Conf. Realignment: Clemson and FSU
https://twitter.com/pff_college/status/1422264715791712262?s=21
according to PFF, Clemson and FSU reached out to the SEC about joining.
The death of the ACC is at hand
https://twitter.com/marcryanonair/status/1422255062185910274?s=21
Allegedly the SEC thinks only ND is a value add?
Clemson and FSU don't really expand the footprint like ND would, as they already have USC(NTUSC) and UF.
True, but as major "name brands" of college football, FSU and Clemson would still move the needle.
I agree with this.
FSU + Clemson should be their move. Miami as well, not sure who a 4th add would be to make even numbers.
All 3 of those would lock down all of florida and SC and add football value.
Any of those 3 would be better than anyone else vaialble except M, PSU, UW, ND, OSU, UOregon. And the Cal schools of course.
Georgia Tech so they can pretend their conference still plays school & lock down Georgia.
But if you’re adding teams that don’t expand your footprint, you’re just adding schools to split TV money with without adding eyeballs. Why would an SEC school vote to make less money annually to add Clemson and FSU? It isn’t like the SEC is hurting for football value here.
It's not about cable tv footprints anymore. It's about streaming and who has the best games on TV. Imagine the SEC gets FSU, Clemson, MIami and [player to be named later].
High profile (national brand) games:
Tex- Bama
Tex-LSU
Tex-UF
Tex-FSU
Tex-UGa
Tex-OU
OU-FSU
OU-Bama
OU-UF
OU-UGa
OU-LSU
Clem-FSU
Clem-Bama
Clem-LSU
Clem-UGa
Clem-UF
FSU-Bama
FSU-LSU
FSU-UGa
etc etc etc etc. Not all these games can happen every year, but the ENTIRE south from Tex-Fla will be glued to these SEC match ups from noon-11pm.
It’s absolutely about cable footprints. Every expansion involves an expansion into new markets. Including this one. SEC says they’re not interested in Clemson/FSU because there’s no value. B1G says they’re only interested in teams that add new markets.
It doesn’t matter how many people are physically watching. BTN doesn’t make money based on how many people watch it, they make money based on how many households have the channel available. You pay for a cable PACKAGE. Cable companies pay those channels based on how many packages they’re included in.
Streaming services are set up the exact same way. And most of those are still set up based on your location to determine which channels you receive. And there are still a TON of cable homes. It is absolutely still about markets.
Not disagreeing at all, but the logical conclusion is that you have super leagues that are nationally distributed into every market. So OR and ORST are in separate leagues, UCLA/USC, UofM/MSU, etc. Probably will end up as SEC uber alles or SEC/B1G split of the nation.
But that’s what essentially what this all boils down to. It’s an arms race and the two major powers are the SEC and the Big Ten. It’s the reality we are faced with right now.
True and the SEC already has a lot of schools in small market areas. I just can't see the SEC adding anymore teams unless they can renegotiate the contract with ESPN they signed for 2024-2034. That new contract was already for less than what the B1G was getting on their soon expiring contract and it was before adding Texas and Oklahoma.
ESPN also owns the SEC Network so they own cable and the streaming platform. They also have the exclusive contract for ACC football and basketball so I doubt they (ESPN) would be for any teams jumping from the ACC.
No, it's not.
If it was...why did they take Texas when they have Texas A&M?
That doesn't expand any footprint. Also, the SEC is national.
They have their deal with CBS, they have the SEC Network. ESPN and ESPN2 are national broadcasts.
When ABC has regional broadcasts...when was the last time you couldn't watch an SEC game because you weren't in the region?
Honest question. Name a time.
If you think this is about growing the SEC Network because presumably cable subscribers in Washington can't get the SEC Network.
1.I don't know that to be true.
2. I don't think it matters even if it is true.
3. It's Washington.
Clemson and Florida State are national brands, meaning more national games and more eyeballs on those games because it doesn't matter if you're from Ann Arbor, Seattle or Atlanta...you're going to watch a regular season Clemson/Bama game. You're going to watch Clemson/Georgia.
