Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

On 4/5/2023 at 1:16 AM, billfromlaketravis said:

So do you think FOX’s endgame is to further destabilize the PAC so they can either kill off or get a piece of the Rose Bowl? I’m not sure what threat the PAC poses after USC/UCLA leave.  

Late to the party, but the Rose Bowl, from a historic perspective, is already dead.    CFB expansion and USC moving to the Big Ten have nuked any chance of it being stand-alone bowl with any significance or relevance.

[hook me 2,140]

On 4/7/2023 at 7:19 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

If you're talking about what's good for college football, you wouldn't have broken up the old Big 12.  The 6 BCS conferences of the turn of the century was much better for college football than the Pac 16 or what's going today are.  Hell, you could go back to like the 1991 conference affiliations and that was honestly probably better for the sport than the 2001 version.  Every conference was tightly regional and drivable among all schools (save the Pac 10).

What's best for ESPN and Fox is consolidating the biggest brands, and that's going to hurt the game in the long run.

I guess it would depend on your definition of "good for college football". Consolidation of brands makes for marquee matchups which drives excitement & makes games better to watch & attend. UT vs OU/LSU/Bama/UF/UGA is 1000x better than KSU/ISU/KU/BU/TCU. USC vs OSU/UM is 1000x better than CU/ASU/UA/Cal. Regional rivalries are great for those within the region, but have little excitement anywhere else. Even UT vs a&m has very little pull outside of TX. The good thing is, those other fanbases have enough support & history that when the eventual split comes the second-tier league should still be very entertaining unlike the XFL/USFL.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Richard Kimball said:

the difference between the bacon and the eggs at breakfast?

The chicken is involved. The pig is committed. Zaninovich went from being the pig to being the chicken. He can walk away from PAC12 negotiations any time he wants now, and take on other projects. 

😂

Perfect on so many levels.

[USC Traveler 488]

34 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Damn brotha, great seeing you around.   Hope life's been well!

Thank you sir.  It's been way too long.  Great to be back.

I've enjoyed your work, as always, while lurking for about the last year or so.

Should have jumped back on at that time, but better late than never.

The BIG/SEC endgame, B12 as clear #3 and WAC10 death spiral are all too good not to spend a little time speculating and theorizing.

With GOT long gone, realignment is the next best thing.

[USC Traveler 488]

1 hour ago, Richard Kimball said:

Does anyone else find it weird that a conference that prides itself on being the smartest conference around screws up contract negotiations this badly?

 

The "greatest hits" of the PAC Presidents, Tennis Larry and Klownkoff rivals "Hot Rocks", "Legend", and "ELV1S" for top greatest hits collection:

Starting a conference network without ESPN or Fox as a partner.

Rejecting LHN and therefore blowing up PAC16- they were never going to get an equivalent chance to expand with two Blue Bloods.

Rejecting OU and OSU a year or two later.

Focus on Olympic sports in all media and programming on PACNet to the detriment of football.

Scott trying to create parity through brutal scheduling for the PAC's best teams.  Welcome to the playoff drought.

Klownkoff failing to realize that USC had been unhappy for more than a decade, and was seriously looking at the BIG.

Klownkoff's delusions: $40m per team because the BIG's media deal increased the PAC's value.  It actually did the opposite by eliminating buyers.

Klownkoff being in no hurry to get a deal done and allowing B12 to jump the line and soak up most of the remaining $$$ and tv slots.

 

//

I could go on and on, but just that list is a stunning amount of complete fails.

So glad to be leaving this clown conference behind and going to a conference that is actually well-run and cares about football.

[bullet 1,626]

3 hours ago, Gidnik said:

 

 

Pac-12 deputy commissioner Jamie Zaninovich is leaving the conference this week after nine years to become managing director at TrailRunner International, a global strategic communications firm.

Zaninovich doubles as the Pac-12’s chief operating officer and has worked closely with commissioner George Kliavkoff on the media rights negotiations.

Friday will be his final day. However, his first consulting project at TrailRunner will be to advise the Pac-12 on the media negotiations, expansion and basketball strategy.

(The media rights saga, which began in July, is expected to conclude later this spring.)

In his new role, Zaninovich will help TrailRunner grow its sports business operation. The company is based in Dallas-Fort Worth but has offices across the country and in Shanghai.

Its clients include the Dallas Cowboys, Buffalo Bills, Oakland A’s and, on two previous occasions, the Pac-12.

TrailRunner worked with the conference during its multi-year initiatives in China and provided communications advice in January when two executives were dismissed for failing to properly disclose overpayments by Comcast to the Pac-12 Networks.

The SportsBusiness Journal was the first to report Zaninovich’s move.

His duties at the Pac-12 include serving as the liaison between the conference’s executive staff and the athletic directors. Deputy commissioner Teresa Gould, a former athletic director at UC Davis, is expected to take over that role.

A former member of the NCAA Tournament selection committee, Zaninovich also oversees Pac-12 men’s basketball. He played a leading role in several strategic endeavors, including the move to a 20-game conference schedule, the implementation of non-conference scheduling standards and the creation of the series with the Southwestern Athletic Conference.

Drew Seidenberger, the associate commissioner for men’s basketball operations, will replace Zaninovich on an interim basis and seemingly is a candidate for the permanent position as the sport’s supervisor.

Zaninovich, who was the commissioner of the West Coast Conference before joining the Pac-12 in 2014, will continue to live in the Bay Area.

Should have been fired for coming up with the idea of a Pac 12-SWAC series.

[Richard Kimball 1,517]

9 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

The "greatest hits" of the PAC Presidents, Tennis Larry and Klownkoff rivals "Hot Rocks", "Legend", and "ELV1S" for top greatest hits collection:

Starting a conference network without ESPN or Fox as a partner.

Rejecting LHN and therefore blowing up PAC16- they were never going to get an equivalent chance to expand with two Blue Bloods.

Rejecting OU and OSU a year or two later.

Focus on Olympic sports in all media and programming on PACNet to the detriment of football.

Scott trying to create parity through brutal scheduling for the PAC's best teams.  Welcome to the playoff drought.

Klownkoff failing to realize that USC had been unhappy for more than a decade, and was seriously looking at the BIG.

Klownkoff's delusions: $40m per team because the BIG's media deal increased the PAC's value.  It actually did the opposite by eliminating buyers.

Klownkoff being in no hurry to get a deal done and allowing B12 to jump the line and soak up most of the remaining $$$ and tv slots.

 

//

I could go on and on, but just that list is a stunning amount of complete fails.

So glad to be leaving this clown conference behind and going to a conference that is actually well-run and cares about football.

And you were kind enough not to mention the $50 million in overpayments from Comcast that the PAC discovered but failed to disclose. People probably should have gone to jail over that. 

