If FSU, Miami, and South Carolina are all still independent in the early 90s and the ACC lacks GT maybe that trio has the power to start their own league rather than dancing a jig to try to get doors to open in existing conferences.

It could either be a southern only affair or they could pursue a partnership with some of the northeastern schools that formed the core of the original big east football league. Perhaps they assault the ACC, to pluck members that were football oriented like Clemson.

(09-20-2018 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 02:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 07:17 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 06:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If GT qualifies as a weak sister you'd better recount to include Ole Miss, Miss State, Kentucky, and South Carolina at bare minimum.

Add Missouri to that as well. GT is number 25 all time based on AP poll appearances. They’re a mid pack SEC program.

My point is they add nothing to the SEC financially, therefore the share they would get would not be earned. The SEC has slightly over 50% of the Atlanta market with UGA and 85% of the rest of the state.

Let's put this another way there are only 13 schools in the P5 that earn less than 90 million.

SEC: Vanderbilt 80.3 million

B1G: Purdue 84.8 million
Northwestern 84.28 million

Big 12: Texas Tech 88.8 million
Kansas State 86.08 million
Iowa State 82.66 million

PAC: Utah 83.67 million
Oregon State 78.96 million
Washington State 64.3 million

ACC: Virginia Tech 89.43 million
Miami 89.14 million
Pittsburgh 84.83 million
N.C. State 83.74 million
Georgia Tech 81.76 million
Boston College 74.54 million
Wake Forest 67.0 million

The 52 schools ahead of them (including N.D.) are the upper tier of the P5.
These 13 schools are the tweeners between the upper tier of the P5 and the upper tier of the G5 with only UConn crossing the boundary.

What truly makes these schools tweeners is that they don't have subsidy levels of 25% to pad their revenue numbers. All below them do.

It doesn't matter that Purdue, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are grandfathered into the two healthiest conferences.

For the purpose of the OP had Georgia Tech and Tulane stayed in the SEC they too would be grandfathered in. Perhaps Tech would have had sufficient revenue to have kept up their once stellar record in football. But their program has been financially strapped now for more than the last decade. My remarks were to merely point out that they bring nothing to the SEC today that Georgia doesn't already provide. Tulane would be even a bigger drag on the present SEC payout. These schools are deficient by SEC standards in size of venue, and accordingly in attendance, and obviously aren't generating the donation levels to remain competitive in the SEC. So they don't add to our attendance average, the don't add to our gross total revenue, and they don't bring a needed market.

Sure if the SEC were reborn today there would be fewer 2nd state schools in the conference. But it's not be reborn. And those who chose to leave in the 1960's screwed the pooch. We don't need Georgia Tech and we don't need Tulane.

One is now solidly out of the P5 and the other is just staying above the Mendoza line of college football. Georgia Tech is now 59th out of the 65 so called A5 or P5 schools. They are ahead of Vanderbilt, Oregon State, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Washington State in descending order.

So my remarks were not meant to disparage what are 2 fine academic institutions, but merely to say that since neither of them would add anything to the bottom line of SEC athletics they would be a drain on resources.

Those revenue figures include -- heavily -- TV dollars. And we all know which conference is going to look lackluster in that at this moment. Also those figures will be with AD Bobinski the brainless. The new guy at AD is doing good work bringing money in the door.





Would GT add revenue to the SEC TV contracts? No. Should the TV cable model collapse might that change? Absolutely. And that's before we get into Fuhrer Mickey owning both of us and thus being able to reorganize as he sees fit.

Well GTS most SEC schools earn above the 120 million mark. TV dollars are only between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total depending upon the school.

Numbers are always just what they are. But, revenue isn't the issue for Georgia Tech with regard to the SEC. The priorities foisted upon the conferences by the networks are Georgia Tech's issue with regards to the SEC. As Auburn's oldest rival and the one I enjoyed the most, I'd love to have Tech back in the fold and have that cross cultural annual battle between the rustic plains and the mega city.

But moving forward content (branding and historical success) will NET the most revenue for T1 and T2 rights. Markets will continue to necessary for T3 rights and conference networks. Georgia Tech is not the kind of content addition that could add to the SEC's payouts and the market we already have. But you know that already.

When we were just under the market model had the Big 10 raided the ACC to try to come down the coastline the SEC might likely have taken Tech back in just to protect the leverage we have in the Deep South. But in a content driven sports industry the rationale of maintaining leverage over a particular market won't be as critical as using that spot to land a content multiplier versus the roster of the conference.

