profit "sharing" deal. Win more and take home more cash.

any program that still has a business model of the 1990's for financing and fund raising is dead meat. Universities to be in the top brands MUST transform athetlics into a professional model; embrace non-traditional money raising, getting their brand out. AD's must have that professional management experience, not from an academic background. UNC organizationally has transformed itsself, the old AD has been retired, new AD from NASCAR background is new. No more tea and crumpets. Clemson the same. FSU acutally has changed, so has Georgia Tech. WHere is VT and UVA? are they the last schools of platitudes and embracing tradtion ways of atheltics? who will adjust first. who will be left behind

More realignment will only happen based on two things. Playoff expansion and new media deals in 4-5 years. The only way any part of the ACC might change the calculations and have an impact is if the ACC goes on a major run of 3-4 playoff teams every year, multiple teams in the final four every year, and multiple national champions over the next few years. Without that, the ACC has no hand.

are overrated right now with Streaming. UNC is clearly a great basketball addition, but NCSU is better for football. Way more enthusiasm and watchers.

FSU and Miami football are next. Those would be the 4 to take to try to get the ACC to crumble.

trustee’s power in this situation. It’s stronger than many think. The SEC mainly because of John Skipper’s influence, really want UNC, and they will do almost anything to get them. PS Also don’t underrate how much the University of Florida and University of South Carolina like having their SEC Conference advantage over their state rivals, regardless of what they say publicly.

Just saying...lol

in those states. I am not saying it will be NC State, but I also would not be shocked if it is them because of the State School Board of Trustees. One brings basketball, and one brings football fan bases. *Similar State School Board of Trustees

I would buy that UNC’s brass would have the hubris to believe they could get NC State into the SEC after UNC goes to the SEC first. But there no world where NC State joins the SEC while Clemson doesn’t.

contemplated for college conference realignment and TV deals.

power and the tag along effect. NC State Board of Governors is not going to like NC State being left behind for Clemson or Duke. Duke and UNC could still play basketball without being in the same conference. SEC mostly wanted Texas, (Oklahoma is a much smaller), B1G wanted USC (UCLA has struggled in football, and they could have had LA without them), B1G wanted Phil Knight and Oregon, but took Washington with them. Even the SEC wanting UNC, there is a big debate about their tag a long will be. South Carolina is small state and does the SEC really change their ratings much by taking them. So for every argument for a school, there are strong counter arguments for other schools too. PS Many don’t see this change happening for 4-5 years, a lot will happen that could change what is projected to happen now. ** Edited by Stech at 7/31/2025, 8:27:40 AM

The state government is consumed with being the top state for business in the USA (Which we are) with a secondary goal of trying to eliminate state taxes. Any squabbling amongst NC State grads within the government over conference alignment pales in comparison with how much business the Research Triangle is able to do. And that business megalopolis is what will ensure NC State remains as solid a university as it wants to be. And it isn’t like NC State is going to be left in the wilderness. They will be in an ACC or Big XII that allows them to be just as competitive as they currently are in sports. (This will also be the fate of VT). The Wolfpack and Hokies will continue to pull in $50M or so per year from a media deal in either the ACC or B12. They aren’t going to be in a Cal situation or Oregon State or Washington State situation. If that were the case, sure the state government may draw a line. But it’s not. The ACC won’t go the way of the Pac 12, primarily because of Notre Dame and Duke. NC State, however will have its choice of the Big 12 or ACC to remain as competitive as it wants in college football.

people need you to keep tuning in for the next few years to keep their ratings up. So expect what you have already seen, a pivot into the tag a long repeatedly. PS 100 million in income versus 50 million in income is a gigantic difference. I don’t think the North Carolina Board of Governors or from what I have been told the Virginia Legislatures are planning to just roll over for that amount of money. Like I said, every school taken so far has had a tag along. There is a clear pattern that should not be ignored. In the meantime get your 🍿and expect some twists and turns, what is happening today, might not be a done deal for tomorrow.

In fact, very few conference expansion schools have been tag alongs. Assuming tag along means that the influence of one school causes another school to gain conference affiliation when they otherwise would not have. Assuming that, you seem to be confusing the method of conference expansion usually including two schools at a time with the thought that one of the expansion schools is a ‘tag along’. Texas A&M did not have a tag along. Missouri was not a tag along. (1 had neither to do with the other outside the necessity for the SEC to add two schools) Nebraska did not. Rutgers and Maryland were not tag alongs. They were added because of their markets, irrespective of each other’s political capital. Texas and Oklahoma were not tag alongs. They were the two biggest football brands in the Big 12, which had the soonest media contract expiration date. Oregon and Washington were not tag alongs. Arizona and Arizona State weren’t. Utah wasn’t. Colorado wasn’t. SMU wasnt a tag along. It’s probably easier to list the actual tag alongs. Virginia Tech was a tag along. And VT wasn’t even a tag along with a conference expansion target. Stanford and Cal were tag alongs purely for Notre Dame, which has an immense gravitational pull in the ACC. UCLA was a tag along. And the only reason UCLA was a tag along was because they’re in the largest TV market in the country. Oh and they’re one of the bluest of blue blood hoops programs of all time. And that’s about it. The SEC isn’t adding two North Carolina schools when neither have ever sniffed college football relevance at the highest level. They’ll add North Carolina because of their brand recognition in a massively important state to the SEC. And laugh in North Carolina’s face at the request to add NC State as a tag along. They’ll add Clemson as the premier football brand in the ACC that can generate 4-5M viewers on their own. Those are the two adds the SEC needs to make next. That’s it. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/31/2025, 11:02:35 AM

by that. I gave my case for it, you don’t buy it, that’s fine. I said you could be right, and you could be right, but I don’t think this is a done deal yet. You seem to think things can’t change from whatever they are right now, I do, so we respectfully agree to disagree about that part of this discussion. Have an awesome day!!

