CSNbbs
ACC realignment - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: ACCbbs (/forum-381.html)
+---- Forum: ACC Conference Talk (/forum-351.html)
+---- Thread: ACC realignment (/thread-853664.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37


ACC realignment - ken d - 07-19-2018 10:24 AM

My ideal scenario for realignment of the ACC, both internally (divisions) and within the P5, goes something like this. Fundamental to my premise is that "Big Dogs Gonna Eat".

Two other premises are: Clemson and Florida State would rather be in the SEC, and Jim Delaney's wet dream is to bring UNC and Virginia into the Big Ten before he retires. So how might the ACC profit from these two things?

First, get ESPN to agree to the Clemson / FSU move from one ESPN property to the other. Because these two would be paid more in the SEC than they currently get from the ACC deal, the difference would come off the top of the ACC contract. At the same time, though, ESPN would agree to not reduce the aggregate payout for the loss of UNC and Virginia to the B1G. With the ESPN pie now divided by only ten schools, the per school payout for the ACC increases.

As an inducement to get UNC to move, the Big Ten must guarantee an 8 game league schedule, with only one annual crossover game. Teams are encouraged to play additional crossover games (that don't count in league standings) with a goal of having every team with 10 P5 opponents a year. In addition to this (and this is important), the B1G designates Indiana as UNC's annual crossover (the only fixed crossover), but allows UNC to substitute NC State and Indiana to substitute Louisville as their official 8th league game every year.

This allows UNC to schedule both Duke and Wake Forest OOC (in addition to their annual "conference" matchup with NC State) and allows Virginia to schedule Virginia Tech and rotate Wake Forest, Duke and NC State for their 10th P5 game.

The ACC's remaining 10 teams divide:

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Duke
Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse

8 game league schedule, skipping one team from the other division each year. This allows for a CCG under current rules.

Annual OOC games in this scenario:

Virginia Tech: Virginia
Georgia Tech: Georgia, Clemson
NC State: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and ECU the other two.
Wake Forest: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year
Duke: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and Northwestern the other two.

Miami: Florida State
Louisville: Kentucky and Indiana
Pitt: West Virginia or Penn State
Boston College: UConn and UMass
Syracuse: UConn and UMass

In addition, with only 10 ACC teams, each gets to play Notre Dame every other year, so every class gets the Irish at home and away once each.

SEC East:
Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Florida State and Auburn

Big Ten East:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia and UNC


RE: ACC realignment - ken d - 07-19-2018 10:33 AM

In the above scenario, both the SEC and B1G grow to 16 teams. The PAC stays at 12, the Big 12 stays at 10 and the ACC shrinks to 10. Notre Dame remains independent, and the P5 stays at the same 65 teams it started with. No G5 callups.

With both the Big 12 and the ACC now insulated from further poaching, they agree to support a proposal to cap conference size at 16 while allowing 16 team conferences to stage conference semifinal games (and to start their regular season a week earlier to accommodate this without extending the season further into December).

There is no need to amend the current CFP contract at this time.


RE: ACC realignment - ken d - 07-19-2018 10:42 AM

This part isn't critical, but if I were the ACC if this came to pass, I would encourage the two northeasternmost teams, Syracuse and Boston College, to enter into a regional scheduling compact, with annual games home and away including UConn, UMass and Army.

Having these regional games on their schedules would improve the home attendance of all five schools, which are in easy driving distance of one another. For the ACC, it would also improve the chances of its two schools to become bowl eligible on a regular basis.

And, while this is of no concern to the ACC, it would assist the two independents with their own scheduling needs. If they were so inclined, it could also facilitate a move by UConn to the Big East along with football independence.


RE: ACC realignment - Hokie Mark - 07-19-2018 11:17 AM

03-no


RE: ACC realignment - XLance - 07-19-2018 12:28 PM

(07-19-2018 10:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  My ideal scenario for realignment of the ACC, both internally (divisions) and within the P5, goes something like this. Fundamental to my premise is that "Big Dogs Gonna Eat".

Two other premises are: Clemson and Florida State would rather be in the SEC, and Jim Delaney's wet dream is to bring UNC and Virginia into the Big Ten before he retires. So how might the ACC profit from these two things?