I think for good or for ill Georgia Tech's future is tied to the ACC now. The difficult thing for Tech moving forward is that the Big 10 will be subject to the same corporate network lures as the SEC. Both will go balls to the wall to land schools like Oklahoma and Texas and if they land such a school then the payouts for each of those conferences will be high enough that it might easily eclipse the profitability of adding any ACC schools. Virginia and North Carolina for academic purposes might still be appealing to the Big 10 when the additional markets and political locations are considered but as sports product they likely would not add to the bottom line of a Big 10 that was holding Oklahoma.

In some ways the issues surrounding OU and UT are very compelling when the future of college sports is considered. Should the SEC and Big 10 split that pair between them the resulting disparity between the 4 remaining conferences would not only grow, but would become literally insurmountable. Now there's good news and bad news in that. The good news is that very very few, if any schools could add to the bottom line of either conference so realignment for those two conferences would essentially be over. The bad news is that the revenue gap would grow between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/PAC and would be cemented in place since no remaining additions to the PAC or ACC would be able to overcome the increase.

If that happens then keeping the game competitive is going to be tough. And the failure to do so self limiting for the future.

I think the best solution would be for the PAC/B1G to form a league and for the SEC/ACC to form a league. The three Texas schools could join the ACC/SEC and the old Big 8 schools and WVU could join the PAC/B1G. There's your 64. Package the two league networks together and you have the leverage you need to make it profitable for all. Each could have their internal playoffs for a champion and the two champions could meet. NFLish? Yes, but with the constant rotation due to matriculation it will never be as boring.

Sounds familiarly accurate, JR.
But you do realize that ESPN is not going to pass up the opportunity to double dip Texas, just like they do in Florida. Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia will be headed to the SEC and Texas and Notre Dame will call the ACC home.
NFLish? Yep....two leagues...extended playoffs, big monetary payoffs....something television understands.

(09-20-2018 08:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 02:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 07:17 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Add Missouri to that as well. GT is number 25 all time based on AP poll appearances. They’re a mid pack SEC program.

My point is they add nothing to the SEC financially, therefore the share they would get would not be earned. The SEC has slightly over 50% of the Atlanta market with UGA and 85% of the rest of the state.

Let's put this another way there are only 13 schools in the P5 that earn less than 90 million.

SEC: Vanderbilt 80.3 million

B1G: Purdue 84.8 million
Northwestern 84.28 million

Big 12: Texas Tech 88.8 million
Kansas State 86.08 million
Iowa State 82.66 million

PAC: Utah 83.67 million
Oregon State 78.96 million
Washington State 64.3 million

ACC: Virginia Tech 89.43 million
Miami 89.14 million
Pittsburgh 84.83 million
N.C. State 83.74 million
Georgia Tech 81.76 million
Boston College 74.54 million
Wake Forest 67.0 million

The 52 schools ahead of them (including N.D.) are the upper tier of the P5.
These 13 schools are the tweeners between the upper tier of the P5 and the upper tier of the G5 with only UConn crossing the boundary.

What truly makes these schools tweeners is that they don't have subsidy levels of 25% to pad their revenue numbers. All below them do.

It doesn't matter that Purdue, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are grandfathered into the two healthiest conferences.

For the purpose of the OP had Georgia Tech and Tulane stayed in the SEC they too would be grandfathered in. Perhaps Tech would have had sufficient revenue to have kept up their once stellar record in football. But their program has been financially strapped now for more than the last decade. My remarks were to merely point out that they bring nothing to the SEC today that Georgia doesn't already provide. Tulane would be even a bigger drag on the present SEC payout. These schools are deficient by SEC standards in size of venue, and accordingly in attendance, and obviously aren't generating the donation levels to remain competitive in the SEC. So they don't add to our attendance average, the don't add to our gross total revenue, and they don't bring a needed market.

Sure if the SEC were reborn today there would be fewer 2nd state schools in the conference. But it's not be reborn. And those who chose to leave in the 1960's screwed the pooch. We don't need Georgia Tech and we don't need Tulane.

One is now solidly out of the P5 and the other is just staying above the Mendoza line of college football. Georgia Tech is now 59th out of the 65 so called A5 or P5 schools. They are ahead of Vanderbilt, Oregon State, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Washington State in descending order.