different ideas. Texas was and is the most valuable brand in all of college sports, and it's not close, with an estimated lead of almost a half-billion dollars in value, and $40m more in annual program revenue than the next in line. That's an absolute game changer of an add, and there's no way anyone would say no, no matter who is already in your conference. Neither FSU nor Clemson can match even half of Texas' worth, either in terms of estimated program valuation or annual revenue. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/30/2025, 10:22:49 AM

there's not one shred of new detail. Every single story says something along the lines of, "UNC is a big brand." Oh, wow, primo reporting there. And also "UNC would like to go to the SEC," and "UNC has a handshake deal to go to the SEC if they can." Well, yeah, no ****. UNC and everyone else. And, most egregious, "UNC has a secret deal with UVA to take them along to the SEC as a package deal." As I've said, over and over, any time you see anyone say anything about UVA to the SEC, you can automatically write them off as an idiot that either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is otherwise just making things up for attention. Notice that there's zero mention in any of these stories when or how UNC plans to leave for the SEC, nor are there are any quotes included from anyone from UNC about anything. People are so hot for conference realignment content that any blogger with a keyboard can write up a story that basically says, "UNC wants to go to the SEC and would do so if asked," and it will set everyone's ass on fire for a month. I would hope, at this point, that the knowledgeable folks on this board have become savvy enough to see through the hype and BS, and are able to pick out the actual tidbits of new, credible information when they drop. There are none in all this recent "UNC-2-SEC, OMG!!!11" mess that I've seen.

1. If the school in question is like UNC and has another in-state state school like NC State with them, what will happen to the school left behind? If the question is ignored or glossed over, you know the "take" is a fraud. 2. How are the exit fees being covered? Who is writing the check? All that you heard after the settlement is how "easy" it is to leave the ACC now. Meanwhile, everyone has alligator arms when it's time to pick up the check. Everyone seems to think that ESPN and Fox are pulling the strings here, and they probably are. But I don't see any of them saying they'll pick up the tab on the 165m for FSU to the P2.

1. Like the oft-repeated "media markets" trope, I don't think this matters as much as folks apparently think it does. There is no honor among thieves to be found when it comes to this round of conference realignment. Oregon left Oregon State in the dust. Washington left Washington State. Oklahoma left Oklahoma State. UCLA left Cal, with the UC system governance board and half the California legislature crying foul. I don't think it's even a question of whether or not both institutions are governed by the same entity; I think it's more about what actual leverage one institution holds over the other to prevent it from doing whatever it wants to do. I know that "UNC and NCSU are tied at the hip because x, y, and z" is a trope, but, if the metal hit the meat, I don't think there would be any appetite to actually do anything about it with anyone that actually had the power to stop UNC from leaving the ACC if that's what UNC really wants to do. Why would they? Do you really think that powerful movers and shakers are going to cut off UNC's nose because the SEC or Big 10 doesn't want NC State? I don't. Again, you have to ask yourself, why would they? I imagine, if anything, UNC would be allowed to leave for greener pastures with some kind of "Calimony" requirement, similar to what happened with UCLA - they pay NCSU a nominal penance and go. But even that would surprise me. 2. The price tag on leaving is no longer the big issue for anyone in the ACC, football brand or otherwise. It would be a no brainer to pay, and, believe it or not, I imagine any ACC school could come up with the exit fee relatively quickly. When you're talking about doubling your $45m annual media rights payouts, or more, $165m isn't that big of a price tag in the grand scheme of things. Since the exit fee issue has been settled, the big issue now is actually having somewhere to go. You have to create enough value at your new destination to not only avoid dilution of current shares, but add to the pot. The Big 10 is extremely top heavy. Half the football programs in the Big 10 have less real value than most of those in the ACC, and there's no good way for the conference to get rid of that dead weight. So, I imagine the Big 10 is not exactly dying to add more mouths to feed until they figure that issue out. The SEC is filled with high-value football programs, and already doesn't want to play more conference games now, because they feel they're not being adequately compensated for those additional L's, both in terms of media rights payouts and CFP access. So, clearly they're also not exactly dying to add more mouths to feed. You take all that, and combine it with speculation from pretty some pretty credible folks that these enormous P2 media rights deals are very likely overvalued as-is, and you don't have a situation where the SEC or the Big 10 are dying to expand any time soon.