[USC Traveler 488]

45 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Late to the party, but the Rose Bowl, from a historic perspective, is already dead.    CFB expansion and USC moving to the Big Ten have nuked any chance of it being stand-alone bowl with any significance or relevance.

Agreed.  It will be just another NY6 bowl for this next CFP cycle.

In the long run, I think we're eventually headed to an AFL (BIG)- NFL (SEC) model, with the Rose and Sugar as CCGs for the B18/20/24 and the SEC18/20/22.  8 team playoff in each conference, with early rounds on campus or in ATL, DFW, Indy and Vegas.  Winners of Rose and Sugar meet in the "Super College Bowl"

Once the players become employees, the money differences are going to become too great between the BIG/SEC and the B12 and WAC10/ACC remnants.

The B12 (especially if Yormark sticks around) is in a great position to absorb all the schools that have value that don't make it into the BIG/SEC, and create a coast to coast league that would have a lot of value to media companies.  Current B12 (perhaps minus TCU), plus Four Corners, UW, UO, Cal, SDSU, Louisville, Pitt, and possibly VT and NC State.)  Fill in with Memphis and USF types to get to 24 teams- create four regional divisions, but with NFL-style regular cross-over.  That's a fun group of teams to watch that would pull enough ratings to bring in solid money.

 

 

[USC Traveler 488]

9 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

And you were kind enough not to mention the $50 million in overpayments from Comcast that the PAC discovered but failed to disclose. People probably should have gone to jail over that. 

I forgot about that one!😂

The list is so long it becomes hard to keep them all straight.

Edited April 10, 2023 by USC Traveler

[Sandman 3,427]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Late to the party, but the Rose Bowl, from a historic perspective, is already dead.    CFB expansion and USC moving to the Big Ten have nuked any chance of it being stand-alone bowl with any significance or relevance.

They should make the Rose Bowl the permanent B10 title game host. Treat it like a mini super bowl. Nice weather, fun trip for the players. Sure, USC could reach the game and get a home field advantage but I doubt it would happen enough to make it an issue. 

[hook me 2,140]

17 minutes ago, Sandman said:

They should make the Rose Bowl the permanent B10 title game host. Treat it like a mini super bowl. Nice weather, fun trip for the players. Sure, USC could reach the game and get a home field advantage but I doubt it would happen enough to make it an issue. 

I get not taking the UCLA football program seriously but, damn, that's a low blow.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

On 4/6/2023 at 9:35 AM, CustersDoctor said:

I saw this on another chat room and since its on the internet it must be true.

"The new PAC10 media rights deal will be announced on April 12th. It will be a six year 2.4billion deal. That comes out to 30million a year per team, BUT ONLY IF THEY DON'T EXPAND! They will stay at ten teams. This is the strategy the Big12 employed when we lost our first two teams. We stayed at ten and therefore our payout per team went up with only ten mouths to feed. There is absolutely ZERO reason for them to expand considering the teams available. All the schools that the PAC has considered will be left at the alter. The conference leaders will be able to claim that they did their due diligence to get back to 12 teams but none of the options passed to high standards for admission into the conference of champions."

So everybody stays, no expansion, and their media rights deal will be smaller than the Big12's, but with just 10 teams they'll each get almost as much as a Big12 team.

Only problem with this is the reason the Big 12 stayed the same is they moved from 8 to 9 conference games

4 * 12 = 48 games to sell

4.5 * 10 = 45 games to sell.

That's how the Big 12 kept it even after dropping to ten, no one paid them to stay together.   They just were able to keep supplying enough games with less to split.

The Pac 12, however, already has 9 conference games to feed the Pac Net.   They'll drop from 54 games to 45.   The only way they can do that is kill the PacNet.   Which, will mean less money and a ton of lost investment.

[Sandman 3,427]

8 minutes ago, hook me said:

I get not taking the UCLA football program seriously but, damn, that's a low blow.

I legit forgot about the Bruins. I almost feel bad about it. 

[TKthunder2 5,058]

15 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agreed.  It will be just another NY6 bowl for this next CFP cycle.

In the long run, I think we're eventually headed to an AFL (BIG)- NFL (SEC) model, with the Rose and Sugar as CCGs for the B18/20/24 and the SEC18/20/22.  8 team playoff in each conference, with early rounds on campus or in ATL, DFW, Indy and Vegas.  Winners of Rose and Sugar meet in the "Super College Bowl"

Once the players become employees, the money differences are going to become too great between the BIG/SEC and the B12 and WAC10/ACC remnants.

The B12 (especially if Yormark sticks around) is in a great position to absorb all the schools that have value that don't make it into the BIG/SEC, and create a coast to coast league that would have a lot of value to media companies.  Current B12 (perhaps minus TCU), plus Four Corners, UW, UO, Cal, SDSU, Louisville, Pitt, and possibly VT and NC State.)  Fill in with Memphis and USF types to get to 24 teams- create four regional divisions, but with NFL-style regular cross-over.  That's a fun group of teams to watch that would pull enough ratings to bring in solid money.

 

 

The College Super Bowl B1G/SEC makes the most sense but again it’s one of those issues which lines up great on paper but fails in practice.

I think you’ll always have to have some version of a general CFP now that is inclusive but I also imagine the club rules may get significantly raised soon (athletes as employees just for starters) to shrink the pool of competitors from 130 to 60-70.

Giving the SEC and Big Ten full control over their own 4 team playoff where they then face each other is ideal for both but then you have to give the Big12/ACC/whoever some access to avoid antitrust. Treating them an equal to the P2 is also not great either.

The new 12 team playoff will be 4 rounds. My thought is that the winner of the SEC and Big Ten get automatically slotted into the final four. While the rest of the field fills out into 8 spots that play their way down to 2. Take the 2 highest conference champs out of the P2 and then seed the tournament based on the next 6 highest ranked.

Last year SEC tournament participants UGA/Bama/TN/LSU and the Big Ten participants would be UM/tOSU/Pedo/USC.

Winners UGA/Michigan slot automatically into the final four (play 4 postseason games to win it all) and Clemson/KState get the 2 other autobids. The next 6 would have been TCU, Ohio St, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, USC (these might play 4, 5, or 6 depending on their CCG setup).

TCU/Clemson v Ohio St/Tennessee; and Alabama/Utah v K State/USC to get in final four spot vs Georgia or Michigan.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:18 PM, TKthunder2 said:

The CFP money isn’t going to come out as a lump sum anymore where the P5 conferences will get roughly the same money to divide. Both the Big Ten and SEC said it will be per school (so the 16 teams conferences will make more than the 10 team ones, but all schools in the P5+ND will make the same) with a major increase on getting bids and winning.

The scenario wing thrown around out West where staying at 10 gets then them more money per school since they get same annual guaranteed money as the B1G/SEC (before factoring in performance) is not realistic.

