 can add the former Pac10 and Northeast ACC schools.

Football would be easy. You create a conference playoff. The winner plays the Big10 winner in a college superbowl.

The basketball tournament with Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, and UNC would be must-watch.

College baseball would be insane in the new SEC. Nearly the entire top 25. I could see with players getting paid the quality of baseball improving in coming years.

(04-16-2024 09:31 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-15-2024 12:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

Third, I would have to believe that if N.D. wants to continue its all but football relationship with the ACC that ESPN will not permit such a massive disruption of the conference to transpire.

ND's TV contract is with NBC, not ESPN. Given that fact, I don't see ESPN going out of its way to do ND any favors.

While it is true that ND plays 2-3 road games per year against ACC opponents, and those games are televised on ESPN-owned outlets, there are a few facts to consider:

1. Occasionally, one ND game per year lands on the ACC network. ESPN does have an ownership interest there, but the ACC network, by its nature, commands fewer eyeballs than either ABC or ESPN.

2. While none of us really knows what will happen to the ACC when the dust settles, I think the best they can hope for necessarily entails the loss of some of their more prominent football programs. It's hard for me to envision either Florida State or Clemson remaining in the ACC over the long term given the level of animosity each has demonstrated toward the ACC. At the same time, ND received a significant pay raise in its most recent contract with NBC. In light of these facts, it strikes me as entirely possible that NE's obligation to play ACC opponents could be modified downward, but not eliminated completely.

What's not fully ESPN's is not fully available to competitors either. Considering Notre Dame's value to the Big 10 in closing cheaper backdoor advertising avenues into major Big 10 areas through an independent Notre Dame, and that is why the Big 10 so desperately wants them, as along as Notre Dame has any games with the ACC it is a win for ESPN and setback for FOX, though NBC pays to get the most. Should Notre Dame ever fully be in the Big 10 all advertisers would have to pay the Big 10 more than some of them do now, and with the Big 10 revenue sharing Notre Dame would make less from their own brand than the method they have chosen. The Irish make something like 17 million for their small sampling of games with the ACC, and they get a full share of the ACCN for that one game aired there, which is way more than that one game would be worth elsewhere since it won't be against a prime opponent.

ESPN wants to keep them as an all but football (and hockey) member precisely because that keeps Notre Dame's full impact on upon the revenue of their competitors from happening. So a piece of the action is worth every penny to ESPN and NBC doesn't threaten them.

The SEC has a major problem of having too many top dogs, they need food to eat, and adding Clemson and FSU will only make the situation worse. The big 10 has a major problem of being too geographically spread out which will diminish interest long term. The problem for both is that adding certain schools will help fix the situation it also might result in less payout. At some point, I think the brain trust of each league might realize slightly smaller payouts are worth fixing their problems.

(04-15-2024 03:57 PM)3BNole Wrote:  The way I see it, you basically have three tiers of ACC teams who have a chance to get called up:

Tier 1- locks, schools that would bring a lot to both the SEC or the BTN and would increase viewership:
Clemson
Florida State
North Carolina* (I put an asterisk because if UNC truly is tied to NCST then that may make it difficult for them.)

Tier 2- possible additions, schools that may benefit one or both conferences depending on the situation:
Miami
NC State
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Tier 3- outside shots, schools that have a chance depending on the strategic goals of the conferences:
Duke
Georgia Tech
Louisville

Duke (SEC) North Carolina (BIG`10)
Clemson (SEC) North Carolina State (BIG`10)
Florida State (SEC) Virginia (BIG`10)
Miami (SEC) Virginia Tech (BIG`10)

Big 12 adds Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh

California, Stanford, and SMU goes to the nPac 12 along with Air Force, Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii/Gonzaga, Memphis, New Mexico, San Diego State, Tulane and UNLV joins Oregon State and Washington State to stay relative.

Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest joins the AAC.

(04-15-2024 03:57 PM)3BNole Wrote:  The way I see it, you basically have three tiers of ACC teams who have a chance to get called up:

Tier 1- locks, schools that would bring a lot to both the SEC or the BTN and would increase viewership:
Clemson
Florida State
North Carolina* (I put an asterisk because if UNC truly is tied to NCST then that may make it difficult for them.)

