Do FSU and Clemson have a "nod and a wink" understanding with Sankey and/or Petitti? (2024)

Post: #21

Post: #22

Post: #23

(Today 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote: But, both Florida State and Clemson showed too much of their hands that both Big 10 and SEC may never invite them or they could get sued, and both ESPN and Fox sports would look at those two as toxic. They could go from being in the ACC with money to being homeless with no media contracts.

One could as logically fantasize that the PR rough patch makes the ACC look 'toxic' and predict no media contracts for the league.

Either story makes an entertaining revenge movie for somebody. The reality is that these things pass like thunderstorms. After that, it's off to the tailgate party.

Post: #24

(Today 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:

(Today 01:19 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:

(Today 12:04 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:

(Today 11:38 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote: ESPN already told the SEC that they aren’t paying simply for more content, so the only real way for the SEC to add measurable money is to expand into new markets. Personally, I think this is why Virginia and North Carolina have been some quiet (sans the UNC BOG guy that was told to stfu). The SEC has also told us they want significant rivalries. The South’s Oldest Rivalry between UVA and UNC certainly fit that bill. Also, FOX allegedly already told the Big Ten no to adding Virginia, which makes this pair even more likely to be SEC leans.

Here's some logic coming straight from your foundations.

(1) The SEC wants significant rivalries.
(2) ESPN isn't paying for more content.

Therefore:

Adding more schools means that the SEC's significant rivalries will be played less often. (That's games like Ole Miss vs. Alabama; Auburn vs. LSU; Georgia vs. Tennessee.) Unless, of course, the SEC adds a ninth conference game to their season.

ESPN won't pay more for those additional conference games.

Therefore:

Adding schools diminishes the SEC's rivalries and adds no additional revenue.

--------------

Now consider adding football programs like UVa and UNC, which would both be closer to South Carolina in terms of brands and expectations than they would be to Oklahoma.

So in addition to losing rivalries and not making any revenue, the SEC would also be diluting the football product that has set it apart for decades.

If that's the case, I don't think the SEC should engage the BIG in an arms race if it means diluting the product in the process. There's no real need for them to add Clemson and Florida State anyway, let alone adding teams from a new market such as North Carolina and Virginia.

ESPN and the SEC are close business partners for two key reasons:
1. The most important one, they make each other money.
2. They share a common vision of the region. Both want dominance. The SEC wants dominance of brand in the Deep South (think Tennessee and South, and ESPN wants dominance over the large markets in the most college sports rich market in the U.S. for recruits and following, the Southeast and Oklahoma and Texas.

ESPN wants market (and therefore advertising) dominance from Virginia through Kentucky to Missouri, and possibly Kansas and South of all of that. The SEC would very much like to be in North Carolina and those talks in seriousness have been going on a little over a decade. It is the reason we added South Carolina and Arkansas when the bigger plan failed in 1991. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to Texas and South Carolina as a bridge to North Carolina.

3. There is more going on that sports realignment for football. There are reasons the Big 10 are only truly interested in AAU schools. By working together they can get more Federal Grant money by matching a grants requirements with the various specialties of member schools of the Big 10 working on aspects of said grant which they are best suited to work upon. The SEC if you haven't noticed has added AAU schools with Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They would love to have North Carolina and potentially Duke to begin to do for this region of the country what the Big 10 has done for the Northern Midwest and now which reaches to California.

4. I personally think the SEC could contain realignment well enough if the ACC simply survives and the two form a Southern academic consortium. Those combined schools could meet the needs of a growing region much better if they worked together. And the needs of the Southeast and Southwest are distinct from those of the Northern Midwest. A ACC minus perhaps only FSU should remain strong enough so that taking other members is not necessary. Then the two could work together for the region, including some non-ACC/SEC schools like Tulane, Emory, Rice, and others among the combined AAU membership of both.

So, you have think bigger than just football. The SEC could also profit from having another top 2 basketball brand. Kentucky and Kansas swap positions 1 & 2 in all time wins every few years. Kansas is AAU relates well to Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri as academic peers whether there is a brutal rivalry with Missouri in sports or not. I think a combination of an FSU or Clemson and Kansas would increase the volume of prime content for football and provide better revenue in the winter for basketball.

It's about the whole panorama of potentialities and not just football revenue. And given ESPN would find such a combination also profitable it makes thinking the bigger picture a lot easier.

The Big Ten cares alot about the AAU, but not enough to bring in California and Stanford because it would dilute their product. Perhaps a cautionary tale for the SEC if they want to add Clemson and Florida State.

Post: #25

Post: #26

(Today 09:21 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote: Seems like both schools are unabashedly burning bridges with their lawsuits and demands to make information public against the wishes of ACC leadership and Disney Inc.

That seems risky if there wasn't a P2 "safety net" waiting on the other side.