I'm just saying that there is work to do there, and every talking head loser with conferences realignment podcast pretty much ignores this. BTW, within VA, I think UVa and Tech should take an "every man for himself" approach now. If UVa gets in the P2 without us, more power to them. If VT gets in the P2 with or without UVa, then that's even better. Re: your point about the top heavy Big Ten. One of the many reasons I am a big advocate for going to a EFL-like annual relegation and promotion system is because it deals with this very issue without being arbitrary or heavy handed, and by selling what people really want to see: competition. So if Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Penn State, et. al. want to low-key get rid of Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, and Northwestern, they don't have to give them the Wazzu treatment. They just have to advocate for relegation and promotion. That would allow the cream to rise to the top and make more money while they are doing it. Imagine Brian Kelly playing in a game in mid November to avoid relegation. It would break the internet.

growing pains the English football system went through in the early 1990s, so a promotion/relegation system would fit right along with that trend. But, promotion/relegation was always part of the English system - in order to establish the Premier League as a sanctioned competition under the English system, those founding clubs had to acquiesce to a format that allowed lower tier teams access via promotion. Otherwise, the EPL could not have existed within the overall framework of English association football, which, in essence, would have de-legitimatized the entire thing. So, they made the deal. That's why I keep harping that the non-P2 has leverage in what's currently going on - they can refuse to cooperate and in turn to allow the SEC and Big 10 to operate their athletic programs within the current overall framework - that's significant. But, you say that to most people on here, and they'll respond with, "well, nobody would care about anything but the SEC and Big 10 if they broke away." BS. To my knowledge, there has never been anything resembling promotion/relegation in the history of American professional or amateur sports. Everything here from high school right up to the pros has always been run on closed-off league systems, which the English absolutely detest, which is why the European "Super League" concept failed. The English, even the supporters of the most wealthy, top flight English clubs, cannot comprehend a competition where one group of teams just decides they're better than everyone else and plays in a closed-off league.

Some schools have self relegated like the University of Chicago, others have crawled up to D1 status, but nothing systematic. The only example I can think of is high schools moving divisions based on changing enrollment. For the average sports consumer in the US, promotion/relegation is a pretty out there idea. Not saying it couldn’t catch on.

football is ripe to try it for a whole host of reasons. The main reason being that there are already so many established schools with a following. Combine that with a de-facto, but imperfect tier system that the TV networks have unwittingly created. In other words, there are about 130 D1 programs right now that could easily be made into about 5 tiers. And college football has always had something great that most other pro US sports leagues don't have: and that is a GREAT and highly relevant regular season. That's what the PL has. And I think it would work in college football (but as a side note, I'd divide the country in two in some way such as East and west, and have those two play a one game playoff for the national championship. It would rank up there with the Super Bowl). And when you have 130 fairly well-known brands with pedigree, all having the chance to move up or down, it would create massive interest. OTOH, if you think about the MLS. It is not respected by the rest of the world, including Americans who appreciate world club soccer, mainly because the clubs are franchises and the league has no relegation and promotion, and the clubs have no pedigree. It is an unauthentic top-down creation, and relegation and promotion is a non-starter because there is nothing under it. They run it like an American sports franchise league, not a world soccer tiered league.

relegation. The reason those pro leagues work is because you know who will be on the team year to year. Until they fix the transfer whenever you want rule, this doesn't work.

Tell me you have never paid attention to the English football pyramid (or anywhere else on the planet with a similar system) without saying you have never paid attention to the English football pyramid. Unless you're following a top flight team, the players change all the time; it's almost exactly a 1-1 with what's happening now in college football, except there are no player contracts (yet) in college football, and the team "buying" a player doesn't have to pay a premium to their old team, they just poach them. It's a built in part of the pyramid system. The idea is to accumulate the players you need to win your current tier and keep them there until you move up, then start accumulating better players to win the next tier. When a team is promoted, half or more of the players end up getting replaced with better players, because promotion comes with more money to be spent and better competition to best. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/30/2025, 5:49:12 PM

without doing it subtly because I don't keep up with it. The difference (for me at least) is the teams are the ones making the move, so they have a bigger plan in place. They are the ones causing the dominoes to fall, not just because a player comes up and says I'm leaving. At which point the team has to scramble to replace the player. And even if I still misunderstand the situation and they can, my point is, if your team was horrible last year and was relegated to G5 for instance and you went out and bought a whole team, that team would be playing in the G5 this year and by the time you got promoted again, most of those kids would probably be out the door for a larger payday. It would also be no different from now where player retention is the name of the game and the larger programs with the most money will keep their kids and stay at the top of the heap. Relegation might provide some excitement and interest at the bottom of the top tier/top of the lower one but until they fix the transfer rule, I don't think it makes sense. ** Edited by Tombo at 7/31/2025, 8:38:45 PM

I think it's become crystal clear at this point that what we're seeing now IS the transfer rule. The schools can't legislate their way out of it; the courts have stricken down every attempt thus far, and I also don't see that changing. If anything, everyone had better just hope the players don't find a way to successfully challenge the general concept of "5 years to play 4, with some exceptions for compelling cause" eligibility, because that's they're coming for next.

relegation/promotion are two totally separate issues. In fact, if you look at the way the EFL does it, there are transfer windows and incentives to keep guys on your club. And what is best, if the rules are broken, teams are punished in real time with points (standings) reductions, which could lead to relegation. None of this "vacating wins" a decade after the fact. I think it was last year or the year before that Everton FC (a big name in the PL) got a points reduction that caused them to have to fight like hell not to get relegated. It was absolute cinema the whole season.

