I see the logic in this, but i also think Yormack could get his schools to see through this. I said last month the move for the Big 12 was uconn and sdsu. Take away a backfill option from both the pac and acc.
I/2 of those schools have an illusion of grandeur. Unless the goal is to break the GOR to blackmail the ACC / ESPN
i agree the list includes teams with no hope for the Super Two
I don’t see either as smart fits. They will be shells of their former selves and eaten alive in no time with no regional rivalries week in and out.
I agree. ESPN has the ACC schools for 10+ years. They aren't paying any of them more in the SEC. The B1G board considered going to 24 and the schools rejected it roundly. They do not like the idea of two 12 team conferences. So I can see maybe adding Oregon and Washington, but that's it.
ESPN could come out ahead because they would stop overpaying forthe BC's and the Wakes, etc of the ACC and if they went to a big boy football conference now the Clemsons and FSU's playing other big boys would create a synergistic effect when playing those top teams.
It's a flex, right? What they're doing is creating doubt in the remaining members of the conference in the GOR in the hopes that other members will explore finding a soft landing place, which in turn would increase the numbers of the current members willing to leave.
Too many times having the football pulled away from us at the last minute. People aren't going to get over excited over rumors. That said, look how much traffic these conference realignment threads are getting just off of those rumors.
Except is Clemson content more valuable as a 9-1/10-0 national title contender in the ACC or a 7-3/8-2 at large contender in the SEC.
This charade was fodder for local newspapers and the fan base. They need to provide the illusion that there is a chance they'll get out even if everyone knows there isn't a chance.
The CFP will eventually include the top four teams from the B1G and $EC, so having an "easy path" to the autobid becomes less important.
Disagree. While expansion overall might be zero sum game, there are definitely positive plays to be made. USC in the B1G is an example. So is Texas in the SEC. And so on.
Part of ND's posturing when they left the BE was that it was holding back their olympic sports. ND sees itself at the highest levels of competition, would not be going down a level unless it was also serious about not wanting to compete in a new system where athletes get paid.
That league is still wondering how they are going to make it work, and they only did it because they were adding two huge brands. This is not the same type of situation
USC and Texas are different kind of brands than say Clemson (or even a Miami). Clemson and Miami are brands who were built on a run of success.. as that success fades so does their star (Miami's star is much dimmer already than it was in the 80s and 90s; even in the early 00s). Texas & USC have the generational success that allows them to weather mediocrity and still retain name value. In addition, they also opened new home markets for the broadcast rights of their new conference's games. Neither Clemson, nor Miami do that.
They could be, but is Georgia Tech a $100M/year brand in the Fox/Big Ten mind? Beyond that if Fox takes 4. Let's say they get Miami, Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC. There aren't 4 teams left in the ACC that bring full value to the SEC (FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech? NC State?).. which means you don't have a majority to nuke the conference. Furthermore you certainly aren't going to have ESPN make it easy to have to pay more for content that it already owns, while sacrificing potentially valuable content to Fox.
The value of Georgia Tech isn’t necessarily Georgia Tech. The value of Georgia Tech is Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and USC playing regularly in Atlanta.