It's happening - the ACC summer of crazy
First, I so appreciate being able to come to this forum to discuss realignment respectively.
Sometimes it seems my posts, which seem to go against the VT opinion grain, come across as assured. They are not. I have connections, sources, insiders like everyone else. But even those people don't know for certain and they will say the same. Yes, like any podcaster or X tweet I share what I get told but don't wish to be the person who just throws out malarkey to see what sticks. Connecting the dots to see what is valid or not is an important aspect and actually quite entertaining for a college football lover. The suspense is addictive. So please allow me to share what I get and take it with a grain of salt, agree or not. Most of my friends are on the network side, government officials in Raleigh and some longtime ACC connections.
I AM SPECULATING with the info I get and from reading. Please keep this in mind.
The ACC realignment aspect is about to ramp up times 10. Now that the key components of CFP agreements, NCAA court settlements, Revenue Sharing and a dissolved PAC 12 are complete, the focus will be on the ACC realignment and legal battles. Between now and July 4 the fireworks are going to pop, the rumors will triple because every entity is trying to protect their own interests from networks, to conferences, to schools.
I have stated before that the ACC/Clemson/ FSU court cases will be settled. They were a means to an end and that is all. The ACC is not going to delay a court process for another 4-5 years to keep the league together. They can't because the networks won't go that route. There has been/is some very crazy network horse trading going on for a year now. But as the finish line is near things really heat up and the twists and turns start to happen before leaders sign on a dotted line.
The rumors that FSU has been approved for the B1G were never false. That happened a year ago. It's why FSU sued to get out because knowing you have a landing spot was the only way their BOT could approve a course of action to get out of the ACC. Then came Clemson. They too have a P2 landing spot, I don't know which. Likely both at this juncture.
Following up, when FSU/Clemson finally depart, Notre Dame is right behind them, not UNC. The Irish have to wait for someone else to move before they can enact their own exit due to Critical Composition Clauses in their own ACC contract that was redesigned during the COVID season.
Now the SEC is fully involved. ESPN giving up FSU, Clemson and Notre Dame to FOX isn't on their to do list. Although I am not a fan of podcasts, the latest intel out there is starting to merge. Not a fan of Lambert, but what he said today is pretty much correct to some degree. This is the first time I have heard him say something that added up. The biggest being that the ACC is absolutely in huge discussions with ESPN about getting that 7 year contract extension. There are so many aspects that go into this including that term serious "horse trading".
The thought process behind the ACC/ESPN contract is that ESPN will renew it, but not at the same rates without FSU/Clemson. The cost for FSU/Clemson to exit is hoped to fill that financial void for the length of the contract for other member schools. I also feel secure that FSU/Clemson leaving will be tied into the new ACC/ESPN contract once finalized to extend to 2036.
There is also talk of ESPN keeping the rights to FSU/Clemson if they go B1G. That requires a massive agreement with FOX. The two biggest networks in football are in obvious discussions. I don't see this as viable (ESPN getting a B1G concession to broadcast games), but ESPN is not getting zero out of FSU/Clemson. That is where the SEC comes in.
When you listen to the Florida AD yesterday talk about agreeing to expand, this is a heads up. ESPN wants FSU/Clemson in the SEC. Their viewership rates will almost double in the SEC and so they are very valuable and both ESPN and the SEC are going to make more money with those two in - guaranteed. The money talks if you are not familiar with the P2 chess game.
Here is where more twists come in...if FSU/Clemson does go B1G, the SEC will make a move to expand. UNC is at the top of the list (not breaking news) and so is UVA. Here is the big kicker:
Given the government stipulations - for UNC and UVA to go SEC that will have to involve both NC State and VT. There I said it. Just relaying another discussion that has taken place. I mentioned back in the winter that both UNC and NC State were already approved for SEC membership. That is what triggered the North Carolina BOG mutiny. That SEC approval came straight from Raleigh back in January.
However, if ESPN extends the ACC contract through 2036, those exit deals for remaining ACC teams get slim. So you can see how every flap of the wing effects each other. The stuff I have heard is mind boggling when it comes to network trading.
Understand, it will be the networks deciding the ACC fate, not the courts. And it's all about to go down. I said before August 15. Now is when this really heats up though. The next month for the ACC is going to be nuts as ever.
Also know there is a composition clause in the ESPN contract that if two or more ACC teams leave then ESPN has the right to nullify the contract. ESPN and other P4 schools will do just about all they can to prevent the ESPN/ACC contract from being made public. This is now available to see through the latest responses to the Florida AG asking for these documents to be made public. The SEC is saying NO and is joining the lawsuit that this info not be released. There is some serious stuff in there that are absolutely trade secret. Enough so that alone can be the reason for settlement.
From the FSU standpoint, they are leaving the ACC with or without a legal settlement. I have said this many times here. They may be forced to pay big time down the line, but the ACC is in seriouis trouble with TV contracts if they do.
It's in everyone's best interest to settle this. The SEC and B1G and FOX and ESPN want this resolved (see how CFP unfolded). That's all that needs said. The P2 is going to get what they want. If you haven't figured this out by now, shame on you. Going to be a very interesting summer.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/30/2024, 3:32:50 PM
98 Replies
2y
Decisions were made at FSU this past weekend. BOT meeting called on June 20.
Ross Dellenger at Yahoo Sports (hint and wink)
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 6/4/2024, 1:51:17 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
S
Stech
2y
I was still hoping Carolina, State, UVA and Tech to the same P2, especially for Olympic Sports. Football and Basketball aren’t hard to schedule, but the Olympic Sports are a lot of fun too.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to see if that was a regularly scheduled FSU BOT meeting? Could the actions of the NC government just be protecting other system schools and the UNC/NCSU annual match up against scheduling quirks where they might not play even if they are in the same conference?
