Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

If you want to lose 20+ minutes of you life that you won’t get back, Bud Elliott debates Tom Fornelli on FSU’s “leverage” to leave the ACC. 
 

image.thumb.png.e2e276cf62c72491955362e6b3f3eae1.png

 

Basically, Florida State and their dogshit lawyers have lost every single motion in their lawsuit to force their way out of the ACC. Predictably, FSU and Clemson have reached out to the conference about an unequal revenue split.

Bud argues passionately that FSU has enough leverage to force the ACC to give them $80 million a year and only lock them in until 2030. He bases this on a 5% chance that FSU can leave with their TV rights at no costs to the school. His logic assumes that Wake Forest and other small ACC schools will be so afraid of this 5% chance scenario succeeding, that they’ll roll over and give FSU and Clemson whatever they want. Fornelli rightfully points out that doesn’t make any sense and podcast chaos ensues. 
 

Elliott should ask for his money back from Bama Law. Based on his context clues, it’s clear he’s advising FSU in some capacity in their lawsuit. FSU undergrad + Bama JD + who works as a journalist going up against Duke and Virginia’s attorneys. Well no shit, of course they’ve lost every motion.

Florida State is in hell. 0-3. Unable to recruit high school well enough to rebuild their roster. And stuck in the ACC. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Basically, Florida State and their dogshit lawyers have lost every single motion in their lawsuit to force their way out of the ACC. Predictably, FSU and Clemson have reached out to the conference about an unequal revenue split.

Bud argues passionately that FSU has enough leverage to force the ACC to give them $80 million a year and only lock them in until 2030. He bases this on a 5% chance that FSU can leave with their TV rights at no costs to the school. His logic assumes that Wake Forest and other small ACC schools will be so afraid of this 5% chance scenario succeeding, that they’ll roll over and give FSU and Clemson whatever they want. Fornelli rightfully points out that doesn’t make any sense and podcast chaos ensues. 
 

Elliott should ask for his money back from Bama Law. Based on his context clues, it’s clear he’s advising FSU in some capacity in their lawsuit. FSU undergrad + Bama JD + who works as a journalist going up against Duke and Virginia’s attorneys. Well no shit, of course they’ve lost every motion.

Florida State is in hell. 0-3. Unable to recruit high school well enough to rebuild their roster. And stuck in the ACC. 

Guess this article believes Bud Elliott...

ACC reportedly considering a new revenue structure to keep Clemson and Florida State

https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-reportedly-considering-a-new-revenue-structure-to-keep-clemson-and-florida-state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, closetohumping said:

We didn’t enjoy that aspect.  Really ambivalent towards most teams in the big 12

I enjoy that aspect. I find my needs for nearby games and rival fan interaction are met just fine by having OU, TAMU and Arkansas on the annual schedule. 
 
I think Baylor fans needs are met just fine by having TCU, UH, and TT on their annual schedule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Guess this article believes Bud Elliott...

ACC reportedly considering a new revenue structure to keep Clemson and Florida State

https://footballscoop.com/news/acc-reportedly-considering-a-new-revenue-structure-to-keep-clemson-and-florida-state

I think there’s mutual interest in unequal revenue, but the parties have very different numbers. 
 

FSU and Clemson want $80 million. The conference can get there if every other school take a 20% haircut.  That includes schools with options like UNC and Virginia. I just don’t see it.

Biased Bud and Dumbass Danny Kanell  think the ACC will counter with $6O million. Kanell thinks FSU and Clemson might take $65 million if they can get out in 2030. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, statsman said:

I enjoy that aspect. I find my needs for nearby games and rival fan interaction are met just fine by having OU, TAMU and Arkansas on the annual schedule. 
 
I think Baylor fans needs are met just fine by having TCU, UH, and TT on their annual schedule. 

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

Sure. And the Big XII is similarly dumb for not having UH play TT these next couple of years, as well as TCU dropping the SMU series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Those who want college football to be the NFL but with college team names love the super league idea. 

Just to be clear. What many of us want and what we think is the most profitable and probable are not mutually exclusive.

I’m happy with the new 16 team SEC and I doubt I’ll ever get used to the Big Ten being in LA/PNW but I still recognize that for USC it’s the most profitable move.

I think a true 40 team NFL lite super league might be most profitable, but is not probable due to antitrust concerns.

I prefer a playoff that is competitive and inclusive but if those games don’t get eye balls then they are unlikely to remain as permanent fixtures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

As a Baylor fan yes that's fine though I'd like to have SMU on it. 

 

I think the regional argument doesn't land as well here because UT is sort of just sliding in fine to the SEC with OU, A&M, Arky, and LSU being all nearby. Though those schools not all playing each other is dumb.

