forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

Squid Bumciorek said:
disagree. I think after this year, all ACC teams should realize that the ACC is useless. Smu going to feel the pain too if it loses to Clemson and gets bumped from the playoffs. Would mean 3 ACC teams- Miami, SMU, FSU all screwed out of playoffs in 2 years. The only one with the power to fix this is ESPN, and they are putting the sec over . We cruiserweight mid carders now- the Disco Infernos to the sec’s Hollywood Hogans.
Click to expand...
Wait what do you disagree with? I agree with everything you’re saying. I was just stating that I’m sure there was some sort of plan in motion prior to the season starting.
 
Advertisement
FL Cane said:
There is interest from the B1G. The problem is that the original timeline they and other schools (including us) envisioned was completely obliterated by the implosion of the PAC 12. Had that not happened, things would be different.

I will also say this, and I've reiterated it many times on this thread. There are a handful of people who have real-time knowledge of how the school is positioning itself on conference realignment. Joe, Rudy, Dan Rad, select members of the BOT, etc. Mario evidently knows what's going on, but he's not driving things in this topic. Point is, the school has done a very very good job of eliminating leaks. Even when we get information about what the school thinks/is planning to do on realignment, it's often old information by that point. FSUs implosion this season also seems to have weakened their hand and brand, so TBD on realignment news.
Click to expand...
I keep hearing Sunbelt.

My sauces are 💥💥👊👊👊

Players Notified.
 
Empirical Cane said:
I keep hearing Sunbelt.

My sauces are 💥💥👊👊👊

Players Notified.
Click to expand...

Honestly, since the playoff committee criteria is now the "5 highest ranked conference champions", and 2 losses knocks ACC teams out of the 12 team playoff, might as well try to join the easiest conference if unable to join the P2. No incentive for being in the ACC where it's pretty good top to bottom. You get the worst situation of all, tough games but still only allowed 1 loss. 2 losses probably keeps you out of the playoffs. And even wins don't really matter that much. UM beat VT and DROPPED in the polls. So pick a conference where it is easiest to run the table. Get to the semifinal game in the playoffs and it is worth $14 million.

Big 12 payouts last year were around $50 million per team. ACC's payouts were around 45 million. Big 12 is an easier conference. If UM was a Big 12 member, it probably wins the Big12 and gets the automatic bye. Already in the second round. If make it to semis, it would means we would have received $64 million total. Make it to the championship game, and that's $70 million total.
 
Squid Bumciorek said:
Honestly, since the playoff committee criteria is now the "5 highest ranked conference champions", and 2 losses knocks ACC teams out of the 12 team playoff, might as well try to join the easiest conference if unable to join the P2. No incentive for being in the ACC where it's pretty good top to bottom. You get the worst situation of all, tough games but still only allowed 1 loss. 2 losses probably keeps you out of the playoffs. And even wins don't really matter that much. UM beat VT and DROPPED in the polls. So pick a conference where it is easiest to run the table. Get to the semifinal game in the playoffs and it is worth $14 million.

Big 12 payouts last year were around $50 million per team. ACC's payouts were around 45 million. Big 12 is an easier conference. If UM was a Big 12 member, it probably wins the Big12 and gets the automatic bye. Already in the second round. If make it to semis, it would means we would have received $64 million total. Make it to the championship game, and that's $70 million total.
Click to expand...
Based on this year's finish we are already having trouble recruiting in the ACC. I can't imagine the drop off telling kids they are going to play in the Big 12. No thanks to a situation where we can't build a roster that could actually win a playoff game.
 
Last edited:
Squid Bumciorek said:
Honestly, since the playoff committee criteria is now the "5 highest ranked conference champions", and 2 losses knocks ACC teams out of the 12 team playoff, might as well try to join the easiest conference if unable to join the P2. No incentive for being in the ACC where it's pretty good top to bottom. You get the worst situation of all, tough games but still only allowed 1 loss. 2 losses probably keeps you out of the playoffs. And even wins don't really matter that much. UM beat VT and DROPPED in the polls. So pick a conference where it is easiest to run the table. Get to the semifinal game in the playoffs and it is worth $14 million.

Big 12 payouts last year were around $50 million per team. ACC's payouts were around 45 million. Big 12 is an easier conference. If UM was a Big 12 member, it probably wins the Big12 and gets the automatic bye. Already in the second round. If make it to semis, it would means we would have received $64 million total. Make it to the championship game, and that's $70 million total.
Click to expand...
Our Miami Hurricanes would find a way to **** up conference play in Big 12.

Catastrophic atmospherics.

Evp4SYXEt5oly.gif
 
Advertisement
Yoyo82 said:
Honestly I still think that path forward will work. We have 17 teams now so it'll take 9 teams (assuming it only takes half the teams to dissolve the conference. )

4-6 to the B1G/SEC and 3-5 to the B12.

The P2 brands are:
Miami
FSU
Clemson
UNC

Maybes:
UVA
GT with the way they're currently trending (they averaged 3mil viewers per national broadcast this year. Mostly because of their opponents)
Stanford because of all the other sports and their brand value

There's only so many valuable brands out there.

