Clemson fans get mad when I say this but the SEC doesn’t need them & FSU
The SEC got what they wanted with OU & Texas. I mean ESPN and the SEC have their deal. I don’t see South Carolina and Florida wanting their rival to be in the SEC since they play each other every year any way plus more teams would require less distribution of the TV money. It’s why I think the Big 10 or Big 12 would make more since. The Big 10 wants to out do the SEC. Also the whole UVA to the SEC is things makes no sense to me. Why would they want to add another Vanderbelt.
106 Replies
It's reality, they don't need them
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
H
hokieZ71
2y
This is going the direction of 5 or 6 team divisions in the P2. (20-24 school conferences) The B1G needs major east coast brands to group with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland.
FSU and Clemson would make a great 5-school division in a 20-team Big Ten.
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 5/18/2024, 8:49:20 PM
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
V
VTCALS72
2y
South Carolina or Florida? That is still an unanswered question. For sure getting national names for out of region football fans to watch or partially watch a game is a winner but those "fans" are somebody else's fans as soon as that game is over. The simple and most likely unchangeable fact is that Florida and South Carolina's love for the SEC and the ACC is bigger than for the upper midwest conference. Being a national conference gives the Big 10 a leg up but if they do get in, I think they will find they are still not in the conference their area loves. Again just my opinion
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Except for each other, the best conference games they can play are Miami, Louisville, UNC, NC State and VT, and most of those are not even guaranteed to be annual.
They go to the Big Ten and they replace those 5 schools with Penn State, Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Washington Oregon, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, UCLA and Michigan State. That’s 11 opponents equal or far more attractive than the 5 best options in the ACC. Then even Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers and Maryland are equal to or far better than the dregs of the ACC.
Then there’s the whole $70-100M a year vs $45-55M a year argument….
** Edited by hokieZ71 at 5/19/2024, 9:45:51 AM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
per year than they do in the ACC. The same with Clemson !
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
V
VTCALS72
2y
those 2 schools are better draws than BC, Cuse etc. I mean really? You think that Rutgers and even MD will excite the FSU/Clemson base any more than BC/Cuse?
As for the money from the media payout, you are correct but that was not my point. My whole point is I think there is a chance that as far as winning Florida and SC fans, the Big 10 won't be the surge some fans think simply because the Big 10 is an "outsider" league.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
V
VPI_1998
2y
Clemson would deep down, truly say "I don't want to play in a conference with Northwestern, Illinois and Minnesota." In a normal sane world it's a no-brainer. But we no longer live in that world, and the decision makers don't see (or don't care about) what many of what I speculate the fans really want - regional rivalries that have been played for generations. Sure - it means more money (for a while). Sure - they may get to play Ohio State in a B1G championship occasionally and may get an extra 100,000K people watching as opposed to Ohio State vs. Purdue. It's not like Clemson has ever played Ohio State in playoffs, bowl games, etc. It's not like FSU or Clemson has had opportunities to play for National Championships before. But I don't think that is what college football is about anymore. Yes fans want national championships - that I have not doubt. But do the decision makers really truly want them? Or do they want something else? I almost pray that all this bonehead maneuvering to chase dollars ends up killing it.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
causing him to punch an opposing player ending his Hall of Fame career don't you?
(In response to this post by VPI_1998)
R
ren_hoek
2y
Bring it playing an ACC schedule (with garbage teams like Syracuse, BC, etc.). Ratings and advertising rates will go a lot higher playing an SEC schedule, which will make ESPN significantly more money.
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
V
VTCALS72
2y
MD, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois or Minnesota especially as viewed by fans in the southeast? I am not saying that Cuse, BC, Wake etc are great but am saying over time they are as good as a lot of teams in especially the Big.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
2y
the ratings won't move much if any. The viewer ratings and advertising cash is already topping out and adding those two won't mean anything except give the current SEC schools a lower TV payout. Don't pretend ESPN and Greg Skanky don't know this already.
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
S
Stech
2y
your mind? Or is this what you are hoping for?
(In response to this post by ren_hoek)
M
Marooned
2y
1. F$U and CU have handshake deals to jump to the B1G. This is starting to look less likely to me for a variety of reasons. The B1G just expanded and would rather absorb what they took in than work to destabilize the ACC now considering that it’s already on a slow burning fuse. F$U and CU are also not AAU schools yet. Further, how compelling is it for the B1G to add two perceived FB name brands now when they just had two teams in the playoffs and won the title?
