Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12500]

1 minute ago, JFKFC said:

I submit they won't be in the club in its final form. 

Now see, that wouldn't bug me.

A Top 20 club with everyone else in their own division?  I'm cool with that, because that Top 20 IS in a different tier.  What's infuriating is the idea of a Top 50 that we aren't a part of.  A Top 20 we're not a part of includes 30 schools that are our actual peers.

Right now it feels like we're Pinto being thrown in the corner with Muhamad, Jugdish, and Sidney.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1292]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

People keep mentioning Vanderbilt  and MSU. Something about the SEC tv schedule- they play league games the first couple weeks of the season. This increases the value of the contract, even though the schools are taking a risk from not having the FCS tune up games that so many B12 schools rely on. MSU and Vandy are contributing. 
The Snyder KSU model (tuneups against patsies in non-conference) works, but it is a very selfish model. It lessens the value of the league media contract. Most of the B12 has adopted this scheduling model. 
And ISU playing one credible non-conference opponent (Iowa)? Great! Any league you’re in knows that the tv contract can count on the value of locking down the state of Iowa one week every other season!

My understanding is that every Big 12 school has scheduled at least 1 P5 school for about a decade now. Is that not the case?

[n64ra 1091]

23 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

I doubt any Big 12 school is left out of a 64 team field. That would be a lot of schools.

Using 2025 numbers, I have

• SEC: 16
• Big 10: 16
• ACC: 14
• Big 12: 12
• Pac-12: 10
• Notre Dame

For a total of 69 teams. The five to dump (just thinking football) are what? Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse?

[Hurtlocker 2213]

10 minutes ago, statsman said:

People keep mentioning Vanderbilt  and MSU. Something about the SEC tv schedule- they play league games the first couple weeks of the season. This increases the value of the contract, even though the schools are taking a risk from not having the FCS tune up games that so many B12 schools rely on. MSU and Vandy are contributing. 
The Snyder KSU model (tuneups against patsies in non-conference) works, but it is a very selfish model. It lessens the value of the league media contract. Most of the B12 has adopted this scheduling model. 
And ISU playing one credible non-conference opponent (Iowa)? Great! Any league you’re in knows that the tv contract can count on the value of locking down the state of Iowa one week every other season!

This is SEC scheduling.   Outside Georgia who tends to get 10 P5 teams, most of the others get 8-9.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

Just now, n64ra said:

Using 2025 numbers, I have

• SEC: 16
• Big 10: 16
• ACC: 14
• Big 12: 12
• Pac-12: 10
• Notre Dame

For a total of 69 teams. The five to dump (just thinking football) are what? Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse?

Send Wake/Kansas/Duke/Cuse to the Big East.  More likely you'll dump a Washington State than Rutgers at this point.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

16 minutes ago, n64ra said:

Using 2025 numbers, I have

• SEC: 16
• Big 10: 16
• ACC: 14
• Big 12: 12
• Pac-12: 10
• Notre Dame

For a total of 69 teams. The five to dump (just thinking football) are what? Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse?

Dump Oregon St., Wake Forest, Rutgers, Cal (because they simply don't care about athletics anymore), and Houston because Fuck Houston.

[Gidnik 3285]

washington state and oregon state? 

https://koacolorado.iheart.com/featured/colorado-s-morning-news/content/2022-07-07-mountain-west-commissioner-craig-thompson-on-ncaa-conference-realignment/

 

[Gidnik 3285]

26 minutes ago, n64ra said:

Using 2025 numbers, I have

• SEC: 16
• Big 10: 16
• ACC: 14
• Big 12: 12
• Pac-12: 10
• Notre Dame

For a total of 69 teams. The five to dump (just thinking football) are what? Wake Forest, Rutgers, Kansas, Duke, Syracuse?

i really think that notre dame gets left out without joining a conference. 

[ABSR 5325]

9 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

Yeah, this isn’t what you said.  

This is, however, what @‘stache said. 

 

 

 

Here's what I said.  Please identify what is incorrect and in-congruent with this and with the follow-on post.

"Yes Texas, and UH, as public institutions have to comply with FOIA.  However, Baylor (rape cover up, murder cover up, shit heads overall) can say they only have a "verbal report" about the wrong doings and nobody can FOIA them (They could be sued or part of a criminal instigation and that is different obligations than just FOIA requests/requirements).

