(04-01-2022 01:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:59 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Either way the SEC comes out on top. The issue with your analysis is that it presupposes that no one will defect for SEC or Big 10 money. They will, and that will skew the SEC and B1G trajectory even higher essentially relegating those who don't jump to a permanent subordinate position, and resulting ultimately in a 2 league system.

It will essentially cull the upper tier down to 48, maybe 56 schools. If ESPN assists the SEC in this matter not only will the SEC gain the better product, but any advantage the alliance thought they had would be obliterated. I would think that the playoff money, even if the B1G and SEC had 4 entrants each, would still be more because fewer schools would divide it.

GOR's will likely be ineffectual in the wake of Pay for play and even if they aren't many would leave 36 million behind for 75 knowing escalation to 105 million would happen over the years ahead. 100 million in exit fees would be recouped in a shade over 2 years.

And, for that kind of money state AG's would handle the cases and states would assume the costs.

Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

And given the carnivorous nature of realignment in which the apex predators have always feasted on the weakest and where money has always been the motive for movement, what exactly do you base this fantasy upon besides your own desire for it to be true? You do know there is no evidence in the history of college athletics upon which to support this assertion?

So do tell me how many times the ivy league went through the membership change.

I don’t deny the money is a primary driver. Money is important. But so is the power. And also don’t underestimate the snob factor. You know how Duke/UNC/UVa views themselves and how they consider the SEC, right?

I am not saying Duke/UNC/UVa are the ivy leagues (no matter what they think of themselves...). But no, it’s hard for me to believe that they will give up the control of the ACC and drop their ego for the pursuit of money, which they don’t really need to complete in the Basketball, the sports they care about.

And the nature of realignment shows that you expand only if it’s financially beneficial. So tell me which schools the BIG and the SEC can realistically add and make substantially more money? I can only think of ND.

SEC adds Clemson and Florida St and that would really increase the money easily. Big Ten might have a bit more of a problem

North Carolina and Duke if paired with Kansas and Kentucky would make plenty of money, add 23 million to the market total and make enough. Ditto the B1G. The NCAA's days are numbered. You can multiply 2.25 x todays revenue for hoops schools freed of the NCAA. They'll pay.

To Random, the Ivy League isn't in the same Universe when speaking of realignment. And you can bet your life money impacts coaching hires and recruiting in basketball as well as football. So UNC, UVa, and Duke have the same decisions before them as
Oklahoma and Texas, and will weigh them as carefully as those 2 and Notre Dame will.

Clemson, FSU, UNC, Duke, a Virginia school, Louisville, and Miami all have value elsewhere.

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 10:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 03:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Updated P5 Payout Estimates – Assuming a 12-Team CFP Expansion

https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimate...expansion/





The other chart is assuming an 8-team CFP expansion

I have to say this.

The model clearly shows that the SEC would really benefits from the 12 team playoff. Under the 8 team model, the SEC would make 11 percent more than the BIG. Under the 12 team model, the SEC would make 16 percent more. And the gap between the SEC and the ACC, the Pac, and the NB12 would become really wide.

No surprise the Alliance vetoed the proposed 12 team playoff. Don’t you think?

Either way the SEC comes out on top. The issue with your analysis is that it presupposes that no one will defect for SEC or Big 10 money. They will, and that will skew the SEC and B1G trajectory even higher essentially relegating those who don't jump to a permanent subordinate position, and resulting ultimately in a 2 league system.

It will essentially cull the upper tier down to 48, maybe 56 schools. If ESPN assists the SEC in this matter not only will the SEC gain the better product, but any advantage the alliance thought they had would be obliterated. I would think that the playoff money, even if the B1G and SEC had 4 entrants each, would still be more because fewer schools would divide it.

GOR's will likely be ineffectual in the wake of Pay for play and even if they aren't many would leave 36 million behind for 75 knowing escalation to 105 million would happen over the years ahead. 100 million in exit fees would be recouped in a shade over 2 years.

And, for that kind of money state AG's would handle the cases and states would assume the costs.

Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

(03-15-2022 01:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-15-2022 12:36 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If this is accurate, couldn't the B1G schools agree to allocate a portion of the $40.1m per school they will be getting annually to fund a buyout of the GOR for Duke, UNC, Virginia, and GT before 2036?

P5 Payouts Article

HT to Matt Brown, whose Twitter I saw this on.

