PAC News

I think they could get 7 but 8 seems way too big and the logic is this:

To The SEC:
- FSU
- Clemson
- UNC
- UVA or VT
(My logic is this I think the 1st three the SEC will want and they will want the league balanced so Virginia is a massive state and solidifies the South for the SEC)

To The B1G:
- UVA or VT
- Duke
- Miami / Boston College
- Defacto get Notre Dame because they have nowhere to go
(My logic on this is that all the schools listed are AAU and most get massive research grants which a big deal to the B1G presidents. Financially Miam is the only one that has a shot at getting the eyeballs so that is conceded).

Problems:
- It would most likely take 8 to break the GOR so those 7 schools would probably have to buy off someone to make it happen but if they all chipped in 50mm for a total of 350mm they could probably talk a Wake Forest into taking the dough.
- Not all the schools would be worth it to the networks but I think both conferences could push the expansion through based on their pull and a crap ton of quality inventory is about to die so content will be at a premium (we are assuming at this point the PAC and ACC are dead leaving only two major players on the board).
- Both conferences would probably be too large at that point to be honest but I think the control aspect of all college sports would be too hard to pass up.
- If the B1G takes both Washington and Oregon fit makes this almost impossible to pull off and the odds aren't great anyway

It may be 2036 before anything happens and by then Clemson and FSU might have been so starved of cash/NIL that their value is gone. It's probably an overstatement but it feels like both those schools might be fighting a losing battle for survival because a 30 to 50 million dollar deficit might be too much.
You never answered the key question .. why would the SEC and the B1G do this? They are already on a path to make $110+ million a year per school. The SEC has a nice 16 team setup, with a 9 game IC, 3-6-6 scheduling and they will put 3-5 teams into the CFP every year.

What reason, other than money, would they have for doing this. To be more specific, why would the following teams vote for adding at least two more teams that are better than them: USCjr, OM, MSU, Vandy, UK, Arky, Mizzou, and Arkansas. That's 8, enough to prevent a majority. And, I think teams like UF and UTjr might vote against it as well. The 4 teams you mention would be a net loss in revenue for teams. Do you really think they will be willing to take a haircut for LESS money?

This is the problem with expansion for expansion sake people, they don't stop and ask the most simple question ... what is in it for my school? UT and OU were no brainers ... they came to the SEC and allowed them to go to 16 which is a number that makes a ton of sense. They are true CFB blue bloods. But all this other stuff just makes no sense. Why would Ole Miss say, "hell yeah, let's bring in two more teams we have to compete against that are more likely to win the SEC than us, and more likely to get into the CFP than us?"

I get why the ACC teams want to leave, but I've yet to see a single realistic explanation as to why anyone things the SEC wants this. And, by the SEC I especially mean the lower half teams. Hell, the SEC has had to pull teeth to get them to go to a 9 game IC schedule. I can't imagine they would get a welcome reception if they went to those teams and said, hey, let's put 2 more teams in the SEC that are like to beat you and keep from winning championships, because ....
 
Wait.. how does UVA/BC/VT/Duke or Miami... increase the school payouts in the BiG? BiG would want ND first and foremost, then it probably looks into UVA/UNC.. Not sure if Miami is that desirable
Here are the eyeballs ... they are terrible. And none of these teams other than the top 2 have any chance of getting a CFP share, especially playing in the SEC. There is no value there.

Here is the ACC for 2022:

10 Clemson — 2.59M
15 Florida State — 2.03M
-------------- cut off for meaningful teams
43 NC State — 881K
46 North Carolina — 849K
48 Syracuse — 841K
49 Georgia Tech — 837K
56 Pittsburgh — 650K
59 Miami FL— 608K
-------------- cut off for 8 teams
60 Wake Forest — 523K
63 Louisville — 496K
70 Boston College — 322K
76 Virginia Tech — 264K
79 Virginia — 237K
91 Duke — 115.7K
 
yeah i agree.. there's 14 ACC schools.. Which 7 would be called up to either the BiG or SEC? The schools left are willing to go to the Big12 and take a paycut?ehhhh
Going to assume you would need 8 for a majority. Thinking 7 to 7 doesn't work.
 
