UNC is going to the SEC, they might be able to bring at least one with them. And in-state politics might dictate that it's the Wolfpack.

data !

UNCheat is where we all know they should be when looking at conference realignment appeal.

I would put NC State before Miami & Oklahoma State. I think you can about double those odds on each school to make the Odds more realistically accurate. I guess Bookies.com also has Odds for the B1G & Big-12? I don't do any internet betting Haven't gambled since a kid. . However I like the long term Implied Probability especially on the first three entering the SEC. I would bet those if I messed with this stuff.

And even then they would probably only act as a handicap to UNC.

I understand the nation brand Tar Heel thing but I am not sure the Tar Heels can be dominant in NC any easier than the Hoos can VA for football. Lots of NCSU, ECU, Duke and Appy St fans that don't have UNC in their top 4 of teams to pull for.

Like it or not, UNC is the premier brand in North Carolina. They have a truly national brand. NCSt, nope. The football may not be dominant but neither is NCSt’s. UNC has won 50 NCAA team titles to NCSt’s 5. UNC has a top 5 basketball brand. UNC is a better ranked school academically. It has more money ($5B v $2B endowment). It is AAU, NCSt is not. I’m sure there are many other reasons as well. In almost every way shape and form UNC, is the premier prestigious public school in NC. Bottom line, NCSt’s only hope for P2 is a shotgun wedding with UNC.

I agree with all you said plus being a national brand the casual viewer or bettor will stop on a UNC football game more and longer than they will an NCSU game. But I doubt today that UNC has the majority of fans in NC. They sure don't show it when comparing them to attendance and gameday atmosphere to NCSU and I would say ECU as well. As for basketball, more Duke + NCSU fans than UNC fans. ** Edited by VTCALS72 at 7/21/2024, 7:59:24 PM

Expansion. I know the UNC choice is popular with some. However, expansion is driven by money. The money comes from television viewership. Unc is not even in the same ballpark with FSU and Clemson when it comes to money generated through television. The television viewership of UNC versus Clemson or FSU takes UNC out of the discussion. People can argue that The Big 10 would not want FSU or Clemson because they're not AAU. Or that the SEC would not want them because they already have a school in Florida and South Carolina. If those statements are true, then neither P2 conference will be expanding. Expansion is driven by money. There might be reasons to bring in UNC other than money. Money certainly would not be a reason, because UNC would be a financial loss for either conference. But while the financial strength provided by FSU and Clemson is still available, conferences would take either of those schools before they took the financial hit that UNC would bring.

which school would best do that for them.

if B1G or SEC could magically add any one school from the current ACC- SEC is definitely UNC and B1G is probably UNC.

As much as I hate to admit it. If the SEC or B10 expand, I can't see how they are not #1 target. They are actually smart for letting FSU and Clemson do the dirty work while they sit back. (Neither I nor anyone in my family went there or are fans - just my objective view.)

The New York City market. What matters most is how many people in those markets actually care. Does not matter what market you're in, If people are not watching. People are watching FSU and Clemson, not so much UNC. And it's not a small difference. Duke is basically in the same market as UNC, and is also a basketball elite. But no one is suggesting Duke is more prized than Clemson and FSU. That's because nobody cares about Duke football. ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/20/2024, 4:06:14 PM ** Edited by wwhokie1 at 7/20/2024, 4:07:17 PM

Their student body is heavily (rich) people from the northeast, like New Jersey. Average person in the state is a fan of UNC or NCSU.

And if the average person in the state of North Carolina is a unc football fan, then the population of North Carolina must be a lot smaller than is being reported. Because their average viewership in 2023 was under a million. And that includes people from other states, and people watching the opposing team.

either a tar heal, or you hate them. They are not a football school, and try as they may now, may never be one. Basketball does not move the needle, so I'm not sure how they make the pie bigger in the SEC. It's a tough row to hoe to match what a Texas or an Oklahoma brought to the conference. They are a national basketball brand, and a strong one at that. They are also the flagship university, in a growing market. They have a reputation as a premiere educational institution, and like a lot of schools, have potential in football. They just do not move the needle nationally in football. I'm beginning to wonder if the P2 will expand at all. So far, it's been about football. Oregon and Washington found out that it was difficult to match USC, and I think we can all agree that UCLA was meant to be their travel partner. What if we are all going through this mess, and the P2 doesn't extend any invites until the current contracts run their course and the athlete pay thing has a conclusion? Maybe that is the reason for the recent rumor mill concerning the B12 has emerged.