 

 

Agreed on SMU 

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yup or ISU/KSU every year 

 

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Sure. And the Big XII is similarly dumb for not having UH play TT these next couple of years

Yep to both 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

Yup or ISU/KSU every year 

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LTbear said:

One can like brand on brand matchups while still thinking it's stupid to see serious reports discuss the merits of FSU joining the Big Ten. 

The BIG would be stupid to pass on FSU for a number of reasons.

1. BIG doesn't have as many programs at the top who have the potential to be legit championship contenders as the SEC.  Adding FSU and Miami would help.

2. Adding FSU and Miami makes the media package more valuable, as it gives you more top tier matchups in your inventory.

3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time.  Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports.

4. If the ACC collapses, adding ND becomes much more realistic.  Adding ND, FSU and Miami to your tv inventory would be a massive win.

5. BIG is already a coast to coast conference, but have no presence in FL, the 3rd most populous state, and top state for recruiting.  

6. Easier travel, esp for non-rev sports.  If they added the above 5 schools, they'd be at 23.  Bringing in Stanford as #24 would allow BIG to set up 4 divisions of 6 that would create regionality within a national conference.  ND would want to be with the former ACC schools (including MD), which would create a nice division.

The original BIG members plus PSU and Rutgers divide into two divisions pretty easily.  Nebraska would be the only school to have a travel increase, as they'd be in a division with the former PAC schools, but the access to CA for recruiting would make it well worth it, and NU's best non-rev sport (volleyball) is more important out west than it is in the midwest.  And LAX-Lincoln is about the same as LAX-Seattle (around 3 hours).

You wouldn't need divisions in football, but if they wanted to use them, they'd just make games like USC-ND and NE-IA protected rivals.

Most media people are assuming we end up with a "super league" of top programs, but as folks like Huckleberry have correctly pointed out in this thread, fans of bluebloods aren't going to be excited about going 7-5 on a regular basis.  The BIG going to 24, and the SEC going to 20 with VT and NCSt (or similar scenarios with some of the schools flipped around) seems much more likely to me in the medium term, and maybe even in the long run.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

ADs openly acting like they're above the alumni and fans is the worst but unfortunately very common. At least keep that feeling to yourself like I assume our current AD does. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

ADs openly acting like they're above the alumni and fans is the worst but unfortunately very common. At least keep that feeling to yourself like I assume our current AD does. 

When our fans flipped shit, our AD said “well, it obviously isn’t a big deal because we only sold 500 tickets to the game in Manhattan through our allotment”.

There were several thousand ISU fans there, they just found better/cheaper seats on the secondary market.  Not paying the official university mark up.

There have been numerous trophy proposals from both sides, with several being legitimately good.  The ADs just keep going “nah, we’re good”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

It will also shock a lot of alumni when 7-5 is a good season. That's what happens when there are only 40 teams and you only play each other. One of the reasons I think it can be held off is when the coaches and athletic directors realize this. 

Agreed on fanbases reacting to reality in a super league.  We'll probably get a good preview of it with OU fans this year.

I think the number that ensures mass unhappiness is less than 40 teams, though.  

If the BIG goes to 24 and SEC to 20, or something similar to my post above, that's 44 total.

Still lots of bottom feeders and mid-tier programs there: NW, Purdue, UVA, UCLA, MN, MD, IU, IA, Vandy, MSU, NCSt, SCar, UK, Mizzou, VT, aggy

That's a lot of wins for bluebloods in most years, and probably not much different than it it now.

Seems more likely in the short-medium term.  Your point about the coaches and ADs is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s partially on both of our ADs.  They seem to love downplaying Farmageddon even though both fanbases and players/coaches will tell you it’s the biggest conference game.

Its infuriating.

I really wish we had more permanent games, even if they feel forced. KSU is really the only one left that has two rivals but one of them far outweighs the other. Here would be my permanent games and they seem to work out just fine.

AU-ASU

BU - TCU

BYU - UU

UCF - UH

UC - WVU

CU - KU

ISU - KSU

OSU - TT

If a second permanent is added though these feel forced only for KU/KSU which never struck me as much of a big time rivalry:

AU - UU

ASU - TT

BU - UH

BYU - CU

UCF - WVU

ISU - UC

KU - KSU

OSU - TCU

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

FSU and Clemson want $80 million. The conference can get there if every other school take a 20% haircut.  That includes schools with options like UNC and Virginia. I just don’t see it.