Look, the ACC's problem is the ACC and their fans. If you want to make more money, figure out how to get your fans to engage. The SEC doesn't get the money they get by accident. Out 14th team would be in 3rd place for viewership in the ACC. Let that sink in. Our 3rd to last place teams would be 3rd in the ACC.

For comparison:

2 Alabama — 5.11M
4 Tennessee — 4.13M
5 Georgia — 3.50M
7 LSU — 3.22M
8 Texas — 3.06M
11 Florida — 2.57M
18 Texas A&M — 1.87M
20 Auburn — 1.863M
21 Arkansas — 1.80M
22 Mississippi — 1.753M
23 Oklahoma — 1.748M
28 Kentucky — 1.35M
36 Mississippi State — 1.10M
39 South Carolina — 990K
50 Missouri — 793K

Not sure why Vandy isn't on the list, but it would probably be in the 80s.

Here is the ACC for 2022:

10 Clemson — 2.59M
15 Florida State — 2.03M
43 NC State — 881K
46 North Carolina — 849K
48 Syracuse — 841K
49 Georgia Tech — 837K
56 Pittsburgh — 650K
59 Miami FL— 608K
60 Wake Forest — 523K
63 Louisville — 496K
70 Boston College — 322K
76 Virginia Tech — 264K
79 Virginia — 237K
91 Duke — 115.7K
 
You never answered the key question .. why would the SEC and the B1G do this? They are already on a path to make $110+ million a year per school. The SEC has a nice 16 team setup, with a 9 game IC, 3-6-6 scheduling and they will put 3-5 teams into the CFP every year.

What reason, other than money, would they have for doing this. To be more specific, why would the following teams vote for adding at least two more teams that are better than them: USCjr, OM, MSU, Vandy, UK, Arky, Mizzou, and Arkansas. That's 8, enough to prevent a majority. And, I think teams like UF and UTjr might vote against it as well. The 4 teams you mention would be a net loss in revenue for teams. Do you really think they will be willing to take a haircut for LESS money?

This is the problem with expansion for expansion sake people, they don't stop and ask the most simple question ... what is in it for my school? UT and OU were no brainers ... they came to the SEC and allowed them to go to 16 which is a number that makes a ton of sense. They are true CFB blue bloods. But all this other stuff just makes no sense. Why would Ole Miss say, "hell yeah, let's bring in two more teams we have to compete against that are more likely to win the SEC than us, and more likely to get into the CFP than us?"

I get why the ACC teams want to leave, but I've yet to see a single realistic explanation as to why anyone things the SEC wants this. And, by the SEC I especially mean the lower half teams. Hell, the SEC has had to pull teeth to get them to go to a 9 game IC schedule. I can't imagine they would get a welcome reception if they went to those teams and said, hey, let's put 2 more teams in the SEC that are like to beat you and keep from winning championships, because ....

For the B1G, it would be about controlling/growing a Western Market base. I think the B1G is NOT done on West Coast and I wouldn't be surprised if they add more teams than just Oregon and Washington.

I am not sure about SEC's logic for expansion. I don't see ACC going anywhere anytime soon so I agree with you on that one. As we discussed, I can see SEC adding FSU for defensive reasons but I don't see that happening in the next 10 years or so. I think the SEC stays at 16 for a while.
 
For the B1G, it would be about controlling/growing a Western Market base. I think the B1G is NOT done on West Coast and I wouldn't be surprised if they add more teams than just Oregon and Washington.

I am not sure about SEC's logic for expansion. I don't see ACC going anywhere anytime soon so I agree with you on that one. As we discussed, I can see SEC adding FSU for defensive reasons but I don't see that happening in the next 10 years or so. I think the SEC stays at 16 for a while.
I agree with your first sentence. They are invested in the West, and they have 2 decent teams so desperate to get into their conference they are willing to provide discounts and free shoes. Plus, they don't appear to have their scheduling tied down as tightly as it appears the SEC does. And, they are more in flux with a new commissioner and all. So I get them going West.

But I don't get the ACC love that I am seeing. It simply doesn't make sense for reasons I stated above. I would also point out that in the history of expansion you generally get expansions and then a decade or so to absorb what happens. It's as if people don't understand these things are complicated and you don't just turn on a dime without really good reasons.
 