2. The Mag 7 is real, and the conversations with ESPN are about how much better off they would be in a reconstituted ACC without the added schools that don’t add value. It would also be the only workable solution to the political arrangements in NC and VA. This wouldn’t totally overcome the revenue gap but would certainly make the life boat a bit more bouyant going into the next round of media rights negotiations. The issue becomes what to do with the conference’s auto bids to the playoffs and NCAAs, as well as the relationship with ND.
Neither of these strategies will be easy to pull off with the conference bylaws and GOR. Still the individual schools are run by shrewd people who see the writing on the wall and know that something must be done before circumstances dictate undesirable outcomes.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2y
And if those two don't work for the SEC, then no other team in the ACC will either
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/18/2024, 5:30:29 PM
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
You may be right but....
Clemson and FSU have the recent football history success and fan bases that the SEC seeks.
IMHO, I think UNC is more attractive to the SEC than Clemson or FSU. UNC has the potential to become a national football power. They remind me of underachieving Texas A&M. What UNC would bring to the SEC is another men's basketball power and national brand and new TV markets (Charlotte, Raleigh - Durham - Chapel Hill and Winston-Salem - Greensboro - High Point). If Virginia Tech had the football success of the mid 90's to early 2010's, they'd probably be high on the SEC's list. Tech would bring the DC, Hampton Roads/Tidewater and Richmond TV markets.
** Edited by Old Line Hokie at 5/18/2024, 2:37:13 PM
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
V
VTCALS72
2y
But I am sure they are selling they can rule NC and all of the eastern/southeastern parts of VA as well.
They want to drag UVA along for their own benefit period. That benefit is to know they won't be last in their new conference and if they are in a P2 conference and VT is not, they will get more Virginia recruits and fans.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/18/2024, 5:28:03 PM
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/18/2024, 5:29:16 PM
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
truer words may have never been spoken and absent the miracle of Vince Young their Longhorn brethren could fit in the same sentence.
(In response to this post by Old Line Hokie)
2y
The BIG and SEC are not going to expand without having ways to ensure everyone gets paid the same or more.
This is why the P2 is being so aggressive about the playoff spots and payouts. This is an option for more money until the main contract is adjusted.
And I expect that either Apple or Amazon will buy part of (or partner with) ESPN to split costs and coverage. That is another way to bring in more dollars potentially.
Eventually the ACC money will decrease if we lose FSU and CU and UNC. ESPN absolutely has ways to change or exit a contract to cover potential conference shifting. It’s just a matter of time.
Those schools can easily go to either SEC or BIG. The state aspect is only one part of the equation. The value is in those schools as opponents. The good matchups bring viewers and that brings money. The times have changed and now it would be good business for Florida to want FSU and USC to want Clemson.
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
you are using too much logic for the average Clemson fan LOL
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
2y
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
V
VTCALS72
2y
Why do so many look at a conference that in their new configuration, they have not played one game yet but still think they are on a non reversible trajectory upward?
I know they champion themselves as "stable" but are they really? I still think the big media "parked" the 6 former PAC schools in the ACC and Big 12 to bring them back to the PAC (or maybe the B10 for Standford) for a future configuration.
I don't see any brighter future for the B12 than I do for the ACC and the new PAC. No worse but no better.
(In response to this post by VPI 1924)
M
Marooned
2y
ACC is in a bigger media footprint domestically and has higher name recognition schools to headline in FB, at least in the near term.
B12 has larger schools with a growing demographic. It also is poised to open up Mexico as an untapped media market for college sports (which the Dallas Cowboys did for the NFL decades ago to create a dynasty and one of the most valuable pro franchises, by the way).
Both conferences are strong in BB. The ACC has a better academic reputation that was marred by some additions, most notably Louisville. The B12 is all over the map. The ACC also is stronger in the non revenue sports; but that may actually make it less sustainable as a business model.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
V
VTCALS72
2y
As we saw with BC, the ACC established a media footprint in Boston. But is turned out to be Tiny Tim's feet.
GT has the same Tiny Tim footprint in Atlanta and the B12 has that same(relatively) Tiny Tim footprint in Texas save possibly the vast west Texas area centered around Lubbock.