The only way I see promotion and relegation being a thing in college football is if it's intra-conference, and it would have to be a really big conference, like ACC-Big 12 combined big. Like, for example, 36 teams, with 4 groups of 9, and you're only eligible to win the conference crown if you're in the top tier. Otherwise, you can only win your tier's crown, and be promoted to the next tier, where you switch places with the last place team in that tier. Even intra-conference, it would massively raise stakes in that everyone has something actually within their reach and would be in danger of flopping down, and it would be compelling to watch every year. Imagine a team who had, on paper, not just theoretically, and for everyone to see, worked their way up for 5-10 years to get to the top tier and win a conference crown. Imagine the drama of, for example, FSU cratering after an amazing season and getting relegated to a lower tier of conference competition - that relegation or no game would be a blockbuster.

I'd divide the country in two based on the location of the approximately 130 or so schools one of these two ways. Options: 1. Simply East vs. West. The dividing line would be somewhere around Chicago. 65 on each side. 2. Existing B1G states vs. existing SEC states with the other states being assigned to one side or the other to put 65 on one side and 65 on the other. -A school's schedule of say 12 games would only be with the tier and side. There would be no OOC games. Then, the top team on each side would play for the tier national championship on New Year's Day with the headliner being the Tier 1 national championship at the Rose Bowl. -Every school not in a title would get one additional game. The teams could play whoever they want in a "bowl" game and keep the money and pay the players so it doesn't become a mail-in game. This could be used to play a rival from another tier (so let's say VT is in tier 2 and UVa in tier 3, we could play after the regular season). -The champion from each tier (such as Tier 2 East) gets automatic promotion, and a team that finishes in last in their respective tier/side) would get relegated. I'd also add some relegation and promotion games to the post-season. For example, the #2 team from Tier #2 can play the #12 team from Tier 1 for a chance to swap. Team #3 from Tier 2 could play the #11 team from Tier 1. This would count as their post season game and they would get massive ratings. This would be done up and down the 5 tiers. So it would look like this: 1. Tier and side champion (#1): promoted (get to play in a tier national championship) 2. Last place team (#13): relegated 3. #12 higher tier team @ #2 lower tier team in a relegation battle 4. #3 lower tier team @ #11 higher tier team in a relegation battle 5. The rest of the teams (#4 to #10) are safe, plus the #13 team get to schedule a "bowl" game with anyone else available as a 13th game. The amount of interest, competition, ratings and money would blow away what exists right now.

So, sadly, it will never happen.

The overwhelming view on the situation of having 6 or more teams leaving means leaving the ACC to form a new league. But it does not seem to preclude the ACC breaking into 2 divsions, a G5 league of about 10-12 team and a Little p2 of about 12 teams. If this were done, it would be the perfect scenario to add that advance/relegate model between the 2.

3 Tiers, 11 teams each tier. 10 games. 5 home. 5 away. 2 OOC games. Keep the money equal for all tiers for 3 years. For the first year: Tier 1: 6 ACC teams, 5 BigXII teams Tier 2: 5 ACC teams, 6 BigXII teams Tier 3: 6 ACC teams, 5 BigXII teams After that, the winning does the talking. Relegate and promote liberally (say, 5 teams) for the first three years. Then do three after that. It would likely produce massive interest. And the hope would be that the P2 (read: their TV network overlords) would want to get in on the action down the road to build an entire national system. Who knows, maybe even Notre Dame would want to get in on it. Well, someone needs to experiment with it. Why not us?

You have to have enough teams in a tier to actually have a conference schedule. I think you would need at least 9 teams in a tier, with 8 scheduled conference games. I think you'd need, at minimum, 27 teams in a conference to make this work, because I think you need 3 tiers to make the competition robust, and for the idea to actually be compelling to the audience. I suppose you could do it with 18 teams and 2 tiers, but I think, in that case, you'd have to promote and relegate 2 or even 3 teams each season between tiers to actually make it interesting. The fewer tiers, the higher the annual stakes have to be. The higher the stakes are each season, the harder it's going to be to get sign on from your programs. Everyone would want the ability to win and move up every year, nobody would want to have to worry about relegation every single season.

sometimes gets overlooked in the promotion/relegation discussion is the "value" of the opponent for home games. A reason pro soccer leagues can do promotion/relegation every season is because the schedule is set up in such a way that a team gets to play every opponent home and away in the same season so no team is placed at an unfair advantage or disadvantage in terms of a home schedule. Currently the college football schedule is not structured that way. Given that certain ACC schools have a higher value as a home opponent than other schools, will enough ADs being willing to risk not being able to play those higher valued teams at home before being relegated? If the team end up being a yo-yo team, then they could end up going multiple seasons of not playing a more valuable team at home because of the schedule the team inherits when promoted at the time. What would promotion/relegation mean for the ACC's arrangement with Notre Dame? What would that mean for rivalries when 1 team is in a different tier?