So my remarks were not meant to disparage what are 2 fine academic institutions, but merely to say that since neither of them would add anything to the bottom line of SEC athletics they would be a drain on resources.

Those revenue figures include -- heavily -- TV dollars. And we all know which conference is going to look lackluster in that at this moment. Also those figures will be with AD Bobinski the brainless. The new guy at AD is doing good work bringing money in the door.





Would GT add revenue to the SEC TV contracts? No. Should the TV cable model collapse might that change? Absolutely. And that's before we get into Fuhrer Mickey owning both of us and thus being able to reorganize as he sees fit.

Well GTS most SEC schools earn above the 120 million mark. TV dollars are only between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total depending upon the school.

Numbers are always just what they are. But, revenue isn't the issue for Georgia Tech with regard to the SEC. The priorities foisted upon the conferences by the networks are Georgia Tech's issue with regards to the SEC. As Auburn's oldest rival and the one I enjoyed the most, I'd love to have Tech back in the fold and have that cross cultural annual battle between the rustic plains and the mega city.

But moving forward content (branding and historical success) will NET the most revenue for T1 and T2 rights. Markets will continue to necessary for T3 rights and conference networks. Georgia Tech is not the kind of content addition that could add to the SEC's payouts and the market we already have. But you know that already.

When we were just under the market model had the Big 10 raided the ACC to try to come down the coastline the SEC might likely have taken Tech back in just to protect the leverage we have in the Deep South. But in a content driven sports industry the rationale of maintaining leverage over a particular market won't be as critical as using that spot to land a content multiplier versus the roster of the conference.

I think for good or for ill Georgia Tech's future is tied to the ACC now. The difficult thing for Tech moving forward is that the Big 10 will be subject to the same corporate network lures as the SEC. Both will go balls to the wall to land schools like Oklahoma and Texas and if they land such a school then the payouts for each of those conferences will be high enough that it might easily eclipse the profitability of adding any ACC schools. Virginia and North Carolina for academic purposes might still be appealing to the Big 10 when the additional markets and political locations are considered but as sports product they likely would not add to the bottom line of a Big 10 that was holding Oklahoma.

In some ways the issues surrounding OU and UT are very compelling when the future of college sports is considered. Should the SEC and Big 10 split that pair between them the resulting disparity between the 4 remaining conferences would not only grow, but would become literally insurmountable. Now there's good news and bad news in that. The good news is that very very few, if any schools could add to the bottom line of either conference so realignment for those two conferences would essentially be over. The bad news is that the revenue gap would grow between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/PAC and would be cemented in place since no remaining additions to the PAC or ACC would be able to overcome the increase.

If that happens then keeping the game competitive is going to be tough. And the failure to do so self limiting for the future.

I think the best solution would be for the PAC/B1G to form a league and for the SEC/ACC to form a league. The three Texas schools could join the ACC/SEC and the old Big 8 schools and WVU could join the PAC/B1G. There's your 64. Package the two league networks together and you have the leverage you need to make it profitable for all. Each could have their internal playoffs for a champion and the two champions could meet. NFLish? Yes, but with the constant rotation due to matriculation it will never be as boring.

Sounds familiarly accurate, JR.
But you do realize that ESPN is not going to pass up the opportunity to double dip Texas, just like they do in Florida. Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia will be headed to the SEC and Texas and Notre Dame will call the ACC home.
NFLish? Yep....two leagues...extended playoffs, big monetary payoffs....something television understands.

As usual you miscounted. There would be no West Virginia in the move. If it sounds familiar its because I first presented it nearly 5 years ago in posts here. But have since played around with a myriad of scenarios. I do think something like that could well be the eventuality of all of this. But we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Texas winds up in the ACC however. I think T.C.U. will. BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

(09-20-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

To paraphrase Peter Zeihan when he talks about Alberta as a 51st state: I'm not saying it will happen. I am saying it solves every rivalry, scheduling, geographic, and division problem while maximizing gate revenue and creating a slew of new made for TV arrangements like an ACC-SEC Challenge in the big three sports.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

(09-20-2018 08:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

To paraphrase Peter Zeihan when he talks about Alberta as a 51st state: I'm not saying it will happen. I am saying it solves every rivalry, scheduling, geographic, and division problem while maximizing gate revenue and creating a slew of new made for TV arrangements like an ACC-SEC Challenge in the big three sports.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

Well if it doesn't happen we are going to wind up with Uber P2, the P2, and IB (in between) 1, and the G5. I don't think long term that the result works for anyone.

