yeah, this doesn't make sense, unless the ACC is going to lose the lawsuits and have been advised to make the best of it. Everything I have read seems to be to the contrary. And from my reading of the lawsuits, the ACC seems to have a great position to dictate the outcome.
Why give both FSU and Clemson more money, and let them leave 6 years early? Makes no sense. I also haven't seen a projection where Clemson would make money for either SEC or B1G. I have for FSU, it makes sense for both the SEC and the B1G to take FSU, but I think the B1G will go after Miami to get in-market rates for Miami and higher rates for the state of Florida. For the SEC, their ability to increase payouts is based on Tier 1 viewership and ESPN selling that segment of their inventory. For the B1G it's based on subs and new markets. On both accounts, Clemson is good, but not a great fit. I don't know the numbers, but my gut tells me that they would decrease the average payouts for both.
There are very few schools that add to the pie of the SEC or B1G. Realistically for the SEC they have to get big brands that would make the people in New York or California care about their games. In my opinion that leaves them with Notre Dame or FSU. Notre Dame ain't joining the SEC, so it comes to FSU, and I'm just not convinced that the SEC is licking their chops to get them.
For the B1G, they have more options, they have big states like Texas and Florida that don't have a presence, they also are probably looking at high growth states, which project to be very influential in the next 20 years. That would be Georgia and North Carolina. Georgia in particular because of the affinity for football and the number of high-level recruits. The B1G also has a high premium on AAU schools. That is why I think that the B1G will take Miami and possibly Texas A/M. Both AAU schools which have good brands, and both would increase the B1G network. To a lesser extent that would also make Georgia Tech a good addition as it would give them the city of Atlanta for full carriage rates, and probably a good bump for the rest of GA. For the state of North Carolina, I have no idea. Those wine and cheese people probably have no clue of what is actually going on.
That is why I don't really believe this article. I think there is more to this than what we are hearing.
My guess is that Clemson and FSU will push for higher revenue sharing, and pretty soon put out statements saying that they got want they wanted to save face with their fan bases and that they are now happy with the new "ACC". In reality, there is already higher revenue sharing and if an ACC school does well, gets into the playoffs, and even gets to say the championship, that school will make close the B1G payouts, and probably less than 10 million from the SEC. Then around 2029, the ACC will add schools to make an ACC Central or ACC West. They should go after UTAH, Arizona, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, making 3 divisions of 7 with a part-time Notre Dame.
This would add the states of Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Kansas, giving you a mix of good football schools and great basketball brands at the same time opening up new markets for the ACC Network.
If they really wanted to try and solidify themselves as Tier 1b to the SEC and B1G, they would go to 24, and add West Virginia, Colorado and Iowa State.
I expect us to enter into a time of relative stability in the college world by the mid-2030's and then it will all go to hell again when NIL breaks college football.
But I will be dead by then.