I agree with your first sentence. They are invested in the West, and they have 2 decent teams so desperate to get into their conference they are willing to provide discounts and free shoes. Plus, they don't appear to have their scheduling tied down as tightly as it appears the SEC does. And, they are more in flux with a new commissioner and all. So I get them going West.

But I don't get the ACC love that I am seeing. It simply doesn't make sense for reasons I stated above. I would also point out that in the history of expansion you generally get expansions and then a decade or so to absorb what happens. It's as if people don't understand these things are complicated and you don't just turn on a dime without really good reasons.

Clemson and FSU are pretty on par with Auburn or Texas A&M in fanbase size, stadiums, etc. They are attractive enough to grab. Not with the GOR though so I don't see it happening anytime soon. I am also not sure if they go to B1G or SEC.

To me, the biggest question with expansion is still Notre Dame. Do they finally give into the B1G or do they keep staying independent. Notre Dame has not always followed the $$$.

The B1G dream list right now is Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Notre Dame. However, there is a backup plan if Notre Dame says no. I think they go for Colorado, Cal, or Arizona as the backup.

Another observation that may support your ACC argument is that the B1G has already committed West. The SEC may not be so eager to add ACC schools if they don't feel like the B1G is coming in to scoop up.

I do think the SEC wants to avoid having 2 of the 3 Florida powers in the B1G. IMO, the SEC has the strongest Florida brand but if the B1G had FSU and Miami both, it could be argued that Florida would then be B1G country. I don't see the B1G wanting to dip into Florida right now (at least no rumors are out there about it) which makes me think the ACC is intact for the time being (well that and the GOR).

I also agree the SEC will not just add teams to add teams. If we went down that road, SEC would add Georgia Tech and Louisville because both schools have connections to SEC teams and are somewhat quality sports programs. Both don't have a shot of being in the SEC, however.
 
Last edited:
You never answered the key question .. why would the SEC and the B1G do this? They are already on a path to make $110+ million a year per school. The SEC has a nice 16 team setup, with a 9 game IC, 3-6-6 scheduling and they will put 3-5 teams into the CFP every year.

What reason, other than money, would they have for doing this. To be more specific, why would the following teams vote for adding at least two more teams that are better than them: USCjr, OM, MSU, Vandy, UK, Arky, Mizzou, and Arkansas. That's 8, enough to prevent a majority. And, I think teams like UF and UTjr might vote against it as well. The 4 teams you mention would be a net loss in revenue for teams. Do you really think they will be willing to take a haircut for LESS money?

This is the problem with expansion for expansion sake people, they don't stop and ask the most simple question ... what is in it for my school? UT and OU were no brainers ... they came to the SEC and allowed them to go to 16 which is a number that makes a ton of sense. They are true CFB blue bloods. But all this other stuff just makes no sense. Why would Ole Miss say, "hell yeah, let's bring in two more teams we have to compete against that are more likely to win the SEC than us, and more likely to get into the CFP than us?"

I get why the ACC teams want to leave, but I've yet to see a single realistic explanation as to why anyone things the SEC wants this. And, by the SEC I especially mean the lower half teams. Hell, the SEC has had to pull teeth to get them to go to a 9 game IC schedule. I can't imagine they would get a welcome reception if they went to those teams and said, hey, let's put 2 more teams in the SEC that are like to beat you and keep from winning championships, because ....
You have a valid point but does the SEC really want the B1G to have a solid footprint in the South?

If the SEC were to take the teams I listed they lock every major team in the south up and there is no one of worth left with the exception of Miami that is debatable.

I think the SEC has the pull to make it happen without lowering the compensation for the other schools.

Would they want to do it? I think they probably would if the decision was being made today. Now if we go 10 years before any of the teams can leave would they be viable at that point? A decade of under funding could decimate them to nothing more than names of the past.

When the GOR is up (whenever that is) I think the SEC takes 4 teams. You can make a case they won’t but I see it happening because more than likely everything will move to a streaming platform and the inventory will be valuable.
 
With USC & UCLA they own the state of California recruiting wise so they aren't going to feel any pressure to take any more California schools and quite honestly the value isn't there so I couldn't disagree with you more there.