1 bid divided by 10 will not be more beneficial than 2 bids divided by 16. The Big Ten and SEC will not allow that math, and anyone thinking that the PAC12 staying at 10 will outsmart them is hopelessly naive.

Part two of this discussion is that all of the "champion" bowls set up today, like the Rose, Sugar, Orange, are now part of the CFP expansion, so they won't pay out the way they did.    When the SEC and Big 12 combined, that paid the Big 12 $8m a year.    Now that $240m in change is pulled out of the conference ledger and incorporated into the 12 team playoff.

[USC Traveler 488]

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Agree it won’t be tit for tat. I doubt the SEC grows past 22 (more on that # later) unless there is some other significant factors (like leaving the NCAA and holding a P2 or P5 or FBS only bball tournament) that don’t currently exist. But I still disagree with you around FSU.

If the Big Ten adds FSU and Miami then they have a very significant presence in the state and that will hurt the SEC. They may not be able to get consensus on adding Miami from the SEC members or from Miami themselves who may prefer the Big Ten (think back to how the Big East was for Miami in their hayday, not exactly regional for them and the MLB Miami/TB playing with NY/DC it NFL Miami playing with NY/NE/Buffalo).

Still, in order to secure Florida as an SEC state first and foremost the SEC should add FSU. If the Big Ten gets both Miami/FSU bringing USC, Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, and maybe even Notre Dame into town regularly and that will affect recruiting for both FSU/Miami, but also for the B1G schools I listed above as well.

The recruiting conversation is about keeping the Big Ten schools out of Florida, not keeping FSU/Miami contained (as that’s not really realistic). Those schools will always be able to recruit based on simple geography.

Miami is the odd duck and I can 100% see them going to the Big Ten as they are not a great cultural fit for the SEC which is #1 flagship U and #2 State type schools with big campus stadiums with enrollments outside of Vandy. Plus the whole further North you go the further South you are, works both ways.

I also disagree about SEC schools would not be excited to play Clemson and FSU. Maybe it’s just outside your area but Clemson has a lot of history with the SEC schools and FSU is a regular OOC opponent. FSU besides playing UF annually (which means it would free up an OOC game for both) has played Alabama, Ole Miss, Georgia, Oklahoma, and LSU on its OOC slate. Clemson besides playing SC annually and UGA AND Auburn semi regularly has played LSU, aggy, Oklahoma and Alabama. So the only schools I see not being excited about playing FSU/Clemson is the weaker SEC schools like Missouri, Vandy, or Mississippi State.

Adding FSU and Clemson with not dilute the conference. They’d join the top 8 schools that others would be excited to play.

Like you said, right now for Texas outside our obvious rivals we’d play UF/UGA/Tenn or LSU/Aub/Bama any given year if we added a 3rd rotation of FSU/Clemson/?OleMiss? you’re not going to see a drop off when you balance them out: Bama/UF/OleMiss, LSU/Clemson/Tenn, UGA/FSU/Aub. Going to 22 actually would be a little easier as they can keep the 3-6-6 model but just add another 6 model and rotate through everyone every 3 years instead of every 2.

I’d personally prefer the SEC stay at 16 for a long while but if the ACC is going to blow up, they’d be dumb to sit by and let everyone go North and ignore the long game.

This is a big part of what makes realignment so fascinating- different motivations and goals for different parties that are involved.

No doubt the SEC office and ESPN will want FSU and Miami in the SEC- for all the reasons you and I have listed.  

But I keep coming back to the fact that Sankey ultimately works for the schools, and the schools will look at this from a "What's best for us ?" pov.  If you're an SEC school, it will be a lot easier to recruit against FSU if they're in the BIG than if they're in the SEC. 

They don't need FSU to get access to FL- they already have it. If FSU is in the SEC, they become much more formidable to recruit against. Same goes for Miami.

There is strategic value for the conference in keeping the BIG out of FL, but I think coaches and ADs are going to be more concerned about turning FSU into a legit competitor vs how many 4-5 stars they'll lose to the BIG.

I have no idea how it will turn out, but I think it's going to be a battle within the SEC.

//

 

Agreed on Miami- their admin, student base, donors, etc are more aligned culturally to the BIG than the SEC.

 

//

 

I do think SEC fans will be excited about Clemson joining because they've been a legit competitor to the SEC, whereas most SEC fans I know don't think much of FSU.  Look at them as a little brother.  

The conference office will want both- but Clemson and FSU in the SEC makes them both tougher competitors and guarantees more losses within the SEC for the existing teams.  Not a slamdunk for the SEC schools to add them the way adding UT and OU was.

[Deej 77,667]

1 hour ago, Sandman said:

They should make the Rose Bowl the permanent B10 title game host. Treat it like a mini super bowl. Nice weather, fun trip for the players. Sure, USC could reach the game and get a home field advantage but I doubt it would happen enough to make it an issue. 

Fuck it. Let the Rose Bowl just show a hologram of the Texas/USC championship game every year.

 

[Horn of Gabriel 1,883]

13 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

This is a big part of what makes realignment so fascinating- different motivations and goals for different parties that are involved.

No doubt the SEC office and ESPN will want FSU and Miami in the SEC- for all the reasons you and I have listed.  

But I keep coming back to the fact that Sankey ultimately works for the schools, and the schools will look at this from a "What's best for us ?" pov.  If you're an SEC school, it will be a lot easier to recruit against FSU if they're in the BIG than if they're in the SEC. 

They don't need FSU to get access to FL- they already have it. If FSU is in the SEC, they become much more formidable to recruit against. Same goes for Miami.

There is strategic value for the conference in keeping the BIG out of FL, but I think coaches and ADs are going to be more concerned about turning FSU into a legit competitor vs how many 4-5 stars they'll lose to the BIG.

I have no idea how it will turn out, but I think it's going to be a battle within the SEC.

//

 

Agreed on Miami- their admin, student base, donors, etc are more aligned culturally to the BIG than the SEC.

 

//

 

I do think SEC fans will be excited about Clemson joining because they've been a legit competitor to the SEC, whereas most SEC fans I know don't think much of FSU.  Look at them as a little brother.  

The conference office will want both- but Clemson and FSU in the SEC makes them both tougher competitors and guarantees more losses within the SEC for the existing teams.  Not a slamdunk for the SEC schools to add them the way adding UT and OU was.

Sure, FSU is easier to recruit against when it's "not SEC" but you can't treat that question in a vacuum.  Because the question going forward is not "will they be SEC or not?"  it's "Will they be SEC or B1G?" I don't know how much easier FSU will be to recruit against if they were B1G...