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
look into it by chance? I did not look into it and I am not even sure how to do it. North Carolina seems to have a much different system/approach than Virginia and if you know more about it, please share.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
You lost me at ‘’It's in everyone's best interest to settle this”
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
this Kool Ade and it makes me feel like a real insider".
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
and will take NCSU to get those 2, then a quick settlement with an above payable price for everyone in the conference is not a good thing. If the settlement is so high that Clemson looks at an ACC losing only FSU and may stay.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
He lost me at "Lambert". Total fraud.
Not sure what he said or didn't say, but I don't care. He should be shunned by anybody who's a serious follower of conference realignment issues.
(In response to this post by MrBayAreaHokie)
2y
Agreed on Lambert. All I was referencing was a similar sharing of what I have been told by numerous sources ---
The ACC is in serious discussions with ESPN about extending the 7 year deal. Phillips admitted it himself. There are two ways that negotiation can go and he was correct. The point is...even so-called realignment experts that I don't care for are now streaming in the same direction.
(In response to this post by Maroon Baboon)
2y
Everything below assumes the above post is accurate.
FSU lawsuit and CU would settle with the main focus on the ACC exit fee. Possibly a discount from the current $120m price. The media rights would stay with the ACC, which means ESPN can then resell those specific FSU and Clemson rights to any of NBC, CBS, FOX who all have a portion of the BIG media contract.
Let’s say FSU and CU together are worth $70m per year in ACC. ESPN still pays that money to the ACC (until they can change the contract) and then resells the rights to CBS for $85m. CBS then gets $120m in ad revenue for the games when they play BIG teams. FSU and CU get a reduced exit cost spread out over years, and a reduced BIG revenue share.
Everyone does well up to the point that the ACC media contract gets reduced. At that point CBS still makes money, espn still makes money, and ACC is the one with the short straw by getting less money from ESPN even though they technically still own the FSU and CU media rights. (I’m assuming media rights work the same as any widget being resold would only benefit the resellers and not the original manufacturer). And in this case we have a clear path out for FSU, Clemson, UNC and whoever else is willing to pay the ACC exit fee.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
reselling them for 85. If they can resell for 85 and the ACC owns the rights, then why would the ACC accept 70. The ACC would not need to accept the 70, they could just say that they own the rights so if you are going to sell the rights to someone else for 85, then give us the 85. Or they could cut out the middle man and sell it themselves for 85. They own the rights, so why sell those to ESPN and let ESPN resell at a profit. Second, what motivation would the SEC or the B10 have to invite these schools into their conference under this scenario? They are not providing a financial reason for the invitation. And why would FSU or CU accept a reduced payment. Their whole motivation is to go to a conference that pays them like the other P2 schools. In this scenario they would do just as well by waiting until the GOR runs out, and then leave the ACC. And the P2 conferences would be better off waiting to extend the offer. Other ACC schools may be willing to take a reduced payment to not get left out, but FSU has made it clear they are looking for a bigger payday, and want it now, not later. They expect a full share. I imagine Clemson would as well.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/30/2024, 11:09:21 PM
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
V
VTCALS72
2y
And I do think the language in the contract with ESPN that said ESPN would not be held to doing anything for the ACC wrt teams leaving, means the ACC is on their own trying to collect. That is, IMO a reason the ACC wants a court order win that would codify the debt to where the ACC could just levy on other FSU assets.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
In my scenario, they are worth 70 in the ACC because they play ACC teams. They would be worth more by playing BIG teams with more viewers, better tv slots, and new interesting matchups.
As for the ACC, they have already accepted the offer from ESPN. The contract is set and signed. They can’t just go ask for more because they think they can get more. And if the ACC breaks the ESPN contract and tries to find a new media partner then the GOR breaks and teams leave anyway. The ACC has no power in any of this.
BIG (or SEC) motivation is new big brand schools with solid followings, proven good ratings on tv, new matchups to sell viewers, and new states for the BIG.
FSU and CU motivation is that they can get reduced BIG shares for a few years and still make more than the ACC money. Plus with more NCAA distribution from basketball and potential for more football playoff distribution, they can easily improve their finances by moving to BIG.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
reduced shares would give FSU and Clemson more than the ACC (but it only listed reduced shares and not how much reduced, so it is a bit of an unknown). And the motivation you give the SEC and B10 does not make sense if they are not making money off the additions. If they have to pay for the media rights of the added schools it is a big financial loss for them. Normally, when a school joins a conference they bring those rights to the conference for free. I can not imagine either P2 team being willing to pay for those rights. The other benefits are not worth it without the media rights. They can add the big brand schools at a later date when they can actually make money off them. I see no motivation from those conferences to add, even big brand, schools that come with a big financial loss.
Regarding the ACC having already accepted the ESPN contract, when FSU and Clemson leave they are no longer bound by that contract so that would be irrelevant. The ACC would own the media rights because of the GOR, but FSU and Clemson would not be part of the ESPN contract with the ACC because they would no longer be part of the ACC. ESPN would likely respond, as many have feared, by reducing the payout to the ACC because they have now "lost" FSU and Clemson. ESPN would no longer have those assets. However, the ACC would still hold those media rights because of the GOR, but not ESPN. That is why FSU and Clemson have sued the ACC and not sued ESPN as they try to get out of the GOR.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
We can all speculate about motivations and payouts. But when it comes to FSU and Clemson, it really comes down to what you listed. Who actually controls their media rights if they leave?