1) Regarding Notre Dame - Notre Dame isn't and never has been a member of the conference for football. They are only affiliated with the ACC insofar as they can exploit it while offering little to nothing in return. Accordingly, they would not be scheduled as a conference opponent in this thing we've made up for fun. Also, in a real world context, my inclination is that the "why marry the cow when you get the milk for free" relationship between Notre Dame and the ACC is not going to be a thing in ~5 years or so - unless you're living in the Land of Make-Believe, it's pretty obvious that the ACC is going to take a major hit sometime before 2030, there will no longer be any ACC-football scheduling value for ND to exploit, and I imagine Notre Dame will want to park its basketball and olympic sports elsewhere, likely the Big East, where they can play other Catholic schools in major metros. 2) Regarding home vs. away scheduling being on a two year cycle - Don't care. Boo hoo, if you don't win games and either stay in the best tier or move up, you never get to play the highest value teams at home. That's just the way it has to be in our little thing we've made up for fun. The entire idea behind this is not to please an athletic director, or make sure programs get good home schedules, it's to create compelling football content for media partners to sell to casual viewers. You want a better home schedule next year? Then beat the crappy teams on your schedule this year. The teams that win games get the highest profile teams on their schedule home and away, the teams that lose games don't - you play slop, because you are slop. Is it entirely, 100% fair? No, not really. But neither is the current setup. Win and prosper, lose and suffer. Keep moving forward and reap the benefits, stagnate and get nowhere, or lose and face the consequences. Those are the stakes, that's what makes it compelling. 3) Regarding rivalries - see 2 above. You want to play your rival, but you're in a different tier? Sorry, princess, you're going to have to win your way up and EARN the right. There's no crying about anything in this league. Yes, it's brutal, but everyone also has some attainable goal to play for and work towards. Right now, there are plenty of ACC teams that begin every season with zero chance to accomplish anything at all whatsoever, and, accordingly, nobody cares about or watches them. It's also a TV-first league, so I don't want to hear AD's crying about selling tickets. This isn't D3 or FCS. If you can manage to create TV hype, in-person attendance will always follow. At this level, the TV hype has to come first. Yes, this all sounds revolutionary and iconoclastic, but it is. This is also little more than a thought exercise, because it will never happen. I can tell you one thing - doing things the same way they've been done for 50+ years sure isn't working for the ACC or the Big 12 - they've been pantsed in entirely embarrassing fashion by the SEC and Big 10, and treated like dog crap by their media partners.

If you have to play what is perceived as the best team on the road, then so be it. You will get them at home the following year if you stay up. I also favor an odd amount of teams in a tier so everyone gets the same amount of home and away games. In the example I used above, I would have 13 teams in a tier/division. 6 home games, 6 away. If you remain for the next year, you get the same schedule but opposite venues. If you are promoted, you take over the relegated team's schedule. It would just go in perpetuity at that point. Everyone plays the same teams. You can't get much more equitable scheduling than that.

disappointed I get that it will never, ever happen in a million years.

1. "Put the band back together": go back to round robin conferences. Big 8, Old-order ACC, Big (actual) TEN. SWC, Pac-10, Old-order SEC and some sort of Big East (with the old Eastern Independents). However, as much as real purists like myself would love to see it, the inertia of the system (as wrongheaded as it is) is driving us away from this. 2. So, I figure, take the system where it is dying to go. And that's a national relegation and promotion system. EVERYONE should want this except for the bottom feeders of the P2 living off conference arrangements they made a century ago. The top programs will make even MORE money in the new system. The status quo is garbage and everyone knows it. When I hear these Big Ten dorks talk about 4 AQs to the P2, it makes me want to projectile vomit. And what's worse, is that decisions made by TV execs and a handful of college presidents are killing off long-established and outstanding athletic conferences and departments. Why does the president of Rutgers have any say on basically banishing programs like Arizona State to de-facto permanent relegation? It's gross. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/30/2025, 5:16:38 PM

Let's say that the 3-tier ACC-BigXII merger discussed above would happen; and it would be viewed by the powers-that-be in college football as some sort of pilot program. The 3 tiers of the ACC-B12 merger could later "invite" 11 G6 teams to form a fourth tier underneath them and give them the chance to work their way up. 1. I think it would create massive interest and dollars. 2. It would be the American way. 3. And most importantly, it would bring the P2 and their anti-competitive system into question. It's kinda like the non-P2's version of Moneyball. I would be here for it, and watch the **** out of all four tiers. Right now, I basically just watch the Hokies.

sport. Right now, for 95% of teams, there are no stakes, no drama, no nothing. With that kind of system, if everybody participated in it, every single season becomes make or break for a lot of teams. There would be enormous stakes for promotion, relegation, money, everything. I think people would even be glued to who wins the lowest division each year, because they would know that team is moving up and will have access to an entirely different set of opponents. And, anyone with a brain should know good and well that some of these "INHERENTLY BETTER" programs would get relegated, and I don't even think it would be a rare occurrence. You wouldn't even need a playoff anymore, really - it would just be whoever wins the top division. Every other division has its own championship to worry about. It wouldn't even be about single seasons anymore for the vast majority of teams - following your team in achieving its goals would turn into a multi-season storyline. But, no, let's just keep on pretending that Vanderbilt and Northwestern should be paid twice as much or more as every ACC and Big 12 program, and having a system where only the same 5-8 programs ever win the championship, just because. I honestly think that if this was instituted at the conference level, it would be a runaway success, everyone else would immediately emulate it, and it would ultimately replace the entire "conferences" concept at the national level. Closed leagues would eventually be laughed about as a cave man relic of the past. There's a reason the English, who have the most watched professional sports league of any kind on the planet, and every other soccer league in Europe does it, and it's not because it sucks and doesn't generate interest. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/30/2025, 5:43:01 PM