[USC Traveler 488]

10 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Sure, FSU is easier to recruit against when it's "not SEC" but you can't treat that question in a vacuum.  Because the question going forward is not "will they be SEC or not?"  it's "Will they be SEC or B1G?" I don't know how much easier FSU will be to recruit against if they were B1G...

No doubt- I was factoring that in.  Because that is the question.

My pitch as an SEC coach- "Do you want to eat southern food and play in warm weather vs UGA, LSU, UT and OU, or do you want to eat bratwurst and play in the snow in Michigan and Minnesota ?"

[Sbbruin 22,082]

1 hour ago, Sandman said:

They should make the Rose Bowl the permanent B10 title game host. Treat it like a mini super bowl. Nice weather, fun trip for the players. Sure, USC could reach the game and get a home field advantage but I doubt it would happen enough to make it an issue. 

Uh, hellooooo....

[Al_4_ISU 12,612]

2 hours ago, hook me said:

I guess it would depend on your definition of "good for college football". Consolidation of brands makes for marquee matchups which drives excitement & makes games better to watch & attend. UT vs OU/LSU/Bama/UF/UGA is 1000x better than KSU/ISU/KU/BU/TCU. USC vs OSU/UM is 1000x better than CU/ASU/UA/Cal. Regional rivalries are great for those within the region, but have little excitement anywhere else. Even UT vs a&m has very little pull outside of TX. The good thing is, those other fanbases have enough support & history that when the eventual split comes the second-tier league should still be very entertaining unlike the XFL/USFL.

Brand consolidation will lead to schools that are currently big deals being very mediocre from a win/loss standpoint.  Someone has to lose all these blue blood matchups.  Many of those matchups will mean less when that happens. 

Schools that are left behind in terms of access (doesn’t appear that’s happening at the moment) aren’t going to care about these name games if it doesn’t bear any connection to their seasons.  

The networks are chasing NFL fans that have a passing interest in college ball and striving for an NFL lite that completely misses the mark of why people love college football.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

On 4/7/2023 at 10:46 AM, USC Traveler said:

Agreed that the SEC/BIG will be getting 3 bids each the vast majority of the time.

BIG/SEC- 6 bids

ACC, B12, PAC, G5 champs- 4 bids

2 bids left.  

I could see a lot of years where the BIG/SEC get 7, and the second place B12 team gets the other slot.

There will be a fair number of years where one of the BIG/SEC will have all their top teams with one or two losses due to the schedule breaking favorably and the top teams evenly distributing the losses.  I'm sure Sankey will try to set the schedules up in this way, even with a 3-6-6.  The BIG will try as well.

Overly-simplistic example:  UT beats LSU but loses once (to the Vols), and doesn't have Bama or UGA on their schedule.  

The Vols lose to Bama, but win their other games.  Bama loses to LSU, but beats everyone else.  UGA loses only to Bama.  

All four have 1 loss.  None are getting left out for the 2nd place ACC team.  Overly simplified, but it makes the point.

Most years, one or two of two of these teams will have two losses, but they still get in over the 2nd place team from the ACC and PAC.

Ultimately, this is a tv product that will be controlled by ESPN and FOX/CBS/NBC.  Which teams will they want to see make the cut for the last couple of spots ?

 

If things stay how they are, e.g. Pac10, I'd imagine you'd see this:

• Big = 2.75 bids/year
• SEC = 2.75
• Big 12/ACC = 1.75
• Pac/G5 = 1.25
• ND = 0.5

[Gidnik 3,475]

https://nypost.com/2023/04/10/why-nfls-bad-idea-for-thursday-flex-scheduling-barely-helps-amazon/

pay wall busted

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fnypost.com%2F2023%2F04%2F10%2Fwhy-nfls-bad-idea-for-thursday-flex-scheduling-barely-helps-amazon%2F

The Pac-12’s media rights agreement won’t be completed until late spring or early summer, according to The Athletic college football writers Stewart Mandel and Max Olsen. They said The CW is now in play. We will add this to the conversation around potential defections from Pac-12 to the Big 12: Watch Colorado.

 

 

 

[Horn of Gabriel 1,883]

50 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

No doubt- I was factoring that in.  Because that is the question.

My pitch as an SEC coach- "Do you want to eat southern food and play in warm weather vs UGA, LSU, UT and OU, or do you want to eat bratwurst and play in the snow in Michigan and Minnesota ?"

Maybe marginally.  4-5* recruits care about 1 thing above all else: "what is going to put me in the best position for the NFL?"  The SEC and B1G are both doing great in that regard and will continue to pull away from the pack.  If FSU shows up looking for an OL and can give quick playing time and a demonstrated NFL-path whereas the SEC offers that recruit is getting don't, the sunshine vs. snow argument won't be a major factor.  Still a bit but not as much.

I think the "ease of recruiting FL factor" in realignment is being overblown.  Good SEC teams are going to get talent no matter what.  Money will be the main and most important driver for realignment, unless you're the braindead PAC in which case "academic snobbery" is also a factor apparently.

[Texas Wahoo 3,627]

26 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Maybe marginally.  4-5* recruits care about 1 thing above all else: "what is going to put me in the best position for the NFL?"  The SEC and B1G are both doing great in that regard and will continue to pull away from the pack.  If FSU shows up looking for an OL and can give quick playing time and a demonstrated NFL-path whereas the SEC offers that recruit is getting don't, the sunshine vs. snow argument won't be a major factor.  Still a bit but not as much.

I think the "ease of recruiting FL factor" in realignment is being overblown.  Good SEC teams are going to get talent no matter what.  Money will be the main and most important driver for realignment, unless you're the braindead PAC in which case "academic snobbery" is also a factor apparently.

But some conferences are doing greater than others...

https://www.secsports.com/article/33821910/sec-leads-nation-16th-consecutive-year-nfl-draft

Quote

Since 2010, the SEC has over double (135) the total amount of First Round selections than the next closest conference (ACC & Big Ten - 64).

Quote

Since 2009, Top 10 NFL picks by league: SEC (50); ACC (21); Pac-12 (21); Big 12 (20); B1G (14), Notre Dame (4); AAC (3); MAC (3); BYU (2); Mountain West (1).