National appeal.
Expand the footprint if it brings in more MONEY, that's it.
You telling me the B1G is going to expand the footprint and take Kansas or Virginia over...NOTRE DAME?! Fuck the footprint if the Irish want in...we already have IU, Purdue from the state. Doesn't matter.
The thing about Notre Dame is, for every ND fan inside of Indiana there are 50 outside of Indiana. The ND footprint isn't limited to Indiana the same way that the University of Virginia's footprint is highly correlated to their state's border.
Texas is the cash cow not Texas A&M. The Texas Brand is arguably top 5 in the nation. Like Michigan, USC, Notre Dame. It's a big Fish that was in a little pond.
Actually..streaming services aren't really based on location at all except for which network affiliates you get (if your streaming service even gets those at all).
YoutubeTV (by far the biggest streaming service) has the SEC Network in Los Angeles, in Chicago, in New York etc. i.e. 'nationally' and it's the same for Hulu Live TV (the 2nd largest streaming service).
The idea that making one or two cable systems in some mid-tier markets move you from the Max package to the Extra package is worth adding a school is so hilariously quaint. The real money is in national contracts and that gets truer every year. And that's where big name football powers add the value.
That said it's quite possible the SEC doesn't want FSU and Clemson. There's from what I understand been some long-standing institutional animosity that could make this a harder sell.
August 3rd, 2021 at 10:51 AM ^
Your point about the financial incentives of cable packages is a good one. But I think given where this landscape is heading, if the SEC can wrap up Clemson and FSU then they will basically have a monopoly on college football. True, the incremental eyeballs added will be less, but they will effectively have a stronghold on NCAA football. I think that type of power is too good to pass up - especially if they can play keep-away from the BIG.
August 2nd, 2021 at 11:11 PM ^
it's like permutation city!
…but they would add eyeballs. Right now, Clemson & FSU fans are watching ACC TV or whatever network they’re on. If those schools joined the B1G then they’d be watching BTN. Bringing them into the SEC would monopolize the southeast. Monopolize your market & then conquer the world. It will be easier at that point because you’ll have all of the talent, save California.
But they wouldn’t. More people would physically be watching, but you aren’t paid based on how many people are physically watching, you’re paid based on how many homes have your channel available. New markets means new locations with your channel that cable companies can charge customers for. Those channels are paid the same whether you watch or not. That’s why having your channel in more homes is such a huge part of expansion. So you’re not adding value by adding teams from markets you already control. You’re just creating more teams to split the profits with.
I agree to an extent, but these are also "premium" or add-on channels. I could scale back my YouTube TV subscription and lose the Big Ten Network, but I specifically went with them because I could watch Michigan (mainly basketball, but football as well). I think this could be the case for some people re adding SEC Network if their team is added, although the extent of the impact would be much smaller than adding a completely different footprint.
I see what you’re saying, but there is still a thing called “ratings” and if 14 million ppl watch the noon game FSU- Alabama on sat 9/12 in 2028, 18 mill watch Tex- Florida at 3:30 and 26 mill watch LSU-Oklahoma in prime time
that’ll be worth more than 9 mill, 11mill and 17 mill viewers respectively in 2021.
if you are available on every cable market package but no one turns the TV on, will you get paid as much?
…not to mention corner the market. If Clemson and FSU plus say Miami & Georgia Tech go elsewhere, then there is another major conference in the SEC footprint. If those schools go to the SEC, then they own their footprint which just happens to have 1/2 (or more) of the HS talent in the country.
What's the SEC's endgame here?
They raid the Big 12 and ACC. The Big Ten does the same with the PAC-12 and what's left of the ACC and CFB is down to two viable, but unwieldy super-conferences. Then an alliance between the two that essentially shuts everyone else out of marquee matchups. For better or worse, we may be headed down that path.
