SIR: Actual reporting! McMurphy: SEC, B1G have "no appetite" to add FSU
** Edited by PitHokie at 7/16/2024, 2:55:44 PM
42 Replies
T
TDVick
2y
apparently are frowned upon, it sort of reinforces my "Eyes Wide Shut" view of how things work.
Granted FSU was pissed and wanted out, but the biggest transgression you can do is to shine a flashlight on the practices of the power that be.
FSU is extremely valuable. Whoops. Scratch that. They asked some questions that shouldn't be asked. Lock them out!
That is how I interpret the tone of that report.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
V
Vippie1
2y
Who knows.. maybe it all works out the way fsu wants eventually. but I enjoy them having to sweat and being exposed for the arses they are.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
H
HOO86
2y
Their hissy fits don't impress the P2.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Just reads like a laundry list people in power say so they can deny they have any involvement in destroying a league.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
H
hokieZ71
2y
“Three SEC presidents recently told Action Network they had “no interest” in adding Florida State.”
“[Big Ten commissioner] Tony [Petitti] is staying away from expansion, and we’re taking Tony’s lead,” a source said.
“If the ACC blows up, who picks first [between the Big Ten and SEC]? Who picks second? If there is a need and desire to expand, you take inventory so your competitors don’t get it. But the presidents and chancellors are looking for stability. Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one — the leagues, the networks — is driving expansion.”
“It’s ‘clubby’ among the presidents, and AAU membership is significant to them,” a source said. “Remember, these are presidents and chancellors that make these [expansion] decisions.”
Maybe so, but at the SEC’s May spring meetings in Destin, Florida, I talked to an SEC president about the league’s new logo — 16 teams in a circular formation. I asked if there was room for more.
“There’s always room for more,” the president said.
So…that’s a WHOLE lot of mention of presidents and commissioners in that article. And literally three SEC presidents ARE the sources. So, sure, scoff because they are ‘anonymous’ sources. There’s nothing but concrete statements stating that loads of presidents aren’t wanting FSU.
And by the way, this isn’t about convincing the court of law. This is about the court of public opinion. We just read absolutely nothing other than “FSU is driving all of this, SEC and B1G Presidents are driving none of it.” So when FSU joins either league, it’s totally on FSU and not the P2. Just what they want.
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
H
hokieZ71
2y
Where are the sources from? Anonymous or no?
(In response to this post by SpeakToDamien)
W
WarHog38
2y
The SEC wants UVA & UNC but neither of the P2 wants FSU & Clemson. McMurphy has been saying exactly that for well over a year now. He must get points for at least for being consistent.
McMurphy now is claiming over a dozen sources for his conclusions. Including university presidents, conference personnel, athletic directors, network executives & consultants. A lot of individuals but McMurphy says every last one of them wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of expansion.
I remember hearing about this same exact thing concerning the B1G taking Oregon & Washington. However several B1G sources were named not desiring Oregon & Washington. One being the Ohio State AD at that time.
I will directly quote Brett McMurphy on this blurb, "Despite what the social media geniuses are suggesting, no one---the leagues, the networks----is driving expansion." I think that quote from McMurphy is absurd. Why doesn't ESPN just extend that ACC TV Contract and immediately calm on this expansion talk to a whisper? ESPN just announcing a future intention to sign the ACC TV Contract would help to stop the chatter. ESPN & FOX destroyed the PAC. ESPN failing to ever re-sign that ACC TV Contract as 2027 approaches will destroy the ACC.
Then FSU & Clemson will join a P2 just as Oregon & Washington. Neither will join the Big 12. McMurhphy is just fueling his social media geniuses with that Big-12 malarkey.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
2y
doors with ESPN and the ACC. Phillips said he was in active negotiations. Could Phillips be asking for more money? he should be, but we will have no idea what is happening with that until it is announced. For all we know, ESPN has offered to extend the contract until 2036. Maybe Phillips is playing hard ball with the Network to try and keep his conference together.
ESPN is reported to have all the leverage, but what if there is an offer on the table from FOX, CBS, NBC, and others hoping that ESPN drops the ACC? That network is worth some coin, even though it's not talked about much anymore.