Is it the ACC because of the GOR, is it ESPN because of the ACC contract (plus the GOR), or do the schools have control to “sell” their rights to a new conference? That’s what has me most interested in from the lawsuits.
Anyway, fun discussion.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
will read the same words and argue it has different meanings. What exactly does the contract say? The contract says whatever the lawyers can convince the judge or jury it says. What comes out of the lawsuits will indeed be interesting.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2
2hhoop3
2y
on who actually owns the rights. Is it ESPN or the ACC? Does ESPN just possess an assignment that makes them whole only in terms of their contract with the ACC? Whether FSU and/or CU can make more money outside the ACC is still TBD based on the total fees to leave and the additional expense associated with their new landing spot. If they could easily improve their finances they would already be gone. The fact they are not says it might not be the slam dunk you think and, most importantly, any new landing spot would be entering a dicey situation if they do not own/control their rights. All this is not to say they are not gone but, that before they go they need more certainty on their landing and that certainty comes via a settlement or the courts.
(In response to this post by HokieAl)
2y
the ACC, or ESPN is the key question here. ESPN recently bought the rights to the expanded playoffs, yet there are already reports of other networks carrying playoff games. ESPN essentially is reselling those rights, and making a profit without broadcasting those games.
The ACC attorneys recently told FSU they could but their rights back. If that is the case, and the ACC owns the rights to FSU games, could they not then sell those rights to the highest bidder? Are we assuming that the ESPN contract would not allow that?
If the media rights for individual schools can be bought and sold, what would determine the market value? Could a conference, assuming they "own" the rights, then sell those rights to another conference? As an example, say KU's media rights are worth $50M a year in the B12, but are worth $80M a year in the Big 10. Why then, wouldn't the Big 10 offer the B12 $55M or $60M to buy the rights from the B12?
Maybe the ACC/ESPN can sell the rights of some key games to raise more revenue. FSU has home games against Clemson and Florida. We know what ESPN is paying for those rights, what we don't know, is what those games would be worth on the open market. There could be a win win win scenario where all three entities make a bit more money - the ACC, ESPN, and FSU.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
The original post content, the lawsuits, the ESPN contract details, the extent of possible ESPN contract renegotiation, the ACC exit fees, etc.
It’s all just speculation. I have no inside info on anything. All I can do is follow threads of possible scenarios to try and better understand possible outcomes. And yes, this one scenario could easily have a dozen different outcomes depending on how each of the details actually ends up occurring.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
The non lawyers don't seem to get that
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
Lawyers generally tell you that 90% of all cases end in settlement.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
They have a winning hand.
Now, IF ESPN has a unilateral out in the contract, which seems very unlikely, and they exercise it, that's a big wrinkle. Does the GOR survive absent a contract with ESPN? Doubtful.
But I don't think they have a unilateral termination right. And so ESPN can't call all the shots. ESPN has influence obviously, but they have a profitable ACCN and they are incurring legal fees vs FSU/Clemson.
The ACC would still rather keep everyone into the 2030s and see how the landscape looks at that time.
We will see, but I don't see any huge changes for a few years.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
Clemson
If you are interested in the legal side of all this I would pay attention to how Clemson moves their pieces moving forward. They have the contract - not available for public display.
It's one thing to send officials to Charlotte to read the ESPN/ACC contract. It's another for your attorneys to have a copy when it comes to contract lawsuit positions. This is the closest we may get to what is in that contract.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
V
VTCALS72
2y
and do so. And who doesn't think that the ACC schools all saw draft copies before the actual final document was signed?
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
as attorneys having full access using it to file a lawsuit as evident by Clemson's new motion. They claim the contract says their rights leave with them.
Interesting at best.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
most likely pertains to what the parties to the contract can do. My read is that this is just another hope for a unique interpretation by Clemson but what is really says is the party of the first part ,ESPN, has no jurisdiction or control over the GOR and will not be a collector of TV rights due the party of the 2nd part, the ACC, by a departed school.
But you nailed it, FSU and Clemson have nothing and are looking at all sorts of those unique interpretations to hopefully "find" something.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
S
Stech
2y
the contract. ESPN can say if you let these schools go to the SEC, we will extend the contract. If you don’t, then we will not extend the contract. If ESPN extends the contract without the ones that leave, it will be at a reduced amount. However, all the schools leaving will also pay the ACC, so they can be made close to even. That buys time for the Conference to get new schools in and grow their recognition in the market. There also could be more P2 expansion down the road, just like there has been for the last few decades/years. Some schools in the P2 eyes that aren’t investing enough in sports, might just do that over the next few years and become candidates if they do.
** Edited by Stech at 5/31/2024, 11:23:14 AM
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
2y
I do know Disney didn't get where they were by not looking out for their investments. The ACCN (and the overall content agreement) is an investment that has outperformed based on everything I've heard. You don't just let that implode. I understand in the case of a total ACC implosion, you just make an SEC2 or whatever it takes to keep that cash cow producing milk, but ESPN can't be stuck in a situation where the ACC (and the ESPN agreement) survives without key assets. I didn't write all of this to propose an outcome, I just think the reality is ultimately somewhere further from the wildly complex scenarios and closer to the simpler status quo because even thought FSU is throwing a tantrum, the reality is that over the next 10 years, the status quo is better for everyone. The idea of making "100 year decisions" RE: conference membership is clearly a thing of the past, and none of these schools can guarantee what things will look like in 2035+.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
W
WarHog38
2y
That does put a time line on all this that the most impatient follower on all this can live with. I will join you in praising this board. Some very knowledgeable souls on here even in light of the several that are a bit bossy about engaging their personal opinions as authoritative into the discussion. I don't think anybody on here is an insider that knows how this expansion turmoil will play out. Those type people don't have time to surf the internet too much. Too busy wheeling & dealing in the real world. So like you said, take it all as a grain of salt.