Bidding war?

I'd prefer to gut the ACC and take UVa, UNC, Duke and GT. But if a bidding war happened, I could see the BIG decide to gobble up most of the PAC instead.

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 10:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 03:22 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Updated P5 Payout Estimates – Assuming a 12-Team CFP Expansion

https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimate...expansion/





The other chart is assuming an 8-team CFP expansion

I have to say this.

The model clearly shows that the SEC would really benefits from the 12 team playoff. Under the 8 team model, the SEC would make 11 percent more than the BIG. Under the 12 team model, the SEC would make 16 percent more. And the gap between the SEC and the ACC, the Pac, and the NB12 would become really wide.

No surprise the Alliance vetoed the proposed 12 team playoff. Don’t you think?

Either way the SEC comes out on top. The issue with your analysis is that it presupposes that no one will defect for SEC or Big 10 money. They will, and that will skew the SEC and B1G trajectory even higher essentially relegating those who don't jump to a permanent subordinate position, and resulting ultimately in a 2 league system.

It will essentially cull the upper tier down to 48, maybe 56 schools. If ESPN assists the SEC in this matter not only will the SEC gain the better product, but any advantage the alliance thought they had would be obliterated. I would think that the playoff money, even if the B1G and SEC had 4 entrants each, would still be more because fewer schools would divide it.

GOR's will likely be ineffectual in the wake of Pay for play and even if they aren't many would leave 36 million behind for 75 knowing escalation to 105 million would happen over the years ahead. 100 million in exit fees would be recouped in a shade over 2 years.

And, for that kind of money state AG's would handle the cases and states would assume the costs.

Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

(04-01-2022 03:26 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 10:37 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I have to say this.

The model clearly shows that the SEC would really benefits from the 12 team playoff. Under the 8 team model, the SEC would make 11 percent more than the BIG. Under the 12 team model, the SEC would make 16 percent more. And the gap between the SEC and the ACC, the Pac, and the NB12 would become really wide.

No surprise the Alliance vetoed the proposed 12 team playoff. Don’t you think?

Either way the SEC comes out on top. The issue with your analysis is that it presupposes that no one will defect for SEC or Big 10 money. They will, and that will skew the SEC and B1G trajectory even higher essentially relegating those who don't jump to a permanent subordinate position, and resulting ultimately in a 2 league system.

It will essentially cull the upper tier down to 48, maybe 56 schools. If ESPN assists the SEC in this matter not only will the SEC gain the better product, but any advantage the alliance thought they had would be obliterated. I would think that the playoff money, even if the B1G and SEC had 4 entrants each, would still be more because fewer schools would divide it.

GOR's will likely be ineffectual in the wake of Pay for play and even if they aren't many would leave 36 million behind for 75 knowing escalation to 105 million would happen over the years ahead. 100 million in exit fees would be recouped in a shade over 2 years.

And, for that kind of money state AG's would handle the cases and states would assume the costs.

Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

The ACC could have allowed competitors like CBS, NBC, Fox or other major media to share in the first-tier rights. For example, a lot of ACC football content would have helped build up the NBC lineup on Saturdays piggybacking Notre Dame. It was dubious that FS1 could have offered space for ACC football but it would still be better than using the regional networks. The Big Ten captures a lot of eyeballs through a combination of alumni, core fans and casual fans through constant exposure. It wasn't just the marketz, marketz a lot of Big Ten detractors like to claim. The SEC brand didn't build itself just through core fans but also through massive marketing and tremendous word of mouth. Think the 4-letter echo chamber.

ACC basketball also had a tremendous potential to capture casual fans but, there, the focus on the health of TR has put a tremendous crimp on their growth. Basketball in the Atlantic area had been divided between the ACC and old Big East from the 1980s through the 2010s. Even in basketball, the Big Ten has done a much better job at putting their product to a national audience, and that is despite their failure at winning the big one during March and April for the past twenty years. However, more people know about Duke and UNC than know about ACC basketball.

Whether it's SEC football or Big Ten basketball, the ACC has had the misfortune of dealing with both phenomena. The ACC needed a way to make people aware of the conference as a whole, not just a few big-name programs.