is OFF the field. And people are sick of it, and turned off. Athletic programs have to sweat out the decisions of others that have nothing to do with on-field competition. The "drama" is basically all bad. So, what we have now are YouTubers capitalizing on the drama with "conference realignment" channels. It's like the Pawn Stars saying "that's the best I can do." Get the drama out of the hands of the dweebs, and get it ON the field. That's the key. That's where the money is. That's where continuity actually is. You talk about Northwestern and Vanderbilt. And we all kind of assume that they wouldn't survive in a Tier One. But it would be absolute cinema if the system changed and all of a sudden the Wildcats and the Commodores started raking. In turn, what if a team with a massive sense of entitlement and superiority (like FSU haha) would fall on their face--the general followers of the sport would go ape ****. Side note: I used to HATE soccer. But when I started to study the English system on a whim, the system itself made me love it. It blows away any North American pro "franchise" league. I hardly watch any US pro sports anymore. I love hockey, but I don't even bother with the NHL regular season anymore. Wake me up for the Stanley Cup playoffs. I include polls and CFP committees in this group of dweebs. ** Edited by Maroon Baboon at 7/31/2025, 12:40:46 PM

I thought they don't but not sure. I asked an English fan of a smaller club on if he is ok with the best and most expensive players on clubs like Chelsea, he had no problem with it. I would.

have here with pro sports. Big time teams can afford to buy talent from the smaller ones. College football could do a salary cap if they want. It would need to be enforced with real consequences though.

floating out there that could go into effect for the 2025-26 season. If it does go into effect, then the new rule will likely replace EPL's Profit and Sustainability Rules. "The Premier League Profit and Sustainability Rules dictate the amount of money that Premier League clubs are permitted to lose over a specific period. They determine how much these teams can spend on things like transfers, in the sense that each club must toe the line when it comes to balancing income and expenditure. The rules are not the same as UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations, which apply to teams that play in competitions such as the Champions League and Europa League, although there are similarities. In the simplest terms, Profit and Sustainability Rules — or PSR — allow clubs to lose £105 million ($134m) over the course of three seasons, or £35m per season, on a rolling basis."

scheduling topic. It has to do with the ACC's scheduling arrangement in football where Notre Dame plays 5 or 6 ACC schools every year. How would the tier system impact that arrangement? I don't disagree the ACC probably needs to do something revolutionary. At least until the plug is pulled from life support. However, revolutionary change still requires the buy in from enough presidents and ADs. Unless the ACC Commish wants to go dictator which could have value from an entertainment standpoint.

schedules each year, no different than now. You don't really need a dictator - you just need a strong visionary that can sell the idea that the status quo is not tenable. The idea would be that member school AD's, presidents, coaches, etc. would buy in because they're facing an existential crisis and have little choice EXCEPT to buy in. The status quo clearly is not an option. Per the status quo, from a money standpoint, they're never going to catch up to or be competitive with the SEC and Big 10. Casual viewers are never going to watch their football games. Because there's no interest and half the money, they'll never win anything ever again in football. Their member schools will all make half as much or less from their media rights than Vanderbilt University. And, eventually, you get permanently relegated to a different subdivision, where even fewer people will care about your football programs. They HAVE to do something different; there's no other choice.

the team is in vs. it being restricted to a specific tier? If the ACC has 24+ members in football, then the home/away cycle with Notre Dame should take about 10 years to complete. Depending on the number of ACC teams involved and assuming Notre Dame continues playing 5 ACC schools each year. Even if the ACC makes radical changes, it still may not change the outcome (aka destined to be relegated to a different subdivision or "division" if the P2 break away). If the ACC was going to make a radical change, then it probably should have done it back in the early 2000s when it decided to expand to 12 members.

it has been doing right up until it implodes into a mid-major football conference about five years from now. So, this has pretty much all been an exercise in make-believe. But, at least for me, that exercise was based on the concept that the Big 10 and SEC have been able to do what they've done based upon little more than TV money. At the end of the day, TV money has been the foundation everything else was built upon for them. You get more TV money by offering compelling content that the casual viewer will watch. Improving their content and getting more TV money is the only way forward for the ACC and Big 12. Otherwise, frankly, they may as well just go ahead and quit the game as currently played - just drop down a level and be done with it.

train reaches the stations. Hence why I said the ACC needed to make a radical move back in the early 2000s because the warning signs were already pointing that the ACC wasn't heading in the right direction. The delay in launching the ACCN and the horrible GOR only confirmed it. Given the way the P2s are trying to gradually increase the number of playoff slots available to them, it will eventually get to a point where it becomes obvious that they should do their own thing for a number reasons. Once that happens, then I think DI-FBS will still be relegated to mid-major status or "DII" status because the P2 League will be viewed as the highest level of college football (or even athletics in general). At this point, I am not sure there is anything the NCAA, conferences, or schools can do to stop as long as the networks are drooling over the P2s. People can hope that a P2 League will generate horrible ratings because so many fans will be alienated from it. However, I don't think that will be the case because sports gambling will keep non-P2 fans interested in the league. There is a reason the reason sports gambling generates all that money each year and I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

not be sustainable long term with the always evolving streaming technology, availability, upstarts and packages. You have to think the P2 heads see the long term risk of all their current eggs in the ESPN/FOX baskets, let alone additional "market brand darlings". I can envision a future where streaming packages for each school are subscribed without any conference collection and distribution. ** Edited by Maroon Unit at 7/29/2025, 12:33:23 PM

sustainable as a long-term substantive financial plan for a conference. And of course, the ACCN was late to the game and unable to even capitalize on the money grab like the P2 networks did. In the end, people who actually watch games and people who actually attend games are what matters. College football power players have lost sight of this. They are going to get the sport NASCAR'ed.