 

[BurntOrange&White 41,646]

It just means more. 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

Yeah this picking apart the ACC thing doesn't have a lot of legs with me for a few reasons:

• UNC/UVA look down on the Big Ten.  They still actively mock Maryland that they are now stuck with Midwest schools.   Any time "they'll make more money" is brought up, eyes roll.  The distain is real.
• UNC/UVA run the ACC as old school partners.   Their athletics are paid for out of trusts and UVA's endowment is north of $10b for a single school, not a system.  There is more talk on the east coast about consolidating to what was, than expanding to what could be.   
• Why would ESPN move any ACC school to the SEC?   They already get SC/Georgia/Clemson, they get Florida/Miami/FSU.  Those are already valued and paid for today.   So, ESPN is going to pay $60ish mill more a year...just because it has a different conference logo?   Its sort of like the River.   It moved, but its not worth more now.   What is worth more is Texas against Bama and Georgia.   Giving more value to Arkansas/A&M games.   What you have is what you have.  You'd have to make more money with Miami/Arkansas or FSU/Kentucky, and I don't think that kind of star power is there.
• What does the SEC get?   They already have 8 pretty solid football brands out of 16.    The downside to that is you can't have all 8 good in a single year.   So if you add you're adding some generals to your globetrotters.   That helps end of season, but at the expense of in season.    Your tv contract is only for the season.   Additionally, they are already struggling to find broadcast windows for their current inventory.   Four Saturday games a weekend are on the SECN.   The rest are already in top tier spots.   There aren't more T1 spots available, you've filled them, most of the ACC's are more T2 slots, so where is the money coming from?  You'd be taking from your own plate.

 

[hook me 2,140]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Brand consolidation will lead to schools that are currently big deals being very mediocre from a win/loss standpoint.  Someone has to lose all these blue blood matchups.  Many of those matchups will mean less when that happens. 

Schools that are left behind in terms of access (doesn’t appear that’s happening at the moment) aren’t going to care about these name games if it doesn’t bear any connection to their seasons.  

The networks are chasing NFL fans that have a passing interest in college ball and striving for an NFL lite that completely misses the mark of why people love college football.

Plenty of people watch games that have nothing to do with their season if there are big names involved. I watched UM/OSU while on a weekend getaway. I watched UGA/TN, USC/UCLA, UO/UGA (before it got out of hand in the 1st half), TN/Bama, a&m/Bama, Bama/LSU, & several other games that had nothing to do with my favorite school because they were interesting & a big name was involved (usually 1-1/2 or 2 big names). You know what I didn't watch much/any of? KSU/ISU, BU/TTU, OSU/TCU, TTU/ISU etc. etc. etc.  and most of those had a direct impact on UTs season. That doesn't even include the B1G/ACC/PAC equivalents of those games. People want to watch big names & the big names already have a big following so even when they're not in contention for a playoff bid & not playing another big name they're still getting viewers. UT vs OU/Bama/LSU/UGA/UF is better for college football than UT vs ISU/KSU/OSU/TTU/BU/TCU/UH ever was or will be. It's more interesting, even when UT is 3-3 or maybe I should say, especially when UT is 3-3. 3-3 UT vs 6-0 KSU is nothing compared to 6-0 or 5-1 or even 4-2 LSU or UGA. 

That's what I mean when I say it depends on your definition of "good for college football". Is a lot more premium content consolidated into only 2 conferences better than a lot less premium content spread nation-wide? I'd say yes, but I'm also a fan of a school that generates that premium content & gets mocked for losing to non-premium schools. You'd say no, but you're a fan of a school that doesn't generate that content & whose season is made by beating one of those premium schools (OU or UT). 

 

[notre dame joe 202]

39 minutes ago, hook me said:

Plenty of people watch games that have nothing to do with their season if there are big names involved. I watched UM/OSU while on a weekend getaway. I watched UGA/TN, USC/UCLA, UO/UGA (before it got out of hand in the 1st half), TN/Bama, a&m/Bama, Bama/LSU, & several other games that had nothing to do with my favorite school because they were interesting & a big name was involved (usually 1-1/2 or 2 big names). You know what I didn't watch much/any of? KSU/ISU, BU/TTU, OSU/TCU, TTU/ISU etc. etc. etc.  and most of those had a direct impact on UTs season. That doesn't even include the B1G/ACC/PAC equivalents of those games. People want to watch big names & the big names already have a big following so even when they're not in contention for a playoff bid & not playing another big name they're still getting viewers. UT vs OU/Bama/LSU/UGA/UF is better for college football than UT vs ISU/KSU/OSU/TTU/BU/TCU/UH ever was or will be. It's more interesting, even when UT is 3-3 or maybe I should say, especially when UT is 3-3. 3-3 UT vs 6-0 KSU is nothing compared to 6-0 or 5-1 or even 4-2 LSU or UGA. 

That's what I mean when I say it depends on your definition of "good for college football". Is a lot more premium content consolidated into only 2 conferences better than a lot less premium content spread nation-wide? I'd say yes, but I'm also a fan of a school that generates that premium content & gets mocked for losing to non-premium schools. You'd say no, but you're a fan of a school that doesn't generate that content & whose season is made by beating one of those premium schools (OU or UT). 

 

Your examples set the bar like I would rather watch the NFC Championship game then the NYJ preseason.

 

The question is do you want to watch UT-TTech or UT-Ole Miss.  The former has 100 years of history, the latter will be interesting by the time we are in nursing homes. 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

This is the one from the Baylor channel, not the Gonzaga one, that matters.   Its 45 minutes long but Sam knows his stuff on inventory.    This is the problem the Pac has and there isn't a solution for it, unless CBS wants another game.    There simply are not enough windows remaining to make the math work.

 

[hook me 2,140]

2 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Your examples set the bar like I would rather watch the NFC Championship game then the NYJ preseason.

 

The question is do you want to watch UT-TTech or UT-Ole Miss.  The former has 100 years of history, the latter will be interesting by the time we are in nursing homes. 

That's not the question at all. The question is do you want OU & a bunch of other schools or do you want OU, Bama, LSU, UGA, UF & a bunch of other schools. I'd prefer the second every day of the week & 60 years of (mostly) shitting all over TTU & calling it a mud bath doesn't change that. I can see why it would matter to TTU fans but I'll take exciting games vs. big schools & hope our admin figures out how to beat them than having 1 marquee conference + 1 marquee OOC game a year.

Also, with Arky & a&m already in the SEC it's a no brainer as far as rivalries go. OU ....large gap.... a&m, Arky ........very large gap........  3rd tier of "rivalries" that include TTU, BU, & TCU that are only rivalries because both schools are in TX & we've shared a conference for 60ish years (except for TCU who we forced to wander the desert for a few decades). So we're rekindling better rivalries & more marquee matchups. As far as non rivalry, non marquee conference games go I'd take Ole Miss, Tennessee, & Auburn games over ISU, KSU, & KU. 

[Trojan Man 429]

13 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

Your examples set the bar like I would rather watch the NFC Championship game then the NYJ preseason.

 

The question is do you want to watch UT-TTech or UT-Ole Miss.  The former has 100 years of history, the latter will be interesting by the time we are in nursing homes. 