I hear all these angles about FSU & Clemson to the SEC or B1G over & over on YouTube and as a discussion topic on this board. I have given my personal opinion before on here, I don't care where they go. The Razorbacks do not need FSU & Clemson in the SEC. I don't remember Arkansas ever playing either in football.
However I will say this in response to all you wrote. The B1G is probably going to eventually get Notre Dame in the fold. The College Playoff will force Notre Dame into a P2 and that P2 will not be the SEC. If the SEC allows the B1G to get FSU & Clemson along with lapping up Georgia Tech and maybe UVA. You take those schools along with Notre Dame all going to the B1G, The SEC getting Virginia Tech, UNC & NC State. No matter. With those schools, in ten years the SEC will be playing 2nd fiddle to the B1G as a college football conference.
** Edited by WarHog38 at 5/30/2024, 9:53:21 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
since the SEC played second fiddle to the B1G as a football conference and I am not convinced they can reverse that in 20 years, let alone 10, with the teams they might get. In order to be the top dog they have to get it done on the field, not just with money and some named teams. That, at least in my opinion, is what establishes the SEC as the clear #1, getting it done on the fields and courts. In fact, despite their money and resources, using the criteria of getting it done on the fields and courts, it is at least debatable whether the B1G is #2. The reality is the B1G looks like Tarzan from a money standpoint but, plays like Jane when it comes to competing on the fields and courts, with the exceptions of wrestling and volleyball.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
There were sporadic contributions by Tennessee with Johnny Majors & Phillip Fulmer plus Florida with Steve Spurrier. Urban Meyer had big success at both Florida & Ohio State. The key to SEC big successes by those coaches is big recruiting hot beds in the southeast. Though Saban could recruits nationally too after he started winning nattys.
They are good football coaches but they needed the talent to reach those peaks. If the B1G gets those schools I named in the above post. Maybe just adding Miami for good measure. The B1G would open access to those southeast hot recruiting beds. Then the B1G could also boast about having a serious presence in all four corners of this large country. While the SEC just fills out the old confederate footprint plus Oklahoma that was totally Indiana territory in those confederacy days,
You are surely right about winning on the football field being the true yardstick measurement. However if the SEC gives the B1G equal access to that talent along with boasting the national audience. I just don't think that favors the SEC in the long run.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
what you said, I'm just not sure access to the talent means they can close the deal. Just as important I am not sure what kind of boost UT and OU get from the SEC which elevates that conference even more. The SEC adage of it just means more is about to get another injection with UT and OU. We may be discussing something that never gets a chance to come to pass. I'm not sure there is not more upheaval yet to come or whether I will be around long enough to witness the product.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
V
VTCALS72
2y
The Bigs foray into the south flops. Remember the ACC 2003 expansion. UNC and everybody else was all into bringing in BC. Cuse and Miami and wanted it done quickly and quietly. Both Cuse and BC were brought in for the market they were physically in or aligned with in Cuse's case. The idea was that the ACC could gain market share in Boston by bringing in national names like Miami and FSU in football and Duke/UNC in bball. But it did not work. In part that was because BC was not loved very much in Boston. Some of that was Boston's heart belongs to the Pats, Celts and Sox. But another less talked about part was the Bostonians just couldn't get with being a part of a state of North Carolina (southern) led conference. That is my opinion on the past.
For the future, GT is exactly like BC then. The exception is Atlanta loves college football but their sweetheart is the SEC and GT really can't grow in their own market because in no small part, they are not in the SEC. I would guess VT has more ability to deliver a larger slice of the DMV market than GT does the Atlanta market.
I also believe that FSU and Clemson to the Big will trigger a lot of that as well. I know their are transplants in Fla but not so much SC so what really is going to happen if those 2 are suddenly in a Chicago led conference. My opinion, they will be swimming upstream against USC, FLA Auburn etc way more than they are now.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
One key point to all of this that must be noted
The B1G wanted USC and UCLA to win the LA market for Fox's company-owned station in that market. It is very important to note that Fox owns their station, channel 5, in Washington and Comcast/NBCU owns their station, channel 4. The local market now matters most when you have a big market like DC and network-owned stations in that market.
I have always believed that Penn State delivers more eyeballs in DC than Maryland. In fact, nobody south of the Potomac currently cares about the B1G at all unless they are looking in on a national game. Maryland and PSU deliver nothing at all in the Virginia suburbs. This is where Tech and UVa strategically come in. They solidify the DMV market for both local network stations (Fox and NBC) in a top-10 national market.
Say what you want about Charlotte and Raleigh but aside from DMV, the big markets with key local demos exist
only in Atlanta, and Miami/Tampa/Orlando. Georgia Tech adds nothing from the Atlanta market. I lived there for 19 years and nobody outside of their small alumni base and their students on North Avenue give a rip about GT athletics. So, Atlanta is SEC. Period, even with a Fox-owned station in ATL. The FL markets are interesting as Miami/Ft Lauderdale is still a top market and layered in with Orlando and Tampa Bay, making up one of the fastest growing concentration of households in the US. This is why I have always been convinced that the B1G wants FSU.
The DC market is the big prize for the P2 at the end of the day. Someone will have to decide to add Tech and Uva as politics in Richmond will require them to be a package deal or as one to the B1G the other to the SEC. I still see uva going to the B1G and Tech going to the SEC eventually. We will see if this all plays out.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
I think VT and Miami end up in the B1G with FSU, Clemson, and maybe ND. VT and Miami will carry those two markets, FSU and Clemson will dip into ATL.