First, get ESPN to agree to the Clemson / FSU move from one ESPN property to the other. Because these two would be paid more in the SEC than they currently get from the ACC deal, the difference would come off the top of the ACC contract. At the same time, though, ESPN would agree to not reduce the aggregate payout for the loss of UNC and Virginia to the B1G. With the ESPN pie now divided by only ten schools, the per school payout for the ACC increases.

As an inducement to get UNC to move, the Big Ten must guarantee an 8 game league schedule, with only one annual crossover game. Teams are encouraged to play additional crossover games (that don't count in league standings) with a goal of having every team with 10 P5 opponents a year. In addition to this (and this is important), the B1G designates Indiana as UNC's annual crossover (the only fixed crossover), but allows UNC to substitute NC State and Indiana to substitute Louisville as their official 8th league game every year.

This allows UNC to schedule both Duke and Wake Forest OOC (in addition to their annual "conference" matchup with NC State) and allows Virginia to schedule Virginia Tech and rotate Wake Forest, Duke and NC State for their 10th P5 game.

The ACC's remaining 10 teams divide:

Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Duke
Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse

8 game league schedule, skipping one team from the other division each year. This allows for a CCG under current rules.

Annual OOC games in this scenario:

Virginia Tech: Virginia
Georgia Tech: Georgia, Clemson
NC State: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and ECU the other two.
Wake Forest: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year
Duke: UNC every year and Virginia every 3rd year and Northwestern the other two.

Miami: Florida State
Louisville: Kentucky and Indiana
Pitt: West Virginia or Penn State
Boston College: UConn and UMass
Syracuse: UConn and UMass

In addition, with only 10 ACC teams, each gets to play Notre Dame every other year, so every class gets the Irish at home and away once each.

SEC East:
Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Florida State and Auburn

Big Ten East:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia and UNC

Please Ken d!
For most of my Carolina football watching seasons NC State was nothing more than a late September, early October game. That game is only "big" with NC State fans and Carolina fans that are to young to shave and not know any better.
If you want to make the BMD Carolina fans happy....add UVa and let the wuffies go play with the tigers or better yet....the Pirates.


RE: ACC realignment - JRsec - 07-19-2018 12:44 PM

(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  03-no

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.


RE: ACC realignment - XLance - 07-19-2018 02:23 PM

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  03-no

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

Works for me JR.
We only have a part time Prima Donna and that's enough.

Good luck with Texas.


RE: ACC realignment - Statefan - 07-19-2018 02:32 PM

Lance, UNC is full time, not part time.


RE: ACC realignment - Statefan - 07-19-2018 02:38 PM

The reality is that UNC nor UVa are leaving the ACC for the B10. Neither would be able to compete in football, not just because of the football stadium size revenue differential, but because neither Carolina or UVa have an academic culture that allows for a hyper masculine sport like football to thrive. And that culture is not moving toward football, but away from football.


Now, would Carolina and UVa like to jettison VT and NCSU to the Big 10 and Clemson and FSU to the SEC - they might bite on that.


RE: ACC realignment - ken d - 07-19-2018 03:17 PM

As I said in the OP, this is MY dream alignment. It's not something I consider likely to happen or something a majority of college football fans would agree with. However, none of the choices I made were accidents, oversights or misunderstanding of individual fan preferences. There was method to my madness.

As I have said elsewhere, I do NOT share the goal of fewer but larger power conferences. I don't care a fig about symmetry. I WANT there to be five power conferences precisely because I do not want an outcome where each of four conferences sends its champion to the CFP. I want there to be more conferences than chairs so that when the music stops somebody gets left out. If there are the same number of chairs as players, the game isn't much fun to me.

I get where Lance is coming from regarding Duke and NC State. After 45 years of looking at that dynamic from the outside, without a dog in the fight, I have come to the conclusion that many (especially older) Carolina fans don't view their history with State as a true rivalry (like Duke is). I think that is a conceit. I believe that many State fans view their rivalry with Carolina as just as big as Duke's. That is also a conceit.