Now, let's say that the ACC did about everything correctly: a national profile, national exposure, a media deal that spread exposure to all programs much earlier than they did, most programs being competitive in both major sports. Even then, dealing with two giants to the north and south, respectively, would always affect their growth trajectory. But the ACC could've been up to 90 percent of the Big Ten under the best case scenario. Certainly they should be higher than the PAC. That's the advantage of being in a much more populated area of the country. College sports would never approach the popularity of the pros but college conferences have a template to be more successful despite the competition. Just a matter of having people with vision, intelligence and willingness to make the hard decisions that won't be felt immediately but will gain the most, long term.

(04-01-2022 04:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 03:26 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(03-31-2022 11:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Either way the SEC comes out on top. The issue with your analysis is that it presupposes that no one will defect for SEC or Big 10 money. They will, and that will skew the SEC and B1G trajectory even higher essentially relegating those who don't jump to a permanent subordinate position, and resulting ultimately in a 2 league system.

It will essentially cull the upper tier down to 48, maybe 56 schools. If ESPN assists the SEC in this matter not only will the SEC gain the better product, but any advantage the alliance thought they had would be obliterated. I would think that the playoff money, even if the B1G and SEC had 4 entrants each, would still be more because fewer schools would divide it.

GOR's will likely be ineffectual in the wake of Pay for play and even if they aren't many would leave 36 million behind for 75 knowing escalation to 105 million would happen over the years ahead. 100 million in exit fees would be recouped in a shade over 2 years.

And, for that kind of money state AG's would handle the cases and states would assume the costs.

Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

The ACC could have allowed competitors like CBS, NBC, Fox or other major media to share in the first-tier rights. For example, a lot of ACC football content would have helped build up the NBC lineup on Saturdays piggybacking Notre Dame. It was dubious that FS1 could have offered space for ACC football but it would still be better than using the regional networks. The Big Ten captures a lot of eyeballs through a combination of alumni, core fans and casual fans through constant exposure. It wasn't just the marketz, marketz a lot of Big Ten detractors like to claim. The SEC brand didn't build itself just through core fans but also through massive marketing and tremendous word of mouth. Think the 4-letter echo chamber.

ACC basketball also had a tremendous potential to capture casual fans but, there, the focus on the health of TR has put a tremendous crimp on their growth. Basketball in the Atlantic area had been divided between the ACC and old Big East from the 1980s through the 2010s. Even in basketball, the Big Ten has done a much better job at putting their product to a national audience, and that is despite their failure at winning the big one during March and April for the past twenty years. However, more people know about Duke and UNC than know about ACC basketball.

Whether it's SEC football or Big Ten basketball, the ACC has had the misfortune of dealing with both phenomena. The ACC needed a way to make people aware of the conference as a whole, not just a few big-name programs.

Now, let's say that the ACC did about everything correctly: a national profile, national exposure, a media deal that spread exposure to all programs much earlier than they did, most programs being competitive in both major sports. Even then, dealing with two giants to the north and south, respectively, would always affect their growth trajectory. But the ACC could've been up to 90 percent of the Big Ten under the best case scenario. Certainly they should be higher than the PAC. That's the advantage of being in a much more populated area of the country. College sports would never approach the popularity of the pros but college conferences have a template to be more successful despite the competition. Just a matter of having people with vision, intelligence and willingness to make the hard decisions that won't be felt immediately but will gain the most, long term.

It's all water under the bridge now. We are headed for 2 conferences comprised of State Flagships, large successful 2nd state schools and high visibility privates and a third conference of less dominant second state schools, some third state schools, and mid tier privates. Think 20-24 per conference. So the SEC, B1G and an amalgamation conference, as I indicated in 2012. That will be the upper tier.

I'll explain it in a new thread tonight or tomorrow.

(04-01-2022 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 04:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 03:26 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 12:09 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Well yes I agree there are some ACC schools that would defect for the SEC and the BIG. But no, I don’t think any ACC schools that the BIG or the SEC actually want will leave.

I have said this before. But I firmly believe we reached to an equilibrium point for the four conferences that have the dedicated TV networks (I use this term because some people don’t like the term “P4”) and there will no poaching among these four conferences until 2035 (and probably beyond 2035) with a possible exception of ND.