And as the Big 12 is made up of some private schools, with the rights of the private institutions, the Big 12 can use the same restrictions as other private institutions even though they have Public members.   They can also release whatever they choose as well."

[Pancho 45062]

Just now, ABSR said:

 

And as the Big 12 is made up of some private schools, with the rights of the private institutions, the Big 12 can use the same restrictions as other private institutions even though they have Public members.   They can also release whatever they choose as well."

I’m not sure how you’re not understanding this.  What you said in the bold above is incorrect.  What @‘stache said, is correct.  It’s not that the conference doesn’t have to abide by FOIA rules because they have a private member as part of the group

Instead, it’s because the conference itself isn’t a “public institution” or a federal government agency.  You can have a conference of 14 public institutions and no private ones and they still wouldn’t be subject to FOIA because the conference itself isn’t part of a federal agency.  

 

['stache 21892]

8 minutes ago, ABSR said:

Here's what I said.  Please identify what is incorrect and in-congruent with this and with the follow-on post.

"Yes Texas, and UH, as public institutions have to comply with FOIA.  However, Baylor (rape cover up, murder cover up, shit heads overall) can say they only have a "verbal report" about the wrong doings and nobody can FOIA them (They could be sued or part of a criminal instigation and that is different obligations than just FOIA requests/requirements).

And as the Big 12 is made up of some private schools, with the rights of the private institutions, the Big 12 can use the same restrictions as other private institutions even though they have Public members.   They can also release whatever they choose as well."

The bolded part is incorrect. The conference isn't subject to FOIA having nothing to do with Baylor being in the conference. It's not a public entity so is not subject to FOIA. Someone pointed out that if its structured as a non-profit there may be some disclosure requirements but not in the same vein as FOIA. And anything on the public school end is subject to FOIA and can't be withheld because a Baylor admin might be cc'd on it. It's still a record held by a public institution.

[clapclapclap 9000]

So the real reason conferences keep their Vanderbilts, Baylors, and Northwesterns is because they don't want to cut off their private parts.

[chainsaw 9878]

1 minute ago, clapclapclap said:

So the real reason conferences keep their Vanderbilts, Baylors, and Northwesterns is because they don't want to cut off their private parts.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

28 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think the PAC-ACC partnership is meant to put the PAC in a position of raiding the XII and not the other way around. The XII currently is in a stronger position, but if the PAC can convince ESPN to pay more by way of this partnership, that could change. It's the PAC's effort to be the survivor. I like this map except if the PAC is doing the raiding, the XII newbs are out (Cincy, WVU, and UCF for geographic reasons and BYU for weirdo reasons)  and WSU, ORST, Stanford, and Cal are back for historical reasons. It also makes sense geographically, BIG=Northeast and Upper Midwest, SEC = Southeast, ACC = East Coast, PAC = West Coast plus the west.

 

Actually I think its a way for ESPN to boost viewership of the ACC Network.   Unlike BTN/SECN, it doesn't have the same buzz and all of the viewership is on the east coast.   By rebranding it and putting the Pac inventory on it, it could double the viewership.   Of course it has to split the revenues 25 ways instead of 15, but, you know.

[Francisco 2.0 32431]

16 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

So the real reason conferences keep their Vanderbilts, Baylors, and Northwesterns is because they don't want to cut off their private parts.

Well, sure.

All conferences need doormats, speaking from a football perspective.  Ususally, those turn out to be the private schools.  

 

 

[Sir Ulrich 5191]

Since we may be on the verge of the P5 being reworked into a 3 or 4 team model I wanted to see which conferences were the most and least successful at bring home national championships in the big 3 revenue sports. For the cutoff date I used 1998 when the BCS was introduced because that was the starting point to all the madness we have today.

What I found them most surprising is that the BIG 10 was the least proficient at winning national championships despite being the 2nd most valuable conference. And the Big 12 who has the 3rd most eyeballs is 2nd to last in championships won. This really all means nothing because we know that brand size is often not related to recent championships (see Texas, USC, UCLA, OU) but interesting non the less that the Big 10 will get $100 million per school and has hardly made a dent in the SEC's championship domination.