But in my scenario, neither of those things was relevant when it came to which school would be Carolina's quasi-conference alternative to playing a Big Ten West crossover. The only thing that would matter was who would Big Ten fans and administrators view as comparable to the Big Ten. That conference would consist of 13 state flagship universities, 2 land grant universities (Penn State and Michigan State) and one private school - Northwestern.

Recently (the past six years) all three schools have won just about as often. But folks outside North Carolina and the ACC might be inclined to recall that between 1995 and 2011, Duke was the greatest example of major conference football futility since WWII. I have little doubt the Big Ten would view State as the logical choice over Duke. And since Carolina would play all three of their NC brethren every year regardless which was the quasi-conference game, the B1G's is the only opinion that would matter.

I could also see that some might view the remaining ACC schools as unworthy of "power" status. I was concerned about that as well. I was surprised to discover that the average Sagarin power rating for those 10 schools over the past two seasons was higher than any other conference except the SEC. And that the difference between the SEC and ACC (2.2) was smaller than the difference between the (new) ACC and the B1G (2.8).

Where the ACC would fall short isn't the top to bottom average but the strength at the top. I suspect in most years the ACC champ would rank lower than the other four champions. Without Clemson and FSU, they would lack the tentpole that schools like Ohio State and Oklahoma provide for their conferences. But that doesn't mean their champion would be an unworthy host for the Orange Bowl.


RE: ACC realignment - georgia_tech_swagger - 07-19-2018 04:09 PM

In this scenario:
- ESPN will not pay the ACC the same after having lost 4 signature schools
- The ACC would no longer exist sooner or later
- You've conjured up one of the few scenarios where Georgia Tech would be relatively enthusiastic about entrance into the B1G


RE: ACC realignment - Statefan - 07-19-2018 04:33 PM

Ken,

I have no doubt that many Carolina fans would love a conference that consisted of:

BC, Syracuse, Pitt, ND, Navy, and Louisville, in the North and
UVa, UNC, WF, Duke, GT, and Miami in the South

UNC could be competitive in Football in such a scenario while maintain competitiveness in Basketball and Olympic sports.


RE: ACC realignment - Statefan - 07-19-2018 04:39 PM

Likewise many NC State fans would enjoy a conference configured as follows:

Michigan State, Notre Dame, Penn State, UVa, VT, NC State in the north and
WF, Duke, Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami in the south. And if MSU was not available the next choice would likely be Auburn, and then past them, Purdue.


Both VT and NC State are modeled after Purdue from an academic standpoint. Carolina models themselves not after the Big 10, but after East Coast Private schools as well as several other public schools with extreme advantages over other in-state institutions.


Carolina sites for instance Duke, Johns Hopkins, Penn, NW, USC, Pitt, UVa, Texas, and UW. Not the traditional Big 10 model.


NC State sites Purdue, Penn State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Illinois, Wisky, Michigan State, Colorado State and VT.


From a sports standpoint you would not think it mattered, but it seeps into the mix. When you spend a little time on campus for non sports related purposes UNC feels like one of the less wealthy Ivy schools or a bigger Duke, or a more southern Johns Hopkins.


Likewise, there is scary similarity between NC State and Ohio State, Purdue, Penn State, etc. where the only difference is that of scale.


When folks start tossing darts on UVa's and UNC's behalf for the Big 10, they are completely ignoring the social and academic side of UVa and UNC.



People should also keep an eye on Clemson. Clemson made a concerted effort about 20 years ago to become more exclusive and more elite. They are making progress and as such becoming something that is unique in the South. Their graduate research is not up to top 50 or 75 levels, but they will continue pushing that way. They should be commended and even though they house all the normal cow-college disciplines, they seem to point to Georgia Tech as model, more so than any Big 10 or SEC model.


ACC realignment - Lenvillecards - 07-19-2018 05:37 PM

(07-19-2018 04:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In this scenario:
- ESPN will not pay the ACC the same after having lost 4 signature schools
- The ACC would no longer exist sooner or later
- You've conjured up one of the few scenarios where Georgia Tech would be relatively enthusiastic about entrance into the B1G


- He also conjured up one of the few scenarios in which a few schools would be enthusiastic about joining the Big 12. Perhaps Miami, Louisville, Virginia Tech & NC State. Pitt & Syracuse would finish out a strong 16 team conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


RE: ACC realignment - ArQ - 07-19-2018 06:02 PM

(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  03-no

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.


