Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[CL82]

I have no idea what the future holds.

I am confident that these schools have gone public because they think they have a play. More importantly they've put the other schools in the conferenc on notice that the remaining seven aren't seen as viable partners. ACC bottom feeders are officially in last rat off the boat and any port in a storm mode.

It's a flex, right? What they're doing is creating doubt in the remaining members of the conference in the GOR in the hopes that other members will explore finding a soft landing place, which in turn would increase the numbers of the current members willing to leave.

 

[CL82]

You can tell how badly our hearts have been stomped on by the lack of reaction to real news involving UConn. We used to get our hopes up more for the West Virginia clowns.

Too many times having the football pulled away from us at the last minute. People aren't going to get over excited over rumors. That said, look how much traffic these conference realignment threads are getting just off of those rumors.

 

[ScottVib]

ESPN could come out ahead because they would stop overpaying forthe BC's and the Wakes, etc of the ACC and if they went to a big boy football conference now the Clemsons and FSU's playing other big boys would create a synergistic effect when playing those top teams.

Except is Clemson content more valuable as a 9-1/10-0 national title contender in the ACC or a 7-3/8-2 at large contender in the SEC.

Expansion is a zero sum games. Some brands that are now strong (like Clemson’s) were built on a recent run of success. Limit/Eliminate that and you limit the value of the brand. Clemson adds no new market to the SEC.

Obviously, they’re a clear top target, but not such a massive target that you overpay other schools to accommodate getting them to the SEC if the SEC needs four to make a move it’s hard to find 4 schools that would be available to them to break-even at that price tier; let alone add value and income to the pot (because you don’t make the move as the SEC to wind up with roughly the same per team dollars as you started with).

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm not saying I think they have a plan, I'm saying I think they think they have a plan. And that planight just be having to fight in public.

Absolutely agree if they had a sure fire way out they'd be silent right up to the announcement.

This charade was fodder for local newspapers and the fan base. They need to provide the illusion that there is a chance they'll get out even if everyone knows there isn't a chance.

 

[hoopsfan22]

Except is Clemson content more valuable as a 9-1/10-0 national title contender in the ACC or a 7-3/8-2 at large contender in the SEC.

Expansion is a zero sum games. Some brands that are now strong (like Clemson’s) were built on a recent run of success. Limit/Eliminate that and you limit the value of the brand. Clemson adds no new market to the SEC.

Obviously, they’re a clear top target, but not such a massive target that you overpay other schools to accommodate getting them to the SEC if the SEC needs four to make a move it’s hard to find 4 schools that would be available to them to break-even at that price tier; let alone add value and income to the pot (because you don’t make the move as the SEC to wind up with roughly the same per team dollars as you started with).

The CFP will eventually include the top four teams from the B1G and $EC, so having an "easy path" to the autobid becomes less important.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Except is Clemson content more valuable as a 9-1/10-0 national title contender in the ACC or a 7-3/8-2 at large contender in the SEC.

Expansion is a zero sum games. Some brands that are now strong (like Clemson’s) were built on a recent run of success. Limit/Eliminate that and you limit the value of the brand. Clemson adds no new market to the SEC.

Obviously, they’re a clear top target, but not such a massive target that you overpay other schools to accommodate getting them to the SEC if the SEC needs four to make a move it’s hard to find 4 schools that would be available to them to break-even at that price tier; let alone add value and income to the pot (because you don’t make the move as the SEC to wind up with roughly the same per team dollars as you started with).

Disagree. While expansion overall might be zero sum game, there are definitely positive plays to be made. USC in the B1G is an example. So is Texas in the SEC. And so on.

 

[TRest]

“UConn football bad” is the laziest crap ever. Look what they did with a competent coach for the first time in a decade.

They won a league with Cuse, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville, USF 20% of the time they were in it.


I don’t see anyone talking about ND. Do they stay in the ACC sans the magnificent 7? IMO they never should have left the Big East as it is now a Midwest small private Catholic league. Could be something to keep an eye on. Does Ackerman give them all call?

Part of ND's posturing when they left the BE was that it was holding back their olympic sports. ND sees itself at the highest levels of competition, would not be going down a level unless it was also serious about not wanting to compete in a new system where athletes get paid.

 

[Jbirdp5]

No way any conference goes coast to coast. Next you will be telling me a conference would have a team in New Jersey and 2 teams in California. Utter nonsense.

That league is still wondering how they are going to make it work, and they only did it because they were adding two huge brands. This is not the same type of situation

 

[ScottVib]

Disagree. While expansion overall might be zero sum game, there are definitely positive plays to be made. USC in the B1G is an example. So is Texas in the SEC. And so on.