IMHO FSU and Clemson in the B10 will lost a show size or 2 from where they are in the ACC.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
and odds are that at least one of the four Texas based schools is vying for the top spot in the conference standings in any given year is pretty good. At the same time, it’s just as likely that UT or TAMU will be mediocre to bad in any given year in the SEC.
Having said that, the ACCs footprint has to be more desirable based on where the teams are. The ACC’s problem remains the chicken and egg situation regarding competitiveness and how much money their media rights command.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
average TAMU and Texas will dwarf the rating any B12 school gets.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
I lived in HTown for 15 years. There is no way a 4-7 TAMU outdraws an undefeated UH playing for a conference title and an auto bid.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
or all season long? Going back to one of the best analysis of attendance one that covered 2019-2022 and adjusted for % of stadium filled as well as just numbers, Houston came in at #75. They appear to be the Cuse, BC or historic Duke equal.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
M
Marooned
2y
No, I wasn’t referring to an entire season. You were being overly dismissive of the B12 Texas schools, who admittedly are at a disadvantage relative to UT and TAMU historically and in size of alumni and funding. Please note also that UH was not in the B12 during those years you mentioned.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
M
Marooned
2y
Increased exposure, coupled with their share of deep pockets and a fertile recruiting base. I would definitely consider them a growth stock to watch.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
New England.
Good, bad, or ugly, the Big 12 fan base top to bottom, is closer to the SEC than it is to the ACC. So, while markets do matter, especially for network and cable programming business models, the actual average fan tuning into their regions football team is much different in Texas North to the Dakotas.
The Arizona schools, and Colorado after their coach leaves, is a question mark. UCF and BYIY were a steal, was a steal, Cincy was OK, and reaffirmed WVU, but I'm not sure Houston brings the fan base, but their enrollment and market are great.
Today, right now, it's not a chicken an an egg. Either you invest in your programs, or you will be left behind. Relying on media money, and guaranteed playoff money will not make a difference moving forward.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
V
VTCALS72
2y
into their regions football team(s) is different." That has been a huge chunk of my "Big 12 won't sell to schools east of the Mississippi/Ohio Rivers." And equally so I don't think teams east of those rivers who are not national teams can really excite fans of teams from Texas north to the Dakotas.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
are games where they are actually playing for something. The only reason there are blue bloods, and people watch them, is because they played in those Rose Bowls, were consistently ranked, had rivalries where there was more on the line than bragging rights, a history before television, and were in the discussion for a mythical national championship year after year.
In this day and age, i don't think it matters which conference you are in - if you are ranked in the top 12, and you are playing another top 12, and the game has playoff implications, people will watch, they will tune in, they will attend the game, and it WILL matter to the fans.
If VT is playing BYU for a playoff appearance, it will get a prime time viewing slot, it will garner good ratings, and you bet your bottom dollar the VT faithful would be very passionate. If a 4-7 VT is playing a 2-8 BYU - no one except the locals will even care, and it will be on streaming.
You could say the exact same thing about VT and any team in the ACC (except maybe ND). Either the game has implications to the national scene, or it doesn't. Same goes for the SEC and BIG. When you play a game, what's on the line?
No one give a crap about KU football - except now they are in discussions about a playoff berth. Are you telling me that no one would watch if Louisville and KU were playing for a playoff berth no one would watch?
My point, is that it doesn't matter who you play, it's what on the line when you play them. The entire nation would tune into a VT / BC game if the winner went to the playoffs, and the loser went home. No one is going to watch a 4-7 FSU play a 4-7 VT unless you are already a fan of that school.
The B12 and ACC will produce good matchups for the expanded playoffs, even if you blindly swap 1/2 the teams from one conference for the other. regionality has become almost irrelevent, except for the bragging rights matchup of your historical rivalry that no one else cares about.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the drawing power of what is being played for. The nation(your words) is not tuning into VT-BC, KU-Louisville or a host of others even if a playoff berths is on the line. It remains to be seen whether they will give much thought to the first round games in the new expanded 12 team format and the second round 1 v.8/9 and 2 v.7/10 are likely iffy propositions as well. The 3 v. 6/11 and the 4 v. 5/12 have a shot to be games with broad base interest. Aside from a few extra games to fleece fans and advertisers of their money there is unlikely a title winner coming from outside the top and the networks are crossing their fingers the additional games do not turn into UGA/TCU reruns.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
playoff berth on the line, so it isn't really a fair statement naming teams. The point that I was attempting to make, is that the games that people tune into, are the ones that have something on the line - and that includes rivalries.