SEC and B1G will both try to get to 20 or 24 teams eventually.

B12 will try and keep up and pretty much will take any program that will elevate their brand conference. SMU, VT, NCSt, Lou

It's just the timing needs to work and if the B1G and SEC are taking 2 or 3 programs each from the ACC at the same time it'll look like (and probably is) collusion.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that everyone throwing this out there assumes that at least 9 teams would end up with landing spots that put them in a significantly better financial situation than they are in today.

We can sit here and say that Miami, FSU and Clemson are all big draws (and they are), but in order for the Big10 or SEC to add them they would need the TV networks who own their contracts to add at least the amount per year that the schools are already getting and realistically all of the existing schools are likely to want to get more per year in order to sign off.

Example: The Big10 schools will supposedly be making close to 100M per year in a few years. Let's say they decide to take UNC and Miami (pick any two teams you want):

- In order for the Big10 schools to not lose money, they need Fox to up the contract by $200M per year just to cover the 2 new schools. Are UNC and Miami worth an additional $200M per year to Fox (and would need to be worth more than that since $200M is what the schools get and Fox will need to make money too)?

- If I am a Big10 school, I want more than just keeping my money status quo - if you are going to bring in schools that will make it harder for me to win (and I have to deal with the extra logistics of sending my soccer team to Miami, etc), I want at least $5M per year more than now. Fox now not only needs to pay an additional $200M per year, but that extra $5M x 20 (the current 18 schools plus the two new ones). Now they are up to an additional $300M per year. At some point you reach the point of diminishing returns.

- Now expand the bullets above to 9 teams. The math won't be the same as obviously not all of them would be going to the Big10 or SEC, but the same problem will exist if those other schools expect the Big12 to pick them up - the TV payout will need to rise by at least the current amount per team. And even if it works out for some or the majority of the 9, if you are a school at the lower end of the 9 are you willing to risk that you will get picked up for more than you have now? Even a school like Oregon had to settle for partial money for many years when they didn't have leverage.

- Then there are the political pressures to dissolving the league... states with multiple schools in the ACC would like put a lot of pressure on a school in the pro leave 9 not to do it if it meant another school in the state that was in the pro stay 9 and would be left out to dry.

This isnt to say that these things can't/won't be overcome, but there are A LOT of hurdles to convince at least 9 schools that they are better off dissolving the league.
 
Last edited:
Shogungts said:
The problem with this is that everyone throwing this out there assumes that at least 9 teams would end up with landing spots that put them in a significantly better financial situation than they are in today.

We can sit here and say that Miami, FSU and Clemson are all big draws (and they are), but in order for the Big10 or SEC to add them they would need the TV networks who own their contracts to add at least the amount per year that the schools are already getting and realistically all of the existing schools are likely to want to get more per year in order to sign off.

Example: The Big10 schools will supposedly be making close to 100M per year in a few years. Let's say they decide to take UNC and Miami (pick any two teams you want):

- In order for the Big10 schools to not lose money, they need Fox to up the contract by $200M per year just to cover the 2 new schools. Are UNC and Miami worth an additional $200M per year to Fox (and would need to be worth more than that since $200M is what the schools get and Fox will need to make money too)?

- If I am a Big10 school, I want more than just keeping my money status quo - if you are going to bring in schools that will make it harder for me to win (and I have to deal with the extra logistics of sending my soccer team to Miami, etc), I want at least $5M per year more than now. Fox now not only needs to pay an additional $200M per year, but that extra $5M x 20 (the current 18 schools plus the two new ones). Now they are up to an additional $300M per year. At some point you reach the point of diminishing returns.

- Now expand the bullets above to 9 teams. The math won't be the same as obviously not all of them would be going to the Big10 or SEC, but the same problem will exist if those other schools expect the Big12 to pick them up - the TV payout will need to rise to by at least the current amount per team. And even if it works out for some or the majority of the 9, if you are a school at the lower end of the 9 are you willing to risk that you will get picked up?

- Then there are the political pressures to dissolving the league... states with multiple schools in the ACC would like put a lot of pressure on a school in the pro leave 9 not to do it if it meant another school in the state that was in the pro stay 9 and would be left out to dry.

This isnt to say that these things can't/won't be overcome, but there are A LOT of hurdles to convince at least 9 schools that they are better off dissolving the league.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with all that..this all assumes there are standing invitations or at least backroom understanding that these schools all have landing spots that make their situations better.

Unfortunately, the value of the ACC brands will only continue to decrease because of the current bias towards the SEC/B1G so I fear in 5+ years we may be forced to take an SMU type deal to join the B1G vs now where we may be able to get full shares or at least an Oregon/Washington type deal.
 
Yoyo82 said:
Yes I agree with all that..this all assumes there are standing invitations or at least backroom understanding that these schools all have landing spots that make their situations better.

