Conference Realignment

[Techster]

Thow out insults? Have I insulted him? What I have done is said that I don't trust his credibility. Why do you trust his credibility? In my opinion, credibility is something that should be earned, not freely given. When someone has a history of reporting things correctly, they earn credibility. Even then it doesn't mean that they will get everything right, just that the information that they report has a higher chance of being correct. I am skeptical of everything I see reported.

I would say that he hasn't put his neck out at all. It is very easy for someone in their kitchen, office, or basement to post wild ideas on twitter. There isn't any neck on the line about it. Swaim has been reporting that FSU is going to officially announce their departure from the ACC for about a year now. When his deadline passes, he just ignores it and soon after announces a new deadline. People still believe him, even though he has a history of being wrong. IF he is every correct in his prediction, people are going to froth over how he "knew the truth". They will ignore that he was wrong many times before finally being right.

This guy doesn't seem any different to me. He has put together some scenario that has some credibility, if you ignore math, and believe facts that haven't been proven, etc. (I guess you consider that to be an insult of him?) Why do you believe this random Big12 and WVU fan on Twitter has a source willing to share information with him that he isn't willing to share with respected journalists? Would such a source believe that this guy is less likely to take the information public than a respected journalist? In my opinion, such a source would go to a respected journalist that they have worked with before and trust if they want the information out. If they don't want the information out, they wouldn't talk to anyone, especially someone whose primary journalistic endeavor is to make splashy announcements on Twitter. As I said in the first paragraph, just because somebody says something doesn't mean that I should put credibility in them and believe it. (However, I guess I am just sitting in my office insulting him?) If it is an insult for me to bot fully believe everything that someone says, then I guess I insult many, many, many people all of the time.

I wasn't aiming that part to you, hence me saying, "You and I don't agree on a lot with regard to realignment developments, but I do respect that you at least put thought in your responses as opposed to others who just regurgitate unoriginal statements." I do respect that you question things in a respectful manner as oppose to some that are quick at name calling. As I said, I've always enjoyed our discussions even if we disagree most of the time.

 

[Techster]

This guy knows nothing. The extension in 2027 is not an up/down on the ESPN/ACC deal. It doesn't end until 2036. What could end is the ACCN.

I've seen several posters on here say that with regards to the main ESPN deal, and the ACCN. Maybe I missed it in the GOR and the Amendment, but I didn't read it that way.

 

[iceeater1969]

WE may be playing 2024 season under a transition contract w future terms to be determined.

Just win baby and fill the Dodd, while Batt earns airline miles.

 

[MusicalBuzz]

If you subscribe to the notion that matchups and fanbases will rule the new college football world, then it makes a lot of sense that ESPN/FSU/Clemson/SEC will want to this to happen. You're talking about a league already known for prime time matchups adding two marquee schools that will enhance the matchup matrix even more. FSU and Clemson are already two of the most watched schools, now add that to the potential matchups in the SEC? It doesn't take a genius to figure out why ESPN would loot a profitable ACC to make their golden child SEC even more attractive (with the added bonus of not having to pay "extraneous" schools).

This last paragraph is the key to it all. And you beat to it with respect to others’ challenge of why ESPN would pay more to take FSU and Clemson: It’s 100% about the matchups. And the eyes and $$ that follow.

And it’s easy to understand: just run down the list of FSU vs any SEC against FSU vs any ACC. It’s hands down that the ACC loses after a couple of rounds, whereas FSU/Clemson vs Texas/Oklahoma/LSU/Alabama/Georgia/TX AM/Auburn, et al… that’s what ESPN would pay for

 

[Richard7125]

This last paragraph is the key to it all. And you beat to it with respect to others’ challenge of why ESPN would pay more to take FSU and Clemson: It’s 100% about the matchups. And the eyes and $$ that follow.

And it’s easy to understand: just run down the list of FSU vs any SEC against FSU vs any ACC. It’s hands down that the ACC loses after a couple of rounds, whereas FSU/Clemson vs Texas/Oklahoma/LSU/Alabama/Georgia/TX AM/Auburn, et al… that’s what ESPN would pay for

First, I agree with your premise, but you are highlighting the rosy part to make your point. FSU playing Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, etc doesn’t move the needle at all. Chances are FSU is going to play a mixture of the teams you mentioned and the teams I named.