 

SEC National Championships: 

Spoiler

Football: Tenn '98, LSU '03, Florida '06, LSU '07, Florida '08, Bama '09, Auburn '10, Bama '11, '12, '15, '17, LSU '19, Bama '20, Georgia '21

Basketball: Kentucky '98, Florida '06, '07, Kentucky '12

Baseball: LSU '00, '09, South Carolina, '10, '11, Vandy '14, Florida '17, Vandy '19, Miss State '21, Ole Miss '22

 

ACC National Championships:

Spoiler

Football: Florida State '99, '13, Clemson '16, '18

Basketball: Duke '01, Maryland '02, UNC '05, '09, Duke '10, '15, UNC '17, Virginia '19

Baseball: Virginia '15

 

Pac 12 National Championships:
 

Spoiler

Football-USC '03, '04 

Basketball- None

Baseball: USC '98,  OSU '06, '07, Arizona '12, UCLA '13, OSU '18

 

Big 12 National Championships: 

Spoiler

Football: OU '00, Texas '05

Basketball: Kansas '08, Baylor '21, Kansas '22

Baseball: Texas '02, '05 

 

Big 10 National Championships: 

Spoiler

Football: tOSU 02, 14

Basketball: Michigan State '00

Baseball: None

 

[DFW Horn 6223]

2 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Actually I think its a way for ESPN to boost viewership of the ACC Network.   Unlike BTN/SECN, it doesn't have the same buzz and all of the viewership is on the east coast.   By rebranding it and putting the Pac inventory on it, it could double the viewership.   Of course it has to split the revenues 25 ways instead of 15, but, you know.

All of this maneuvering by the ACC and PAC reeks of desperation. Bottom line is most of their fan bases are disinterested and dispassionate. Lipstick on two pigs.

I expect AZ and ASU to be the first to join the Big 12.

[TrashMaster G 17627]

14 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

I always knew I liked Andy Katz.

 

I see Katz is off his meds again.

['stache 21892]

10 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

All of this maneuvering by the ACC and PAC reeks of desperation. Bottom line is most of their fan bases are disinterested and dispassionate. Lipstick on two pigs.

I expect AZ and ASU to be the first to join the Big 12.

I don't think the XII adds anyone until we know what happens to UO, UW, and Stanford, and that will bean open question until ND joins the Big 10. The PAC can survive at 10 like the XII did, although at lower pay. The XII will probably pay better but I don't think it'll be enough to make UO and UW make a move unless the Big 10 definitely says they aren't getting invited under any circumstance. 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I don't think the XII adds anyone until we know what happens to UO, UW, and Stanford, and that will bean open question until ND joins the Big 10. The PAC can survive at 10 like the XII did, although at lower pay. The XII will probably pay better but I don't think it'll be enough to make UO and UW make a move unless the Big 10 definitely says they aren't getting invited under any circumstance. 

I disagree. I think CU and AZ are ready to jump yesterday, and ASU to a somewhat lesser degree. They are desperate to find solid ground somewhere, and see jumping to the Big12 as helping to create that solid ground. Big12, likewise, can’t say no if these schools ask to join. It’s mutually beneficial to all parties. 

[GreenspointTexas 9683]

Dear Richard Justice:

 

Shut the fuck up. Goddamn its sad AF that Texas Monthly pays him to write

[Steelers Roll Left 1182]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

OKST is a consistent 9-10 win team with two Fiesta Bowl wins in the last decade, a Sugar Bowl NY6 appearances, and a Cotton Bowl appearance the year before the NY6 became a thing. Our ratings are consistently top 25 with only two "marquee" matchups a year. Our CCG last year against another non-"marquee" had 8 million viewers, more than the ACC and PAC champ games combined. Yet, we're still on the outside for historical reasons. I see some possibilities of making the SEC if they expand again, but its still a long shot. As I said above, I think unequal revenue sharing might be worthwhile if it opens up spots, as long as there is still a fair metric that pays us below the obvious bluebloods but well above Vandy and South Carolina.