My instinct tells me the ACC will be fine, but I didn't see the PAC imploding, didn't see the Texas Oklahoma announcement, didn't see USC in the Big 10 -
Lets see how this plays out, and no matter how the chips fall, all of the schools involved will be playing football 10 years from now, and beyond.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Flames. Klavikoff had approached both FOX & ESPN. Both refused Klavikoff. Those refusals effectively killed the PAC. Where would the Big-12 be right now if ESPN & FOX had not extended the Big12 TV Contract in 2023? The Big-12 would be dead right along with the PAC. That is the basics. The Big-12 got a TV Deal, PAC did not. The PAC schools then headed to the Big-12. I see nothing about PAC being self-destructive in all that.
I doubt FOX, CBS & NBC are offering advantageous TV Contracts to the ACC with all the recent clamor about an ACC break up. I guess anything is possible in all this.
You are right about nobody here knowing the future intentions that ESPN has on continuing that ACC TV Contract past 2027. I just tend to judge Big Media by the past. Nothing wrong with your ACC positive view for the future.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
2y
in that they allowed Larry Scott not one but, two swipes to steal the conference resources and then after the second swipe they were arrogant enough to overvalue themselves and walk for a third time from distribution partners that could have provided them continuing viability.
That was after rejecting the idea of bolstering the PAC with schools from the Big 12. They then furthered their own self destructive nature by listening to Carol Folt and the rest of the crooks at USC who were already out the backdoor carrying UCLA with them and promising UW and UO they would come for them even if at a reduced price. Meanwhile Kliavkoff was doing his own impersonation of Kevin "All is Well" Bacon.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
I am aware that the PAC front office asked FOX for a Renewal Media Contract that FOX felt was too high priced. However was that a reason for both FOX & ESPN to both permanently decide to never even make competitive offers to that PAC front ever again? That is exactly what happened.
Then FOX & ESPN both in that same time frame immediately after refusing the PAC, gave the Big-12 a competitive Brand New Renewal Media Contract. A new Big-12 Media Contract that literally & I say conveniently allowed the Big-12 to lure & pillage PAC schools.
This also all gave the B1G an excuse to again swoop in and take Oregon & Washington that were by then desperate and took a 50% reduced share in the B1G for the future. It all looks very orchestrated by Big Media to destroy the PAC.
I know the PAC could have expanded twice in the past. Texas & Oklahoma a dozen years ago & Big-12 schools immediately after Texas & Oklahoma announced intent to go to the SEC. Those PAC potential expansions would have surely altered the present day conference landscape. However I don't see the PAC not expanding as self destructive.
The PAC had expanded twice in the past as I remember. First adding the two Arizona schools. Then in more recent years adding Utah & Colorado. The PAC was not historically phobic against expansion. The SEC has expanded in 3 phases in the past. If the SEC should refuse to ever expand past 16. Which is remotely possible. Then the B1G goes on to heavily expand to 30 schools. Let's say all that eventually allows the B1G to absorb the SEC. Does that make the SEC refusal to expand self-destructive? No, the SEC just made a mistake. I see the PAC just making mistakes.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
and have in fact said a lot of the very same things in the past that you say in your current post. The self destructive part, at least in my opinion, lies in the fact that the PAC literally had first choice in all those instances and making a different decision in any one of them likely changes their trajectory. I think that is particularly true in regards to that moron Larry Scott. Call it mistakes, call it self destructive, seems to me to be a distinction without significant difference.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
Behavior. A mistake is buying a used car with big underlying problems or buying bad stocks. Self-Destruction is taking hard drugs or playing Russian Roulette. I just see the PAC making unintentional mistakes. Big Media still killed the PAC.
Big Media could have rationally still given those 10 PAC schools a TV Contract after USC & UCLA left. That would have put the PAC in a position to poach Big-12 schools. Instead Big Media allowed the Big-12 which still had another year after the PAC before becoming due to re-negotiate a new TV Deal. That effectively put the Big-12 in position to poach the PAC.