I agree. The argument pro-FSU people are making is this, the less valuable propoerties (the schools that won't get an offer from the B1G or SEC if the ACC goes away) are better off taking the financial hit of unequal revenue sharing than the $10 million/year payout of a lesser conference. However, schools like Miami and NC (and likely the politically tethered NCSU) and maybe Virginia would also go to the B1G or SEC if the ACC melts down. Not only is there no reason for them to take a financial hit to preserve the conference, there is every reason for them to demand the same $ as Clemson and FSU. That means an even bigger haircut for the other ACC members (and this is amplified because there is barely anything to take from SMU). I think we are reaching the point where it makes more sense for the remaing schools to flip everyone the bird and to plan on splitting the buyout money of those who eject.

I still have yet to hear a cogent argument on why ESPN wouldn't want to exercise their option to extend the ACC GOR, which further complicates things. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Just to be clear. What many of us want and what we think is the most profitable and probable are not mutually exclusive.

I’m happy with the new 16 team SEC and I doubt I’ll ever get used to the Big Ten being in LA/PNW but I still recognize that for USC it’s the most profitable move.

Agree 100% with you on your first sentence.

I love the new SEC.  I've always watched a lot of SEC games.  Adding UT and OU (along with the 12 team playoff arriving) has already created so many better games than under the divisional structure.  Hopefully we see a 9 game schedule soon.

For USC, finances were obviously the biggest driver in the BIG move, but we'd been unhappy with the way the PAC was run for 20+ years, so being in a conference that cares about football and is run by intelligent people is a light-years difference from the PAC under Commissar Scott and Klownkoff.   

And like the UT Shaggy/Surly posters prior to the SEC move, we wanted to play against programs we view as peers on a regular basis.  It's counterintuitive for a lot of people, but we've had enough Rose Bowls (and some great regular season matchups) vs OSU, UM and even PSU that there is a lot of familiarity and respect there.  Even with the next tier down, we've had some fun Orange Bowls, Holiday Bowls, etc vs IA, WI, NU, etc.  So playing these teams feels natural and makes sense, maybe somewhat similar to how older UT fans feel about getting Arky back on the schedule.  We didn't play OSU and UM as often as UT played Arky, but we had some Rose Bowls that were truly epic and decided the national championship, similar to the UT-Arky "Game of the Century".

Maybe it's because our main rival is in South Bend, so people are used to traveling there, but no SC person that I know is unhappy about traveling to the Midwest for away games.  Quite the opposite- they're fired up to go to most of the stadiums in the BIG.  People are even looking forward to RU and MD, since they're easy, non-stop flights with a weekend in NY or DC.  That's much better than a weekend in Corvallis or Pullman for a game against a lower tier team.

 

PS- there are a ton of BIG grads in LA, which also adds to familiarity/rivalries.  I know lots of UCLA and Stanford grads, but I know as many or more BIG grads who live in the LA area as I do alums of former PAC schools not named USC, UCLA or Stanford.  Lots of OSU, UM and NW alums especially.

Edited by USC Traveler
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

I agree. The argument pro-FSU people are making is this, the less valuable propoerties (the schools that won't get an offer from the B1G or SEC if the ACC goes away) are better off taking the financial hit of unequal revenue sharing than the $10 million/year payout of a lesser conference. However, schools like Miami and NC (and likely the politically tethered NCSU) and maybe Virginia would also go to the B1G or SEC if the ACC melts down. Not only is there no reason for them to take a financial hit to preserve the conference, there is every reason for them to demand the same $ as Clemson and FSU. That means an even bigger haircut for the other ACC members (and this is amplified because there is barely anything to take from SMU). I think we are reaching the point where it makes more sense for the remaing schools to flip everyone the bird and to plan on splitting the buyout money of those who eject.

I still have yet to hear a cogent argument on why ESPN wouldn't want to exercise their option to extend the ACC GOR, which further complicates things. 

Well said. FSU and Clemson need to look in the mirror. Their attorneys allowed them to sign their GOR away with an ACCN IOU from ESPN. They signed a bad contract, and lost at musical chairs. It sucks, but Bud Elliott going stream of consciousness isn’t going to accomplish anything. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

The BIG would be stupid to pass on FSU for a number of reasons.

1. BIG doesn't have as many programs at the top who have the potential to be legit championship contenders as the SEC.  Adding FSU and Miami would help.

2. Adding FSU and Miami makes the media package more valuable, as it gives you more top tier matchups in your inventory.

3. BIG has wanted UNC and UVA for a long time.  Adding those two plus the FL schools would eliminate the ACC as a viable conference for ND's other sports.

4. If the ACC collapses, adding ND becomes much more realistic.  Adding ND, FSU and Miami to your tv inventory would be a massive win.

5. BIG is already a coast to coast conference, but have no presence in FL, the 3rd most populous state, and top state for recruiting.  