Or is it possible the Noles+Tigers end up in the Big XII or (worse?) homeless after their joint temper tantrum?

The lawsuits by FSU and Clemson are not temper tantrums. They are dead serious.

They are plaintiffs for two lawsuits and defendant in another in NC. How would you describe the emotional behavior of the ACC plaintiffs?

Post: #27

(Today 06:28 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:

(Today 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:

(Today 01:19 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:

(Today 12:04 PM)OneSockUp Wrote:

(Today 11:38 AM)TerpsvilleMayor Wrote: ESPN already told the SEC that they aren’t paying simply for more content, so the only real way for the SEC to add measurable money is to expand into new markets. Personally, I think this is why Virginia and North Carolina have been some quiet (sans the UNC BOG guy that was told to stfu). The SEC has also told us they want significant rivalries. The South’s Oldest Rivalry between UVA and UNC certainly fit that bill. Also, FOX allegedly already told the Big Ten no to adding Virginia, which makes this pair even more likely to be SEC leans.

Here's some logic coming straight from your foundations.

(1) The SEC wants significant rivalries.
(2) ESPN isn't paying for more content.

Therefore:

Adding more schools means that the SEC's significant rivalries will be played less often. (That's games like Ole Miss vs. Alabama; Auburn vs. LSU; Georgia vs. Tennessee.) Unless, of course, the SEC adds a ninth conference game to their season.

ESPN won't pay more for those additional conference games.

Therefore:

Adding schools diminishes the SEC's rivalries and adds no additional revenue.

--------------

Now consider adding football programs like UVa and UNC, which would both be closer to South Carolina in terms of brands and expectations than they would be to Oklahoma.

So in addition to losing rivalries and not making any revenue, the SEC would also be diluting the football product that has set it apart for decades.

If that's the case, I don't think the SEC should engage the BIG in an arms race if it means diluting the product in the process. There's no real need for them to add Clemson and Florida State anyway, let alone adding teams from a new market such as North Carolina and Virginia.

ESPN and the SEC are close business partners for two key reasons:
1. The most important one, they make each other money.
2. They share a common vision of the region. Both want dominance. The SEC wants dominance of brand in the Deep South (think Tennessee and South, and ESPN wants dominance over the large markets in the most college sports rich market in the U.S. for recruits and following, the Southeast and Oklahoma and Texas.

ESPN wants market (and therefore advertising) dominance from Virginia through Kentucky to Missouri, and possibly Kansas and South of all of that. The SEC would very much like to be in North Carolina and those talks in seriousness have been going on a little over a decade. It is the reason we added South Carolina and Arkansas when the bigger plan failed in 1991. Arkansas was seen as a bridge to Texas and South Carolina as a bridge to North Carolina.

3. There is more going on that sports realignment for football. There are reasons the Big 10 are only truly interested in AAU schools. By working together they can get more Federal Grant money by matching a grants requirements with the various specialties of member schools of the Big 10 working on aspects of said grant which they are best suited to work upon. The SEC if you haven't noticed has added AAU schools with Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri. They would love to have North Carolina and potentially Duke to begin to do for this region of the country what the Big 10 has done for the Northern Midwest and now which reaches to California.

4. I personally think the SEC could contain realignment well enough if the ACC simply survives and the two form a Southern academic consortium. Those combined schools could meet the needs of a growing region much better if they worked together. And the needs of the Southeast and Southwest are distinct from those of the Northern Midwest. A ACC minus perhaps only FSU should remain strong enough so that taking other members is not necessary. Then the two could work together for the region, including some non-ACC/SEC schools like Tulane, Emory, Rice, and others among the combined AAU membership of both.

So, you have think bigger than just football. The SEC could also profit from having another top 2 basketball brand. Kentucky and Kansas swap positions 1 & 2 in all time wins every few years. Kansas is AAU relates well to Texas, Texas A&M and Missouri as academic peers whether there is a brutal rivalry with Missouri in sports or not. I think a combination of an FSU or Clemson and Kansas would increase the volume of prime content for football and provide better revenue in the winter for basketball.

It's about the whole panorama of potentialities and not just football revenue. And given ESPN would find such a combination also profitable it makes thinking the bigger picture a lot easier.

The Big Ten cares alot about the AAU, but not enough to bring in California and Stanford because it would dilute their product. Perhaps a cautionary tale for the SEC if they want to add Clemson and Florida State.

Really? They only added AAU schools, just those that made them more money than Cal and Stanford. The SEC presidents have known what they wanted to accomplish since they first met with Roy Kramer in the '91. Nothing's changed and they done well to be well on top over everyone else in value, currently up 2.3 billion after the Big 10 went to 18. I'll continue to place my confidence in the Commissioner and the presidents he works with. There's more going on than realignment and more to realignment than football which the SEC already dominates. They want regional integrity, preserved or reunited rivalries, and top notch schools.