the SEC until the plan leaked, and they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar. There were no rumors about USCLA leaving the PAC before they announced. A little discussion, but the click baiters appeared after those announcements, not before. Since those two announcements, there has been a lot of movement, a lot of speculation, and like a clock, someone is right from time to time. Someone mentioned it on another thread - UNC may not be happy about the uneven distribution formula, and may be in the process of trying to change that. Leak a rumor here, give a quote there, and the internet takes off. It is clear that EVERONE currently in the ACC would take an out to the P2 in a heartbeat. The recent settlement makes that not only possible, but puts an actual price on it. Do you think VT could come up with $165M or $147M to go to the P2 in the next couple of years if they had a pro rata deal in the SEC? We know Memphis could. While you are right that it's nothing we haven't heard before, what is different now, is the price of moving out of the conference has been set.

giant novelty Publisher's Clearinghouse-style check for $165 million dollars made out and ready to go tomorrow if they had an SEC or Big 10 invite in-hand. I imagine the same would go for any Big 12 school. At this point in the game, the problem with leaving isn't the money, it's actually having anywhere else worthwhile to go. So, again, there's really nothing in the recent UNC hoopla that I would consider "news."

becomes whether they have an offer or not. It's my guess, that now that there is a settlement, FSU would have announced already. UNC as well as any school would - and they would have the check written tomorrow. There hasn't been an announcement, so here we are, once again with speculation. BTW, I don't think there is a school in the B12 that moves the needle for the P2. Like those schools in the PAC however, I think there are a few schools in the ACC that think they do move the needle, and should be included. As long as schools think they are worth more than what they are getting now, this will be an endless cycle.

I actually think Virginia Tech has more value than most folks seem to, for the exact same reason I think UNC has (to an even greater extent) value - they are both the big football brand (yes, of course, UNC is a bigger basketball brand, but I would also consider them the biggest college football brand in the state of North Carolina) in a high-population, high-wealth state where neither the SEC nor the Big 10 currently has a foothold. You absolutely cannot say that in the context of BOTH P2 conferences about any other legitimate expansion candidate. First, let's address UVA. UVA football has been a non-starter for the better part of 25 years. Frankly, it's an absolutely embarrassing operation, even more so than what's been going on with VT. Expansion is about media money, and media money is about football - nobody cares about or watches UVA football. There are no fans. They're a joke. If you search "UVA football" on YouTube, the first think you find will be a 20 minute video of Colin Cowherd calling the UVA football program sissies that wear make-up to games. You are not a valuable expansion candidate with a football program like UVA's, full stop. Any other consideration (basketball, olympic sports, academics, rich alumni, "flagship school," etc.) is slop for uninformed rubes to gobble up. Would, maybe, the Big 10 consider adding them? Maybe, if they wanted to expand into Virginia, but they would consider Virginia Tech first if VT was available. Zero doubt. I don't care how you bake the cupcake, there is absolutely zero circumstance where UVA is getting into the P2 to the exclusion of VT. If you believe otherwise, you're completely ignoring everything that has transpired in the past five years. Now, let's address the rest of the group you usually see mentioned (i.e., FSU, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech) The SEC already has football programs in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina - while the Big 10 may be interested, I'm highly skeptical that the SEC would covet the addition of FSU, Clemson, GT, or Miami. People have to stop thinking about this in terms of "college athletics" and start thinking about it in terms of "professional football league for television," because that's where the money is coming from, and that's what's driving expansion decisions. The SEC propaganda machine is currently operating 24/7 at full tilt; you hear all day, every day, from the most influential media voice in sports, that the SEC is stronger than all other leagues, and that it "just means more." Whether or not that's true, the casual viewer, never mind the SEC fan, is going to prioritize watching SEC conference games either way, so, if they're going to expand, why would they stay in the same pool when they could expand their existing footprint? Why would they cannibalize their existing brands? In the year of our Lord 2025, would the MLB, the NFL, the NBA, or even the NHL do that? No. HELL no, they wouldn't. It wouldn't make sense, either for the conference, or, more importantly, for Disney/ESPN. If anybody will be looking to add those programs, it will almost certainly be the Big 10 and the FOX/CBS/NBC media axis. Are there some outliers to my analysis? Sure, I guess. The SEC added Texas. But Texas was a package deal to add Oklahoma, and Texas is, well, Texas. It's the most valuable brand in college football in terms of sheer dollars, even more so than Notre Dame. I honestly couldn't tell you why the Big 10 added UCLA, but I assume it's because USC insisted. USC is a brand on-par with Texas and Notre Dame; besides ND, there's no remaining non-P2 affiliated schools I can think of with that kind of brand power. You do what you have to do to get them on board. Unless USC just flat-out refused to come without UCLA for whatever reason, I have to imagine the "travel partner" addition to keep the membership number even would have been Oregon. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/29/2025, 12:20:18 PM ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 7/29/2025, 12:29:06 PM