Several of the lawsuits even originate in Florida where Disney is located. Anybody that thinks college expansion over the last 35 years is not totally about money has long ago missed the bus. The stage is even now set on all that by the impending June 30, 2027 deadline. The only hope the ACC has is ESPN re-signing before that date. I think the lawsuits themselves prove that ESPN will not resign. UNC not joining those ACC Lawsuits was totally political within the state of North Carolina. I think the Virginia schools have also for many years been directed solidly by the politics within that state towards the ACC. Those two states with politics are now holding the ACC together. It will take ESPN or Big Media over several more years to politically change those two states. Money or lack thereof will be the tool used. Lack of money was the tool that Big Media used to eliminate the PAC. It does thoroughly do the job over a little time.

headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank, California. ESPN is headquartered in Bristol, Connecticut. Disney in Florida is all about theme parks and hotels. Disney executives in Florida don't give a rat's behind about ESPN/ABC sports. I guessing the folks in Bristol Connecticut are paying attention the ACC squabbles because it becomes part of the issue when time to sign, modify or cut and run. If Clemson and FSU are part of the package I'm guessing the media agreement will be extended. If the those two are able to leave, I have not doubt they will be followed by others schools. My opinion is if Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVA, and possibly VT and NCSU are able to leave, The ACC will have to merge with the B12 and raid G5 conferences to remain afloat. I can see remaining schools in the ACC and the B12 becoming divisions within a newly formed conference. Memphis, USF, Tulane and maybe Connecticut or Temple could be added. Either the ACC or B12 would be the upper division and the other would be the lower division. Teams could move in and out of the divisions based on on-the-field results. This may all blow up tomorrow, but I betting the courts will take a good long while to settle Clemson/FSU grievances. I'm of the age that I may never know the final outcome.

I will accept what you say about their California corporate headquarters. I know a lot of Florida attorneys are on retainer concerning those Disney theme parks you mentioned. Not sure those ESPN execs in Bristol are as confined to the sidelines on ACC squabbles as your comment seems to allude to. ESPN just content to react to the repercussions of those ACC squabbles after the fact. I think ESPN is at the controls concerning that ACC TV Contract extension. I think that TV Contract Extension by ESPN has a lot more bearing on the ACC future than the courts. I agree with most of what else you stated.

FSU and Clemson have invites, but public opinion has shifted, and those presidents in the Big 10, do not want to be seen as the ones that destroyed the conference. The media companies as well are receiving backlash over what happened to the PAC. I don't know if they care or not, but it's that public that pays the bills. No one leaves the ACC unless there is a compelling monetary reason to do so. What does anyone gain by eliminating he ACC? Is it just so ESPN can get rid of a few non performers? I still contend that the destruction of the PAC was not the intent. I think they just did not want to give them the money they thought they were worth. Oregon and Washington taking 1/2 shares changed that dynamic. Even if there was no GOR or exit fees, there remains very few schools that can grow the pie for the Big 10 or the SEC. Will the networks make more money with 2P conferences over 5P? I'm not convinced the math works over time.

Then they get their invite.

That answers your question. "What does anyone gain by eliminating the ACC?" I have detailed exactly how ESPN gains money by eliminating the ACC in several posts not very far down on this board. Please read them. I don't wish to retype those rather extended details everyday. There is soon going to be just a P3. The P3 will probably last as long as the NCAA does in representing FBS football. I think the SEC & B1G are destined with time to break from the NCAA. Then the Big-12 will soon be riddled as the SEC & B1G both add to new members. The SEC & B1G will both be adding those new member to avoid the public backlash you say is forming after the PAC demise. The PAC states of California, Oregon & Washington are now within the B1G footprint. The rest of the PAC states are now in the Big-12 footprint. Not sure where your fan rebellion over the PAC demise is coming from? Maybe a few Oregon State & Washington State fans cancelled cable subscriptions? You are right about that, public outcry would sure save the ACC. Public outcry would change a lot of things. People just must get off their rears and do that. Very hard to accomplish that in this country over anything.

your oversimplified analysis that it is easier to to negotiate 3 large media contracts rather than 4? If so how do you account for ESPN'S portion of the bottom line revenue generated by the ACC Network that goes away? How do you account for the money they actually make now off the market favorable contract they have with the ACC? These are just 2 big holes among others in your how ESPN gains money theory but, you are correct that money will be the ultimate driver of decisions made. There is not going to be a P3, the only question is whether it will be the P2 +1 or +2 unless all the remaining D-1s just decide to tell the P2 to take a hike and fend for themselves in ALL sports and walk away. The reality in a breakaway is they are more likely to become the USFL or XFL than NFL Lite. Things are likely to get very interesting be it in the next 25 days, 205 days or longer depending how many more miscalculations are made and some are likely never to see it coming before it is too late.

