Expansion Talk 2021

[awbuzz]

The overall pie just got bigger with Comcast picking up The ACCN. The ACC pockets a little more revenue without other conferences losing anything. It may be a finite pie, but we ain't there yet.

Maybe not ...

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

That's a good point, but I'd rather have a four loss conference champion playing in the playoffs than have a two loss team get voted in by some writers, politicians and a few ADs. Just me. I'm weird I guess.

Same. If you win your conference at least you can say you won something on the field to earn that playoff spot. It's up to each conference how they want to determine a champion. And that would absolutely encourage way more P5 non-conference games for everyone and less of the Directional State Univ. blowouts. Because the non-conference games wouldn't affect you making the playoff at all; just your seeding when you get in there

 

[slugboy]

This is similar to what I suggested earlier in the thread. The rest of the P5 conferences basically freezing the SEC out. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out. At the end of the day, money talks. This article also highlights how bad the ACC has been with regard to making media deals. ACC has basically F'd itself until 2036.

The ACC started work on the ACC network in 2013, and it launched in 2019. It took way too long
Why is the P12+B1G+ACC working together to improve their joint media appeal “freezing the SEC out”? There are only so many options to improve their media coverage, and scheduling each other almost has to be one. The SEC loses some marquee matchup possibilities, but there are only 12 games a year, and the other conferences need them
Now this idea looks like a fun one to copy—better than “permanent rivals”:

 

[orientalnc]

The ACC started work on the ACC network in 2013, and it launched in 2019. It took way too long
Why is the P12+B1G+ACC working together to improve their joint media appeal “freezing the SEC out”? There are only so many options to improve their media coverage, and scheduling each other almost has to be one. The SEC loses some marquee matchup possibilities, but there are only 12 games a year, and the other conferences need them
Now this idea looks like a fun one to copy—better than “permanent rivals”:

I think the alliance is mostly symbolic right now. Scheduling games will be nice, but it could be 4-5 years before we see anything on this front. The three conferences standing together versus the SEC is really the most important thing right now. Voting to delay the playoff expansion until the current ESPN contract expires would be the first tangible result.

Something else they could do is keep the SEC to one team (at most) in the CFP until the expansion happens.

 

[g0lftime]

why is no one even mentioning how this affects basketball? The ACC has always been more of a basketball conference. Swofford tried to strengthen football by getting FSU Miami VT and Louisville. That hasn't worked out recently and demonstrates how situations can change dramatically over time.

 

[MidtownJacket]

why is no one even mentioning how this affects basketball? The ACC has always been more of a basketball conference. Swofford tried to strengthen football by getting FSU Miami VT and Louisville. That hasn't worked out recently and demonstrates how situations can change dramatically over time.

We talked a bit about this a few pages back, but in summary this is the Football Thread and the $$s show football is the dog and basketball is the tail.

 

[bobongo]

This is similar to what I suggested earlier in the thread. The rest of the P5 conferences basically freezing the SEC out. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out. At the end of the day, money talks. This article also highlights how bad the ACC has been with regard to making media deals. ACC has basically F'd itself until 2036.

So we would be playing games against teams half way across the country instead of our in-state rivals? I'm pretty sure that would be bad for us and bad for college football. Rivalries are the life-blood of the college game. And college football is moving farther and farther away from them.

 

[RonJohn]

So we would be playing games against teams half way across the country instead of our in-state rivals? I'm pretty sure that would be bad for us and bad for college football. Rivalries are the life-blood of the college game. And college football is moving farther and farther away from them.

Nobody actually knows what the details are yet. You apparently didn't read the article, because the article specifically states that the four ACC/SEC rivalry games would remain intact, according to the information that the author had access to. (accurate or not, I have no idea) The idea is that outside of those four games, there would not be availability for the SEC to schedule any other P4 teams. No Alabama-FSU/Miami kick off games, etc.