Different school but very similar motivations for joining a new conference.  Unless the powerhouses decide to make their own conference and cut out all the have nots there will always be conference games that are clunkers from the powerhouses' perspective, and that's OK.  You need a punching bag for the Homecoming game and some breathers in between the top 10 opponents.  The problem is the Big 12/Pac 12 couldn't give Texas/USC enough prime conference games.  Joining the B1G will finally give USC conference games against peers.  For USC there is no possible Pac 12 game that is equivalent to playing Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.  Even the next tier of B1G opponents like Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa and Nebraska are all on par with games against Oregon, Washington and Utah.  The Pac 12 even fucked up the distribution of the few big conference games it has.  USC and UCLA each play 1 Oregon team and 1 Washington team per year.  The problem is that for 2 years 1 LA school would get both of the little brother PNW schools while the other would get both of the PNW schools that people actually watch instead of splitting them up.  That led to underwhelming schedules in the years you draw Oregon State and Washington State, like USC did last year.  I don't think the B1G will load all the teams you want to play into 2 years of schedules while giving you garbage for the other 2 years.

Anyways, I'll gladly give up clunker conference games that have history in exchange for conference games against bluebloods as well as clunker games against teams like Maryland and Rutgers and Indiana.  In fact, I think dropping the clunker opponents with history will be beneficial because that history is the clunker teams circling the USC game the day the schedule comes out and fielding a roster full of kids who all have massive chips on their shoulder because USC didn't offer and playing with their hair on fire against USC only to have a hangover and lose to 4-8 Arizona the next week.  For example, if you bring up the Oregon State/USC series everybody remembers Jacquizz Rodgers playing the game of his life to spoil an undefeated season for USC in 2008.  But nobody remembers that USC is 64-12-4 all time against Oregon State because nobody gives a fuck when USC beats them, even when the Beavers are good like in 2022.  I don't mind saying farewell to history that only gets remembered when USC loses in exchange for the chance to make history that will be remembered when USC wins against other bluebloods.

[Ignatius 4,125]

4 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

No doubt- I was factoring that in.  Because that is the question.

My pitch as an SEC coach- "Do you want to eat southern food and play in warm weather vs UGA, LSU, UT and OU, or do you want to eat bratwurst and play in the snow in Michigan and Minnesota ?"

Fuck’s wrong with brats?

[bullet 1,626]

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2023/04/10.aspx

"...The Pac-12 still is months away from a deal, with sources predicting that something will be in place before next football season starts. Last year, the Big Ten formally announced its blockbuster media rights deals with CBS, Fox and NBC in mid-August, and that is a timeline some have painted as the most realistic for the Pac-12.

Last week, The Athletic reported that The CW emerged as a new potential partner for the Pac-12. Sources told me that CW reps did hold initial talks with the conference. But those talks never got serious. The Pac-12 expects to wind up with deals that combine traditional TV with streaming. But there’s little chance that The CW will end up with those rights, sources said."

 

<and other interest for Surly, but only marginally realignment--dying RSNs--"Back in February, Warner Bros. Discovery gave the Pirates, Rockies and Astros a deadline of March 31 to reach a deal taking their local media rights back or face the prospect of having those three AT&T SportsNet-branded RSNs make a Chapter 7 liquidation filing....In Houston, the Astros and Rockets are in line to take over AT&T SportsNet Houston, an RSN that still has affiliate deals with Comcast, DirecTV and U-Verse that go well into the next decade. No changes are expected in Seattle, where WBD holds a 30% stake in the Mariners-controlled Root Sports RSN and is likely to keep that stake even after the current baseball season ends....">

[Royale with cheese 1,491]

8 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Late to the party, but the Rose Bowl, from a historic perspective, is already dead.    CFB expansion and USC moving to the Big Ten have nuked any chance of it being stand-alone bowl with any significance or relevance.

About fuckin' time.

[Al_4_ISU 12,612]

3 hours ago, Ignatius said:

Fuck’s wrong with brats?

No shit.

Anyone who thinks bratwurst and snow games are punishment has never experienced either.

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, Ignatius said:

Fuck’s wrong with brats?

😂  For me, I love them.

I just don’t know how popular they are with kids from the Deep South.

 

 

[USC Traveler 488]

6 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah this picking apart the ACC thing doesn't have a lot of legs with me for a few reasons:

• UNC/UVA look down on the Big Ten.  They still actively mock Maryland that they are now stuck with Midwest schools.   Any time "they'll make more money" is brought up, eyes roll.  The distain is real.
• UNC/UVA run the ACC as old school partners.   Their athletics are paid for out of trusts and UVA's endowment is north of $10b for a single school, not a system.  There is more talk on the east coast about consolidating to what was, than expanding to what could be.   
• Why would ESPN move any ACC school to the SEC?   They already get SC/Georgia/Clemson, they get Florida/Miami/FSU.  Those are already valued and paid for today.   So, ESPN is going to pay $60ish mill more a year...just because it has a different conference logo?   Its sort of like the River.   It moved, but its not worth more now.   What is worth more is Texas against Bama and Georgia.   Giving more value to Arkansas/A&M games.   What you have is what you have.  You'd have to make more money with Miami/Arkansas or FSU/Kentucky, and I don't think that kind of star power is there.
• What does the SEC get?   They already have 8 pretty solid football brands out of 16.    The downside to that is you can't have all 8 good in a single year.   So if you add you're adding some generals to your globetrotters.   That helps end of season, but at the expense of in season.    Your tv contract is only for the season.   Additionally, they are already struggling to find broadcast windows for their current inventory.   Four Saturday games a weekend are on the SECN.   The rest are already in top tier spots.   There aren't more T1 spots available, you've filled them, most of the ACC's are more T2 slots, so where is the money coming from?  You'd be taking from your own plate.

 

I think the football schools will leave the ACC as soon as they can, and for UVA and UNC will go BIG or SEC at that point- the money difference and perception of being in the top tier will be too much to pass up.

But I agree that ESPN has zero motivation to let schools out of the GOR, so I don’t think any of this happens until the mid 2030s, when the GOR is close to expiring.

[TKthunder2 5,058]

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

Your examples set the bar like I would rather watch the NFC Championship game then the NYJ preseason.

 

The question is do you want to watch UT-TTech or UT-Ole Miss.  The former has 100 years of history, the latter will be interesting by the time we are in nursing homes. 

Probably Ole Miss most years over Tech honestly. If Tech was added as the 17th SEC members they’d likely be around #11 of schools we’d want to play just barely sneaking into that third quadrant with Auburn/OleMiss/Mizzou just above UK/SC/MSU/Vandy

We’ve played Tech 72 (not 100) soon to be 73 times which will tie them with SMU as our 7th most played team. Texas is reconnecting/keeping 3 of our top 6 and finally getting to leave Baylor like we wanted to back in 1996 and ditching TCU and now UH again for the second time. If Tech stop whining like a little bitch I assume we will keep them as a regular OOC game in nonfb sports and an occasional OOC opponent like we do with Rice.