One can talk about the possibility of Oregon & Washington still leaving. However Big Media actions assured those two would leave. Giving the B1G a great deal to lure them in at 50% share.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
once. Making the same or similar mistakes over and over qualifies as a self destructive trend, in my opinion. In addition, Big Media had given them multiple chances and it was not their obligation to save an unstable potential partner, particularly when they likely had better financial alternatives. It is akin to the old adage that no matter how hot the girl or guy there is always somebody tired of putting up with their $#!+.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
So I guess that could qualify as over and over. Might be as simple as a personality issue. Jim Phillips had better not be having a bad day when ESPN calls.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
we're at least some of the same. Scott talked them into going it alone originally. The second time Scott talked them into a wildly overvalued private deal. The third time the networks came to the table they kicked it to the curb because they thought they were worth substantially more(that was Kliavkoff in the Commissioner's seat). Despite what some on here think Phillips TV experience both at ND and Northwestern on the B1G committee is not bad, he is just having to play the hand he took over. I am not saying Phillips or Swofford may not make mistakes but, the reality is the ACC has lousy timing and picks the most inopportune times to play bad. They needed VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU and one or two others to all be at least decent at the same time. That has unfortunately not happened.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
2y
reason the ACC is in a tough position. The commissioner has culpability in the PAC, but I would say it's less so in the ACC. It's easy to blame the commissioner or mean big media, but the PAC came down to the presidents of the PAC schools. They scoffed at adding any leftover B12 teams, and the ASU president even scoffed at WVU when he was being admitted into the B12 with egg on his face.
They confused athletics with academics and prestige. To their detriment. West Virginia is the perfect example to use, as the ACC presidents had/have the same mentality. I see it with some of the VT posters on this board.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
scoffing at the Big 12 and/or WVU is a major part of the PAC 12 or ACC issue. The PAC had the offers multiple times with or without the Big 12 and arrogantly thought they deserved better. It had nothing to do with confusing athletics with academics. WVU in terms of fans and enthusiasm would have been a better choice than some others for the ACC but, it came down to perceived media value. Again, it was not about confusing athletics and academics but, prioritizing what was believed to be the most attractive for media deals.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
something. A presence in that part of the country brough some recruiting as well, but that could be argued. The PAC was concentrated in the wrong time zone, and they would not consider the leftover B12 schools for mostly academic and perception reasons in my opinion. The presidents, not the AD's, made that choice - and it cost them.
The ACC picked up two time zones with their recent additions, but would have been MUCH better off with some of the hateful 8. Really good programs in different time zones, and they could have a big piece of Texas. We would be having a much different conversation if the ACC had picked up WVU, KU, OSU, and pick a couple of Texas schools when they had the chance. Or even a full on merger with the leftover 8.
We can speculate on why that didn't happen, but I remember many on this board were dead fast against adding the flyover schools, and they continue to be against being in the same conference with then today. I think it's a mistake.
WVU should have always been an ACC school, but we have the wine and cheese university presidents making the calls. They make the calls based on academics and prestige, not athletics. of course, they think differently now, but it may be too late.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
2y
be more attuned now given all the upheaval in college athletics, for the longest time the knowledge of most university Presidents in regards to athletics was limited to what conference commissioners, ADs and their most ardent boosters told them. That drove early conference realignment much more than academics. The PAC problem was they employed one commissioner that was a crook and the next time around they thought their knowledge and that of some of their business and economic profs was better than the supposed industry expert they hired. They were a portrait of dumb smart people.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2y
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
The SEC absolutely does not want UVA over VT. There isn’t a single metric
that makes UVA more appealing to the SEC than VT. The same could be said of the B1G, but they are all hung up on the AAU distinction, so they probably do favor UVA over VT.
But this is all about football. How many screens are tuned into a VT football game vs. a UVA football game over the course of a season? That is all that matters. Putting UVA in the SEC will not make UVA better. It will make them worse, permanent cellar dwellers like Vandy. VT at least has a shot at being mid-tier SEC if Pry & Co keep the momentum going. UVA football has no momentum, unless it’s negative momentum.
So, no, in short I do not believe any report saying that the SEC has interest in UVA. Frankly, that idea is pretty comical. Ditto with UNC. The SEC would want NC State, not UNC, unless it suddenly cares about basketball.
(In response to this post by WarHog38)
W
WarHog38
2y
That is all that matters with ESPN. What McMurphy says about the media networks taking a back seat in all this expansion is laughable. TV Ratings will get FSU & Clemson in a P2. I have said that before here. What you say about Virginia Tech having the much better TV Ratings on football games definitely will figure into the equation that decides this expansion.