USC and Texas are different kind of brands than say Clemson (or even a Miami). Clemson and Miami are brands who were built on a run of success.. as that success fades so does their star (Miami's star is much dimmer already than it was in the 80s and 90s; even in the early 00s). Texas & USC have the generational success that allows them to weather mediocrity and still retain name value. In addition, they also opened new home markets for the broadcast rights of their new conference's games. Neither Clemson, nor Miami do that.

The ACC has one school football-wise that you'd consider a Texas type brand. That's Florida State. Clemson is on the next tier (due to the recency of their run) and Miami just below that. I don't think you'd find a network clamoring to pay Miami a full-SEC level share as a member in that conference. UNC is probably the third most valuable brand given that it opens a new and growing market and features major generational brand identity (primarily because of basketball) despite football mediocrity.

Ultimately there are positive plays to be made. Just not enough positive plays that if the SEC says they need 4 members that ESPN is going to go out their way to help the schools break the GOR (and it's more far-fetched as some have suggested that they'd keep the leftover ACC whole to help FSU, Clemson, et al avoid litigation for damages should they breach the GOR) to get those members to the SEC. The subsidy that they had to pay to put Miami and say Virginia Tech or NC State as teams 3 and 4, would outweigh any added value from Florida State and Clemson. Plus ESPN can already air Florida State and Clemson at a discount and can get more value out of a higher rated team in a playoff matchup that they own the rights too (say as a 12-1 ACC champion) than if they are qualifying as the 8-4 8th seed. ESPN certainly has not interest in helping breach the GOR so that Fox can add value with UNC and UVA.

My stance isn't that there isn't value to be had in the ACC schools... it's that there isn't enough value to guarantee a P2 landing spot for the number of schools that would be necessary to kill the conference (and at some level Notre Dame gets a vote (and while they have a landing spot, they'd prefer not to use it), which makes the leftover 7, a leftover 8). No school is voting to nuke the GOR and then paying exit fees for a lateral shift to the current Big XII.

 

[ScottVib]

The CFP will eventually include the top four teams from the B1G and $EC, so having an "easy path" to the autobid becomes less important.

Access to the playoff is irrelevant to the point I was making. The argument I was making is airing a CFP game with 4 seeded ACC champion Clemson or Florida State at 12-1 or 13-0 is more attractive than airing the same matchup with the 8th seeded SEC also-ran Clemson or Florida State at 9-3 or 8-4. Even regular season matchups if you're looking for filler ESPN2 content in say the 7:00 timeslot. Clemson at 8-1 vs. even say a Pitt at 5-3 is more attractive than; 6-2 Clemson vs. 5-3 Ole Miss.

 

[Rufus]

The B1G will have value in establishing a presence in the southeast. The top three recruiting states are Texas, Florida and Georgia. The ACC provides coverage in Florida (Florida State, Miami) and Georgia (Georgia Tech). Not to mention they are in top media markets of the fastest growing region in the nation. I think any or all of those three universities would be very strategic additions for the B1G.

 

[ScottVib]

The B1G will have value in establishing a presence in the southeast. The top three recruiting states are Texas, Florida and Georgia. The ACC provides coverage in Florida (Florida State, Miami) and Georgia (Georgia Tech). Not to mention they are in top media markets of the fastest growing region in the nation. I think any or all of those three universities would be very strategic additions for the B1G.

They could be, but is Georgia Tech a $100M/year brand in the Fox/Big Ten mind? Beyond that if Fox takes 4. Let's say they get Miami, Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC. There aren't 4 teams left in the ACC that bring full value to the SEC (FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech? NC State?).. which means you don't have a majority to nuke the conference. Furthermore you certainly aren't going to have ESPN make it easy to have to pay more for content that it already owns, while sacrificing potentially valuable content to Fox.

 

[Rufus]

They could be, but is Georgia Tech a $100M/year brand in the Fox/Big Ten mind? Beyond that if Fox takes 4. Let's say they get Miami, Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC. There aren't 4 teams left in the ACC that bring full value to the SEC (FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech? NC State?).. which means you don't have a majority to nuke the conference. Furthermore you certainly aren't going to have ESPN make it easy to have to pay more for content that it already owns, while sacrificing potentially valuable content to Fox.

The value of Georgia Tech isn’t necessarily Georgia Tech. The value of Georgia Tech is Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC playing regularly in Atlanta.

 

[Drew]

 

[Drew]

 

[Storrs South]

 

[noeynox]

Makes the most sense and i believe helps us with the Big 12.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

USC and Texas are different kind of brands than say Clemson (or even a Miami). Clemson and Miami are brands who were built on a run of success.. as that success fades so does their star (Miami's star is much dimmer already than it was in the 80s and 90s; even in the early 00s). Texas & USC have the generational success that allows them to weather mediocrity and still retain name value. In addition, they also opened new home markets for the broadcast rights of their new conference's games. Neither Clemson, nor Miami do that.