The ratings of a one loss TCU beating the undefeated champion of the Big 10 tells me that there is a hunger for inclusion and different teams in the playoffs. I think the ratings will be off the charts. That being said, I don't think anyone could beat that years Georgia team, but it's only a matter of time before a non traditional football powerhouse wins it all, and I don't think the G5 school will be blown out year after year like some think. That will be a dangerous game for any team matched up with the G5 school, and I think that may get the highest ratings in the first round. Who doesn't want to see App State beat Michigan?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
VTCALS72
2y
outs for games with BC and Cuse. Heck we have 2x played BC for ACC championships. And I have also seen us play BC in Lane with a bid to the national championship on the line.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
occur early on(likely first week) and I believe the odds are extremely long for a G5 or lower seed to possess the quality and quantity of depth to win the championship game against a higher seed likely enjoying the additional advantage of a bye week.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
the championship? Not a chance - but i think the bye week goes away when they see the ratings and money the home playoff games generate, and this will go to 16 in a heartbeat - because the networks will pay for them.
That is why I think the PAC imploding was way premature - media money or not. It's also why I think the ACC needs to have a strong conference. Apparently, guaranteed media money is more important than competing for, and winning national championships.
Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington will end up like Nebraska and Texas A&M. UCLA is just another Rutgers. I don't know about Texas, but they struggled in the B12, so they may be toast as well.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
Now, It would get a much better deal than the current big twelve deal.
Which is why I think it's a no-brainer that ESPN extends. But maybe some crazy court decision will happen in the interim. That seems unlikely though. I think the schools lose their lawsuits against the conference, and it's gonna be trapped in appeals for a while regardless.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
in the conference, hands down. The thing is, with the lookin in on the ACC contract coming up, no one that I have seen, is talking about ESON upping their payouts. There are discussions of them opting out all together, keeping it the same, or reducing the payments. In the B12, with the 4 corners, they are looking forward to the next contract negotiation. Except for the fans of Utah, and the ASU president, there isn't one single school that is not satisfied with the current makeup of the conference.
The B12 is not the ACC's problem, except that it actually exists. If the B12 ever gets any school from the ACC, it will be because ESPN pays them more than the ACC - and currently, they do not.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
S
Stech
2y
You really think that?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
other. There are some older Big East schools that could separate themselves, and some that have - but for whatever reason, not for a sustained amount of time.
Except for Oklahoma and Nebraska, A&M, Texas, Missouri, and even Colorado, never dominated anything in the B12 athletically. When you get to the handful of teams that have consistently vied for the 4 or two team playoffs, there just isn't much in my view that separates a VT from a K-State, or a North Carolina from a KU.
If you live in ACC land, it's unfathomable that more people tune into a K-State Baylor game, than a VT (pick a private) game, but there is a huge difference when both schools in a game consistently fill their stadiums, travel well, and are enthusiastic even when there is zero chance of making the playoffs - which until now, has been anyone not in the top 5 - 10 in the national rankings.
The teams in the B12 (except for a few), do not need matchups against marquee programs to fill their stadiums and get eyeballs on TV. If you take Clemson, FSU, and the few games from ND off the schedule, ALL of the ACC schools besides VT, would absolutely struggle to get buts in seats, get eyeballs watching the games, and most of all, have fan interest nationally.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
drive to Miami’s stadium. Probably the worst decision ever for a once perennial national championship football team.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
pro stadium, "no way ever" would the wealthy Coral Gables neighborhood allow a stadium to be built on the UM campus !
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
worked with them IMHO. I can’t remember the sequence, but maybe a temporary deal with Dolphins Stadium until done.
(In response to this post by FLKEYSHOKIE)
V
VTCALS72
2y
But the way that are structured, don't you really think that the Big 12s Neilson rating are going to take a hit as say the Kansas schools have been getting a boost from playing the national teams in Texas and OU and now won't?