When I compartmentalize all of this realignment talk in my mind, Oklahoma State is near, if not at the top, of the list of potential programs left behind that deserve better.  I'll say this, if we're talking about the line forming to get into the club, Oklahoma State's place is closer to the front of the line than Iowa State's (since The Cyclones seem to be a popular topic of discussion the past few pages).  Oklahoma State simply has more sex appeal than the ilk of ISU, more consistent success over a longer period of time (even if it hasn't been "ultimate" success), but their obvious problem is being the 2nd program in a small market state.  It's just a matter of how many schools this assumed "new College Football Power league replacing the current NCAA" ends up taking.  If there is a line, I would say Oklahoma State finds themselves behind the likes of Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Clemson, Florida State, Notre Dame, but join a "next group" of schools that includes the ilk of UNC, Miami, Colorado, Utah, BYU, West Virginia.  I oft hear Kansas placed in this "next group", but their football program really makes me wonder about their place in these discussions.  Iowa State?..........I would think they're in a tier below this next group, perhaps even SIGNIFICANTLY below this group.   

[BurntOrange&White 40044]

 

 

[MontereyMX 869]

Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

god damn if true

[Al_4_ISU 12500]

2 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Looking through that guy's account, it's hard to believe he's legit.

But that could push the Big 10 to add UW/Oregon and give the Big 12 some serious ammo to solidify into inarguable #3.

[camel at sea 589]

I think the Big 12 gets the four corners schools (and eventually signs a deal with FOX) and the ACC gets some PAC North schools.  The ACC adding 4 boosts their network numbers and the bang-for-the-buck is better for the ACC if they only take 4 schools.  Dividing by 18 is better than dividing by 24 for their purposes.

I also think that the eventual breakaway will be in the 70 school range.  People are enamored with the 64 school breakaway idea (or often even a smaller breakaway)... but you can construct a mathematically pleasing system from 72, also.  I don't think the media partners want to invest a ton of money into a product and simultaneously generate massive backlash for rendering the sport unrecognizable by cutting out 3/4 of the traditional participants.  There's still a ton of TV viewer value in schools like Oklahoma State, Iowa State, etc.  You don't just casually throw away inventory that can draw a couple million live viewers, just because it can't draw (as often) more than 5 million live viewers.  

  

Edited July 7, 2022 by camel at sea

[Steelers Roll Left 1182]

14 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

Florida State and Clemson.........welcome.  UNC and especially Virginia.........piss off.  And somebody get me Miami on line 1, and if it must be 4, VaTech please.  Disclaimer: These comments were made without few, if any, consideration of TV markets and wholly from the perspective of keeping SEC football as elite as possible. 

[TexArcher 38076]

2 minutes ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

Florida State and Clemson.........welcome.  UNC and especially Virginia.........piss off.  And somebody get me Miami on line 1, and if it must be 4, VaTech please.  Disclaimer: These comments were made without few, if any, consideration of TV markets and wholly from the perspective of keeping SEC football as elite as possible. 

I assumed the SEC would raid the ACC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and UNC.

Why it would be UVA over Miami, I have no idea?

Edit: unless maybe the ultimate goal is the 4 above plus UVA and Va Tech?

Edited July 7, 2022 by TexArcher

[Steelers Roll Left 1182]

14 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

I think the Big 12 gets the four corners schools (and eventually signs a deal with FOX) and the ACC gets some PAC North schools.  The ACC adding 4 boosts their network numbers and the bang-for-the-buck is better for the ACC if they only take 4 schools.  Dividing by 18 is better than dividing by 24 for their purposes.

I also think that the eventual breakaway will be in the 70 school range.  People are enamored with the 64 school breakaway idea (or often even a smaller breakaway)... but you can construct a mathematically pleasing system from 72, also.  I don't think the media partners want to invest a ton of money into a product and simultaneously generate massive backlash for rendering the sport unrecognizable by cutting out 3/4 of the traditional participants.  There's still a ton of TV viewer value in schools like Oklahoma State, Iowa State, etc.  You don't just casually throw away inventory that can draw a couple million live viewers, just because it can't draw (as often) more than 5 million live viewers.  

  

Only thing I'll add to your points: I would imagine traditional TV (and new streaming) partners want elite matchups as often as possible and care less about the "massive potential backlash" you alluded to arising from too much exclusion.  Now the broadcasting partners' collective legal teams?..........

