Locked on Tar Heels is on locked on Big 12, I know some won’t like this 🔗
However, this one seems more based in reality than many of them. It definitely has a UNC bias of NCSU is their anchor, which might be true, but it seemed a little down your nose for me, but most of it seems plausible to me.
It’s long so I will give you my bullet points.
Locked on Tarheels thinks, if they leave the ACC their first choice is the B1G, here is why he thinks so:
*B1G Academics are better than SEC, and that matters to the Academic people at the top that make the decisions
*UNC is an AAU school, again at the top where decisions are made matters
*B1G has the sports that UNC wants for their 27 sports and they would have to cut or find conferences for a lot of sports in the SEC
*The Directors Cup is big to UNC, so maintaining the above is very important to the administration and the Olympic teams that have done so well at UNC
*B1G makes more money than the SEC
Now I am going to add 2 of my own. He talks about the NC legislature putting an anchor on UNC trying to make sure NCSU is okay too.
*That probably goes away if NCSU goes to the SEC, and UNC goes to the B1G
*UNC gets a lot of Out of State Students from the north, and the exposure in the north will keep that exposure up in the B1G, but probably not as much in the SEC, especially for Olympic Sports that again, matter a lot at UNC
By the way, most if not all of this is applicable to Virginia and Virginia Tech IMHO.
He said he doesn’t think UNC will sue for two reasons. One FSU and Clemson are already doing the dirty work, and they don’t need to. Second, they don’t want to be the first to bring down the conference they helped form and have been at the royal table, and it’s in their backyard.
Like all of us, it has his school’s slant to it and the locked on Big 12 guy is trying to act like the ACC is done, like always, but if you can get by the bias it’s pretty interesting, if you have the time.
** Edited by Stech at 5/8/2024, 11:50:32 AM
37 Replies
W
WarHog38
2y
Here is our North Carolina insider changing his pull over shirt to become a cohort of the official Locked on Razorbacks podcaster. He does say he lives in Joplin, Missouri in both videos Linked. However Joplin is just right across the border a few miles from NW Arkansas where the U of A is located. He is a lot farther away from Chapel Hill. However he sounds to me like he originated from above the Mason/Dixon Line.
About 90% of what I gather in articles & videos put UNC in the SEC. Those sports programs he mentioned might be a concern. However they could still be played outside the SEC. I think Clemson is SEC due to the SEC never wanting the B1G to have that big a footprint in the south. I think FSU is gone to the B1G. I am also hearing lately that UVA is B1G bound. You have to think those meetings between Sankey & Petitti have been a give & take type arrangement. Sankey is from Pennsylvania so Petitti may be able to cut deals with Sankey not possible with previous SEC Comishs. However who knows what might happen when the SEC again gets an actual southerner as commissioner?
** Edited by WarHog38 at 5/8/2024, 7:21:23 PM
Link:
Locked On
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
a buzz saw with the rest of the state of North Carolina legislature, all the sports put out to sea by going to the SEC, and the Academic Staff at UNC. So it’s not certain they are going there anymore.
Question for you, have you been to a UNC football game and a NCSU football game? If so, which one do you think is more of an SEC environment? Remember 80% or more of the money is football money.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Always have heard that the wolf pack are the more rabid football fans as you state. UNC is basketball.
I know that basketball does pay for itself at most major colleges around this country. However football pays for itself and ever other sport at those same major colleges.
I am hearing that every major college may be soon be saddled with paying as much as $40 Million yearly on these revenue sharing with athletes proposals now trying to be legislated. Unless those numbers are substantially reduced. Drastic cuts in many other sports may be necessary at many schools just to keep fielding the football team. Looks like college football is being systematically destroyed.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
the SEC culture much better. In the meantime, we all wonder what is next.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
come in and grab live programing......Keep the conference together and bring the payments up closer to market rate.
it won't happen but this is what I want to happen
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
mentioned as the last thing while on Squawk Box this week, that they are looking to do more direct sales.
I could see Apple being a partner for Fox too, but not as much as ESPN and Amazon.