The ACC has one school football-wise that you'd consider a Texas type brand. That's Florida State. Clemson is on the next tier (due to the recency of their run) and Miami just below that. I don't think you'd find a network clamoring to pay Miami a full-SEC level share as a member in that conference. UNC is probably the third most valuable brand given that it opens a new and growing market and features major generational brand identity (primarily because of basketball) despite football mediocrity.

Ultimately there are positive plays to be made. Just not enough positive plays that if the SEC says they need 4 members that ESPN is going to go out their way to help the schools break the GOR (and it's more far-fetched as some have suggested that they'd keep the leftover ACC whole to help FSU, Clemson, et al avoid litigation for damages should they breach the GOR) to get those members to the SEC. The subsidy that they had to pay to put Miami and say Virginia Tech or NC State as teams 3 and 4, would outweigh any added value from Florida State and Clemson. Plus ESPN can already air Florida State and Clemson at a discount and can get more value out of a higher rated team in a playoff matchup that they own the rights too (say as a 12-1 ACC champion) than if they are qualifying as the 8-4 8th seed. ESPN certainly has not interest in helping breach the GOR so that Fox can add value with UNC and UVA.

My stance isn't that there isn't value to be had in the ACC schools... it's that there isn't enough value to guarantee a P2 landing spot for the number of schools that would be necessary to kill the conference (and at some level Notre Dame gets a vote (and while they have a landing spot, they'd prefer not to use it), which makes the leftover 7, a leftover 8). No school is voting to nuke the GOR and then paying exit fees for a lateral shift to the current Big XII.

Agreed that not all schools and conferences have the same value; there are stratifications. That said, realignment is not just confined to the B1G and SEC. For instance, Louisville could bring value to the Big12 and vice versa. Several ACC schools could work well for other conferences and vice versa (it has to work for both parties or its not going to happen). Conferences look to get into new markets and add institutions for various reasons, too.

And, it's not 100% a TV revenue play - schools look for stability, better athletic and academic recruiting grounds and perhaps least thought of are alumni relations/donations (the biggest fundraising days all year for most P5 schools are on football Saturdays whether at home or away games) and academic/research tie-ins as the R1/AAU schools collaborate hugely on government research contracts. My long way of saying, realignment is not only based on the TV revenue/game theory aspects.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I recall a Big 12 AD saying the talk of Texas and OU to the SEC was ridiculous......six weeks later....

 

[jostar1]

 

[ScottVib]

Agreed that not all schools and conferences have the same value; there are stratifications. That said, realignment is not just confined to the B1G and SEC. For instance, Louisville could bring value to the Big12 and vice versa. Several ACC schools could work well for other conferences and vice versa (it has to work for both parties or its not going to happen). Conferences look to get into new markets and add institutions for various reasons, too.

And, it's not 100% a TV revenue play - schools look for stability, better athletic and academic recruiting grounds and perhaps least thought of are alumni relations/donations (the biggest fundraising days all year for most P5 schools are on football Saturdays whether at home or away games) and academic/research tie-ins as the R1/AAU schools collaborate hugely on government research contracts. My long way of saying, realignment is not only based on the TV revenue/game theory aspects.

Sure Louisville could bring value to the Big XII (it's much easier to bring value to the Big XII (or at least be revenue neutral) given their lower revenue deal).. and perhaps Louisville would feel more stability... but financially that would be roughly level with the ACC's contractual guarantees if Louisville didn't try to escape the GOR AND they wouldn't face the hefty exit fees currently in the ACC deal. Louisville isn't making the move if it ultimately puts them in a significant and otherwise unnecessary hole. The Big XII is a backup plan for the ACC schools, not a desired destination. You don't intentionally put yourself in a position to have to leverage your backup plan.

Yes realignment isn't only based on revenue... but revenue takes up the lion's share of the decision making process... much as football makes up the lion's share of athletic revenue.

 

[JohnFSilver]

I don’t get why football schools don’t just realign for football. Keep hoops and others regional.

 

[JohnFSilver]

This AD isn’t one of the 7. What he is being told is lie. Lmao.

 

[metsfan2323]

I don’t get why football schools don’t just realign for football. Keep hoops and others regional.

Right now the only schools not playing football are in the Big East, so it is already realigned. UCONN is the only outlier.

and schools like North Carolina, Duke, Kansas and Kentucky have no interest in giving up football nor should they.

 

[CL82]

I don’t get why football schools don’t just realign for football. Keep hoops and others regional.

Because the week football schools in strong football conferences realize that luck and geography has handed them a windfall don't want to change the status quo?