(09-20-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 02:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My point is they add nothing to the SEC financially, therefore the share they would get would not be earned. The SEC has slightly over 50% of the Atlanta market with UGA and 85% of the rest of the state.

Let's put this another way there are only 13 schools in the P5 that earn less than 90 million.

SEC: Vanderbilt 80.3 million

B1G: Purdue 84.8 million
Northwestern 84.28 million

Big 12: Texas Tech 88.8 million
Kansas State 86.08 million
Iowa State 82.66 million

PAC: Utah 83.67 million
Oregon State 78.96 million
Washington State 64.3 million

ACC: Virginia Tech 89.43 million
Miami 89.14 million
Pittsburgh 84.83 million
N.C. State 83.74 million
Georgia Tech 81.76 million
Boston College 74.54 million
Wake Forest 67.0 million

The 52 schools ahead of them (including N.D.) are the upper tier of the P5.
These 13 schools are the tweeners between the upper tier of the P5 and the upper tier of the G5 with only UConn crossing the boundary.

What truly makes these schools tweeners is that they don't have subsidy levels of 25% to pad their revenue numbers. All below them do.

It doesn't matter that Purdue, Northwestern and Vanderbilt are grandfathered into the two healthiest conferences.

For the purpose of the OP had Georgia Tech and Tulane stayed in the SEC they too would be grandfathered in. Perhaps Tech would have had sufficient revenue to have kept up their once stellar record in football. But their program has been financially strapped now for more than the last decade. My remarks were to merely point out that they bring nothing to the SEC today that Georgia doesn't already provide. Tulane would be even a bigger drag on the present SEC payout. These schools are deficient by SEC standards in size of venue, and accordingly in attendance, and obviously aren't generating the donation levels to remain competitive in the SEC. So they don't add to our attendance average, the don't add to our gross total revenue, and they don't bring a needed market.

Sure if the SEC were reborn today there would be fewer 2nd state schools in the conference. But it's not be reborn. And those who chose to leave in the 1960's screwed the pooch. We don't need Georgia Tech and we don't need Tulane.

One is now solidly out of the P5 and the other is just staying above the Mendoza line of college football. Georgia Tech is now 59th out of the 65 so called A5 or P5 schools. They are ahead of Vanderbilt, Oregon State, Boston College, Wake Forest, and Washington State in descending order.

So my remarks were not meant to disparage what are 2 fine academic institutions, but merely to say that since neither of them would add anything to the bottom line of SEC athletics they would be a drain on resources.

Those revenue figures include -- heavily -- TV dollars. And we all know which conference is going to look lackluster in that at this moment. Also those figures will be with AD Bobinski the brainless. The new guy at AD is doing good work bringing money in the door.





Would GT add revenue to the SEC TV contracts? No. Should the TV cable model collapse might that change? Absolutely. And that's before we get into Fuhrer Mickey owning both of us and thus being able to reorganize as he sees fit.

Well GTS most SEC schools earn above the 120 million mark. TV dollars are only between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total depending upon the school.

Numbers are always just what they are. But, revenue isn't the issue for Georgia Tech with regard to the SEC. The priorities foisted upon the conferences by the networks are Georgia Tech's issue with regards to the SEC. As Auburn's oldest rival and the one I enjoyed the most, I'd love to have Tech back in the fold and have that cross cultural annual battle between the rustic plains and the mega city.

But moving forward content (branding and historical success) will NET the most revenue for T1 and T2 rights. Markets will continue to necessary for T3 rights and conference networks. Georgia Tech is not the kind of content addition that could add to the SEC's payouts and the market we already have. But you know that already.

When we were just under the market model had the Big 10 raided the ACC to try to come down the coastline the SEC might likely have taken Tech back in just to protect the leverage we have in the Deep South. But in a content driven sports industry the rationale of maintaining leverage over a particular market won't be as critical as using that spot to land a content multiplier versus the roster of the conference.

I think for good or for ill Georgia Tech's future is tied to the ACC now. The difficult thing for Tech moving forward is that the Big 10 will be subject to the same corporate network lures as the SEC. Both will go balls to the wall to land schools like Oklahoma and Texas and if they land such a school then the payouts for each of those conferences will be high enough that it might easily eclipse the profitability of adding any ACC schools. Virginia and North Carolina for academic purposes might still be appealing to the Big 10 when the additional markets and political locations are considered but as sports product they likely would not add to the bottom line of a Big 10 that was holding Oklahoma.