Also consider Miami and to a lesser degree UNC. They don't have any of the above strengths you give to the Big 12 and VT. They don't fill their stadiums yet they consistently draw higher national viewers than the teams that do.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
they want too, will/do not generate national interest. Like the schools in the B12 currently, either UNC makes the playoffs and wins, they will never, ever, generate interest outside of NC.
UNC at App. State had decent ratings, UNC at BC, Cuse, Wake, NCSU, do not generate interest out here, no more than and OSU ISU game generates interest on the Atlantic coast. The main difference is the fans out here are more like VT fans, than the wine and cheesers at UNC.
VT is in the wrong conference for the wrong reasons, but since the ACC dismantled the old Big East, there wasn't anywhere for them to go except the Big 10 and SEC. If the current ACC faulters, there is now a third option for VT, and it's not in a "reconstituted" ACC.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
More students and alumni means more potential viewers, more potential butts in seats at games, and more potential media money.
B12 smallest three schools are
TCU 12k private
KSt 19k public
Baylor 20k private
ACC smallest three are
Wake 9k private
SMU 12k private
BC 14k private
B12 has 3 private schools and 13 public schools
ACC has 8 private (1 is ND) and 10 public. Only one of those 8 privates has over 20k students (Syracuse 21k).
B12 has 2 schools between 30k-40k, 5 at 40k-50k, 1 over 50k, 1 over 60k
ACC has 3 schools between 30k-40k, 3 at 40k-50k
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
ACC starts playing some of those flyover schools (bowls don't count).
Until a K-State and a VT(example) schedule a 1and1 - we will never know.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
only difference is that the ACC has a few on the low end that the B12 doesn't seem to have - at least on paper.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
it would be a good rival in state. Clemson is a win for either conference.
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
2y
clemson in the SEC.
(In response to this post by VTMONEY94)
L
lawhokie
2y
If in Big Ten, more from the north, and Bama et al. would be fine with that. Same goes for FSU.
(In response to this post by VTMONEY94)
V
VTCALS72
2y
I still contend that the best way for the SEC to get and rule NC(ranked 9th in pop) and VA(ranked 12th in pop) markets is with Clemson, NCSU and VT.
(In response to this post by VTMONEY94)
2y
VT has a larger alumni presence in charlotte, as well as the other major areas of the state.
Clemson has been very slow in outreaching their university close to Charlotte and university outreach. (I've talked to several on Clemson faculty, and they are recognizing they made a huge strategic mistake not doing that earlier. Also, South Carolina is "THE UNIVERSITY of the state, with a huge campus in Columbia and I believe their medical school in charleston. Clemson city is greenville, while growing crazy, not hte charlotte footprint.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
for a long time and that statement does not apply. Clemson is seen as the better education option and sports option for that matter.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
S
Stech
2y
has almost 10 million is growing on top of that 10 million, and is a new state for the SEC. South Carolina would be a new state for Fox. So would Florida with Florida State.
The other thing some fans miss, but advertisers emphasize, is the wealth of the population. Virginia is wealthier than South Carolina and North Carolina. The President of Disney said on Squawk Box, we want to do more direct sales from our sports, in fact it was the last thing he said in his interview a couple of weeks ago.
** Edited by Stech at 5/18/2024, 10:17:05 AM
(In response to this post by VTMONEY94)
Yeah. That's, in part, why I think the B1G should be interested in Clemson.
CU and FSU are the "best available" football powers in the Deep South. And they are from two different states.
I think they would be as good as an add as UCLA, for sure.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
want to recruit against them as an SEC school. (USCe, UF, UGa, UK, and probably UT too)
** Edited by Stech at 5/18/2024, 5:42:06 AM
(In response to this post by VTMONEY94)
The B1G should be interested in FSU AND Clemson...and...VA TECH.
Go hard or go home. If the B1G wants to do football business in the South, they should take these three.
Just like USC needed regional partners, so does FSU.
Forget political ties to UVa. Both schools can fend for themselves. Let the Hoos attach themselves to UNC. We should be attaching ourselves to the few ACC football powers out there.
(In response to this post by Wtcarter12)
D
drb
2y
** Edited by drb at 5/18/2024, 8:13:50 AM
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
S
Stech
2y
the way Virginia Tech was trending up at the end of the year, after a 1-3 September. Once we got back to our roots of a dual threat QB, we finally had some offense again. I believe we have learned our lesson on that, so that could easily project a good future.