(In response to this post by VT Pez4Life)
2y
FSU and Clemson are gone. Carolina is probably not far behind. In my opinion (as an outsider) Carolina is the key for the ACC. What if the ACC would pay UNC comparable to what they would make in the P2? I know it's not good for the overall conference (see Big12 and Texas) but I think it's something they may consider. I'm sure UNC's first preference would be to stay in the ACC since they basically founded and have controlled the conference since 1953. It would also appease the powers that desire that they stay together with the Wolfpack. It also keeps the UNC-Duke basketball rivalry in tact. Plus it would solve the issues with their nonrevenue sports.
** Edited by Millpoint at 5/8/2024, 10:53:13 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
are above UNC for football since they have joined the conference and even in the last 10 years when both are down in TV ratings. I love playing UNC in sports, the games have been a lot of fun. Heck more recently, NC State has a winning record against UNC in football. So I just don't see how you can justify the extra money when it is not there in the first place. (You could make a better argument for FSU and Clemson) I also see the ACC surviving without them, just grab UConn and they have obviously been a better basketball program of recent times. Grab USF in Florida, San Diego State in Southern California, maybe a Colorado State, and keep ND happy with Tulane and Rice in small private, but big recruiting markets. I just don't think it will be that hard for the ACC to survive even if the Mag 7 leave. I think ESPN will need more basketball content and markets, especially with fox having the B1G, B12 and Big East in basketball.
However, the bottom line is what do ESPN, Fox and the P2 Presidents want...they will determine where this is going.
** Edited by Stech at 5/8/2024, 12:51:29 PM
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
revenue than Maryland, yet they are a reported $40M - $60M in total conference media, Bowl, and NCAA unit payouts. How can that be?
If you look at the total revenue of the public schools that are required to report, you have the obvious like tOSU and Texas at the top, but they have always been there, from the beginning of time. The only thing that has really changed, is the amount of money we are talking. The rich Universities got richer, but they already out earned most, and outspent most. Texas, as an example, had a athletic budget that dwarfed everyone in the B12 except Oklahoma - and that was BEFORE the recent consolidation. really, nothing much has changed for the B12 left behinds, except the much better opportunity to win a conference championship - they were never, and will never make or spend as much as Texas.
What is the goal here? A VT, even in a depleted ACC, will be able to compete at the highest levels, but with less than the blue bloods. They have done it before, they can do it again. If Cincy can make the final 4 with an AAC media contract, or a Boise State can beat an Oklahoma in a news years 6 game, do you really think that a VT, or a K-State can't moving forward?
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
to the SEC, for money. It's really hard to sustain it. They don't just care more, they pay more. That, and I really care about Olympic Sports and I don't want to see them cut. That's why if we can go to a P2 for me at least, we need to go.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
of G5 and FCS schools that continue to support Olympic sports. I just don't see how you can say they will be cut if your not in the P2. The Olympics are not going anywhere.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
2y
if you do not believe cuts in sports offerings will not be a discussion item. @Stech did not say it was a given but, it is much closer to probability than remote possibility.
In the schools in no man's land(not P2 and less than $150MM in operating revenues) where football and men's basketball are likely the only 2 sports generating a revenue surplus there will be long hard looks at revenue, expense, competitiveness, fit to university mission and surrounding community, and other factors that will tighten the focus immensely on resource allocations.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
cut a program here, or there - but we have that now. This idea that athletic programs at Universities will cut Olympic sports is just that, an idea.
It's nothing but a scare tactic. It's a lot easier to get a couple of boosters to pay a Tennis coaches salary, then it is to pay an SEC size football coaches salary.
Sometimes, I think many forget why we have College Athletics to begin with. There are a LOT of athletic programs out there that do not receive media money, at many levels.