In some ways the issues surrounding OU and UT are very compelling when the future of college sports is considered. Should the SEC and Big 10 split that pair between them the resulting disparity between the 4 remaining conferences would not only grow, but would become literally insurmountable. Now there's good news and bad news in that. The good news is that very very few, if any schools could add to the bottom line of either conference so realignment for those two conferences would essentially be over. The bad news is that the revenue gap would grow between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/PAC and would be cemented in place since no remaining additions to the PAC or ACC would be able to overcome the increase.

If that happens then keeping the game competitive is going to be tough. And the failure to do so self limiting for the future.

I think the best solution would be for the PAC/B1G to form a league and for the SEC/ACC to form a league. The three Texas schools could join the ACC/SEC and the old Big 8 schools and WVU could join the PAC/B1G. There's your 64. Package the two league networks together and you have the leverage you need to make it profitable for all. Each could have their internal playoffs for a champion and the two champions could meet. NFLish? Yes, but with the constant rotation due to matriculation it will never be as boring.

Sounds familiarly accurate, JR.
But you do realize that ESPN is not going to pass up the opportunity to double dip Texas, just like they do in Florida. Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia will be headed to the SEC and Texas and Notre Dame will call the ACC home.
NFLish? Yep....two leagues...extended playoffs, big monetary payoffs....something television understands.

As usual you miscounted. There would be no West Virginia in the move. If it sounds familiar its because I first presented it nearly 5 years ago in posts here. But have since played around with a myriad of scenarios. I do think something like that could well be the eventuality of all of this. But we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Texas winds up in the ACC however. I think T.C.U. will. BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

When Missouri moves to the Big 10, you will have room for West Virginia.
We will just have to wait and see about the landing spots for Texas and TCU, but I don't think that TCU gives the ACC enough exposure for ESPN to completely capture what they want for the ACCN in the state of Texas. Time will tell.

(09-20-2018 08:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 02:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Those revenue figures include -- heavily -- TV dollars. And we all know which conference is going to look lackluster in that at this moment. Also those figures will be with AD Bobinski the brainless. The new guy at AD is doing good work bringing money in the door.





Would GT add revenue to the SEC TV contracts? No. Should the TV cable model collapse might that change? Absolutely. And that's before we get into Fuhrer Mickey owning both of us and thus being able to reorganize as he sees fit.

Well GTS most SEC schools earn above the 120 million mark. TV dollars are only between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total depending upon the school.

Numbers are always just what they are. But, revenue isn't the issue for Georgia Tech with regard to the SEC. The priorities foisted upon the conferences by the networks are Georgia Tech's issue with regards to the SEC. As Auburn's oldest rival and the one I enjoyed the most, I'd love to have Tech back in the fold and have that cross cultural annual battle between the rustic plains and the mega city.

But moving forward content (branding and historical success) will NET the most revenue for T1 and T2 rights. Markets will continue to necessary for T3 rights and conference networks. Georgia Tech is not the kind of content addition that could add to the SEC's payouts and the market we already have. But you know that already.

When we were just under the market model had the Big 10 raided the ACC to try to come down the coastline the SEC might likely have taken Tech back in just to protect the leverage we have in the Deep South. But in a content driven sports industry the rationale of maintaining leverage over a particular market won't be as critical as using that spot to land a content multiplier versus the roster of the conference.

I think for good or for ill Georgia Tech's future is tied to the ACC now. The difficult thing for Tech moving forward is that the Big 10 will be subject to the same corporate network lures as the SEC. Both will go balls to the wall to land schools like Oklahoma and Texas and if they land such a school then the payouts for each of those conferences will be high enough that it might easily eclipse the profitability of adding any ACC schools. Virginia and North Carolina for academic purposes might still be appealing to the Big 10 when the additional markets and political locations are considered but as sports product they likely would not add to the bottom line of a Big 10 that was holding Oklahoma.

In some ways the issues surrounding OU and UT are very compelling when the future of college sports is considered. Should the SEC and Big 10 split that pair between them the resulting disparity between the 4 remaining conferences would not only grow, but would become literally insurmountable. Now there's good news and bad news in that. The good news is that very very few, if any schools could add to the bottom line of either conference so realignment for those two conferences would essentially be over. The bad news is that the revenue gap would grow between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/PAC and would be cemented in place since no remaining additions to the PAC or ACC would be able to overcome the increase.