I don't have ESPN book keeping records as your bottom line reference on the ACC Network would be vey hard to get an exact precise figure on as far as net income. Some ACC schools do not make a profit for ESPN to televise. As Duke vs, Wake or Wake vs, BC. I can only guess that ESPN televises ALL ACC football games on a Saturday during football season. I know ALL SEC football games are televised every Saturday by ESPN during the football season. All that must be weighted against the potential money that ESPN would make if ACC schools as FSU & Clemson played an SEC schedule. It would take professional analysis by accountants to closely figure that. Neither you are I have the figures to do that math. I agree with the rest of your post.

is pegged at $175 - $200 million before the 3 new additions. ESPN does not televise all ACC games each week but, they get revenue by selling/licensing the rights to others. I am not saying the ACC contract is SEC level but, they are making money which means your alleged savings are smaller if they exist at all. You are right that FSU and Clemson playing an SEC schedule generates better ratings that translates to ad sales but the question is whether the revenue generated results in higher net profits considering FSU/Clemson's $80MM cost versus the net profit generated on an ACC game with a $40MM cost. Also keep in mind that for the FSU/Florida game and the Clemson/SC game ESPN has a built in headstart with the cheaper ACC rate.

I think we will both see the ESPN verdict by what ESPN does concerning that ACC Contract Extension. June 30, 2027 is not that far off.

just don't claim that you have answered questions when you have not done so in reality.

Do you want me to agree that the ACC is too strong an asset for ESPN to ever lose like you want to believe? Just like you were re-stating over & over here not more than a year ago that FSU would never dare lawsuit the ACC in light of how obviously useless that lawsuit would be. I tend to just go with how I feel on this college conference expansion. Learned quick I could be wrong. I thought FSU was headed to the SEC for sure in 1990. I could be wrong about ESPN not resigning. Time will tell. I have ignored nothing you said, I just didn't acknowledge agreement. I don't think anyone is talking the gospel on here. Never seen that person on the internet. I guess you are self ordained.

By Getting Rid of the ACC as a P4." I'm guessing you remember your words, if not, you can review them in your post above. You went on to boast that you had explained exactly how that was accomplished in posts farther down the board and said, "please read them" as you did not "wish to retype those extended details everyday." When questioned and challenged with contradicting details you ignored them and/or backtracked on what you said. Nothing was ever said that the ACC was "too strong of an asset" to ever lose but, that the gains you asserted and the financial motivation you implied might not be as clear cut as you stated. As far as your allegation of what I said over a year ago, if it was "over and over" as you assert I am sure you will have no problem linking at least one of those posts so I might refresh my memory and consider the actual context of what I said to see whether you have accurately attributed my words. I do recall saying I thought FSU was just rattling sabers to get more money and, based on a variety of reports, suing to challenge the GOR would be useless, a determination previously and similarly made by UT and OU in waiting to exit the Big 12. I don't believe the results of the currently ongoing cases have yet provided any evidence to the contrary but, would be happy to consider any evidence you might believe says otherwise. With regards to the rest of your post, you would be well served to keep in mind the words debate the post not the poster.

each year by the ACC Network. So, it stands to reason that ESPN is probably making at least $150 million a year on the network after distributions to the schools. Also, on July 21, 2016 at a media event in Charlotte, NC ESPN announced a 20 year extension of its contract with the ACC and would launch the ACC Network on August 22, 2019. Also, see link ** Edited by RJHokie at 7/20/2024, 10:08:50 PM

you have some valid points. If you believe there was a conspiracy to dismantle the PAC you might be correct. If you believe all of this we are going through is because they want a break away league, you might be correct. If you believe that there is a conspiracy to dismantle the ACC you might be correct. I think the PAC was a comedy of errors, not an end goal. I think the P2 want the money, not a separate league. I think the ACC is holding her own, and has a real good chance of staying together. The public opinion is coming from the politicians. I assure you, there are powerful people in California, and other PAC States that are voicing their disapproval. The difference between them and the ACC, is that they are doing it after the fact, and the ACC has the advantage of voicing their opinions before the fact. The Big 10 is felling it, and the Networks are feeling the pressure. A P3 is not a given, unless the money is there. I also think that the SEC and the Big 10 will sit on their hands until their current contracts are run out. Could FSU and Clemson leave? Sure, it's likely, but not set in concrete. Not this round, anyway. No one is going to the ACC from the B12 unless the ACC can distribute about $20M more than they now distribute. The same goes for any school in the ACC going to the B12. There is a possibility that happens, and a P3 is formed, but I think it is unlikely. A break away league negates all of the money and recruiting advantage of the P2. A break away league would put all the schools in that league on the same footing, as their TV and championship deals will have to be distributed evenly. It's not going to happen IMHO. The Big 10 will always make more money, the SEC will always have the better football, and then there will probably be the best of the rest conference. Whether it's the ACC or the B12 has yet to be determined. The question is whether or not a third conference can generate that $20M more per school, or not. If the P2 do in fact take more than FSU/CU, then I don't see a pathway for any conference to close the money gap, and I think that is what the P2 would like to see. Dominate the money, recruiting, power, and to hell with the rest of us.