Will there be some institutions out there that have to make tough choices? Sure, but that is just life. If FBS football goes pro, I think there will be many disappointed fans out there, but it will be the football and basketball fans, not the kids playing Olympic sports.
may as well say that we should "talk" about getting rid of all woman's sports because of revenue.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
You're kidding yourself and your latest response exhibits just that. It is about far more than finding a booster to pay a coach's salary as there are scholarship costs, travel, other support expenses, etc. and that is before we even discuss the difference in competing at G5 and lower levels. Before you try to lecture people on why there is College Athletics and more specifically non-rev sports you should probably make sure you understand it yourself. Your response calls that understanding into question.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
am a guest, and an outsider, so I would never presume to lecture anyone. I offered an opinion that an untold number of Universities through out the country, have Olympic sports, baseball, basketball, and football, and they receive not one red cent in media money, playoff or bowl money. Some smaller conferences get some money with their auto in the NCAA tournament - but that is it. They don't sell tickets to generate revenue of note, yet they compete, offer scholarships, and have 1000's upon 1000's of student athletes compete.
A local NAIA Catholic University in our metro supports 16 different sports, including football, Baseball, basketball, wrestling, with a total of 7 men's, and 9 women's sports. So, before we "talk" about eliminating sports at the FBS level because we aren't in a conference that gives $60 - 100M a year in media money, maybe we should step back, and remember what college athletics are.
I'm also of the opinion, that if FBS goes pro, then there will be a lot of schools that will opt out, as that is not why they sponsor athletics.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
offering sports depends on what is offered, how extensive the offer and who they compete with. To use your example of the NAIA school offering 16 sports, that says nothing of the actual scholarships offered/funded, nothing of the geographic reach of the competition nor the actual quantity/quality of athletes competing and the support actually provided. 16 sports is also significantly different than 20 or more offered by D-1's not named Clemson.
Why do you think college athletics exist? You have made that statement but, have yet to explain what you actually mean. I don't think it means what you think it does. It is certainly not to provide Olympic Sports training grounds. The motive and actual manner of operation varies between classifications. The changes that might take place are far more than a scare tactic, they are economic and operational realities, something you conveniently glossed over with your original coaching salary comment.
There will be plenty of schools that do not go pro, be it their choice voluntarilyor involuntarily, and the people impacted will be across all sports. You're living in a fantasy world thinking otherwise and ignoring the stark realities of economics, funding and participation.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
with? Does it matter how many scholarships are or are not offered? Last i checked, the are many FBS athletic programs that receive about $1M a year from ESPN, yet they offer a plethora of programs for their student athletes. have they canceled their Olympic sports because they are not included in a P2? better yet, are they even talking about it?
Why college athletics exist was meant to be a rhetorical statement, yet that is what you want to call me out on?
Ya, 2hhoop3, I get it, loud and clear. Crystal Clear
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
trying to deflect with the calling your statement rhetorical. College athletics exist in their current format largely due to Title IX and the need for enough women's sports to balance the cash cows of football(primarily) and basketball(secondarily) and who you compete with, how many scholarships you offer, the geographic reach of your competition and the levels of additional support are all integral to that. The FBS programs you mention getting $1M and offering a plethora of programs offer neither the quantity or quality of programs but, they offer the minimum to meet Title IX compliance. You're right though, they aren't talking about it, in fact not much of anybody talks about them absent a Cinderella season. I think your statement that non-revs will be minimally impacted is a fantasy and reflects your less than Crystal Clear understanding. Whether that impact manifests itself as full program cuts or across the board scalebacks in all programs will be individual school and athletic department decisions.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
being cut, and I have talked to several college coaches in other sports, and that is exactly what they are worried about. Second, there has been more than one article about how many fear they will be cut and some big time college sports consultants saying it is inevitable. I am not making this up and I hope they are not cut, but this week alone I have communicated with three college coaches in Olympic Sports. In fact I just emailed one about two minutes ago. I am not trying to brag, but I am pretty connected to this community. However, to make sure you understand, the last thing I want is for them to be cut. It would be tragedy IMHO.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Back when we were being added in the original expansion.
So hell no on giving UNC any special treatment and extra money just for being UNC. Especially since they have been consistently average in football, which is the main money driver.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
2y
the contract tomorrow, if the ACC members paid their members on a sliding scale like that. Will never happen.