For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

The ACC could have allowed competitors like CBS, NBC, Fox or other major media to share in the first-tier rights. For example, a lot of ACC football content would have helped build up the NBC lineup on Saturdays piggybacking Notre Dame. It was dubious that FS1 could have offered space for ACC football but it would still be better than using the regional networks. The Big Ten captures a lot of eyeballs through a combination of alumni, core fans and casual fans through constant exposure. It wasn't just the marketz, marketz a lot of Big Ten detractors like to claim. The SEC brand didn't build itself just through core fans but also through massive marketing and tremendous word of mouth. Think the 4-letter echo chamber.

ACC basketball also had a tremendous potential to capture casual fans but, there, the focus on the health of TR has put a tremendous crimp on their growth. Basketball in the Atlantic area had been divided between the ACC and old Big East from the 1980s through the 2010s. Even in basketball, the Big Ten has done a much better job at putting their product to a national audience, and that is despite their failure at winning the big one during March and April for the past twenty years. However, more people know about Duke and UNC than know about ACC basketball.

Whether it's SEC football or Big Ten basketball, the ACC has had the misfortune of dealing with both phenomena. The ACC needed a way to make people aware of the conference as a whole, not just a few big-name programs.

Now, let's say that the ACC did about everything correctly: a national profile, national exposure, a media deal that spread exposure to all programs much earlier than they did, most programs being competitive in both major sports. Even then, dealing with two giants to the north and south, respectively, would always affect their growth trajectory. But the ACC could've been up to 90 percent of the Big Ten under the best case scenario. Certainly they should be higher than the PAC. That's the advantage of being in a much more populated area of the country. College sports would never approach the popularity of the pros but college conferences have a template to be more successful despite the competition. Just a matter of having people with vision, intelligence and willingness to make the hard decisions that won't be felt immediately but will gain the most, long term.

It's all water under the bridge now. We are headed for 2 conferences comprised of State Flagships, large successful 2nd state schools and high visibility privates and a third conference of less dominant second state schools, some third state schools, and mid tier privates. Think 20-24 per conference. So the SEC, B1G and an amalgamation conference, as I indicated in 2012. That will be the upper tier.

I'll explain it in a new thread tonight or tomorrow.

In order to get the ACC schools that the SEC and B1G want, will the Big 12 take all the other ACC schools first?

(04-01-2022 07:11 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 04:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 03:26 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

The ACC could have allowed competitors like CBS, NBC, Fox or other major media to share in the first-tier rights. For example, a lot of ACC football content would have helped build up the NBC lineup on Saturdays piggybacking Notre Dame. It was dubious that FS1 could have offered space for ACC football but it would still be better than using the regional networks. The Big Ten captures a lot of eyeballs through a combination of alumni, core fans and casual fans through constant exposure. It wasn't just the marketz, marketz a lot of Big Ten detractors like to claim. The SEC brand didn't build itself just through core fans but also through massive marketing and tremendous word of mouth. Think the 4-letter echo chamber.

ACC basketball also had a tremendous potential to capture casual fans but, there, the focus on the health of TR has put a tremendous crimp on their growth. Basketball in the Atlantic area had been divided between the ACC and old Big East from the 1980s through the 2010s. Even in basketball, the Big Ten has done a much better job at putting their product to a national audience, and that is despite their failure at winning the big one during March and April for the past twenty years. However, more people know about Duke and UNC than know about ACC basketball.

Whether it's SEC football or Big Ten basketball, the ACC has had the misfortune of dealing with both phenomena. The ACC needed a way to make people aware of the conference as a whole, not just a few big-name programs.

Now, let's say that the ACC did about everything correctly: a national profile, national exposure, a media deal that spread exposure to all programs much earlier than they did, most programs being competitive in both major sports. Even then, dealing with two giants to the north and south, respectively, would always affect their growth trajectory. But the ACC could've been up to 90 percent of the Big Ten under the best case scenario. Certainly they should be higher than the PAC. That's the advantage of being in a much more populated area of the country. College sports would never approach the popularity of the pros but college conferences have a template to be more successful despite the competition. Just a matter of having people with vision, intelligence and willingness to make the hard decisions that won't be felt immediately but will gain the most, long term.

It's all water under the bridge now. We are headed for 2 conferences comprised of State Flagships, large successful 2nd state schools and high visibility privates and a third conference of less dominant second state schools, some third state schools, and mid tier privates. Think 20-24 per conference. So the SEC, B1G and an amalgamation conference, as I indicated in 2012. That will be the upper tier.