August 3rd, 2021 at 10:14 AM ^
FSU is a big brand, but has an incredibly small & not comparatively wealthy alumni base. They were a women's teaching & nursing college for many years so they don't have the same kind of generationally wealthy alumni that so many schools have. It's also why they are and have been in the financial position they have been in for so long.
People really have to get over the "footprint" argument and understand this is about MONEY. Screw the "footprint."
It doesn't matter if Clemson is located in Gainesville, Florida or Tuscaloosa, Alabama. If they are going to add to value and the MONEY... THAT is all that matters.
Now you may have to expand the footprint to get more money (because you get a new TV market), but in the end, it's about MONEY.
The SEC is going to take Clemson and Florida St. over teams that expand the footprint (say, W. Virginia and Kansas).
Texas didn't expand the footprint, did they?
That says it all right there. Follow the dollars.
The footprint is where the money comes from. Last season here in the revenue generated per conference.
- Big Ten $768.9 million
- SEC: $728.9 million
- Pac-12: $533.8 million
- ACC: $496.7 million
- Big 12: $409.2 million
Look at those numbers and then factor in that the SEC played what, twice as many games as the B1G? Even in Basketball, with the B1G Covid policy how many B1G games were empty stadiums compared to SEC open stadiums.
The brand is important but so is the television footprint. The B1G was the first conference to realize that.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:23 PM ^
Its shocking to me that people don't understand what is happening. Footprint is completely irrelevant when you own all (or most) of the assets worth having. People watch brands that they're familiar with. Nobody gives a shit about watching Georgia Tech play football outside of Georgia Tech fans. So yea, you add the Atlanta market and nobody is going to watch because they'd rather tune in to Georgia vs Oklahoma.
The Big 10's only play if this happens is to go after Notre Dame, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, and Stanford. Fuck the footprint.
That's the thing though.
In the SEC...Georgia Tech is NOT the Atlanta market.
That's makes sense for the B1G.
But the SEC already has the Atlanta market. So to your point, even adding big cities doesn't always matter if the brand isn't strong.
Again, no one gives a shit about the South Bend market. We passing on Notre Dame for Georgia Tech and Atlanta or UCF and Orlando?
You think the SEC is trying to get Northwestern so they can have the Chicago market and "expand the footprint?"
Lol...all of this stuff is relative.
Does it make sense for the B1G to take USC, UCLA and 2-4 other Pac-12 schools? Yes, you get LA and an entrie region of the country. And sure, you expand the footprint as a result.
But give me Notre Dame and Pitt over Kansas and West Virginia. I couldn't care less about about expanding the footprint when Notre Dame is out here making elephant tracks.
College football is moving rapidly toward being nothing more than Saturday NFL. It's gotten so boring with traditional rivalries meaning nothing, minimal quality OOC games to preserve one's playoff hopes, and ultra-meaningless bowl games named after shit-ass corporations.
This is so sadly true it makes my heart hurt. As big of a college football fan as i was when my children were young...none of them picked up any interest in it, even attending games and being at bowl game parties. The product has been poor for a while now. I cant think of any of my childrens close friends that care at all about college sports either. Slow death...
I hope this contact was made via hand written notes delivered by pimply, snot-nosed middle schoolers.
Fair, but I would have went with the note from the roses video by outkast.
https://twitter.com/EricMacLain/status/1422266803380703238
There are a lot of people refuting this. Including Eric Mac Lain who played at Clemson and is an analyst for ACCN and ESPN.
Sounds like PFF College got a bit ahead of their skis
Maybe, but I doubt said teams or those in their orbit would say they were considering it at this point too.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:08 PM ^
Maybe. But either way, hopefully it pushes Notre Dame toward the BIG10.
We still lead for bringing onboard Iowa State though. I’m not too worried.
And Campbell promptly leaves ISU for a job in the SEC.
August 2nd, 2021 at 10:13 PM ^
Nice sarcasm.
Add UNC, Duke, Virginia, GT and call it good
That would be very ideal.
For whom?