VT vs. Miami, FSU, Clemson, PSU would be big for TV eyes. Maybe this is how VT finally plays Wisconsin.
UVA, UNC, NCSU, Duke to the SEC. I know, Duke makes no sense for football, but keeping those 3 Carolina schools for basketball help the SEC brand. Baseball for those 4 are already up to par for the SEC.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
of the entire DMV area and have 2/3rds of the next ring of developable land. Then factor in not just the alums, which PSU also has but all the physical facilities, employees etc and we are a much bigger "plum" than most podcasters even know about.
Put another way, look at history, we were really a "filler" in the BE, they didn't want us yet once in, we were one of the powerhouses. Neither UNC nor Miami wanted us in the ACC yet for football, the reason for the expansion, we overperformed.
IMHO we will do it again if given the chance in the P2 . The above is why some time back I made the suggestion VT should go to the SEC and offer one of the marquee teams in the SEC to play the VT home game in DC. Carry the SEC into the DMV.
(In response to this post by CobbCountyHokie)
H
hokieZ71
2y
(Please note I didn't say the Big Ten would be more desirable to VT)
The Big Ten is being forced to expand because the Midwest is shrinking. So, go West. Check. Get into some large markets out there. LA x2, Seattle, Portland. Regionality doesn't matter when you're the only show in town in a major market. So...Check.
Going East and South are all that's left. You yourself just spoke on why going south may not be very easy for the Big Ten. FSU, UNC and Clemson's fanbases don't scream Big Ten to me. Atlanta, Tampa, Orlando, Charlotte are not going to be Big Ten oriented with the SEC in town. But VT can hep the Big Ten in VA and DC. While we have an SEC-like football atmosphere, sure, but you could also say VT's atmosphere mirrors Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State as well. And VT targets a location that the Big Ten could stand to claim more its own in DC.
So I feel like VT and Miami would accomplish more for the Big Ten. Lock down DC and get Miami. Miami is a pro sports town much like LA. And when Miami football matters, it draws eyeballs. It's immune to the SEC bias because Miami's demographic isn't an SEC population. It's a Miami population. In a 20 team Big Ten, you'd have an Eastern division of Penn State, Miami, VT, Maryland and Rutgers. Honestly, I don't see anything great about Maryland and Rutgers. But the first 3 offer some compelling storylines.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
To them, VT to the Big would be like Clemson to the SEC to USC. Now for sure if the SEC chooses to go to battle for the DMV with UVA, then that is on them. I still find it hard to think they would do that. I do believe the real opportunity to win one of the few major markets is hugely important and anyone do the research for the SEC that says UVA is even in the ballpark on that should be fired.
But maybe the SEC is willing to trade DMV for the Tar Heel brand.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
S
Sportn
2y
day vibe on that campus and apathy rules the day. Visiting team's fans are responsible for mustering up what little excitement they can to bring to life that place.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
Vippie1
2y
they are big time indifferent (emotionally) to playing the existing BIG schools except maybe for their brand names. The UVa , VT (and in hoops UNC/ Duke) games are very much missed. They want some regional rivalries back. Almost every Terp fan realizes UVA/VT would be very helpful for interest and enthusiasm.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
but you cant seem to take markets from VT, that is on you."
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2y
in that horrible stadium. It's as big a home game for us as it is when we play in Hooville.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
S
Stech
2y
IMHO is expanding to mainly NFL towns because their Golden Goose is the NFL. Expect a lot of promotions for NFL games on Saturday B1G games. If they do take FSU and Clemson, they are close enough to Jacksonville and Charlotte for them, plus they get into the Southeast.
** Edited by Stech at 5/30/2024, 10:06:55 PM
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
H
hokieZ71
2y
If ESPN says "ACC contract is locked in until 2036, we are happy with the arrangement", then FSU and Clemson don't go anywhere because they lose their leverage in any negotiation. This Big XII contract that our Big 12 folks here love to tout was created in large part because ESPN wanted Texas and OU to be able to leave their GOR ONE YEAR early. ESPN would have to do similar for the ACC to make them whole to allow FSU and Clemson to leave early, and why would ESPN do that to let two valuable properties go to Fox Sports and the Big Ten? That part of this just isn't making sense.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
like Virginia and North Carolina create new money. Especially if you can get two football first schools, and two basketball first schools. The basketball money IMHO, will soon be paid out for the Sweet 16 , like the football playoff money. That’s two ways to grow in a state that is basically double the size of South Carolina.
(In response to this post by hokieZ71)
2y
to my VT friends to be careful what you ask for. FSU and Clemson will both be a fish out of water in the Big 10. They will cash their checks, but they will never be a Big 10 national brand. Then you have the SEC. They will fit in fine in the SEC, much like Texas A&M and Missouri. Compete here and there, but does anyone on this board consider Missouri an SEC powerhouse? A&M?
How about the revered historical blue blood Nebraska? Penn State? have either one of those schools dominated the Big 10? They certainly cash the checks .... kinda like Maryland and Rutgers, just better brands.
Utah recently was in the rumor mill. Which conference gives them a better chance of making the playoffs, and maybe a shot at the title? Big 10, SEC, ACC, or B12? Which conference gives them the most money? What is more important?
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
The B1G is going four corners. NW, SW, NE, SE. It's been their game plan since the PAC 12 fell in their lap. Tossing FSU, Clemson and Notre Dame in the mix is probably more than the SEC would like despite coordination between both P2 conferences.