I'll explain it in a new thread tonight or tomorrow.

In order to get the ACC schools that the SEC and B1G want, will the Big 12 take all the other ACC schools first?

I think the B1G offers first, the SEC moves then moves first with schools ESPN want's to protect, then the B1G moves, then most of the remaining ACC schools merge with the current Big 12 either as the ACC which ESPN has 100% rights to, or as the Big 12 to which ESPN then purchases 100% of the rights.

If ACC schools get antsy with ESPN over the revenue gap you could see the SEC offer and move first and depending upon who is left the B1G could look West to lure what they really want, ND. If the Big 10 looks west you have 9 PAC AAU schools and N.D. to make 24. The SEC could then add Kansas to the West and 7 ACC schools to the East. I'm thinking Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke (I know your thoughts here), North Carolina, Clemson, F.S.U., and one of Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami. Georgia Tech if stressing academics, Louisville if stressing revenue, Miami if stressing opportunities to play in Florida.

(04-01-2022 07:11 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 06:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 04:58 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 03:26 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-01-2022 01:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  For the ACC core to keep together they have to just keep pace. And that's where the reasoning breaks down. Swofford & Co. put you in an unenviable position currently. Things should have wrapped up back in 2011-12 with programs firmly settled elsewhere but the TR crew appealed to your pride and ego to stop programs from pursuing their best interests. First, he got you under the Raycom deal at the expense of long-term gain and, then, to try to make up for that error, tied you up to the Disney cabal for what, in essence, is indentured servitude. The way Disney took advantage of the mistakes of Swoff & Co was a pivotal moment for their long-term plan to construct the 4-letter College World Order. It's the biggest proof of the shift in power from the conferences to the corporate media in the 21st Century.

So what should be the fair value of the ACC media deal? Instead of 60 percent of the BIG, maybe 80 percent? That means the ACC would get more than 20 percent than the Pac. An honest question. Should the ACC get more than the Pac?

The ACC could have allowed competitors like CBS, NBC, Fox or other major media to share in the first-tier rights. For example, a lot of ACC football content would have helped build up the NBC lineup on Saturdays piggybacking Notre Dame. It was dubious that FS1 could have offered space for ACC football but it would still be better than using the regional networks. The Big Ten captures a lot of eyeballs through a combination of alumni, core fans and casual fans through constant exposure. It wasn't just the marketz, marketz a lot of Big Ten detractors like to claim. The SEC brand didn't build itself just through core fans but also through massive marketing and tremendous word of mouth. Think the 4-letter echo chamber.

ACC basketball also had a tremendous potential to capture casual fans but, there, the focus on the health of TR has put a tremendous crimp on their growth. Basketball in the Atlantic area had been divided between the ACC and old Big East from the 1980s through the 2010s. Even in basketball, the Big Ten has done a much better job at putting their product to a national audience, and that is despite their failure at winning the big one during March and April for the past twenty years. However, more people know about Duke and UNC than know about ACC basketball.

Whether it's SEC football or Big Ten basketball, the ACC has had the misfortune of dealing with both phenomena. The ACC needed a way to make people aware of the conference as a whole, not just a few big-name programs.

Now, let's say that the ACC did about everything correctly: a national profile, national exposure, a media deal that spread exposure to all programs much earlier than they did, most programs being competitive in both major sports. Even then, dealing with two giants to the north and south, respectively, would always affect their growth trajectory. But the ACC could've been up to 90 percent of the Big Ten under the best case scenario. Certainly they should be higher than the PAC. That's the advantage of being in a much more populated area of the country. College sports would never approach the popularity of the pros but college conferences have a template to be more successful despite the competition. Just a matter of having people with vision, intelligence and willingness to make the hard decisions that won't be felt immediately but will gain the most, long term.

It's all water under the bridge now. We are headed for 2 conferences comprised of State Flagships, large successful 2nd state schools and high visibility privates and a third conference of less dominant second state schools, some third state schools, and mid tier privates. Think 20-24 per conference. So the SEC, B1G and an amalgamation conference, as I indicated in 2012. That will be the upper tier.

I'll explain it in a new thread tonight or tomorrow.

In order to get the ACC schools that the SEC and B1G want, will the Big 12 take all the other ACC schools first?

The only way ACC schools would leave for the Big 12 is if they "know" the Big 10 and SEC are going to take ACC schools.