Not to mention even in our losing years, we were still filling the stadium for most games. That’s not just good for the stadium, that’s good for TV too.
(In response to this post by drb)
2y
Success on the field can and does change for everyone over time. When they weren’t winning anything their fan support was still strong. Much like VT recently and Florida State a few years ago.
Success is never guaranteed and perceived value changes with success. I feel the true measure of value looking those teams with strong support when things aren’t going well. Anybody can get fans when they win, but do they still have fans when they lose?
(In response to this post by drb)
Yet nearer in relevance than Maryland and Rutgers.
In fact, Rutgers main contribution to college football was playing in the first ever game. So since 1869, the sport hasn't gotten much out of them.
Yeah, I know it was a different time when RU and UMd were invited to the B1G. But who knows? Maybe we can get in on our merits. I just know we have much more to offer in football than those two.
(In response to this post by drb)
V
VTCALS72
2y
DMV is the tipping thing for VT and the Big already has MD there and PSU close enough. So in a way, the Big knows UVA won't damage PSU and MD so adding us is like adding CU and FSU the SEC.
IMHO there are a number of truths in action with the realignment.
One truth is that FSU can do way better in the Big or SEC than they can in the ACC
Another is they signed a legitimate contract with the ACC through 2036.
Another is one thing UNC does not want is to have VT in the same or equal conference
And one more, MD does not want VT in the SEC.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
Interesting take. I don't disagree with you. But I will say, we have a lot
to offer both. We are probably the northern most football first school that is get-able for the SEC while still staying in the Southeast.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
relationship with UVa. JUst as UNC and NCSU are a package deal, You better hope VT and UVA are attached at the hip IF the P2 ever decides to expand. I find that, under current circumstances, there is no reason the P2 would want to share their abundance of TV mana with new members. Makes no sense. Could it make sense in a few years? Who knows, but now Skanky knows he has the goose that lays golden eggs and doesn't want to share it.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
V
VTCALS72
2y
They know their value and don't want to "share" with the ACC despite a signed contract.
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
S
Stech
2y
that doesn’t want them in the SEC. In addition, very doubtful UGa, Kentucky and Tennessee want either recruiting as SEC schools, I doubt very much if they care if they recruit against them as current ACC or B1G. So how are they going to get the votes from the SEC, and why would they get into the B1G without AAU? If they can get into B1G, why wouldn’t you take Virginia Tech with it’s about 20 times the success of UVA in football and double the state of Clemson knowing the biggest ratings come from your home state?
(In response to this post by ancient alien 2018)
R
ren_hoek
2y
There will likely be great political pressure in both states to admit them. It's good for the state to have both included in the P2 and it also makes the rivalry much more meaningful. Florida and USC supported adding Clemson and FSU years ago, but Slive asked for new states for the SEC network. This blackball rumor simply isn't true.
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
VTCALS72
2y
2 things, One is being a consortium to grab as high a percent of govt funded research. the other is the country club elitist thing. In a way AAU is like the P2, we only want the school that make us more and add elitism. And before anyone goes off the rails misinterpreting this, the "elitism" for the AAU is money through govt grants and the elitism for the P2 is money through football.
(In response to this post by Stech)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
Both Clemson and F$U are invited to join the AAU in the next round...
(In response to this post by Stech)
O
obguthr
2y
I don't think Clemson is that close. I'm not sure.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
W
WBGV
2y
“The decision to end AAU membership is driven by Iowa State's commitment to its mission, strengths and impact. While the university's core values have not changed since joining the association in 1958, the indicators used by AAU to rank its members have begun to favor institutions with medical schools and associated medical research funding.”
It is no longer about total research funding, but rather medical research funding. The indicators referred to by ISU may also not favor VT. Syracuse and Nebraska had issues with the shifting AAU ranking indicators.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
2y
Will probably be next in whenever AAU expands,. However, AAU is not like conferences, its academic and R&D and this is not expanded like business development.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
But they were in the last round. That's a school with less than half the research of VT. Miami and ND are also not known as large research universities, but they were invited. Both's research funding is significantly below VT's funding. Of the ~8 schools selected in the last round, only ASU had more research than VT.
The Miami and ND selections told me the B1X has significant influence over the committee. It also tells me they aren't interested in VT, so if we are invited to a P2 conference, the SEC is our only avenue.
