Conference Realignment

[CEB]

I don't think Clemson or FSU can ever get in to SEC. They don't bring anything (or enough) to the table that SEC needs. Tiny markets that are already covered by other teams in their geographical region. And by the time GOR becomes manageable to get out of then it will be that many years these ACC teams are having to make less than half of what their SEC counterparts will enjoy each year. The gap between the ACC and SEC teams in the same region is just going to get wider at the detriment to the ACC teams.

For these teams, GOR is an albatross. And team strength will wax and wan over the years, so adding a team for no other reason than they are good now is a stupid move. And SEC and B1G aren't stupid.

I agree with all of this. FSU and Clemson getting a lot of SEC talk because they are a cultural fit; maybe not necessarily a market / TV set / financial boon, which is what’s driving it all.
It gets interesting if BIG has interest in either market.
I’m at the point where I hope we’re all stuck with each other and we grab a couple programs that increase our payout so the feeding frenzy stops.

 

[TooTall]

FSU to the BIG12 helps fill some of the void of OU and Texas. Maybe Miami or Pitt is a good matching school.

 

[CEB]

FSU to the BIG12 helps fill some of the void of OU and Texas. Maybe Miami or Pitt is a good matching school.

I like it! Pitt makes sense too... the backyard brawl can replace the red river shootout.
ACC looks to the PAC? Just become the Coastal Conference?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Obviously, if UCLA and USC left the PAC12 early, they’d lose the incline from broadcasting their home games.

Then I have no clue why you're arguing because that was the point I was making the entire time...

 

[forensicbuzz]

Then I have no clue why you're arguing because that was the point I was making the entire time...

I was never arguing. I was talking about why the B1G might be interested in teams regardless of GoR. You decided I needed to be educated in how the GoR works. My point has always been that the way the SEC versus B1G earns $$ differs, so they may have different motivations for adding teams. (and different impediments).

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I was never arguing. I was talking about why the B1G might be interested in teams regardless of GoR. You decided I needed to be educated in how the GoR works. My point has always been that the way the SEC versus B1G earns $$ differs, so they may have different motivations for adding teams. (and different impediments).

You probably need to question what you post more often if you think you aren't arguing. I agree with 90% of what you say on these boards, but you can argue with a brick wall.

 

[iceeater1969]

The deal battery is
1. espn has the second place money conference ( sec) dispite having best teams . ESPN want better teams to join so ou and Ut are on way.

2 espn also has distant third place money conference (acc) with a couple of good teams and some real dogs ( yea one is gt) . Crickets.

3. Fox has bg1 which has the most money and is not waiting around. It has added good teams to maintain lead over 1.

Why can't espn say "the acc dogs have failed to provide the agreed quality product and therefore the deal is void. As such we are doing 2 things. We are moving the good acc teams to sec to make it a super conference that's way ahead of bg1. ESPN is then reorganizing the remainder into another conference. The sec guys get pay raise and the left over acc plus some new blood will receive slightly lower pay.

The weak do not run the negotiations. The one w the $$ rules.
The acc acts like it has real fans in its home markets .

 

[RamblinRed]

I don't really expect there to be much movement other than possible movement between the PAC and B12.

There have been multiple reports/articles in the last couple of days that both the SEC and B10 are likely done, other than if ND was to make a decision.

I think alot of fans want to move conferences, I don't know how many school admins want to move conferences and more importantly neither control much of the process.
The Big 10 and SEC are doing what they have done for the last 30+ years - move slowly and strategically. Both have added 6 schools over the last 30+ years and never more than 2 at a time.

I think most fans are over rating the value of most of the schools. The schools (definitely their fans) want to move, but there is no landing spot for them as they don't add enough value to the Big 2 to garner a bid.

 

[Vespidae]

Tiny markets that are already covered by other teams in their geographical region.

You are playing checkers on a 3D chessboard.

The question is not about local ratings. It has been about, and continues to be about, can CFB produce 7-10 games of marquee value that will have viewership at the lower end of the average ratings of NFL games?

If the answer is yes ... people will tune into that ... then, money will flow like manna from heaven. If not, no thanks. We're full.

Personally, I think a yearly match up of undefeated Clemson vs. undefeated Alabama will do it.

 

[slugboy]

You are playing checkers on a 3D chessboard.

The question is not about local ratings. It has been about, and continues to be about, can CFB produce 7-10 games of marquee value that will have viewership at the lower end of the average ratings of NFL games?