Unfortunately, the value of the ACC brands will only continue to decrease because of the current bias towards the SEC/B1G so I fear in 5+ years we may be forced to take an SMU type deal to join the B1G vs now where we may be able to get full shares or at least an Oregon/Washington type deal.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think it absolutely makes sense for Miami to move if there is an opportunity, I am just skeptical that there would be enough additional TV revenue for 9 ACC schools to exit the ACC by choice.
 
Advertisement
Shogungts said:
The problem with this is that everyone throwing this out there assumes that at least 9 teams would end up with landing spots that put them in a significantly better financial situation than they are in today.

We can sit here and say that Miami, FSU and Clemson are all big draws (and they are), but in order for the Big10 or SEC to add them they would need the TV networks who own their contracts to add at least the amount per year that the schools are already getting and realistically all of the existing schools are likely to want to get more per year in order to sign off.

Example: The Big10 schools will supposedly be making close to 100M per year in a few years. Let's say they decide to take UNC and Miami (pick any two teams you want):

- In order for the Big10 schools to not lose money, they need Fox to up the contract by $200M per year just to cover the 2 new schools. Are UNC and Miami worth an additional $200M per year to Fox (and would need to be worth more than that since $200M is what the schools get and Fox will need to make money too)?

- If I am a Big10 school, I want more than just keeping my money status quo - if you are going to bring in schools that will make it harder for me to win (and I have to deal with the extra logistics of sending my soccer team to Miami, etc), I want at least $5M per year more than now. Fox now not only needs to pay an additional $200M per year, but that extra $5M x 20 (the current 18 schools plus the two new ones). Now they are up to an additional $300M per year. At some point you reach the point of diminishing returns.

- Now expand the bullets above to 9 teams. The math won't be the same as obviously not all of them would be going to the Big10 or SEC, but the same problem will exist if those other schools expect the Big12 to pick them up - the TV payout will need to rise by at least the current amount per team. And even if it works out for some or the majority of the 9, if you are a school at the lower end of the 9 are you willing to risk that you will get picked up for more than you have now? Even a school like Oregon had to settle for partial money for many years when they didn't have leverage.

- Then there are the political pressures to dissolving the league... states with multiple schools in the ACC would like put a lot of pressure on a school in the pro leave 9 not to do it if it meant another school in the state that was in the pro stay 9 and would be left out to dry.

This isnt to say that these things can't/won't be overcome, but there are A LOT of hurdles to convince at least 9 schools that they are better off dissolving the league.
Click to expand...
or since football is the only thing that matters just kick NW, Indiana, MD, Rutgers the **** out of the B10. Those four literally bring nothing to the conference other than IU basketball which is a faded brand like Miami football.
 
I know we're a better fit with the B1G academically, but I'm at the point where I hope we join them instead of the B1G. We'll always be treated as the unwanted ******* in the B1G. We would NEVER be given the benefit of the doubt by B1G officials.

I don't like B1G weather either. Its not nearly the double edged sword some want to believe it is. We're far more likely to struggle in their freezing temperatures than B1G teams are in our heat/humidity.

We're also a better fit with the SEC for recruiting too. And at least in the SEC we'd get their bs narrative advantages.
 
Fluffhead said:
How do you figure? Did FSU or Clemson get out yet?
Click to expand...

We twiddled our THIMBS

if us and UNC joined the LAWSUIT, it would’ve moved the needle. Top 4 programs, 80% of the REVENUE talks. Instead it’s STALED because the ACC knows us and UNC are pussies

And it ****ed US for the PLAYOFF. we’re second tier until we’re OUT of this conference
 
Advertisement
TheOGCane said:
We twiddled our THIMBS

if us and UNC joined the LAWSUIT, it would’ve moved the needle. Top 4 programs, 80% of the REVENUE talks. Instead it’s STALED because the ACC knows us and UNC are pussies

And it ****ed US for the PLAYOFF. we’re second tier until we’re OUT of this conference
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing you wrote is true or correct. I want out yesterday but you’re spouting nonsense.
 
TheOGCane said:
We twiddled our THIMBS

if us and UNC joined the LAWSUIT, it would’ve moved the needle. Top 4 programs, 80% of the REVENUE talks. Instead it’s STALED because the ACC knows us and UNC are pussies

And it ****ed US for the PLAYOFF. we’re second tier until we’re OUT of this conference
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you are talking about and no Im not going to explain it to you either
 
Advertisement
Tony4Canes said:
Strange move. Be interesting to see numbers


Click to expand...

My guess is more money in Mountain West football than the MAC. Interesting to see if the MAC allows Northern Illinois to do it while keeping membership in the MAC for everything else.

I'm still surprised the PAC 12 (Wash St & Oregon St) didn't just merge with all of the Mountain West and become a full PAC 14 conference instead of this piecemeal approach they went with.
 
CaneinBroward said:
My guess is more money in Mountain West football than the MAC. Interesting to see if the MAC allows Northern Illinois to do it while keeping membership in the MAC for everything else.

I'm still surprised the PAC 12 (Wash St & Oregon St) didn't just merge with all of the Mountain West and become a full PAC 14 conference instead of this piecemeal approach they went with.
Click to expand...



 
Advertisement
Back
Top