(In response to this post by obguthr)
W
WBGV
2y
“Research funding awarded to the University of South Florida reached an all-time high of $692 million in fiscal year 2023, representing an increase of nearly 27% from the previous year and elevating USF’s stature as one of the nation’s most research-intensive universities. The amount represents USF’s total research enterprise, including its direct support organizations and affiliates.”
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
The UC system also holds significant power in the AAU, which is why UC Riverside was added at the same time. Getting an invite is a political process. My guess is VT didn’t bat an eye against Cal and Stanford joining the ACC to get political favor with respect to AAU.
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
We got 'our community' sponsoring us, but need more support nationally. Side note, it is hoped that bringing Stanford Cal in to the fold, it would create more dialog and appreciation and you can bet if Stanford and Cal (founding AAU institutions) would sponsor your institution it would perk up support
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
...ACC school, since that would reduce their chance to get a B1X invitation. It's a dog eat dog world out there, and VT is wearing Milk Bone underwear.
I think the ACC "blue bloods" haven't wanted to sponsor any other ACC school because that would make them legitimate "blue bloods" too. They would have one less excuse to look down their noises at those schools.
(In response to this post by DMV Gobbler)
S
Stech
2y
but B12 could be a parking place until 2031 if they let them. However, the B12 knowing they have a foot out the door may not want them, plus they will likely pay a 100 million to 500 million penalty if they go, now that would be rough on their finances if they are not in a P2, really rough!!!
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
2y
Seriously, how could the Big 12 trust them not to do the exact same thing they are doing now with the ACC to get out of the Big 12 GoR early if the SEC or B1G came calling? I would make FSU post a $500 million bond secured by the university's endowment assets to join a new conference.
** Edited by tarheelblue at 5/18/2024, 7:18:53 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
M
Marooned
2y
CU definitely; F$U would be another pariah but add eyeballs. The B12’s long play is the care and feeding of UCF.
It’s a moot point anyway. Both schools have to have handshake deals with the B1G to lawyer up and nuke their current home the way they’re doing now.
(In response to this post by Stech)
W
WarHog38
2y
I think both have promises from the B1G. The lawsuits are proof of that. The question as if the SEC will ever allow the B1G to take them both? I think with all the noise from UNC, they have at least one P2 spot as well. UNC probably has a very positive response from both P2. The only real question is if NC State is in the deal with either P2? Will NC State bust the deal? UNC never filing that lawsuit against the ACC could be verification that there is questioning about the answers to the 2 questions I proposed. We will probably never know. The lawsuit will just never be filed by UNC.
However if that UNC lawsuit is ever filed against ACC?? I want to say something about what happened at UNC last Thursday. The trustees at UNC did seem to have their volume squelched on publicly bashing the ACC. Just might be them wising up, why publicly give your opposition a heads up? However that UNC Board of Trustees seem all the same page but one member. That gives the UNC Board of Trustees the power to fire both Bubba Cunningham & that interim UNC Chancellor that graduated from Duke. Also while the UNC BOT are legally hushed on the private exchanges about conference affiliation. The UNC whales are not hushed about discussing that in public or private. Those whales can relay what the Trustees wish to attorneys. The Trustees can take votes by a public zoom call and file the attorney readied lawsuit an hour later. I just feel that will probably never happen.
(In response to this post by Marooned)
2
2hhoop3
2y
ability to get rid of Cunningham IF the money guys agree but, the Chancellor serves at the pleasure of the System BOG so they do not have the power to fire him and technically the AD reports to the Chancellor.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Trustees to back Cunningham. That seemed a reckless move by him considering the past between those Trustees & Cunningham. UNC is very different from most state universities in the way the athletic department is state controlled.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
were they to end up in the Big 12 for a variety of reasons. The most entertaining would be the explosion of the Nole and Tiger fans' heads realizing they swallowed the exit nut for an annual revenue distribution not significantly different than what they were already getting. The final reward would be increased travel costs to the scenic surroundings of flyover country. None of that should realistically happen and, if it did, the leadership at FSU and Clemson should be tossed on their ears immediately.
** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 5/18/2024, 12:53:38 PM
(In response to this post by Marooned)
S
saret
2y
and UNC would be beyond poetic.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)