Edited July 7, 2022 by Steelers Roll Left

[Uncle Nate 2097]

13 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Looking through that guy's account, it's hard to believe he's legit.

But that could push the Big 10 to add UW/Oregon and give the Big 12 some serious ammo to solidify into inarguable #3.

So if it plays out like that, does the Big12, after getting the four corner schools, then go after Louisville and NC State?  I think it would make sense. 

[chainsaw 9878]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

I assumed the SEC would raid the ACC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and UNC.

Why it would be UVA over Miami, I have no idea?

Need more nerds

[TexArcher 38076]

Just now, chainsaw said:

Need more nerds

Sure, but aren't we just about past the whole student-athlete-wink-wink thing anyway?

[Steelers Roll Left 1182]

4 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I assumed the SEC would raid the ACC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and UNC.

Why it would be UVA over Miami, I have no idea?

And if I was king of the world, and if it was determined adding UNC and/or Virginia was a must, contraction of "existing" SEC programs would definitely be on the table.  I'm not naming any names here, but one candidate might rhyme with "Chandlerbilt"

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1292]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

So if it plays out like that, does the Big12, after getting the four corner schools, then go after Louisville and NC State?  I think it would make sense. 

I'd think the Big 12 would try to get VA Tech and Miami if they somehow don't get snatched up.

[Saint Tacky 1622]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Right now it feels like we're Pinto being thrown in the corner with Muhamad, Jugdish, and Sidney.

Super! Then you'll have lots to talk about, huh?

[VABuckeye 2472]

29 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

He's a fucking swimming reporter.

Edited July 7, 2022 by VABuckeye

[Uncle Nate 2097]

4 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

I'd think the Big 12 would try to get VA Tech and Miami if they somehow don't get snatched up.

I assumed they would go to the B1G if this scenario played out. 

[camel at sea 589]

1 minute ago, Steelers Roll Left said:

Only thing I'll add to your points: I would imagine traditional TV (and new streaming) partners want elite matchups as often as possible and care less about the "massive potential backlash" you alluded to arising from too much exclusion.  Now the broadcasting partners' collective legal teams?..........

How'd the European Super League work out?  You've got to know just how far you can push the fans but it's a bad idea to push them too far.  Cutting out a third of the schools who are currently in the P5 (an argument I've seen on this thread) would be too far.  Cutting out CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt is probably not too far.  Fewer of those games means more good match-ups and more often.  As for the legal side, yeah, the more schools that get cut out, the more congressmen, lawyers, etc., you're dealing with. 

But as for streaming... there are not many things that can potentially draw 1-2M live streams.  It's dumb to throw Oklahoma State out of the top tier when history suggests that they can deliver live viewers in the millions (just not the same number of millions as Texas or OU.)

[chainsaw 9878]

17 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Sure, but aren't we just about past the whole student-athlete-wink-wink thing anyway?

Yeah but Vandy is lonely

[Hurtlocker 2213]

15 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I assumed the SEC would raid the ACC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and UNC.

Why it would be UVA over Miami, I have no idea?

Edit: unless maybe the ultimate goal is the 4 above plus UVA and Va Tech?

1) You'd have two big schools in Florida already

2) UVA/UNC are tied at the hip.   One likely won't move without the other and they're the bedrock of the ACC

3) They've won like 10 natties on various sports over the past decade, but, their football is suspect.   They are amazeballs in the growing sports that SECN is wanting.

4) UVA/UNC combined is the roughly same population as Florida, more carriage for SECN.

5) Big Ten wants UVA badly for academics/research, e.g. prestige

[Al_4_ISU 12500]

24 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

So if it plays out like that, does the Big12, after getting the four corner schools, then go after Louisville and NC State?  I think it would make sense. 

And/or Pitt.  I'd love to have the Backyard Brawl back in the fold.

[Aqua Buddha 14624]

Lulz at UCLA being a national brand.  They barely travel to Pasadena.  Under Armor thought they were a big brand and lost their ass.

Also, it should be noted that had the Pac-12 been OK with Texas having their own network and the academics of OU, Tech, and Okie State, they've not only be viable now but might be one of the few left standing.

[Laxtonto 12121]

I’m at the point that this has only one real possible real world long term outcomes.

1. We go the route of super conferences and this makes a defacto break from the NCAA and we end up with a legit playoffs.