No way that the B1G or SEC is going to dilute its per-school payout by adding a bunch of scrub football programs just for the sake of size.
But you’re not diluting your per-school payout. You’re adding some major media markets with the addition of those schools that will add to your TV money.
UNC/Duke adds the Charlotte and Raleigh markets (#22 and #24 markets), GT adds Atlanta (#7 market). That’s three top 25 markets added to the B1G’s already impressive list.
Then there’s the Winston-Salem/Greensboro NC market and the Virginia markets which rank ahead of places like New Orleans, Louisville, Memphis and Buffalo.
All of that adds up to an INCREASED payout, even with adding more mouths to feed
The very lucrative Atlanta market (combined with further opening up Georgia recruiting) is why I steadfastly have been in favor of adding Georgia Tech to the B1G if the opportunity ever arose.
Even then I'm not about to claim it would push Georgia Bulldogs football to the background, especially in southern Georgia and among Georgia natives. But between GT alums and fans and northern transplants, there's plenty of money ? to be made.
Adding UNC, Duke and Virginia along with GT would make it a contiguous stretch of states from the south along the seaboard to Pennsylvania and then west as far as Nebraska, and in the process add a lot more tuned in TVs than the addition of Rutgers and Maryland last expansion, especially when you take into account basketball too.
(edit) Yes, the NYC market may be the biggest, but honestly--- Rutger? And nearly everything written on the MGoBoard and elsewhere since last expansion indicates NYC doesn't care all that much about college football.
All 4 are AAU members too, for what it's worth.
If the ACC loses Clemson and FSU to the SEC, the dominoes begin to fall. Gotta catch those four!
I vote YES on Georgia Tech...hop skip and jump down 85..Atlanta #7 Market and most importantly I live outside of ATL so a big resounding YES to GT
Not a bad start. This would help a lot of B1G schools recruiting efforts down south. It would be ideal to pull a school from FLA and TX also.
The B1G needs to offer UNC, Duke, Viginia, ND and Clemson from the ACC. USC, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Colorado from the PAC. That would be a 24 team Super Conference with 4 - 6 team divisions. 5 division games would allow for crossover games like Michigan/OSU, ND/USC, etc, plus some non-conference. Or the B1G could opt to play a conference only schedule, with a 4 team playoff to determine the champion. Those teams would strengthen the conference in football, basketball, soccer, baseball and softball.
West
- USC
- Nebraska
- Oregon
- Washington
- Stanford
- Colorado
East
- UNC
- Duke
- Virginia
- Clemson
- Rutgers
- Maryland
North
- Penn St
- Michigan
- Michigan St
- Northwestern
- Wisconsin
- Minnesota
South
- Iowa
- Illinois
- Indiana
- ND
- Purdue
- Ohio St
August 2nd, 2021 at 11:39 PM ^
I can't say it enough: with the lone exception of Notre Dame, which easily qualifies academically despite not having AAU membership, the B1G won't even consider non-AAU schools. The conference presidents have final say and hitched their wagons to AAU membership before most of us were born. Clemson, being non-AAU, won't be considered. Florida St., OTOH, is a member, as are several PAC12 schools and half of the remaining ACC schools including UNC, Duke, GT, and Virginia.
August 2nd, 2021 at 11:56 PM ^
If they can’t accept teams that are not members, then I would think they would need to kick Nebraska out. Even if they were when they joined. This is a different NCAA and if they want to be competitive and lure other good teams, then they need to scrap that AAU requirement. Unless their plan is to compete against the Ivey League.
August 3rd, 2021 at 12:04 PM ^
Oh, I think it's a requirement. But it's conditional. I still believe if Clemson (with GT or Virginia) or Oklahoma (bringing Texas) came a knocking, the Big 10 would forget about it.
And of course, Notre Dame we've been asking out since 1991. So you know it's irrelevant there.
I will say though, Clemson isn't Oklahoma. Clemson was good back when I was kid, and now they are great, but most of their existence has been Iowa. Oklahoma has been good to great my entire life.