Not the other way around in this country. I could give you a 1/2 dozen vivid examples but all would violate this board's rules. What politicians say means little. The fans could change the course of expansion. You are a Big-12 fan, I am an SEC fan. Are you upset because the Big-12 added Utah & Arizona? You think I am upset because the SEC added Texas & Oklahoma? I mean upset enough to forget college football and cancel cable subscriptions. I don't think many in the Big-12 & SEC are upset at all. The only people upset are Washington State & Oregon State fans. Just like if all my ACC predictions play out. The only fan bases really upset will be at BC, Wake, Duke, SMU, Cal & Syracuse. I think Big Media can easily live with that with what they gain from superior football match-up games. ESPN alone will decide who is right between the two of us. If ESPN resigns the ACC TV Contract through 2036. The ACC has a dozen years as your predictions allude to. If ESPN allows that ACC TV Contract to expire on June 30, 2027. My ACC predictions come into reality. It is that simple.

B10 has broken up one already.

it was an incorrect assumption to make on the invites. If either of those two made the moves they have made without solid invites their respective leaderships should be fired on the spot if that case is proven true. The more likely circumstance is the parties involved misread the ACC, thinking they would roll over and curl up in a fetal position like the PAC 12 did. Now they are left trying to resolve the situation while minimizing costs, legal exposures and the various PR debacles that likely await depending on the final results. It is one thing to kneecap a conference whose agreements are expiring. It is wholly another to do it to an existing entity even if they are operating under a less than ideal contract and it is yet another to do it to a conference that across all sports is a competitive equal to your more well resourced chosen golden children. Some might even say it depicts restraint of trade and other antitrust issues. ESPN/SEC and FOX/B1G are the major weasels that rightly deserve the all the criticism they receive. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 7/20/2024, 5:42:25 PM

They pushed the financial envelope and the media folks said they weren’t worth what they were pushing for. They explored the private equity route and that wasn’t favorable either. Plus they waited way too long to address the financial issues until near the end of the media contract. Plus they didn’t have exit fees and/or a grant of rights. The Big Ten half shares taken by Oregon and Washington probably approximate what they were getting or going to get by staying in the PAC 12. In the short-term Oregon State and Washington State should be ok financially with the $65 million exit agreement from the 10 members that jumped ship unless they have to use a good part of that to fund any exit fees for other schools to join the conference. I’m not sure how future NCAA basketball revenue distributions will be allocated. I believe the NCAA said the conference can remain at two members for two years, so I guess the two remaining members will receive those funds for 12 members for at least two years.

destruction of the PAC 12. Too little effort, too late in the process, equated in the PAC 12 conference collapse !

no leverage and a losing legal hand.

like they pay the playoff teams. So you are right, right now 🏀 schools don’t matter as much, but they will in the future IMHO. That’s why the SEC wants UNC, and UNC wants UVA, but Virginia Tech is closer to being an AAU school every day, so something weird could happen when all is said and done IMHO

That frickin spell check will get after you now!! 🤣🤣

fit better with their fan base, football history, and they have the location. Many won't like this, but they are a perfect fit in the new B12 as well. Many of the same type of schools, but VT did have that run on the national stage. As an outsider, the Big 10 will be dumb enough to take Virginia, and I will say also, that Virginia does not fit very well in the new B12. Just my perception. When the new March Madness contract comes up, I expect the P2 to want guaranteed money, just like in the football playoffs. You know, or they will threaten to break away. There will be a ton of money at stake when the new contract for the tournament is negotiated. The football money has already been decided. There may be a move or two left in football, but I just do not see the large moves in the P2 at this time.

any real leverage with the March Madness contract they would have to add 14 or more teams to their current configuration including several schools primarily noted for basketball. Absent that their threat to breakaway is virtually meaningless for multiple reasons. The non P2 schools have done a questionable job so far of recognizing and harnessing their collective power but, ongoing House discussions MIGHT be opening their eyes finally. Think of the P2 as Gordon Gekko and the boys at Bluestar and the non P2s as the unions.