Missouri, Texas A&M, Penn State, Utah, Nebraska (since the 90s) have never been national title blue bloods regardless of conference affiliation. But the money at least affords them that opportunity. The new CFP will be no different than what just occurred in college baseball - SEC teams playing .500 ball and getting the post season bid.
Dennis Dodd of CBS just made a tweet that sums it up:
The drum beat has started early for what was assumed but never nailed down -- 9-3 teams, or worse, are going to be in the expanded playoff. @SEC is first in line to make the point ... to be first in line -- if the schedule is good enough, 9-3 should trump 11-1, 12-0.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/31/2024, 12:37:50 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
Schools feeling they are carrying the weight and deserve more is not a new thing, and it's only going to get worse as these conferences expand.
Do we really think tOSU, Michigan, USC-w, Georgia, Texas, etc are going to see the money these conferences are bringing in and also see the money being shared with Rutgers, umd, Vandy, Northwestern, Missouri, etc and not start looking for new ways to keep more money to themselves? the P2 feels like a catalyst to a future smaller breakaway where the true "blue bloods" join up and leave everyone else behind or schools huddle back up into regional partnerships.
I'll say this: even if the B1G finds a way to stick to their academic guns and maintain their status quo (i'm skeptical), I have a very high level of confidence that Texas will break up the SEC. If i had to guess, i'd speculate the legacy SEC East are the ones who take their ball and go home when they get fed up with Texas, and it might be beneficial for them to play nice with FSU, Clemson, UNC, etc now if they are looking for a possible exit plan in the future.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
W
WarHog38
2y
I remember something that Frank Broyles said. Broyles said if he wanted something did in the SWC, He didn't go to the SWC front office in Dallas. Broyles said he went to Austin to talk to Texas. Broyles said if Texas agreed. All the other SWC Texas schools also agreed.
I don't know about the Big 12, but Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri & Texas A&M all left the Big 12, complaining about Texas.
The SEC is an Alabama conference. Tuscaloosa are the favorites. Alabama kept Missouri in the SEC East for 10 years just so they could play yearly with Auburn. Auburn way over on the eastern border of Alabama, preferred being in the SEC East playing Georgia & Florida every year from the time the SEC divisions formed in 1992. An example about the pull of Arkansas. Arkansas played a yearly rivalry game with LSU the Friday after thanksgiving for 20 years. It was the battle of the boot and the biggest game every year on the SEC schedule for Arkansas. When Texas A&M entered the SEC, the Aggies immediately requested that season ending Thanksgiving date with LSU. The Aggies talked of long ago football games with LSU. While Arkansas had a long series of games before the SEC with LSU too. There was a big argument about it down in Birmingham. The Aggies won out. Arkansas cannot keep a 20 year end rivalry game with LSU while Alabama dictates which division another SEC school resides in for a decade.
How is Texas going to do in the SEC with Alabama as the big dog? The Longhorns have never known that lesser role in their existence. It will be a shock to Texas when they first knock heads with Alabama in the SEC. There at the top, it will probably quickly happen.
(In response to this post by BUGGZY)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the P2, the ACC and the Big 12 need to revise revenue distribution formulas to incent behaviors to upgrade spending in revenue sports and penalize the freeloaders. The performers/investors get more conference distribution money, the dregs/freeloaders get less. The days of equal conference distributions ought to be numbered. The model could be along the lines of the NCAA tourney and include a base level competition payment and performance bonuses based on (1)actual conference/season results and (2)meeting/exceeding desired spending levels in program investments. #2 is not an absolute dollar amount but some predetermined percentage of total program revenues for each individual member institution. It is a success initiative on steroids so to speak.
(In response to this post by BUGGZY)
2y
if you look back at the last 20 years, even with equal revenue distribution, there has been a WILD gap in budgets (both revenue and spending). punishing a school with less revenue for spending less isn't going to solve any problems, it's just going to widen gaps. the moment you turn your back on one member, all the other members start to look over their shoulder. if you don't want equal rev share, go the ND route and prove that you can make more without your conference.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
but, the point of the base competition payment is an equal share and the bonuses are relative to each school's budget. I think the converse of your last sentence(i.e. if you do not want to compete at the established level go find a suitable lower level). To me it makes much more sense to incent higher performance and counsel/encourage out underperformers rather than to run off the top performers, if you are looking to strengthen your conference.
(In response to this post by BUGGZY)
R
RJHokie
2y
Always have and always will.
(In response to this post by BUGGZY)
V
VTCALS72
2y
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
W
WarHog38
2y
I also think you are right about the deal maker in all this.being ESPN. Not the two conference commissioners. I think ESPN looking at it all through the lens of football game match-ups would see FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech & NC State as better football game gets. UNC & UVA are definitely a lot more basketball game match-ups. SEC is a football conference. Your question being answered in the affirmative just plays to football.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
S
Stech
2y
not always a good predictor of the future. That said, the SEC already owns Florida and South Carolina, and FSU and Clemson to the B1G IMHO is not going to change that. However, Virginia and North Carolina are about double the size of South Carolina. If they grab the two schools from each state, then they will have expanded their viewership in both sports. So why not grab all four? Probably can get them for a reduced amount for a while too, since they are used to ACC money.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
IMO...espn holds the cards...And while they don't necessarily have to do anything now, there's a couple near-term periods where they might do something...late june and again ahead of feb renewal...
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
That's not to say FSU/Clemson won't play a predominant B1G/SEC schedule. There is a ton of "what if's" in a hardball scenario including ESPN dropping the ACC contract completely.
ESPN does have most all the say 100%.
(In response to this post by VT757to276)
T
TDVick
2y
I'm guessing B10 by default. Why was Stanford added to the ACC?