If the answer is yes ... people will tune into that ... then, money will flow like manna from heaven. If not, no thanks. We're full.

Personally, I think a yearly match up of undefeated Clemson vs. undefeated Alabama will do it.

1. I think this is right from ESPN's and Fox's point of view
2. I think that the ironic drawback to superconferences is that they'll eat up the undefeated teams (i.e maybe you'll only have one of those matchups, and a bunch of 8-3 matchups of teams that got beaten up along the way). You'll get more marquee matchups, but not as many as you'd get from the current conferences with shorter seasons, and a 32-team playoff (or even a 16 team playoff).
3. Sankey (SEC commish) has already been circulating a new NCAA basketball tourney, but without the Cinderella teams. He's gotten some pushback. The superconferences have the same feel to me.

 

[first&ten]

I don't think Clemson or FSU can ever get in to SEC. They don't bring anything (or enough) to the table that SEC needs. Tiny markets that are already covered by other teams in their geographical region. And by the time GOR becomes manageable to get out of then it will be that many years these ACC teams are having to make less than half of what their SEC counterparts will enjoy each year. The gap between the ACC and SEC teams in the same region is just going to get wider at the detriment to the ACC teams.

For these teams, GOR is an albatross. And team strength will wax and wan over the years, so adding a team for no other reason than they are good now is a stupid move. And SEC and B1G aren't stupid.

So I guess we just go ahead and kill ourselves?

 

[JacketOff]

1. I think this is right from ESPN's and Fox's point of view
2. I think that the ironic drawback to superconferences is that they'll eat up the undefeated teams (i.e maybe you'll only have one of those matchups, and a bunch of 8-3 matchups of teams that got beaten up along the way). You'll get more marquee matchups, but not as many as you'd get from the current conferences with shorter seasons, and a 32-team playoff (or even a 16 team playoff).
3. Sankey (SEC commish) has already been circulating a new NCAA basketball tourney, but without the Cinderella teams. He's gotten some pushback. The superconferences have the same feel to me.

The Super-conferences will probably make a sh*t ton of money short-term, but long term they’ll just end up pushing fans away. Fans of teams left out of the super conferences will end up just abandoning college football. They’re not just going to magically start rooting for their rivals just because they’re in the super conference.

There’s probably not a ton of GT fans who would just start rooting for UGA or any other super team if GT gets left in the dust. So there’s a couple hundred thousand college football fans that you’ve just abandoned. The same would ring true for places like Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Cal, Virginia Tech, Pitt, and any others who might not make the cut. That’s probably a couple million fans who will just totally lose interest in the sport. That’s not a recipe for success. And it’s not like you’re going to draw any new fans that have previously been uninterested in college football simply because there’s more teams in the super conferences. If they weren’t already watching Ohio State vs. Penn State or Alabama vs. LSU, they probably won’t start watching when Michigan plays USC or when Florida plays Texas.

European soccer’s smaller clubs almost started a riot when the European Super League was floated around. They know that if you cut out the small clubs, eventually the fan and money pool for the big clubs dry up.

I become more and more uninterested with college football by the week. Every time news breaks it’s almost never positive. That feeling has started to creep into college basketball, and even more disgustingly it’s coming to college baseball too. Long-term the super conferences will probably be the end of college sports

 

[rfjeff9]

So I guess we just go ahead and kill ourselves?

Us? No. Play better. Win bowls. That draws fans and eyes. Which draws money. Draw enough and it grabs the interest of B1G.

For FSU, I could see them headed to Big12 for a better payout in 12 years. Clemson is screwed, they aren't going anywhere unless they go west with FSU.

 

[SimpleGT]

The Clemson folk and their radio outlet seem to think they have enough value to go SEC. I'm not so sure. Clemson would need to make the new SEC contract increase in value enough to offset the dollars paid to additional members. TX and OK, yes, Clemson, only maybe. They fill their stadium, but might not add additional eyes. Would existing SEC members dilute their earnings to get ratings in areas they already "own"?

I agree with those that think the GOR holds the ACC together for at least 5-7 years. The Clemson folks are saying that the reason no one has challenged their (PAC or B12) GOR is because the contracts are running out at about the same time as the litigation would take. IF an ACC school steps up to challenge the GOR, would any other member join and agree to pay part the legal fees? I doubt it. Not without another conference invitation in hand.