Texas A&M 76-37-5 (118)
Oklahoma 63-50-5 (118 *passes aggy this year lol)
Baylor 80-28-4 (112)
Rice 74-21-1 (96)
TCU 64-28-1 (93)
Arkansas 56-23-0 (79)
SMU 47-22-4 (73)
Texas Tech 54-18-0 (72)
Oklahoma State 26-11-0 (37)
Houston 16-7-2 (25)
Missouri 18-6-0 (24)
Kansas State 13-10-0 (23)
Kansas 17-4-0 (21)
Iowa State 15-5-0 (20)
Tulane 17-1-1 (19)
Colorado 12-7-0 (19)
LSU 9-8-1 (18)
Nebraska 10-4-0 (14)
West Virginia 6-6-0 (12)
Vanderbilt 3-8-1 (12)
Notre Dame 3-9-0 (12)
Alabama 7-2-1 (10)
North Carolina 6-3-0 (9)
Ole Miss 6-2-0 (8)
Auburn 5-3-0 (8)

New SEC will have 413 games of history for UT when we start play. The 10 team Big 12 would have had (without expansion) had 517 which 113 of those were against Baylor who we all hate and wanted to kick out of the fucking conference anyways.

The whole Texas is leaving its historical rivals story line is dumb since we already fucking did that back when the SWC broke up. This is just the next chapter of that same story.

Even leaving out aggy/pig, we already have more history with LSU than we do with WVU, and in a decade they’ll pass any history we have with KU/KSU/ISU.

So changing conferences for Texas is a wash historically speaking and a GIANT win for our home schedule, recruiting, financials and just about every other metric (which is why we made the move).

A real argument I’m not hearing anyone really make is that Oklahoma is leaving it’s historical rivals, but as everyone loves to focus their hate on Texas somehow they keep getting a pass in this whole thing in the media/public.

[Satchel 6,982]

9 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

No doubt- I was factoring that in.  Because that is the question.

My pitch as an SEC coach- "Do you want to eat southern food and play in warm weather vs UGA, LSU, UT and OU, or do you want to eat bratwurst and play in the snow in Michigan and Minnesota ?"

My pitch as a B12 coach - would you rather play for a Texas Tech team that qualifies for the expanded playoffs or a middle of the pack Texas A&M who routinely doesn’t qualify?

[USC Traveler 488]

32 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The whole Texas is leaving its historical rivals story line is dumb since we already fucking did that back when the SWC broke up. This is just the next chapter of that same story.

 

It's crazy that people are trying to push that storyline.  I think of UT going to the SEC as getting their #2 and #3 rivals back.

 

[USC Traveler 488]

14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

My pitch as a B12 coach - would you rather play for a Texas Tech team that qualifies for the expanded playoffs or a middle of the pack Texas A&M who routinely doesn’t qualify?

My version-  "Google Texas Tech co-eds and then google aggy Jizz Jars.  "

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

A real argument I’m not hearing anyone really make is that Oklahoma is leaving it’s historical rivals, but as everyone loves to focus their hate on Texas somehow they keep getting a pass in this whole thing in the media/public.

I think Oklahoma is getting a pass on this because the Big 12 splitting into North and South already somewhat distanced them from every Big 8 team besides Oklahoma State, then Colorado and Missouri and Nebraska all left the conference.  Also it's not on the same level as Texas/A&M or Texas/Arkansas but OU will be reunited with Missouri in the SEC.

Do you think the original Big 12 would have been more harmonious if instead of divisions they gave everyone 3 permanent opponents and rotated the rest of the conference games?  OU could have played Texas, Nebraska and OK State every year.  Texas could have played OU, A&M and Tech every year.  Nebraska could have played OU, Colorado and I'm not sure who else for #3, Kansas State or Missouri probably.  The networks would have got the big games they wanted annually and the top dogs would have kept the games they wanted the most.  Breaking up Nebraska and Oklahoma's rivalry feels like it left a bad taste in both of their mouths from day 1, which is not a good way to start a new conference.  Maybe Corn is a little less butthurt and a little more willing to work with everyone else if they kept playing the Sooners every year.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

10 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

I think Oklahoma is getting a pass on this because the Big 12 splitting into North and South already somewhat distanced them from every Big 8 team besides Oklahoma State, then Colorado and Missouri and Nebraska all left the conference.  Also it's not on the same level as Texas/A&M or Texas/Arkansas but OU will be reunited with Missouri in the SEC.

Do you think the original Big 12 would have been more harmonious if instead of divisions they gave everyone 3 permanent opponents and rotated the rest of the conference games?  OU could have played Texas, Nebraska and OK State every year.  Texas could have played OU, A&M and Tech every year.  Nebraska could have played OU, Colorado and I'm not sure who else for #3, Kansas State or Missouri probably.  The networks would have got the big games they wanted annually and the top dogs would have kept the games they wanted the most.  Breaking up Nebraska and Oklahoma's rivalry feels like it left a bad taste in both of their mouths from day 1, which is not a good way to start a new conference.  Maybe Corn is a little less butthurt and a little more willing to work with everyone else if they kept playing the Sooners every year.

Yeah, that would have had some impact, because the original Big 12 just was never harmonious, it was never a team.   If you look at the SEC and Big Ten, they've got decades together, there is rarely external disagreements.   The Big 12 was pissing in each other's drinks from the start.   Yes, the decision to not protect OU/Nebraska was a wound that never healed.   Not seeing that it would be was a strategic blunder.   They should have found a way to balance that better than North/South.   Then Nebraska got butthurt more by not being able to bring in entire teams of non-qualifiers and the entire conference shit the bed by turning down the Big 12 Network, which was then pitched to the Big Ten to turn them into a financial juggernaut.

So, I guess, while OU/Nebraska was one issue, the main issue was everyone thought they were smart, but were all basically complete idiots and shit it down their leg when it did have power.   They didn't see the forest through the trees and got out maneuvered on literally every front.

Imagine it did unify, stayed together and had the power of the Big Ten Network.    Would the Pac have got to 12?  Would the Big 12 been able to defend recruiting in Texas better without all the self-inflicted wounds?  Would the SoCals and Arizonas have moved over to the Big 12, since they basically had a firewall up the Mississippi once it was clear the Pac had no expansion options?   Texas/OU/A&M (mostly due to shear size)/Nebraska/USC in football, and UCLA/Arizona/Kansas in basketball, with a network in their back pocket, would be a rival to either of the Big 2 today. 

[TKthunder2 5,058]

59 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

I think the football schools will leave the ACC as soon as they can, and for UVA and UNC will go BIG or SEC at that point- the money difference and perception of being in the top tier will be too much to pass up.