Tier 2- possible additions, schools that may benefit one or both conferences depending on the situation:
Miami
NC State
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Tier 3- outside shots, schools that have a chance depending on the strategic goals of the conferences:
Duke
Georgia Tech
Louisville

Duke (SEC) North Carolina (BIG`10)
Clemson (SEC) North Carolina State (BIG`10)
Florida State (SEC) Virginia (BIG`10)
Miami (SEC) Virginia Tech (BIG`10)

Big 12 adds Connecticut, Georgia Tech, Louisville, and Pittsburgh

California, Stanford, and SMU goes to the nPac 12 along with Air Force, Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii/Gonzaga, Memphis, New Mexico, San Diego State, Tulane and UNLV joins Oregon State and Washington State to stay relative.

Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest joins the AAC.

Another option is for Boston College, Syracuse and Wake forest join the nPAC 12 and those three along with Air Force, SMU, Memphis, New Mexico, South Florida and Tulane to form and eastern wing.

(04-16-2024 09:00 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 08:22 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-16-2024 07:41 AM)tf8693 Wrote:  In all honesty, I can't wrap my brain around the fascination with divisions around here, when the clear trend is in the opposite direction: divisionless. Simply put, if you're in a "conference" where you play the majority of teams in football and average of twice every 12 years, you have forfeited your right to be called a conference. What you are is an athletic conglomerate formed for the purpose of maximizing television revenue.

The future trend will be 1-3 protected annual conference opponents, so you'll have the opportunity to play other conference opponents more frequently.

The current trend away from divisions is because conferences are awkward and large and cover a large geographic area. But there aren't enough teams in the conferences for people to easily split into two divisions without ruining rivalries and historic matchups. With the SEC at 24 or 28, the divisions can go back to being tight geography like they use to be. A home and home basketball series against your division with those divisions will be wildly more popular, and generate more TV compelling matchups, than simply keeping 2 or 3 permanent rivals and rotating everybody else. Florida State and Miami will be a sellout in basketball even if both teams are bad. Florida State and LSU? Not so much.

I don't see any way that you can split these up in a manner that preserves all the important rivalries. Some of the more important SEC rivalries are omitted from the divisional alignment proposed, to wit:

Tennessee-Vandy: Perhaps not a rivalry per se, given the lopsided nature of the series. But it is intrastate, so kinda important.

Alabama-Tennessee

Auburn-Georgia: South's oldest rivalry. Perhaps as important for Auburn as Alabama. Arguably more important for Georgia than Florida.

Those can still be preserved. You could only come up with 2.5 out of 28 teams aligned across 4 divisions. Still pretty good. I can name more than 3 rivalries that were restored with this alignment.

(04-16-2024 09:58 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The model of having every major player in a state has worked well for both the Big10 and the SEC for years. That's why I don't buy the narrative that an NCSU or Miami don't add enough. The money comes from being the single source for major college sports in your region. That's why I see a 24 to 30 team SEC as the most valuable long term. The football is already great, adding the only 3 non-P2 national championship winners of the century will solidify the idea of the "power" leagues.

Adding: UVA, VT, UNC, NCSU, Clemson, GT, and FSU. Then most of: Louisville, Miami, Duke, Kansas, Oklahoma State, WVU, TX Tech
That gives you rivalries and market saturation through your entire footprint. The Big10 can add the former Pac10 and Northeast ACC schools.

Football would be easy. You create a conference playoff. The winner plays the Big10 winner in a college superbowl.

The basketball tournament with Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, and UNC would be must-watch.

College baseball would be insane in the new SEC. Nearly the entire top 25. I could see with players getting paid the quality of baseball improving in coming years.

No Superbowl unless it's a one-off game and not for the title. In this scenario, I believe Birmingham would be seeking to turn the playoff into the SEC invitational, gobbling up more than half of all slots all years.

The conference tournament idea is interesting though. With the divisions I listed the Mid-Atlantic region would almost be the recreation, supersized, with Kentucky, of the original Big 4 tournament. That's gonna be an expensive ticket book in Greensboro.

(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.

Stop with foolishness, The Heels give any conference the largest collegiate fan base in the state.. You could put Charlotte,ECU & ASU's tv audience together & it's not even half of what you get from the lukewarm, wine & cheese eating Chapel Hill crowd. Again many people like you are missing the point. UNC is the largest college athletic brand by a substantial margin & with the move to exclusive streaming type packages will make UNC even more valuable.