back in my younger days, VT is a no brainer for the SEC, as I've been to many venues in the SEC, B12, and BIG. While I haven't been to Lane yet personally, it's right up there on my bucket list. All of that was way before this conference realignment started. It's just the kind of fan base that makes college athletics fun and interesting to me. UVA even being considered in this period of football brands being consolidated is a joke, and not even close to reality. I just don't see it. The same goes for UNC, but they might be unique enough with their national brand to pull it off - but their football has been a joke for my lifetime, and I take their football as seriously as the nation takes KU football. There just isn't any there there. The Florida schools and Clemson do get the national ratings, but like you said, those markets are covered. Those lawsuits were a crybaby tantrum because of the BIG and SEC media contracts. Last I checked, they have not got an invite to the SEC, and like you, I suspect they won't - but I don't write the checks. The biggest drag on the ACC in football are the small privates that just do not fill their stadiums, or garner national interest. The TV ratings back me up on that. The ACC of old was a basketball conference, and remember what happened to the Big East when basketball is what the conference is most known for historically. The BIG might add 2 to get to 20, and that is where maybe a FSU or Miami ends up. Strong brands like that, along with a ton of BIG school alumni living in the State of Florida, might be enough for the BTTN to add one. The NC market for the same reasons, but no one is talking about UNC going to the BIG. If I was the BIG, I'd be on the phone with A&M, and one of the Florida schools - and call it a day. As you already know in the ACC, 18 is a LOT of schools, especially for scheduling. If I was the SEC, I'd add UNC, VT - and one more to replace A&M (player to be named later). and stop. Any movement after that, whether in the ACC or B12, doesn't make a lot of sense. It will come down to the money after that. If the B12 gets a significant raise in 2030, all bets are off, but as of today?

capable of acknowledging, for some reason that's beyond me - Clemson is not some hallowed, time honored football brand. Everyone seems to believe they've been this monolithic icon of football success since time immemorial, but it's simply not the case. They had a flash-in-the-pan period of success in the late 70s/early 80s, and then the past 12 years. Other than that very brief window of time - they have been a journeyman football program at best, a complete afterthought at worst. I'm not saying this to imply that their recent success is invalid, or that VT is any more or less attractive; Clemson is a great, well-run football program right now. But, I never see the entirety of their history acknowledged on here - people instead act like they're akin to Texas, Alabama, Ohio State, or Notre Dame. That's BS. Clemson has played second fiddle to USCe in any and every measurable facet for the entirety of their existence. They are not some football icon. What they are is pretty good, right now. I'm highly skeptical that either the SEC or the Big 10 is going to bend over backwards to add Clemson any more than they would to add VT.

Blue bloods being: ND, Bama, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Penn State, Nebraska I'd put Clemson in the next tier with LSU, Tennessee, Florida, FSU, Washington, Georgia, Auburn. May have omitted a school or two, but you get the picture.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I suppose.

Further, Clemson has been mostly a good/great historic program. The period from 1961-1976 was mediocre but other than that they are basically a consistently high level program since WW2. They are 13th all time in number of wins (D1) and 16th for winning percentage. I haven’t done the math but I would bet they would be top 10 or better in both categories over last 50 years. As for being a SEC target, that’s different for obvious reasons (SEC already in SC). But on the football field, Clemson is historically a far superior team when compared to USCe.

nerve. I figured I would. I suppose I should have looked up the USC series standings first, but, honestly, what does that really matter? South Carolina now makes double what Clemson makes with their media deal, the programs are 2-2 against each other since COVID and NIL became a thing, and USC now is clearly on a higher trajectory, while Clemson appears (relative to their typical results the past 15 years) on a massive downswing. They snuck into the CFP field last year by beating a paper tiger SMU team that hadn't played anybody in the ACCCG, then both they and SMU got smashed by clearly superior competition. And, color me unimpressed by their 13th all time in total number of wins. That means exactly nothing. They (808, #18) have exactly 30 more all time wins than VT (778, #26), and nobody is running around talking about VT like they're a crown jewel, on here or anywhere else. Not sure where all the "Clemson is a Blue Blood" nut swinging is coming from on this board, but, given the massive inferiority complex most VT fans have, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

title success. My point is that Clemson is not some monolithic, historic icon of college football that people on here act like they are. What they are, RIGHT NOW, is a very good, well run football program. They also benefited from an expanded national championship format. Again, that's not to say they're not really good or didn't deserve it; the format was the format. But, they may or may not have had access to or won those titles under a BCS or similar system. Also - nobody is swinging off Miami's balls anymore; they've become a running joke. "The U is back!" So, I'm not sure where anyone on here is coming with this "Clemson is a Blue Blood" crap. Go look up their actual value, in terms of overall valuation and annual revenue. They are what they are.

Do we just forget about those years? Why am I even arguing about this with you? Go post on the Clemson board.

This is pure greed by ESPN, Fox, the SEC and Big Ten. Nothing more. If getting UNC helps them get more money, (by creating the collapse of a power league that is currently slated to garner 15% of CFP revenue or whatever cut the ACC got) they’ll do it. UNC doesn’t have a say in the matter. ** Edited by hokieZ71 at 7/29/2025, 6:47:25 AM

ND as one of the few remaining "good" fruit out there on the college football tree. It sure isn't the current/recent past state of their football team. The "national brand/rich endowments" seem to be driving the bus for this remaining fruit.