The SEC would only empower Virginia Tech in football. Virginia Tech would get a big recruiting boost and the team would toughen playing an SEC schedule.
I saw that with Arkansas after SEC entry. Arkansas could and now still can recruit from all across the SEC footprint. Arkansas could never recruit much eastward in the SWC. Arkansas did well in the SEC for 20 years, getting three times to the SEC Championship Game. Broyles just died and the football program now appears corrupted. I detail that corruption in comment not for below. I hardly follow the Razorbacks in football anymore.
Virginia Tech should be able to avoid that peril. U of A is located in the very NW corner of this state. I use to drive trucks all over this state & surrounding states. I know the people drastically change getting 30 or 40 miles outside Little Rock. Just a more tolerant very cordial breed.
(In response to this post by HolidayInnHokie)
2y
UVA or VT to their conferences. They want added value, which neither team really adds. If there is a "forced choice", it would definitely be the Hokies over UVA, though !
(In response to this post by HolidayInnHokie)
V
VTCALS72
2y
brand baby blue U? The team that the very name will cause channel surfing bettors and viewers to stop and look just because it is baby blue u. And if it takes bringing UVA whom they don't want, with them, they will. Why? well UNC & UVA have a tradition way back to where the sons of slave owners engaged in "gentlemanly" activities. No make that UNC knows they will never fall below UVA in football.
And I still believe that UNC knows what it will take to be above average in football in the SEC and that is to return to be the home team for 757 and southside VA. After all they are closer than either UVA or VT. There was a time that newspapers, who at the time were social media, news media and everything , from Norfolk to Richmond trumpeted UNC as the football sports team for that part of VA. UNC knows that to get that back, they have to be in a better league than VT.
(In response to this post by HolidayInnHokie)
2
2hhoop3
2y
would give the SEC 2 or 3 more Vanderbilts. The problem with being the home team for the 757 and Southside is that BOTH areas might not even qualify as mere shadows of themselves talent wise now.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
2y
Charlotte is probably split between UNC and VT.
Richmond is probably 75/25 Tech over UNC.
The 757 is still VT over UNC but it may be close as you alude.
Raleigh is UNC by a large amount.
These are some of the wealthiest and most populous areas in the nation. Like Top-1 to Top-3 when you add them up.
For a football-driven conference like the SEC, I’d be all-in on the states of Virginia and North Carolina. And the picks would clearly be UNC and VT.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
can't be in the same or equal league.
(In response to this post by Hardcore_Hokie)
E
EDGEMAN
2y
And since we've been in the ACC, we've been kicking their butt in football year after year. They're pretty confident they have the advantage in MBB and the majority of non-revenues, but they also know we're a threat in football. They will always be 2nd to VT in football if we are on a fairly level playing field.
(In response to this post by VTCALS72)
V
VTCALS72
2y
league as them. UNC has no fear of UVA in football so that is ok for them. Another schools that doesn't want us on equal footing is MD. They have no fear of going to battle against the SEC with UVA carrying the banner but they don't want to have to compete with VT carrying the SEC banner.
IMHO if football matters and winning fans to win viewership, is the metric, VT is miles ahead of UVA. I am also not sure that NCSU, carrying the SEC banner couldn't win NC over a Big 10 UNC.
Just my opinion but IIWII
(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)
So, is this actual news or an intentional leak with
an ulterior motive?
Feels like the latter. If just news the conference could have just released a statement.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
2y
They'll have no appetite until they do. Not sure what else anyone would expect either conference to say publicly.
(In response to this post by PitHokie)
T
TerryD
2y
Half shares for FSU and Clemson, too?
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2y
(In response to this post by Baltimore_Hokie)
2y
taking UCLA.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
That. And manipulating the market.
They are king of the short sell. Even Jay Gould is blushing.
(In response to this post by jesuisvtguy)
2y
be let back into the ACC. Just need ESPN to step up to the plate, and extend the contract until 2036.
I'd also be OK with them coming into the B12, but not enticed with more money than the rest of the conference members. Let FSU flail.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 7/16/2024, 3:06:47 PM
(In response to this post by PitHokie)