2. If UNC and NCSU are approved, why all the contentiousness in NC? It doesn't seem like that much of a problem. Do the academic people (at UNC) just not like the SEC?
3. Hopefully the additional price that UNC will have to pay is to take VT into the SEC with them rather than UVA. What you said sort of reinforces my point that if UNC and NCSU are paired, then VT and UVa get split. UNC is sufficiently valuable that they cross-subsidize NCSU, but it doesn't sound like have two VA schools in the same conference is doable. You'd think that each of the P2 wants some turf in VA.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
V
VTCALS72
2y
they want to be the big dog in southeastern/southside and the Richmond area. They never wanted us in the ACC with them. They liked it when half their team was from VA and they got guys like famous Amos Lawrence and Lawrence Taylor.
And it goes even deeper. If VT or any other school not in the P2 is surrounded by a P2 league teams 200 miles sw, 120 miles NE and 120 miles SE, they are screwed .
(In response to this post by TDVick)
T
TDVick
2y
leverage point is that the VA politicians can block this. I can see a scenario where UNC has to hold their nose where VT joins the SEC along with UVA. I'm not sure what the SEC's preference is, but I can see the B10 strongly preferring UVA to VT due to academics and the fact that OHST, PSU and MD don't want to tangle with VT in football. Either the SEC is ok with dilutively taking two schools in Virginia, or the legislature won't let UVA leave to the SEC alone, in which case UVA gets traded to the B10 and then I think the SEC would very likely want to grab VT if UVA were taken off the table. This seems to be the primary pushback that VT has against UNC. I really don't like the B10 travel locations and really prefer the SEC.
I told everyone back in 2011 that this day would come and here it is. Once again we have to hope we don't get screwed by UNC. It really angers me that this situation is in play.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
you assign to it. There was talk but look at all the talk today. It is all over the place and there is just so much more smoke than there is fire then and most of the smoke was being blown by persons just like all these podcast today.
If you hold any hope that the VA politicians could block UVA to the SEC alone, then you have to at least acknowledge that the Virginia politicians would have blocked VT to the SEC in 2011 if it got to that point.
Put another way, even if there was more than a spark of fire to VT to the SEC in 2011, which I don't believe it was and most of the "insider" talk was like the podcast today, then the Virginia pols would have been doing just what the NC pols who at UNC's urging invested heavily in the ACC, are doing blocking taking a huge loss on the ACC while UNC skates.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
S
Stech
2y
schools, and would preserve and create some awesome rivalries with that. Tech and State are the best in their state in 🏈, and UNC and UVA in 🏀.
(In response to this post by TDVick)
O
obguthr
2y
and UNC is at least decent in football. UVA football is boiled garbage.
** Edited by obguthr at 5/31/2024, 9:42:16 AM
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
where they already have a presencec, expanding in both NC and VA with 2 schools in each state seems very out of character. I can see it in Texas and Florida considering the size of those states. I can even see them wanting Clemson since they are the bigger name in SC, and bring big TV viewership. But the VA and NC schools are not elite football names. I just can't see them adding four schools in those two states.
** Edited by wwhokie1 at 5/30/2024, 5:52:45 PM
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
both schools, you add a football first school and basketball first school in each state. I am not saying it’s true, but it’s plausible.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
How many people are watching the game. Clemson is a much bigger draw than any of the VA/NC schools. I just can't see the four VA/NC schools being big enough draws for all four to be taken by the SEC. Probably will be lucky if all four get taken between both SEC and B10. All four being taken by one conference would probably be like the B10 taking all four P12 schools from Washington and Oregon. They only took two and at a reduced rate.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
son aren’t going to bring as much as two new states. That plus basketball at the very least will grow to about a 96 team NCAA tournament, and IMHO payout the Sweet 16 like the playoff money. Throw in that Virginia Tech and North Carolina State pack their football stadiums, and Tech still ranked up there in the top 4-5 of the conference in their worst years in decades for viewership under Fuente, there is a lot of potential for growth there too. FSU got back last year with the portal, and Clemson the last two years, not so great, so while I understand your point of view, it’s not the only way to look at it. Eventually we will find out which point of view ESPN has, which is what counts since they pay the schools.
** Edited by Stech at 5/30/2024, 10:52:44 PM
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2y
with double the payouts because you are paying 4 schools instead of just 2. So that growth will need to be really large, and I just don't see it. But maybe I'm wrong. The opinion that matters will be the ones extending the invitations. So, I guess we will see. One thing is for certain, more changes are coming. Hope those changes are good for VT.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
right now, not SEC $. Consequently, the 4 can be ramped up. Not to mention basketball money isn’t there yet, I expect at a minimum we will one day see about 96 in the NCAA basketball tournament, and the Sweet 16 paid out like the football playoff money. However, that’s not here yet. Look I don’t know what is going to happen, but 4 from the two new states is not far fetched, compared to two from states they already dominate. As both have said, ESPN who is writing the checks, will make the decision, it’s what they are thinking that counts.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
happening in any of those southern states but, IF it does it would likely indicate the goals have shifted to power and control from being accretive to the conference bottom line.
(In response to this post by wwhokie1)
2
2hhoop3
2y
words like absolute and 100% certain if not assured? Thanks for your latest book, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, might stick in regards to either the content or timeline you share.
Throw enough malarkey against the wall and something might/should stick, much like even a broken clock being right twice a day. With your entire posting history available since your March arrival people can see for themselves and make their own judgements as to how your story has shifted in a little less than 3 months to your latest book.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
I post on every realignment forum since winter. That's how you learn.