If that happens then keeping the game competitive is going to be tough. And the failure to do so self limiting for the future.

I think the best solution would be for the PAC/B1G to form a league and for the SEC/ACC to form a league. The three Texas schools could join the ACC/SEC and the old Big 8 schools and WVU could join the PAC/B1G. There's your 64. Package the two league networks together and you have the leverage you need to make it profitable for all. Each could have their internal playoffs for a champion and the two champions could meet. NFLish? Yes, but with the constant rotation due to matriculation it will never be as boring.

Sounds familiarly accurate, JR.
But you do realize that ESPN is not going to pass up the opportunity to double dip Texas, just like they do in Florida. Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia will be headed to the SEC and Texas and Notre Dame will call the ACC home.
NFLish? Yep....two leagues...extended playoffs, big monetary payoffs....something television understands.

As usual you miscounted. There would be no West Virginia in the move. If it sounds familiar its because I first presented it nearly 5 years ago in posts here. But have since played around with a myriad of scenarios. I do think something like that could well be the eventuality of all of this. But we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Texas winds up in the ACC however. I think T.C.U. will. BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

When Missouri moves to the Big 10, you will have room for West Virginia.
We will just have to wait and see about the landing spots for Texas and TCU, but I don't think that TCU gives the ACC enough exposure for ESPN to completely capture what they want for the ACCN in the state of Texas. Time will tell.

Missouri's not leaving. Besides, I'm not so sure that Vanderbilt doesn't move on over and all three Texas schools end up in the SEC. Geography counts.

(09-20-2018 08:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:46 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 08:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 03:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well GTS most SEC schools earn above the 120 million mark. TV dollars are only between 1/3rd to 1/4th of the total depending upon the school.

Numbers are always just what they are. But, revenue isn't the issue for Georgia Tech with regard to the SEC. The priorities foisted upon the conferences by the networks are Georgia Tech's issue with regards to the SEC. As Auburn's oldest rival and the one I enjoyed the most, I'd love to have Tech back in the fold and have that cross cultural annual battle between the rustic plains and the mega city.

But moving forward content (branding and historical success) will NET the most revenue for T1 and T2 rights. Markets will continue to necessary for T3 rights and conference networks. Georgia Tech is not the kind of content addition that could add to the SEC's payouts and the market we already have. But you know that already.

When we were just under the market model had the Big 10 raided the ACC to try to come down the coastline the SEC might likely have taken Tech back in just to protect the leverage we have in the Deep South. But in a content driven sports industry the rationale of maintaining leverage over a particular market won't be as critical as using that spot to land a content multiplier versus the roster of the conference.

I think for good or for ill Georgia Tech's future is tied to the ACC now. The difficult thing for Tech moving forward is that the Big 10 will be subject to the same corporate network lures as the SEC. Both will go balls to the wall to land schools like Oklahoma and Texas and if they land such a school then the payouts for each of those conferences will be high enough that it might easily eclipse the profitability of adding any ACC schools. Virginia and North Carolina for academic purposes might still be appealing to the Big 10 when the additional markets and political locations are considered but as sports product they likely would not add to the bottom line of a Big 10 that was holding Oklahoma.

In some ways the issues surrounding OU and UT are very compelling when the future of college sports is considered. Should the SEC and Big 10 split that pair between them the resulting disparity between the 4 remaining conferences would not only grow, but would become literally insurmountable. Now there's good news and bad news in that. The good news is that very very few, if any schools could add to the bottom line of either conference so realignment for those two conferences would essentially be over. The bad news is that the revenue gap would grow between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/PAC and would be cemented in place since no remaining additions to the PAC or ACC would be able to overcome the increase.

If that happens then keeping the game competitive is going to be tough. And the failure to do so self limiting for the future.

I think the best solution would be for the PAC/B1G to form a league and for the SEC/ACC to form a league. The three Texas schools could join the ACC/SEC and the old Big 8 schools and WVU could join the PAC/B1G. There's your 64. Package the two league networks together and you have the leverage you need to make it profitable for all. Each could have their internal playoffs for a champion and the two champions could meet. NFLish? Yes, but with the constant rotation due to matriculation it will never be as boring.

Sounds familiarly accurate, JR.
But you do realize that ESPN is not going to pass up the opportunity to double dip Texas, just like they do in Florida. Texas Tech, TCU and West Virginia will be headed to the SEC and Texas and Notre Dame will call the ACC home.
NFLish? Yep....two leagues...extended playoffs, big monetary payoffs....something television understands.