But I agree that ESPN has zero motivation to let schools out of the GOR, so I don’t think any of this happens until the mid 2030s, when the GOR is close to expiring.

Zero motivation? I mean if they want to keep the ACC around with teams that actually justify general interest, I’d say that motivation. If they don’t give FSU/Miami/UNC more money sooner rather than later, what are the odds those schools would want to continue their association with ESPN either by joining the SEC or by staying in the ACC and continuing their partnership with them?

They have a motivation. Now in these belt tightening days of TV$ is that enough to override their greed?

FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC see themselves as worth the same money as Maryland and South Carolina. Now they obviously won’t get that by staying in the ACC, but if ESPN doesn’t give anything then there won’t be an ACC worth broadcasting come 2036.

I see ESPN pushing for another 5 year extension and giving the ACC the same money as the Big 12 is getting (maybe a little more to make them feel good) in exchange for 9 conference games and a better OOC slate (say all ACC teams have to work with ESPN to schedule 2 P5 teams a year going forward). The goal is to keep the Big Ten away and provide ND a home to keep them out of the Big Ten (where ESPN will have even less access to the Irish).

[BurntOrange&White 41,646]

11 hours ago, bullet said:

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2023/04/10.aspx

"...The Pac-12 still is months away from a deal, with sources predicting that something will be in place before next football season starts. Last year, the Big Ten formally announced its blockbuster media rights deals with CBS, Fox and NBC in mid-August, and that is a timeline some have painted as the most realistic for the Pac-12.

Last week, The Athletic reported that The CW emerged as a new potential partner for the Pac-12. Sources told me that CW reps did hold initial talks with the conference. But those talks never got serious. The Pac-12 expects to wind up with deals that combine traditional TV with streaming. But there’s little chance that The CW will end up with those rights, sources said."

 

<and other interest for Surly, but only marginally realignment--dying RSNs--"Back in February, Warner Bros. Discovery gave the Pirates, Rockies and Astros a deadline of March 31 to reach a deal taking their local media rights back or face the prospect of having those three AT&T SportsNet-branded RSNs make a Chapter 7 liquidation filing....In Houston, the Astros and Rockets are in line to take over AT&T SportsNet Houston, an RSN that still has affiliate deals with Comcast, DirecTV and U-Verse that go well into the next decade. No changes are expected in Seattle, where WBD holds a 30% stake in the Mariners-controlled Root Sports RSN and is likely to keep that stake even after the current baseball season ends....">

Why do they keep referencing the BIG 10 deal as that is relevant to the PAC negotiations? 

[Al_4_ISU 12,612]

32 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

Why do they keep referencing the BIG 10 deal as that is relevant to the PAC negotiations? 

Have you met George?

[BurntOrange&White 41,646]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Have you met George?

[Al_4_ISU 12,612]

20 hours ago, hook me said:

I guess it would depend on your definition of "good for college football". Consolidation of brands makes for marquee matchups which drives excitement & makes games better to watch & attend. UT vs OU/LSU/Bama/UF/UGA is 1000x better than KSU/ISU/KU/BU/TCU. USC vs OSU/UM is 1000x better than CU/ASU/UA/Cal. Regional rivalries are great for those within the region, but have little excitement anywhere else. Even UT vs a&m has very little pull outside of TX. The good thing is, those other fanbases have enough support & history that when the eventual split comes the second-tier league should still be very entertaining unlike the XFL/USFL.

I’m saying brand consolidation will inevitably dilute and lower the status of some of today’s brands.  Those matchups that are marquee now won’t be as appealing when the schools involved are battling to go .500.  And all the fanbases on the outside (to whatever extent that happens) will lose interest.

My opinion is that the regionality of college football is part and parcel with the passion for the game.  Especially in places with no NFL team.  Obviously I’m biased, but I honestly think if brand consolidation goes much further, it will result in decreased national interest in the sport - which is what I mean when I say “good for the sport”.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Zero motivation? I mean if they want to keep the ACC around with teams that actually justify general interest, I’d say that motivation. If they don’t give FSU/Miami/UNC more money sooner rather than later, what are the odds those schools would want to continue their association with ESPN either by joining the SEC or by staying in the ACC and continuing their partnership with them?

They have a motivation. Now in these belt tightening days of TV$ is that enough to override their greed?

FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC see themselves as worth the same money as Maryland and South Carolina. Now they obviously won’t get that by staying in the ACC, but if ESPN doesn’t give anything then there won’t be an ACC worth broadcasting come 2036.

I see ESPN pushing for another 5 year extension and giving the ACC the same money as the Big 12 is getting (maybe a little more to make them feel good) in exchange for 9 conference games and a better OOC slate (say all ACC teams have to work with ESPN to schedule 2 P5 teams a year going forward). The goal is to keep the Big Ten away and provide ND a home to keep them out of the Big Ten (where ESPN will have even less access to the Irish).

Yeah I don't see the motivation either.   They have the ACC locked down for 13 more years.  Let's say the SEC pays out $60m on their current deal for current members, those four schools you are discussing are not equal ads.   Every conference has a unequalness, there is no way around that.   The difference in the ACC isn't that the low is freakishly lower than the SEC's low, its that the high isn't anywhere near the SEC's high.   I haven't pulled the numbers this year to run a straight comparison, but some key numbers from last year:

• Last year's ACC championship game drew 3.5 million in prime time.   Three times as many turned into Michigan/Purdue at the same time.   Purdue.  The Pac drew twice as many on Friday and both the SEC and Big 12's championships were seen by three times the audience.
• Miami v Clemson last year drew 1.4m on ESPN in the coveted 3:30 eastern window.   Three times as many turned into Ohio State/Maryland.   Maryland.
• FSU v Miami last year drew 1.5m on ABC in prime time.   Texas Tech/TCU drew a million more than day, at noon.
• FSU v Clemson did the best in the regular season last year of the bunch, pulling 3.4m in prime time on ABC.   Of course Penn State/Michigan doubled that at noon while Alabama/Tennessee quadrupled that at 3:30.

On quick look, unless an ACC team is playing Notre Dame, the numbers are not impressive.    They're not $60m numbers.   If those schools were generating 8-12m when playing each other OR competing with the SEC/B1G team that played opposite them, then maybe.   But neither of those is happening.

EDIT: also factor into ESPN's non-motivation, ND is currently locked into the ACC in all other sports with a clause that if they join any league before 2036, it will be the ACC.   Why would ESPN want to accelerate the move of ND to Fox/NBC?  ND on the road is one of the consistently best games for ESPN in the ACC.   Last year:

• ND/USC - 6.7m
• ND/Clemson - 3.3m
• ND/UNC - 3.5m
• ND/Cal - 2.9m

ND is likely the only property hanging a flag in the ACC's offices who could command the money in the current SEC/B10 deals.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Hurtlocker