As long as the ACC stays together Notre Dame isn't going anywhere because between the money they get from the ACC plus the new deal money they got from NBC they are close enough in revenue to the B1G and SEC schools to make staying independent make sense for them. For them to change course it will take a massive change in revenue distribution (which won't happen anytime soon) or the ACC folds and they don't have a viable home for their other sports. If the B1G takes both Washington and Oregon then I don't see a scenario where the ACC folds before the end of the GOR because the only way it would happen is if enough schools decided to leave at once and voted to end the GOR. The max I see the SEC ever taking is 4 and I just don't see the B1G having an appetite to take ACC schools on top of the 4 PAC schools so the ACC is good until 2036.

If the B1G doesn't take Oregon and Washington then within 5 years we will at least see an attempt by ACC schools to try and kill the league if it can be done.

Can you imagine being Oregon and Washington and having to swallow taking less money than UCLA, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue and Rutgers? You gotta do what you gotta do but damn.
Hard for me to believe that UCLA, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue and Rutgers add more individual value than Oregon and Washington.
 
You have a valid point but does the SEC really want the B1G to have a solid footprint in the South?

If the SEC were to take the teams I listed they lock every major team in the south up and there is no one of worth left with the exception of Miami that is debatable.

I think the SEC has the pull to make it happen without lowering the compensation for the other schools.

Would they want to do it? I think they probably would if the decision was being made today. Now if we go 10 years before any of the teams can leave would they be viable at that point? A decade of under funding could decimate them to nothing more than names of the past.

When the GOR is up (whenever that is) I think the SEC takes 4 teams. You can make a case they won’t but I see it happening because more than likely everything will move to a streaming platform and the inventory will be valuable.
Before I respond to your points, tell me why the bottom 8 teams in the SEC would want to continue to bring in teams better than them. There comes a point where the bottom 8 are going to say "stop, enough." We've probably already reached that point what with the new 9 game IC schedule that they have stated they don't like.

To your points:

The South footprint argument is really the only thing the "expand for expansion" folks can come up with. And it doesn't make sense. Who cares? We already have the ACC in our geographic footprint, and several G5 conferences. It's not like if the B1G gets Clemson and FSU that the numbers will drop off for any SEC school. That's not how it works. They won't become a "southern league." And the B1G getting a few more teams doesn't affect the SEC's profits, or the quality of the SEC in any way. We will still have more top teams, and the most rabid fans, and make the most money.

Regarding compensation, you can't come up with an extra $450 million per year bringing in UNC and NSCU/UVA/VaTech. You will barely be able to do a per share increase with Clemson and FSU. The others don't move the needle, and I just don't see the SEC going to discounted shares. There is a unity in the SEC I don't think will go away. What exactly is the way they do this without lowering everyone else's money?

4 teams don't make sense. After many years they are just about to get to a 3-6-6 schedule that relies on having 16. The beauty of the schedule is that it fits perfectly - it's symmetrical in a way that is awesome - almost all rivalries are maintained, and you get to play each team every other year (instead of every 6 years). With ESPN handling all the games, the schedules are going to be announced way further in advance, which is great for fans and students. You will know that you play X team the 7th week of every year. Fans and schools can make plans years in advance. If you blow up the symmetrical aspect of that and go with 18 teams, now you can't do 6-6 anymore and will have to do something like 6-6-2+4, etc. which will make scheduling uncertain and difficult. They don't want anything to do with that.

The last paragraph you just pulled out of your ass. You criticized someone else for throwing shit on the wall. That's what you did there. You and I and everyone else have no idea what CFB will be like in 13 years. If you go back 13 years to 2010, think what was going on ... totally different from today. So, no, you have no idea how or if some shitty program that gets less than 500K viewers will be worth $110+ million per year. If you do, let's hear it.

I am not trying to be overly critical when I say this, but you are really having to stretch to make these arguments. The most obvious thing is for the SEC to take a decade or more to absorb the two new teams, the expanded CFP, NIL, transfer portal, and likely players' employee status in the next 10 years. I wold also point out that they have to figure out how to keep coaches when burnout is getting worse and worse. Future expansion will only make sense if the economic model changes drastically in a way none of us can foresee.

Meanwhile, the ACC should be studying how the fuck they can make their fans like football better, or if they can't, become basketball only or something like that. Do that instead of trying to jump somewhere else.
 