RE: ACC realignment - esayem - 07-19-2018 09:22 PM

My dream scenario is going without divisions and keeping four permanent opponents:

UNC-Duke, UVa, NCSU, Wake
Duke-UNC, Wake, NCSU, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, CU
Wake-UNC, Duke, NCSU, VT

UVa-VT, UNC, UL, SU
VT-UVa, Wake, Miami, GT

SU-BC, Pitt, UL, UVa
BC-SU, Miami, CU, Pitt
Pitt-SU, UL, Miami, BC

GT-CU, Duke, FSU, VT
CU-NCSU, GT, FSU, BC

Miami-FSU, BC, VT, Pitt
FSU-Miami, CU, GT, UL
UL-Pitt, UVa, FSU, SU

Virginia Tech and Clemson could play yearly if Wake and BC switched, but VT and Wake are closest to one another. I haven’t done this in some time so I may have a better alignment floating out there in cyberspace.


RE: ACC realignment - Hokie Mark - 07-20-2018 05:17 AM

(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  03-no

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.


RE: ACC realignment - IR4CU - 07-20-2018 06:02 AM

(07-19-2018 09:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  My dream scenario is going without divisions and keeping four permanent opponents:

UNC-Duke, UVa, NCSU, Wake
Duke-UNC, Wake, NCSU, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, CU
Wake-UNC, Duke, NCSU, VT

UVa-VT, UNC, UL, SU
VT-UVa, Wake, Miami, GT

SU-BC, Pitt, UL, UVa
BC-SU, Miami, CU, Pitt
Pitt-SU, UL, Miami, BC

GT-CU, Duke, FSU, VT
CU-NCSU, GT, FSU, BC

Miami-FSU, BC, VT, Pitt
FSU-Miami, CU, GT, UL
UL-Pitt, UVa, FSU, SU

Virginia Tech and Clemson could play yearly if Wake and BC switched, but VT and Wake are closest to one another. I haven’t done this in some time so I may have a better alignment floating out there in cyberspace.

This Clemson / BC thing amazes me. BC is not and never will be considered a rival for most Clemson fans - the two schools are nothing alike and are located in totally different regions. Va Tech as a permanent partner for Clemson makes way more sense.


RE: ACC realignment - esayem - 07-20-2018 10:19 AM

(07-19-2018 09:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  UNC-Duke, UVa, NCSU, Wake
Duke-UNC, Wake, NCSU, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, CU
Wake-UNC, Duke, NCSU, VT

UVa-VT, UNC, UL, SU
VT-UVa, Wake, Miami, CU

SU-BC, Pitt, UL, UVa
BC-SU, Miami, Pitt, GT
Pitt-SU, UL, Miami, BC

GT-CU, Duke, FSU, BC
CU-NCSU, GT, FSU, VT

Miami-FSU, BC, VT, Pitt
FSU-Miami, CU, GT, UL
UL-Pitt, UVa, FSU, SU

FIFY


RE: ACC realignment - XLance - 07-20-2018 11:18 AM

(07-20-2018 05:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 06:02 PM)ArQ Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 11:17 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  03-no

One of the canards that drives this kind of thinking is the belief that the Big 10 and SEC cannot amicably expand out of the Big 12. They can. It's just that neither would get everything they wanted. And that is still more likely than seeing any conference lose their historic bell cow or to see any Network destroy an asset.

FOX and ESPN both have roughly a 50% stake in the Big 12 with ESPN holding T3 rights to Texas and Kansas and FOX holding T3 rights to Oklahoma and minor stakes in other Big 12 T3 rights. Iowa State and WVU have independent T3 rights more or less. My point being neither network has so much of their hat hung on the Big 12 to object if the properties they hold more interest in there wind up with them even after a breakup.

Texas and Kansas could wind up with the SEC and Oklahoma and Iowa State with the Big 10. After all it restores or preserves 4 key rivalries, fits loosely within both conference's agenda to realign internally, and guts the valuable programs out of the Big 12.