6. Easier travel, esp for non-rev sports.  If they added the above 5 schools, they'd be at 23.  Bringing in Stanford as #24 would allow BIG to set up 4 divisions of 6 that would create regionality within a national conference.  ND would want to be with the former ACC schools (including MD), which would create a nice division.

The original BIG members plus PSU and Rutgers divide into two divisions pretty easily.  Nebraska would be the only school to have a travel increase, as they'd be in a division with the former PAC schools, but the access to CA for recruiting would make it well worth it, and NU's best non-rev sport (volleyball) is more important out west than it is in the midwest.  And LAX-Lincoln is about the same as LAX-Seattle (around 3 hours).

You wouldn't need divisions in football, but if they wanted to use them, they'd just make games like USC-ND and NE-IA protected rivals.

Most media people are assuming we end up with a "super league" of top programs, but as folks like Huckleberry have correctly pointed out in this thread, fans of bluebloods aren't going to be excited about going 7-5 on a regular basis.  The BIG going to 24, and the SEC going to 20 with VT and NCSt (or similar scenarios with some of the schools flipped around) seems much more likely to me in the medium term, and maybe even in the long run.  

 

I didn't say it would be a stupid financial move for the B1G to take FSU. I said as a fan, I can find FSU joining a conference based in Ohio and Michigan (and likely not having a single conference mate within a thousand miles) - ya, that is stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2024 at 2:59 PM, TKthunder2 said:

I personally don’t think you’ll see a true super league, ironically I think we’ll see the 12 team playoff as a turning point going back to the old bowl system (hear me out).

SEC and Big Ten see the bulk of the 12 team playoff selections and the other games against the B12/ACC/G5 are mostly non competitive (Cincy) or they win the first round and fail the second round (TCU/UGA) which damages the product overall. At the same time more pressure will be placed on CCGs and especially the loser (or winner if they go to 16).

The best solution would be to bring the majority of the playoffs in house. CCG weekend becomes round one of a 4 team conference playoff. The 1&2 seed host home games, then round two on NYD becomes the new CCG (SEC at Atlanta, Big Ten in the Rose which solves 2 major issues for them). Then two weeks later the winners of these games play against each other in a BigTen/SEC challenge (not an official national championship, but it is defacto).

After this we go back to the old bowl/poll system. The round 1 playoff losers can play in the bowls versus Big 12/ACC/G5 teams just like they always have. They can still do a NY6 type bowl arrangement and have contractual bowl games so this avoids many of the pitfalls of antitrust because it’s just going back to a previous system.

SEC and Big Ten keep what they kill. Early OOC games and bowl games can still be played. I think this is a more likely future especially since it came out that the networks considered the first round playoff games to less than desirable. The expansion to 12 was to satisfy the B12/ACC/G5/ND but if the Big Ten/SEC can do their own thing and each get 4 spots where their games are more valued, this seems like the most obvious solution especially if they add in ND/FSU/Clemson and a few others into the mix.

There's a political factor in that scenario they really don't want to get into.  I think it was Sankey who talked about when they tried to get more exclusive, they always ran into legal and political problems.  Most likely, I think they just spend a lot of schools into irrelevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I didn't say it would be a stupid financial move for the B1G to take FSU. I said as a fan, I can find FSU joining a conference based in Ohio and Michigan (and likely not having a single conference mate within a thousand miles) - ya, that is stupid. 

Yeah- I thought your op was talking about the bigger picture for the BIG.

From an FSU fan perspective, it would be stupid for them to join by themselves, but that seems unlikely.

FOX/BIG would certainly want to pair them with Miami or Clemson, and given everything we've heard over the years about the BIG wanting UNC and UVA, adding a four school ACC block seems like the most likely eventual outcome (could be another 10 years).  Assuming they would play the other ex-ACC schools every year, other than an occasional trip to the West Coast, there's not much difference between flying to BC, Syracuse or Pitt vs Chicago, Detroit or Columbus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I really wish we had more permanent games, even if they feel forced. KSU is really the only one left that has two rivals but one of them far outweighs the other. Here would be my permanent games and they seem to work out just fine.

AU-ASU

BU - TCU

BYU - UU

UCF - UH

UC - WVU

CU - KU

ISU - KSU

OSU - TT

If a second permanent is added though these feel forced only for KU/KSU which never struck me as much of a big time rivalry:

AU - UU

ASU - TT

BU - UH

BYU - CU

UCF - WVU

ISU - UC

KU - KSU

OSU - TCU

 

 

In my perfect world, we would be in a permanent pod with you guys, KU, and KSU.

The ISU/OSU series has been absolutely wild almost every year since ‘11.  I don’t think it’s a rivalry, but it’s absolutely a game both fanbases are on edge for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...