Second, people seem to forget that ESPN is paying the ACC a lot of money for content too. How is it in ESPN’s best interest to have (4) really good SEC matchups each week for (3) TV time slots (12, 3:30 and 7:00) and have zero good ACC matchups for TV time slots?

 

[Techster]

First, I agree with your premise, but you are highlighting the rosy part to make your point. FSU playing Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, etc doesn’t move the needle at all. Chances are FSU is going to play a mixture of the teams you mentioned and the teams I named.

Second, people seem to forget that ESPN is paying the ACC a lot of money for content too. How is it in ESPN’s best interest to have (4) really good SEC matchups each week for (3) TV time slots (12, 3:30 and 7:00) and have zero good ACC matchups for TV time slots?

From a network standpoint, games against FSU and Clemson are the "rising tide" matchups that "lifts all boats". Several studies have been done to try and capture the impact of ACC games with and without FSU and Clemson. Here are a few:








Look at the third chart, and it answers your first statement. Look at what the viewership for the "bottom feeders" and 2nd tier ACC teams in games versus FSU/Clemson/Notre Dame and without those teams.

This is about content and inventory. If the SEC (or B1G) can creates matchups with FSU or Clemson/Missouri (who was really good last season), FSU or Clemson/Kentucky (another good team last season), FSU or Clemson/Ole Miss, whichever combination, those are more matchups where the average viewers are between 3-5+ Million. Not only would bringing FSU and Clemson into the SEC or B1G "juice" the viewership numbers against the tier one teams ('Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.), but it would also "juice" the viewership total against the lower tier teams that you mentioned. FSU and Clemson would "lift all boats" in terms of viewership, not just in games against tier one teams.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I've seen several posters on here say that with regards to the main ESPN deal, and the ACCN. Maybe I missed it in the GOR and the Amendment, but I didn't read it that way.

The original GOR says it’s in effect until 2027. The amendment to the GOR was solely extending it to 2036. Anyone that is tying the GoR to a different contract needs to read the language in the GoR. It is unequivocal.

 

[iceeater1969]

From a network standpoint, games against FSU and Clemson are the "rising tide" matchups that "lifts all boats". Several studies have been done to try and capture the impact of ACC games with and without FSU and Clemson. Here are a few:








Look at the third chart, and it answers your first statement. Look at what the viewership for the "bottom feeders" and 2nd tier ACC teams in games versus FSU/Clemson/Notre Dame and without those teams.

This is about content and inventory. If the SEC (or B1G) can creates matchups with FSU or Clemson/Missouri (who was really good last season), FSU or Clemson/Kentucky (another good team last season), FSU or Clemson/Ole Miss, whichever combination, those are more matchups where the average viewers are between 3-5+ Million. Not only would bringing FSU and Clemson into the SEC or B1G "juice" the viewership numbers against the tier one teams ('Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio State, etc.), but it would also "juice" the viewership total against the lower tier teams that you mentioned. FSU and Clemson would "lift all boats" in terms of viewership, not just in games against tier one teams.

TECH, THANKS FOR CONTENT

Looking at the 3 rd chart Detailed. IMPACT OF ..., I SEE=

UVA HAS POOR OVERALL VIEWERSHIP . DUKE WF SYRACUSE BC HAVE TERRIBLE VIEWERSHIP, (WHEN NOT PLAYING THE GOOD TEAMS).

Adding = FOR LAST 6 YEARS GT ON FIELD PRODUCT HAS BEEN TERRIBLE.

DISPITE BEING TERRIBLE OUR OUR VIEWERSHIP IS SAME AS NCST, PITT WHO HAVE HAD GREAT YEARS.

TIME TO SHINE TO MOVE AWAY FROM MIDGETS AND GET CLOSER TO CREAM.

I AM OPTIMISTIC THAT AS WE APPROACH END OF 24, GT WILL LOOK MUCH BETTER.


GO JACKETS

 

[TooTall]

Have fun and do with this as you wish.

Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans

A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?

www.outkick.com

 

[TechPhi97]

Have fun and do with this as you wish.

Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans

A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?

www.outkick.com

I like it. Something for everyone to like and everyone to complain about. I especially like the regional groupings that allow for shorter travel and better rivalries. It’s a good starting point, I’m sure there would be horse trading that occurs. If the overall $ distribution is relatively equal from TV (which it must be) then you have to split the biggest draws across the divisions while keeping it regional.

 

[Techster]

Have fun and do with this as you wish.

Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans

A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?

www.outkick.com

LOL...B1G and SEC would NEVER let that happen. They just made moves to give themselves MORE power, no reason to give that up for some fantasy league.

The SEC and B1G spent the last couple of decades consolidating college sports to create their own Super Leagues. They have one more move left, and it's aimed straight at the ACC.

 

[TampaBuzz]

Have fun and do with this as you wish.

Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans

A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?

www.outkick.com

University of South Florida would be royally pissed!

 

[iceeater1969]

The South is the old SEC.

Everyone knows this wont work because we would go indépendent.

 

[CEB]

LOL...B1G and SEC would NEVER let that happen. They just made moves to give themselves MORE power, no reason to give that up for some fantasy league.

The SEC and B1G spent the last couple of decades consolidating college sports to create their own Super Leagues. They have one more move left, and it's aimed straight at the ACC.

While I agree completely with your take on the BIG and SEC position on this, I sure hope someone somewhere sees real profit in something like this before the ACC is over and done. I think once the ACC dominoes fall, schools are going to find themselves stuck (for better or worse) wherever they land. Maybe a plan can emerge before that next shoe drops.

 

[Techster]

While I agree completely with your take on the BIG and SEC position on this, I sure hope someone somewhere sees real profit in something like this before the ACC is over and done. I think once the ACC dominoes fall, schools are going to find themselves stuck (for better or worse) wherever they land. Maybe a plan can emerge before that next shoe drops.

Maybe Amazon or Apple step in as they having been seeking more sports content...or Maybe the best ACC and best Big 12 teams figure something out and it becomes the Power 3 conferences.

My view with regard to GT, and I've made it known before, is that we voluntarily left the SEC and our leadership failed us in 2012/2013 when the B1G wanted us to join, so we have no one to blame but ourselves. However, I still think the B1G would not turn down the opportunity to add the Atlanta market (the biggest market in the South and in a territory they've desperately wanted to penetrate for decades) and everything that comes with it. Also, GT historically is a good to very good team so it's not like they would add us just for the market and academics.

I enjoy these discussions, so we'll see what comes over the next decade if ESPN doesn't pull the rug from under the ACC in 2027.

 

[cpf2001]

Rumors of Disney+ considering adding linear channels - https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifesty...-disney-plus-company-calls-report-speculative - nothing confirmed but it would make a lot of sense given the large still-existing demand for passive-background-TV watching. (I don't get it myself, but my parents absolutely do it, so between that and other reporting I believe it...)

Start mixing some sports and locally-targeted content in there and suddenly geography may matter after all to streamers.

 

[stinger 1957]

Richard 7125 said, "FSU playing Vandy, Miss St, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missour ---". Some of these schools probably not playing CFB at this level 10 years from now is my guess.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Have fun and do with this as you wish.

Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans

A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?

www.outkick.com

Sounds vaguely familiar...

That's the problem. The CFP is NOT about determining the best team in the nation. It has been explicitly stated that it is about providing the best match-ups for TV.

BTW, I agree. I think you have no business playing for the championship if you don't win your conference. I'm all for creating 10-team conferences, where you play everyone head-to-head. 3 OOC games should cover rivalries, etc. Then a playoff with the winner of each conference. There's your best team (Champion). The problem with this is it's not about determining the best team. It's about creating matchups that will drive TV revenue.

 

[gtbb]

So, I seriously doubt the 70 team format as "leaked" is a real thing. But if it is, we need to increase the size of our stadium. If we're in a conference with UGA, Bama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, and Tennessee, sellouts will be the least of our worries.

But I don't see any conference set-up that allows Georgia & Florida to split into separate divisions. I don't see that ever happening.

 

[forensicbuzz]

So, I seriously doubt the 70 team format as "leaked" is a real thing. But if it is, we need to increase the size of our stadium. If we're in a conference with UGA, Bama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, and Tennessee, sellouts will be the least of our worries.

But I don't see any conference set-up that allows Georgia & Florida to split into separate divisions. I don't see that ever happening.

Why?