The only harm to the ACC is that it strengthens the financial hands of the Big 10 and SEC. But without the Big 12 several positive things happen for the ACC. First the average payout of the SEC and Big 10 reach a point with the additions respectively of Texas and Oklahoma that it simply isn't profitable for either to raid the ACC, especially now that the market payout model is likely on its last legs. Second is that it does leave some secondary targets in the state of Texas which are also not palatable to the SEC or Big 10, but are important to ESPN's marketing strategy, which would add revenue to the ACC.

The Big 10 has need of a major football brand. Oklahoma is a better football brand than Texas. The Big 10 has major penetration already into the Kansas market. I've said before that I didn't see the need of Kansas to the Big 10. Their basketball branding is solid and they already own those markets, and the Big 10 can ill afford another putrid football product. On the other hand, even though they aren't a cultural fit, the SEC could use some hoops props, some fear we are getting too competitive in football top to bottom, and adding to the bottom in football might not be such a bad thing. Plus ESPN would be able to profit by pitting Kansas against not only the upper SEC teams but in crossover scheduling with the during the slowest time for hoops, the early season. Big 10 doesn't gain much with Iowa State. But they don't lose much there either. They are the last natural fit Big 10 like school which is AAU in the West without taking Colorado and starting a spat with the PAC. And while Texas may not hanker for the SEC, it does restore 2 of their 3 most cherished rivalries and essentially keeps their minor sports local for divisional play. And more importantly it satisfies ESPN.

So if the "big dogs eat" they won't be gobbling up the biggest cash assets of the ACC (Florida State and Clemson) nor will they be taking the bell cows (Virginia and North Carolina) which would destroy the branding of the ACC.

Such a theory in effect kills the ACC as a power conference where it counts most the pocket book and the cornerstone of academic reputation upon which it was built.

The only way I could ever see ESPN permitting this would be if the majority of schools were wholesale absorbed by the Big 10 and SEC and ESPN was gaining near total control of both of those conferences in the process. I don't think that eventuality is likely at all, especially as others move into the sports rights business.

But ESPN and FOX do have mutual interest in bolstering their stakes in the most profitable two conferences by taking the juiciest pieces left on the realignment table. And Kansas as a #2 has more value to the SEC, and Iowa State is a piece of the puzzle that fits, especially if FOX and ESPN pay for it to do so.

Currently the PAC leases its rights 50/50 to FOX and ESPN but the two companies don't have an equity stake in the PAC or PACN. So until that changes I don't expect the PAC to gain any favors. If they would want to expand with the remnants of the Big 12 then great both FOX and ESPN lose nothing if they do and gain PAC inventory in the CTZ which they would give a bump to have. If they don't then those schools likely wind up either taking the best of the AAC, or they wind up in the AAC. Either ESPN and/or FOX wind up paying less.

So I wouldn't sell short this end game scenario as unlikely to conventional wisdom as it may be:
SEC adds Texas and Kansas
B1G adds Oklahoma and Iowa State
ACC adds West Virginia and T.C.U. and N.D.'s independent status becomes the norm.
PAC either stands pat or picks up central time zone leftovers.

ESPN keeps control of Texas advertising leverage, A&M and UT become the Auburn/Alabama game of the SEC's West Division and Auburn & Alabama move to the Eastern division. Kansas and Mizzou are reunited and Kentucky gets a true rival in hoops.

FOX gets Oklahoma/Nebraska in the Big 10 west to be juxtaposed against Michigan/Ohio State in the Big 10 east and ESPN sublets games in the Southeast to FOX to give them a market presence where they've had none.

Both networks keep their current T3 advantages and it's done.

I think TCU and WV are not good fit. I would rather see ACC stays at 14 even SEC and B1G expands to 16.

Please explain why you feel that way. Personally, I think WVU and TCU are great fits. WVU is in the footprint, has very good football and basketball, and has rivals in the ACC. TCU is institutionally like other schools in the ACC, plus they have a great football tradition and are located in a recruiting hotbed - not to mention a huge new TV market for the ACC network.

If you adjust that to Tulane and TCU, you would have a winner.
WVU has no history with the core of the ACC (sans UVa, which is minimal) and it's doubtful that WVU will ever get approval from Duke, Wake Forest or UVa.