As usual you miscounted. There would be no West Virginia in the move. If it sounds familiar its because I first presented it nearly 5 years ago in posts here. But have since played around with a myriad of scenarios. I do think something like that could well be the eventuality of all of this. But we'll have to wait and see. I don't think Texas winds up in the ACC however. I think T.C.U. will. BTW when I first posted it I called one merger the Great South and the other the Union Pacific.

When Missouri moves to the Big 10, you will have room for West Virginia.
We will just have to wait and see about the landing spots for Texas and TCU, but I don't think that TCU gives the ACC enough exposure for ESPN to completely capture what they want for the ACCN in the state of Texas. Time will tell.

Missouri's not leaving. Besides, I'm not so sure that Vanderbilt doesn't move on over and all three Texas schools end up in the SEC. Geography counts.

Time will tell, but you can rest assured that whatever happens, the main beneficiary on the ACC/SEC side of the equation will be ESPN.

An SEC with Tulane, Georgia Tech, Florida and Vanderbilt would have been a bit more attractive to certain schools, especially once Texas A&M join the group. Perhaps they would have a better shot at landing the UNC/Duke pair and Texas. 8 out of 18 members would be in the AAU. Then fill out the rest with Florida State and Clemson and you'd have a fascinating conference.

East

Florida State
Florida
Clemson
Georgia
UNC
Duke
Georgia Tech
Tennessee
Kentucky

West

Vanderbilt
Alabama
Auburn
Ole Miss
Miss State
LSU
Tulane
Texas A&M
Texas


The Big Ten would then have free reign to swoop down to the mid-Atlantic and lower plains states.

Nebraska
Oklahoma
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Minnesota
Iowa
Iowa State
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Illinois
Purdue
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Rutgers


The Big East and remnants of the ACC would then merge and Notre Dame would have an association with that grouping. They'd pick up a few programs that could help them compete.

Pitt
Syracuse
Boston College
Connecticut
Temple
Wake Forest
Miami
Virginia Tech
West Virginia
NC State
South Carolina
Louisville
Cincinnati
Arkansas
Houston
TCU

Frank Broyles has stated repeatedly that Arkansas would have been shut out of the Big 12 in favor of Texas Tech and Baylor if they hadn't left for the SEC. It's one of the main (albeit little known) reasons why Arkansas joined the SEC. Leaving Texas Tech and Baylor out of the Big 12 wasn't remotely an option because they held far too much political power.

If GT and Tulane had never ended left the SEC, then Arkansas probably would have ended up in C-USA in 1996. Alternately, the remnants of the SWC might have stayed together if Arkansas were around to anchor the conference.

(10-04-2018 11:12 PM)Poster Wrote:  Frank Broyles has stated repeatedly that Arkansas would have been shut out of the Big 12 in favor of Texas Tech and Baylor if they hadn't left for the SEC. It's one of the main (albeit little known) reasons why Arkansas joined the SEC. Leaving Texas Tech and Baylor out of the Big 12 wasn't remotely an option because they held far too much political power.

If GT and Tulane had never ended left the SEC, then Arkansas probably would have ended up in C-USA in 1996. Alternately, the remnants of the SWC might have stayed together if Arkansas were around to anchor the conference.

Perhaps the SEC would’ve gone to 14 instead of holding at 12.

West: Arkansas, LSU, Tulane, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, South Carolina

(10-04-2018 11:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-04-2018 11:12 PM)Poster Wrote:  Frank Broyles has stated repeatedly that Arkansas would have been shut out of the Big 12 in favor of Texas Tech and Baylor if they hadn't left for the SEC. It's one of the main (albeit little known) reasons why Arkansas joined the SEC. Leaving Texas Tech and Baylor out of the Big 12 wasn't remotely an option because they held far too much political power.

If GT and Tulane had never ended left the SEC, then Arkansas probably would have ended up in C-USA in 1996. Alternately, the remnants of the SWC might have stayed together if Arkansas were around to anchor the conference.

Perhaps the SEC would’ve gone to 14 instead of holding at 12.