Meanwhile, the ACC should be studying how the fuck they can make their fans like football better, or if they can't, become basketball only or something like that.
That 70S Show Lol GIF by PeacockTV
 
Before I respond to your points, tell me why the bottom 8 teams in the SEC would want to continue to bring in teams better than them. There comes a point where the bottom 8 are going to say "stop, enough." We've probably already reached that point what with the new 9 game IC schedule that they have stated they don't like.

To your points:

The South footprint argument is really the only thing the "expand for expansion" folks can come up with. And it doesn't make sense. Who cares? We already have the ACC in our geographic footprint, and several G5 conferences. It's not like if the B1G gets Clemson and FSU that the numbers will drop off for any SEC school. That's not how it works. They won't become a "southern league." And the B1G getting a few more teams doesn't affect the SEC's profits, or the quality of the SEC in any way. We will still have more top teams, and the most rabid fans, and make the most money.

Regarding compensation, you can't come up with an extra $450 million per year bringing in UNC and NSCU/UVA/VaTech. You will barely be able to do a per share increase with Clemson and FSU. The others don't move the needle, and I just don't see the SEC going to discounted shares. There is a unity in the SEC I don't think will go away. What exactly is the way they do this without lowering everyone else's money?

4 teams don't make sense. After many years they are just about to get to a 3-6-6 schedule that relies on having 16. The beauty of the schedule is that it fits perfectly - it's symmetrical in a way that is awesome - almost all rivalries are maintained, and you get to play each team every other year (instead of every 6 years). With ESPN handling all the games, the schedules are going to be announced way further in advance, which is great for fans and students. You will know that you play X team the 7th week of every year. Fans and schools can make plans years in advance. If you blow up the symmetrical aspect of that and go with 18 teams, now you can't do 6-6 anymore and will have to do something like 6-6-2+4, etc. which will make scheduling uncertain and difficult. They don't want anything to do with that.

The last paragraph you just pulled out of your ass. You criticized someone else for throwing shit on the wall. That's what you did there. You and I and everyone else have no idea what CFB will be like in 13 years. If you go back 13 years to 2010, think what was going on ... totally different from today. So, no, you have no idea how or if some shitty program that gets less than 500K viewers will be worth $110+ million per year. If you do, let's hear it.

I am not trying to be overly critical when I say this, but you are really having to stretch to make these arguments. The most obvious thing is for the SEC to take a decade or more to absorb the two new teams, the expanded CFP, NIL, transfer portal, and likely players' employee status in the next 10 years. I wold also point out that they have to figure out how to keep coaches when burnout is getting worse and worse. Future expansion will only make sense if the economic model changes drastically in a way none of us can foresee.

Meanwhile, the ACC should be studying how the fuck they can make their fans like football better, or if they can't, become basketball only or something like that. Do that instead of trying to jump somewhere else.
You’re wrong about the money not being there because when Monday Night football gets 2.6 billion a year there is room to grow. IF the SEC wants to expand they will have the pull to get the extra money. The reason is something you alluded to in another thread about how many more 4mm+ games potential grow with the addition of OU and UT. Clemson and FSU would do the same so they are no brainers.

I have always heard the SEC was interested in UNC so if that is true (we know for a fact it’s been discussed behind closed doors because people in the know have admitted to it publicly). Now is it worth taking a 4th team to make it happen? It might if the P2 grows large enough the decide to kill off March Madness and host their own post season. MM generates 1.14 billion a year for the NCAA so pull that out of their pocket and it’s a lot of money on the table.

You‘re right we don’t know what things will look like in 10 years but holy shit the sport is majorly different than it was 10 years ago. It’s fair to expect fundamental change in the sport and on the business side. Forget sports, in 10 years network TV very well could be done and if that happens streaming is the direction it will go. I wouldn’t bet against the P2 pulling out of the NCAA and governing themselves and forming their own playoff and postseasons which could generate substantial revenue. One thing is for sure the conferences are never going to be satisfied with revenue and will always want more.
 
You’re wrong about the money not being there because when Monday Night football gets 2.6 billion a year there is room to grow. IF the SEC wants to expand they will have the pull to get the extra money. The reason is something you alluded to in another thread about how many more 4mm+ games potential grow with the addition of OU and UT. Clemson and FSU would do the same so they are no brainers.