 

[bobongo]

Nobody actually knows what the details are yet. You apparently didn't read the article, because the article specifically states that the four ACC/SEC rivalry games would remain intact, according to the information that the author had access to. (accurate or not, I have no idea) The idea is that outside of those four games, there would not be availability for the SEC to schedule any other P4 teams. No Alabama-FSU/Miami kick off games, etc.

I didn't read the article, and I'm glad they're discussing keeping the in-state rivalries. Still, the deterioration of regionalism in general is not good for college football IMO.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

So we would be playing games against teams half way across the country instead of our in-state rivals? I'm pretty sure that would be bad for us and bad for college football. Rivalries are the life-blood of the college game. And college football is moving farther and farther away from them.

There's nothing positive for GT about being UGA's female dog. Financially or on the field. I know some won't want to hear that but facts are facts. We need to do what's best for GT and best for the ACC. If that's squeeze the SEC (and not play UGA) into a more fair money distribution then I'm 100% for it.

 

[DaltonJacket]

There's nothing positive for GT about being UGA's female dog. Financially or on the field. I know some won't want to hear that but facts are facts. We need to do what's best for GT and best for the ACC. If that's squeeze the SEC (and not play UGA) into a more fair money distribution then I'm 100% for it.

I won't shed any tears at all if we no longer play UGA. The game is miserable to attend, does not affect any kind of conference standing, and lives in some of our fans heads way too much. Good riddance if it gets dropped.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Respectfully, I think it would be a mistake to drop the series. Rivalries are fun, being competitive makes them more fun, but all the same. If you’re in the fight song - you should play the game.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Respectfully, I think it would be a mistake to drop the series. Rivalries are fun, being competitive makes them more fun, but all the same. If you’re in the fight song - you should play the game.

I thought we were in Auburn's fight song?

 

[bobongo]

I thought we were in Auburn's fight song?

We're in Alabama's. Don't know about Auburn.

 

[bobongo]

I won't shed any tears at all if we no longer play UGA. The game is miserable to attend, does not affect any kind of conference standing, and lives in some of our fans heads way too much. Good riddance if it gets dropped.

You quit too easy.

 

[GT flunkout]

Dropping the in-state rivalries is a non-starter. Will not happen. Regardless of how much you hate the SEC, or cry about the recent results for Tech-UGA, it would be bad for college football and bad for the ACC.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

I thought we were in Auburn's fight song?

Bama's

 

[DaltonJacket]

Miserable? I wasn't miserable in 2008, 2014, or 2016. You quit too easy.

Being miserable at that game has nothing to do with results.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I didn't read the article, and I'm glad they're discussing keeping the in-state rivalries. Still, the deterioration of regionalism in general is not good for college football IMO.

I'd argue that the deterioration of regionalism is actually a great thing. Sure, we need to keep some rivalries intact, but some of the best games are when great college brands play each other for the first time ever or in a long time. I'd love to see a GT-Michigan game, or GT vs Stanford (settle that debate on the field). I would have loved to see GT-Oregon when CPJ was here just for the offensive power show. Regionally, your conference games would dictate 8-9 per year. If you keep the mutts on the schedule, you have 2-3 games to draw an opponent from the other Alliance conferences. Having OoC games against real programs is a huge win for both TV and the fan base.

Side note, that's a huge concept right there. Forcing the Alliance teams to schedule tougher OoC games would improve the TV inventory and could lead to a better TV deal.

 

[g0lftime]

We talked a bit about this a few pages back, but in summary this is the Football Thread and the $$s show football is the dog and basketball is the tail.

My point is that situations change and the conference tried to upgrade football with former top 25 teams that are no longer powers. Clemson may not be a top 10 program in ten years. FSU was when it first joined. Decisions made now may not pan out over the long term and that includes Texas and Oklahoma. Mack Brown was recently quoted that Texas had better win in the SEC or their fans are not going to be happy with the decision and Texas already has plenty of money.