West: Arkansas, LSU, Tulane, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn
East: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, South Carolina

Perhaps. Although I'm not 100% sure that Arkansas and South Carolina would have moved the needle enough for the SEC to go to 14. Especially if you consider that South Carolina was mediocre to bad in those days, which were pre-Holtz and pre-Spurrier. The early 1990s SEC was willing to expand to 14 if they got a combo of TAMU and either Texas or FSU, but I'm not sure an Arkansas/USCe combo would have cut it. (When they don't bring a championship game like they did in real life.)

Arkansas probably ends up in C-USA. South Carolina might have gotten a lifeline from the Big East and ended up in the conference instead of Temple. If South Carolina doesn't get a Big East invite, then they probably end up in C-USA too.

With Arkansas and South Carolina, the early 2000s CUSA football would’ve been awesome. Assuming Army never joins...

West: TCU, Houston, Tulane, Arkansas, Memphis, Southern Miss
East: UAB, South Florida, South Carolina, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati

(10-05-2018 01:11 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With Arkansas and South Carolina, the early 2000s CUSA football would’ve been awesome. Assuming Army never joins...

West: TCU, Houston, Tulane, Arkansas, Memphis, Southern Miss
East: UAB, South Florida, South Carolina, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati

Tulane can't be in C-USA if they never left the SEC. If you replace Tulane with Tulsa in the West Division lineup you're probably accurate.

Anyway, both South Carolina and Arkansas would have been greatly harmed in recruiting and prestige if they had ended up in C-USA. South Carolina in particular would have been harmed, since I doubt they'd be able to land Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier as coaches.

(10-05-2018 02:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-05-2018 01:11 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With Arkansas and South Carolina, the early 2000s CUSA football would’ve been awesome. Assuming Army never joins...

West: TCU, Houston, Tulane, Arkansas, Memphis, Southern Miss
East: UAB, South Florida, South Carolina, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati

Tulane can't be in C-USA if they never left the SEC. If you replace Tulane with Tulsa in the West Division lineup you're probably accurate.

Anyway, both South Carolina and Arkansas would have been greatly harmed in recruiting and prestige if they had ended up in C-USA. South Carolina in particular would have been harmed, since I doubt they'd be able to land Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier as coaches.

If this all plays out, USC-Columbia would have gotten the Big East invite that USF got in 2004 and gotten invited to the ACC instead of Louisville, since SC politics would have done for them what VA's did for Virginia Tech in the previous round of conference realignment. Still, there would have been no Dr. Lou or Head Ball Coach around.

(10-05-2018 11:48 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(10-05-2018 02:01 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(10-05-2018 01:11 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  With Arkansas and South Carolina, the early 2000s CUSA football would’ve been awesome. Assuming Army never joins...

West: TCU, Houston, Tulane, Arkansas, Memphis, Southern Miss
East: UAB, South Florida, South Carolina, East Carolina, Louisville, Cincinnati

Tulane can't be in C-USA if they never left the SEC. If you replace Tulane with Tulsa in the West Division lineup you're probably accurate.

Anyway, both South Carolina and Arkansas would have been greatly harmed in recruiting and prestige if they had ended up in C-USA. South Carolina in particular would have been harmed, since I doubt they'd be able to land Lou Holtz or Steve Spurrier as coaches.

If this all plays out, USC-Columbia would have gotten the Big East invite that USF got in 2004 and gotten invited to the ACC instead of Louisville, since SC politics would have done for them what VA's did for Virginia Tech in the previous round of conference realignment. Still, there would have been no Dr. Lou or Head Ball Coach around.

Perhaps USCe would have gotten the Big East invite in 2004. But I’m not so sure about them Va Teching their way into the ACC in the 2010s. UVA was only able to help Va Tech get into the ACC because Duke and UNC were against any ACC expansion, and without UVA’s vote, it would have fallen below the 7 out of 9 votes needed to admit new members. Since the 2010s expansion votes were unanimous (at least according to the ACC press releases), they could have admitted new members even without Clemson’s support.

Didn't South Carolina -- up until VERY recently -- play soccer in C-USA?

(10-05-2018 03:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Didn't South Carolina -- up until VERY recently -- play soccer in C-USA?

Actually they still play soccer in CUSA. As does Kentucky. http://conferenceusa.com/standings.aspx?path=msoc

But this is about the possibility of them being forced to play football in C-USA. Which would have been a real possibility if GT and Tulane had never left the SEC.

I wonder if the Big East would have had interest in Arkansas had the Big 12 not picked them. A little outside the traditional footprint, but the football and basketball legacy would more than make up for it.

Big 8 schools would have added Arkansas in a second if they wanted to go there.