 

[bobongo]

The Clemson folk and their radio outlet seem to think they have enough value to go SEC. I'm not so sure. Clemson would need to make the new SEC contract increase in value enough to offset the dollars paid to additional members. TX and OK, yes, Clemson, only maybe. They fill their stadium, but might not add additional eyes. Would existing SEC members dilute their earnings to get ratings in areas they already "own"?

I agree with those that think the GOR holds the ACC together for at least 5-7 years. The Clemson folks are saying that the reason no one has challenged their (PAC or B12) GOR is because the contracts are running out at about the same time as the litigation would take. IF an ACC school steps up to challenge the GOR, would any other member join and agree to pay part the legal fees? I doubt it. Not without another conference invitation in hand.

They're not going anywhere, but that having been said, they would certainly add value to the SEC.
It isn't all about media markets. How many SEC teams right now are in big media markets? Not many. Yet they have gobs of viewers.
People would watch Clemson/Alabama, Clemson/Georgia, Clemson/Fill-In-The-Blank coast-to-coast. The SEC's bigger than its footprint.

 

[stinger 1957]

SEC took TX and OU I was told because of DFW and Houston media mkts, both in top 10 and now with all the big brands in that mkt they now own it in effect. Why would SEC want Clemson or FSU, they gain nothing in money and that is what it is all about it seems?

 

[CEB]

1. I think this is right from ESPN's and Fox's point of view
2. I think that the ironic drawback to superconferences is that they'll eat up the undefeated teams (i.e maybe you'll only have one of those matchups, and a bunch of 8-3 matchups of teams that got beaten up along the way). You'll get more marquee matchups, but not as many as you'd get from the current conferences with shorter seasons, and a 32-team playoff (or even a 16 team playoff).
3. Sankey (SEC commish) has already been circulating a new NCAA basketball tourney, but without the Cinderella teams. He's gotten some pushback. The superconferences have the same feel to me.

If they’re reallly pushing those kind of changes to the NCAA tournament, I hope they’re getting more than “some pushback.” Can these A-holes really ruin college football AND college basketball?

 

[bigrabbit]

People would watch Clemson/Alabama, Clemson/Georgia, Clemson/Fill-In-The-Blank coast-to-coast. The SEC's bigger than its footprint.

Probably right, but I wouldn’t. I only watch uga to laugh if they’re losing at the end of the game. I skip the first couple hours regardless, skip it all if they’re winning. Don’t hate Clemson but just don’t care. I would start watching pro football more if GT faded out. College could turn into 2nd rate minor league pro football to a lot of fans, way below NFL level, now players not really committed to a school, coming and going. If you really care about great football, watch your favorite NFL team, head and shoulders above anything in the sec or some hick town in SC.

 

[slugboy]

SEC took TX and OU I was told because of DFW and Houston media mkts, both in top 10 and now with all the big brands in that mkt they now own it in effect. Why would SEC want Clemson or FSU, they gain nothing in money and that is what it is all about it seems?

OU and TX are the top two revenue NCAA schools. They have lots of fans that spend money.
Clemson and FSU are both top 25 revenue schools. FSU has a lot of empty seats these days, though

 

[RamblinRed]

Drad was on the radio yesterday. He basically said no school is leaving the ACC anytime soon and that the conference and schools are focused on increasing revenue (mentioned that a couple of times).
He said the ACC is in a strong position because of the GoR.

He said he has seen the GoR a few times but he relies on the lawyers and he hasn't had anyone come through the door or call him with a way to get out of it. Also mentioned that OK and TX spent over a year looking at the B12 GoR and have not challenged it and maybe that might mean something.

On Sankey and the basketball idea. That will get extreme pushback from almost every school. Keep in mind that the NCAA Basketball Tournament provides about 90% of the NCAA's revenue. Also keep in mind that that the NCAA gives roughly 85-90% of its revenue back to its member schools. That is the primary source of funding for the majority of NCAA Schools. Any attempt to mess with that - which is controlled by the NCAA - it going to be a big issue. Personally, as a CBB fan first I think it would also be a big fail. What makes the NCAA Tourney so popular is the smaller schools playing the bigger schools and the opportunity for upsets. Without that it would lose alot of viewership. If the Big 2 tried to hold their own postseason BB Tournament against everyone else imo it would get crushed in the ratings.

Also, just my opinion but I don't see the PAC and B12 getting new media deals that in anyway dwarf the ACC. They might not even get more than they are getting now.