My story has never shifted. I have stated all along that FSU will announce they are leaving the ACC before August 15 well before a courtroom even hears the actual meat of the lawsuits.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
you once again ignore the question asked. You state 100% certainty and then back off that saying nobody knows. The estimated departure date is not the only thing you have said but, even that has moved between between the 8/15 date and June 30 from time to time. The inconsistencies in your posts are there for all to gauge and the questions you have ignored along the way are there for all to see. I would respectfully suggest you review your posts and the conversations to make sure you know what you have said and how you have been questioned. I will repeat now the latest question you ignored. How else should someone interpret words like absolute and 100% certain if not assured? That leads to the next question, is it a poor choice of words or intentional trying to convey a level of certainty that does not exist but, will troll the waters? The statement and question we are discussing now is not the only one like that which you have made.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to your similarly inane question. It still applies.
(In response to this post by DrHokie)
S
Stech
2y
are you saying Clemson is up in the air? If it only takes two, I don't see UNC ending the ACC or for that matter ND, but is that why you are leaning more towards Clemson to the B1G or am I misunderstanding that?
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
S
Stech
2y
it is plausible and follows what I have been hearing and even saying. One thing, both the Virginia and North Carolina markets are about double the size of South Carolina, and Virginia is above both in wealth and income. That matters a great deal to high end advertisers. I know a little something about that.
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
T
TerryD
2y
...ND will move its other sports to the Big East, and that part of this "horse trading" will be ND scheduling deals with the Big Ten and perhaps the SEC as well.
There is a prediction.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
Wow, I posted that on X and in another forum verbatim.
This is what a longtime friend who works at the top of NBC Sports told me: For football, ND will play either a guaranteed P2 Combo schedule or would be satisfied with just a B1G schedule deal. ND in the B1G for all sports but football (like the current deal with the ACC) would be the first Irish choice. Same wish for a century but not likely without some major NBC sharing concessions with FOX. If that happens ND would never be on a Disney network again so it's a tough sell. He also told me months ago ND was going to return to the Big East in all other sports.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2
2hhoop3
2y
whether true or not. If true, it provides a possible map to "connect the dots" the poster is fond of referencing. If not true and/or not consistent with what he has alleged previously it speaks to credibility.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
2y
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
to be cautious, just to say right or wrong it could be informative in different ways. Some of what he said is likely(more probable than not) to happen but, even that does not mean he interpreted the reasons correctly for why it happened.
Like I said, his posting history provides a window in to how his story has changed in his three short months here and the numerous inconsistencies in his arguments. One example, he claims they have been approved for a spot for over a year yet he claims there was no offer and he has yet to answer the questions as to why that would not constitute tortious interference with a contract by the B1G and/or FOX, much less the evidence for the initial claim. Right now everybody(SEC/ESPN/B1G/FOX) is trying figure out how they can get to the finish line without having their dirty laundry exposed and we all know, if successful, it is likely going to involve a large amount of money, maybe some horse trading and lock down NDAs.
(In response to this post by Stech)
2y
media. That's too many parties to keep a secret, especially when they are rivals. The closest thing to horse trading I've seen is the flirtation dance between The MWC and The PAC 2.
There are timing pressures that might cause a settlement soon. FSU/Clemson want to announce before 8-15. ESPN wants to know the settlement figure before Feb '25. That first date could slip, but not the second.
If it's true that UNC is bound for The SEC, that move can wait. The SEC is not really eager to expand, but they cannot pass up NC/VA as those are their most valuable growth destinations. A big dollar settlement for FSU gives ESPN/SEC the delay they would like.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2y
ESPN didn't sublicense their CFP rights to TNT just for the heck of it. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is this new streaming partnership between ESPN, FOX and Warner Bros that will debut this fall. FYI, Warner Bros owns TNT.
FOX backed off the new CFP bid with some provisions for ESPN selling participation to other carriers for certain early games. This all took place during Realignment talks.
When Texas and Oklahoma made the decision to leave the Big 12 for the SEC they each faced a potential penalty of $160 million. But as it turns out, the financial burden suffered by the two schools was offset by ESPN.
This list is too long for this thread.
**** ESPN will broker a new deal for the ACC contract extension through 2036 and it will include the fait of FSU/Clemson.
** Edited by INSIDE99 at 5/31/2024, 2:04:25 AM
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
2y
course of business. The renewal of The ACC contract will be "brokered?" by ESPN? Who are the parties in this?
You, yourself just said that FSU/Clemson will announce their exit before August 15, so how will the new ACC deal include the fate of these two schools?
You are treating these very public business transactions as though they are backroom, secret "horse trades." Much of the posting about realignment seems to take a default view that everything is, and will always be, controlled by ESPN. They are the biggest player, to be sure. But will it surprise you if FSU just squirms out of The ACC and signs-up with The B1G, while ESPN stands idly by? ESPN has a lot of irons in the fire. They have been passive in recent college football developments. Dropped out of The B1G bidding quite early. Dropped out of The PAC bidding abruptly. Looks to me as though they are content to take a limited role in college football. They can't stop FSU-to-The B1G without spending a bunch of money. We'll soon see how much they care.
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2y
What that entails is open fodder.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)
D
daveinop
2y
tell the SEC to hold their nose and put the "Mag 7" and Duke/Louisville in the SEC. That will let them keep their monopoly from FL to DC.
** Edited by daveinop at 6/1/2024, 12:15:01 PM
(In response to this post by INSIDE99)
2
2hhoop3
2y
the entire PAC12 implosion and Big 12 contract was likely the result of horse trading and the current situation with the ACC will likely involve some as well but, it will not become clear until a settlement is reached, if then.
(In response to this post by 33laszlo99)