OR

2. This idea fails spectacularly and we go back to a much more stringent academics first true student athlete model that goes back to a more regional outlook and we have semipro sports that syphon off top talent.

Either way, we are back to a more parity driven approach that kills off a ton of the dark money aspects of the current college sports model.

[TexArcher 38076]

15 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

1) You'd have two big schools in Florida already

2) UVA/UNC are tied at the hip.   One likely won't move without the other and they're the bedrock of the ACC

3) They've won like 10 natties on various sports over the past decade, but, their football is suspect.   They are amazeballs in the growing sports that SECN is wanting.

4) UVA/UNC combined is the roughly same population as Florida, more carriage for SECN.

5) Big Ten wants UVA badly for academics/research, e.g. prestige

I get all of that, but the SEC should still want Miami to keep the B1G out of Florida.  They get CA, SEC gets FL and TX.  Big edge to SEC in the long run.

And does anyone really care about any sport other than football right now?  I'm not saying they shouldn't, and I care a great deal about basketball and baseball, but I'm not hearing a lot of talk from anyone in the media about anything other than football realignment.  Big question: what does this do to March Madness?  Doesn't even seem to matter...?

Edited July 7, 2022 by TexArcher

[hawkfan 60]

54 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

This seems like bullshit because even if ESPN voids the TV Deal, isn't the GOR between the school and the conference?

Either way, UNC/UVA are the real targets in the ACC because those two are the heart of that conference.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

So, anytime news comes from a place called "SwimSwam Sports" I'm skeptical, but let's play this out:

The SEC totally bitch slaps the Big Ten by taking UVA/UNC/FSU/Clemson.   At that point, the ACC is dead.  SEC at 20.

Big Ten reacts by taking ND, Stanford, BC, and GTech, grabbing 10m new households and the biggest brand in the sport. Big Ten at 20

Big 12 can't believe their dumb luck, gladly let Texas/OU out of the GoR and grab VTech, Miami, Pitt, NCState 16.  Wait on what Pac does.

Pac 12 can't figure out what to do.   They sit at 9 and can grab SDSt and call it a day, or Oregon/Washington lead a charge east.

Big 12 can stay at 16, move to 20 with growth locations in the midwest (see Louisville), or wait for western schools to knock.

Duke, Wake, and Cuse join the Big East, dumping football.

 

 

[camel at sea 589]

4 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

This seems like bullshit because even if ESPN voids the TV Deal, isn't the GOR between the school and the conference?

Either way, UNC/UVA are the real targets in the ACC because those two are the heart of that conference.

This is the sort of report that comes out if someone is hoping to make someone nervous about starting an alliance with the ACC.  

[Hurtlocker 2213]

6 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I get all of that, but the SEC should still want Miami to keep the B1G out of Florida.  They get CA, SEC gets FL and TX.  Big edge to SEC in the long run.

And does anyone really care about any sport other than football right now?  I'm not saying they shouldn't, and I care a great deal about basketball and baseball, but I'm not hearing a lot of talk from anyone in the media about anything other than football realignment.  Big question: what does this do to March Madness?  Doesn't even seem to matter...?

No way in hell the Big grabs Miami.   They still only grab giant research universities.   Miami is not UCLA.   They would grab GTech though and get into Atlanta.

And I'm not saying football doesn't drive it.  It does, but you're likely not getting UNC without UVA.   They are the tidewater.   But they're not a complete loss, they bring in Virginia's 9m people, they compete extremely well in nearly every sport played, and they likely could have a football team if they were told to start pushing it harder than they do.

This doesn't have to do anything to march madness unless they break away completely.

[Hurtlocker 2213]

4 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

This is the sort of report that comes out if someone is hoping to make someone nervous about starting an alliance with the ACC.  

This.   Foundation of sand.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2213]

9 minutes ago, hawkfan said:

This seems like bullshit because even if ESPN voids the TV Deal, isn't the GOR between the school and the conference?

Either way, UNC/UVA are the real targets in the ACC because those two are the heart of that conference.

One thing I found interesting is someone posted the ACC agreement earlier and the GOR was listed for 2027, not 2036 as reported.   Not sure if it was the right agreement or the most recent, but the dates were off.