I have always heard the SEC was interested in UNC so if that is true (we know for a fact it’s been discussed behind closed doors because people in the know have admitted to it publicly). Now is it worth taking a 4th team to make it happen? It might if the P2 grows large enough the decide to kill off March Madness and host their own post season. MM generates 1.14 billion a year for the NCAA so pull that out of their pocket and it’s a lot of money on the table.

You‘re right we don’t know what things will look like in 10 years but holy shit the sport is majorly different than it was 10 years ago. It’s fair to expect fundamental change in the sport and on the business side. Forget sports, in 10 years network TV very well could be done and if that happens streaming is the direction it will go. I wouldn’t bet against the P2 pulling out of the NCAA and governing themselves and forming their own playoff and postseasons which could generate substantial revenue. One thing is for sure the conferences are never going to be satisfied with revenue and will always want more.
You continue to ignore the most important point … why would the bottom teams, or any teams, want to keep making it more difficult to win? They don’t and won’t. Seriously do you think Ky/OM/etc are going to want to make it even less likely to win the SEC get into the CFP?

You are guessing on money. Monday night football has nothing to do with it. TV contracts are pure math. The money MAY be there for FSU and Clemson, but no one else. The numbers are clear as a bell. Either teams add enough eyeballs and CFP shares, or they don’t. The SEC won’t take 4 teams, at least 2 of which can’t earn their share just to expand.

The NCAA owns March Madness and a ton of the good teams aren’t in the P2. What are you even talking about? You want expansion for expansion sake so bad you are just throwing shot on the wall … NFL comparisons, stealing March Madness, etc.
 
You’re wrong about the money not being there because when Monday Night football gets 2.6 billion a year there is room to grow. IF the SEC wants to expand they will have the pull to get the extra money. The reason is something you alluded to in another thread about how many more 4mm+ games potential grow with the addition of OU and UT. Clemson and FSU would do the same so they are no brainers.

I have always heard the SEC was interested in UNC so if that is true (we know for a fact it’s been discussed behind closed doors because people in the know have admitted to it publicly). Now is it worth taking a 4th team to make it happen? It might if the P2 grows large enough the decide to kill off March Madness and host their own post season. MM generates 1.14 billion a year for the NCAA so pull that out of their pocket and it’s a lot of money on the table.

You‘re right we don’t know what things will look like in 10 years but holy shit the sport is majorly different than it was 10 years ago. It’s fair to expect fundamental change in the sport and on the business side. Forget sports, in 10 years network TV very well could be done and if that happens streaming is the direction it will go. I wouldn’t bet against the P2 pulling out of the NCAA and governing themselves and forming their own playoff and postseasons which could generate substantial revenue. One thing is for sure the conferences are never going to be satisfied with revenue and will always want more.
Isn’t +4 million viewers chump change for the NFL? I remember reading that last year something like 91 of the 100 most watched weekly programs on all of television were NFL games! Not just sports programming but ALL of television. I’ll see if I can find it.
 
You continue to ignore the most important point … why would the bottom teams, or any teams, want to keep making it more difficult to win? They don’t and won’t. Seriously do you think Ky/OM/etc are going to want to make it even less likely to win the SEC get into the CFP?

You are guessing on money. Monday night football has nothing to do with it. TV contracts are pure math. The money MAY be there for FSU and Clemson, but no one else. The numbers are clear as a bell. Either teams add enough eyeballs and CFP shares, or they don’t. The SEC won’t take 4 teams, at least 2 of which can’t earn their share just to expand.

The NCAA owns March Madness and a ton of the good teams aren’t in the P2. What are you even talking about? You want expansion for expansion sake so bad you are just throwing shot on the wall … NFL comparisons, stealing March Madness, etc.
LMAO. Sooooo, inviting Texas and OU doesn’t make it more difficult for the bottom teams to win! Now you’ve gone and stirred up the rusty cows and land thieves.
But if you go by last year’s performance, it looks true!
 
LMAO. Sooooo, inviting Texas and OU doesn’t make it more difficult for the bottom teams to win! Now you’ve gone and stirred up the rusty cows and land thieves.
But if you go by last year’s performance, it looks true!
we are just here for the easy checks, sir

EvilTower.png
 
Back
Top