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...receiving the max of everything including home officiating (LOL!), so to answer your question, not no, but heck no!
(In response to this post by Millpoint)
T
Truthahn
2y
It would be fun if that is the solution to our FSU and Clemson problems. Three or four targeting calls per game should do it.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
But they would also be fine in the SEC.
If NCSU also left as they say then I wish the new ACC (minus NCSU, UNC, FSU, Clemson) would just split off the privates from the publics. I know it won’t happen but this is what I would setup if I could.
Private schools and enrollment:
Miami 19k
ND 13k
BC 15k
Duke 18k
Wake 9k
Syracuse 22k
Stanford 18k
SMU 12k
Then add in all the other top tier private schools (which would have a ton of money and academic cred). This would be a 13 team league with 12 football members and independent ND.
Rice, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor
Public schools then split up across BIG, SEC, B12 or choose to stay with the private schools in ACC.
GT, Louisville, Pitt, VT, UVA, Cal
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
When the ACC was looking for a new home, they picked charlotte. The State of NC gave the conference, I believe state economic grants of almost 20 million to move to charlotte. Also, the ACC guaranteed so many conference championships (From football, basketball, to olympic sports to the state of NC). NC dont want to lose that investment.
Many dont see this, but the State and the taxpayers are invested in the ACC. UNC will not be allowed by the state to take the ACC to court, because its basically the state suing itself.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
they didn't seriously consider the DC area (haha, I think I am the only one that thought they should move there). However, they did consider Orlando seriously, I wonder if the ACC is rethinking that decision. No one likes to consider politics in this thing, but people tend to take care of their own interest first.
** Edited by Stech at 5/8/2024, 12:43:57 PM
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
T
Truthahn
2y
It's like the old joke,
FL Pols: "Hey FSU. You want to leave the ACC? We will help you!"
MIAMI: "I'm right here. I can hear you!"
If FSU leaves and takes Clemson with them, Miami will take a huge financial hit. How is that no even worth mentioning down there?
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
2y
They fit the B1G model of NFL towns, but they do an AFC team, an Fox has the NFC which is what I think they want to promote on Saturdays.
(In response to this post by Truthahn)
2y
Before, Fox would carry games w/ an NFC team as the visitor and CBS would get games w/ AFC as the visitor. Now (I believe starting last season), each network bids on games so it doesn't matter anymore for networks and NFC/AFC pairings.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2
2hhoop3
2y
accurately? There are some selection/bidding protocols on games, particularly late season, within the flex scheduling model and accounting for the special networks NBC(Sunday night), ESPN(Monday night) and Amazon/Prime(Thursday night) but, the general model of NFC(Fox) and AFC(CBS) remains in place with the visiting team determining network assignment in interconference games. That last part has been a mainstay to allow affiliates the opportunity to have coverage of the other league during the regular season.
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
2y
A few seasons ago, they started cross-flexing between CBS and Fox where they had nfc games on CBS and vice versa here and there for tv balance. This past season, there were numerous NFC vs NFC games on CBS and vice versa. Each network would bid (not sure if draft or what) on which games they get once the schedule is made. CBS, I think, picked mostly the KC games for instance.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
(In response to this post by The_VT_Rock)
V
Vippie1
2y
UNC would prefer a viable thriving ACC (wouldnt we all) but short of that the decision makers will strongly prefer B1G over SEC, although they will be smart enough to not burn bridges with either. The deciding constituencies at UVa and VT are IMO sharing these same sentiments. NCSU is a bit of a different case. Although they would prefer to stay in the same conference as UNC, they can more easily decide that being the northern anchor to the SEC is a good spot- with proximity to USC-E as a natural rival. They also probably realize of the 4 schools they would be the heaviest lift for the B1G (VT is IMO a slightly lighter lift). Is there a scenario where B1G takes UVa VT and UNC and SEC takes NCSU? Yes, it is just one of a dizzying number of possible end results at this point.
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Stech)