The networks have a vested interest in the remaining schools and determined each will prosper and continue on in major college athletics long term. As a WVU fan that is a good thing. They saw value in the schools and the ratings delivered to make money for the networks. They didn’t want to lose those properties to someone else. That is significant.
Trouble in ACC land?
- Thread starter Buckaineer
- Start date
Some serious copium here lol. UT and OU gave this conference and us credibility, stop trying to pretend we’re better off now. We might be able to win more games once they’re out, but financially and long term this is a big hit. The networks who are orchestrating the top programs from the Big XII and PAC to join the B1G and SEC do not “see value” in any other conferences besides those two in the grand scheme. Because the network that fills time slots with corn hole and women’s basketball can still pencil in Big XII games, does not mean they are rooting for us to succeed.
OU lended some credibility by winning and making playoffs except when it mattered. Texas was just a name and did nothing for the conference whatsoever. They blocked previous expansion, creation of a network and any progressive movement for the remaining members. These schools kept the conference from being stable by constantly projecting the do what we want, let us be more significant or else mentality that spread everywhere and reduced the other members standing, revenues and recruiting greatly.
Now the conference is free of all that and can work together as a United conference to better everyone’s status and not just one or two schools to the detriment of everyone else. The significant outlay of revenues for years to come illustrates the remaining schools bring more value to their network partners than the ACC with Clemson and FSU or the PAC with Washington and Oregon. That is a good thing.
USC and UCLA were added for B1G cable package fees. Like a better version of the reason they added Rutgers. USC is a major brand, UCLA on the other hand is probably only involved for political reasons as USC wouldn’t go without them. The SEC with ESPN owning its network has a different strategy to simply add the highest quality programs available within their footprint. Long term the SEC will win as cable becomes a thing of the past.
The Big Ten has been and will continue to be the top conference financially and power wise. The SEC isn’t going to surpass them but will undoubtedly try to keep up.
Once all these big schools start having to beat each other every year, some fanbases are going to become unhappy pretty quick though. Someone has to lose the games. SeC and B10 schools that weren’t the big dogs will make more money for a time but they’ll lose more and have less exposure too.
Your biggest mistake is equating recent wins/losses as somehow mattering in these discussions. OU and UT have massive generational fanbases, stadiums, and tradition. The remaining Big XII plays in stadiums about 50-60% of the size, with maybe one (BYU?) post WW2 national title between them. What the Big XII lacks without UT and OU cannot be made up in the time it will take to renegotiate the next TV deal and more than likely will never make it up.
We make more money than the ACC because they locked themselves in for way too long. Long term deals do not take into consideration inflation or a rising sellers market. We make more money than the PAC because they have a failed TV network that needs inventory. We also dared to cross ESPN and boxed them and Fox against each other while the ACC kissed the ring and had them run their network. If the ACC were to get a chance to renegotiate they would surpass Big XII TV revenues guaranteed.
The playoff expanding is to make it so a 9-3 OU, Michigan, etc gets in.
VT will never be asked to SEC. If DC was that important Tech would have gone to SEC before even going to Big East.
I do think that if the Big XII invites basketball only schools to the conference, it will be the beginning of the end for them to be a top football conference long term.
Bowlsby and others claimed OU and UT were worth as much as 50% of the BIG 12s value. The remaining value of media deals came from the remaining 8 schools— which then were 50% of OU and UTs value in BIG 12 events.
Now the conference has added four schools to help bring back lost value— and the media partners agreed and added millions to the league for the additions. Where you are mistaken is in pretending that the other schools had no fanbases or success. The league was made up of several schools that Had their own significant fanbases and successes. The conference may have added more money if Ou and Ut remained, but it certainly gained and hasn’t declined in value because they are gone. Matchups for ratings will come again via the successful schools in conference that rise to the top and get the top windows, as well as from OOC matchups.
The BIG 12 makes more money than the ACC due to demonstrated tv ratings, larger viewership and bigger fanbases. Has nothing to do with the ACC locking themselves in long term- in fact they had to do that to get a network to try to approach what the BIG 12 was earning, and even after that they had to continue to lie to membership and the media about superior BIg 12 revenues So they could feel superior. Same with the PAC. Smaller fanbases and viewing and less nationally desirable games on tv brought them less value in media rights. Then a decade of posters like yourself on message boards and social media made ie ACC and PAC fans believe they were superior and in a better financial and more stable situation when they actually never were and never had been.
It remains true now and going into the future- the BIG 12 is in the third most valuable position of the major conferences. Once the ACC loses its top two earners it will be even more true.
Last edited:
Not at that time, I think the next round when the current ACC deal is up... it will happen. Virginia, NOVA, DC is now important to them.
Playoff expansion is for inclusion of more programs so the entire interest in college football doesn’t decline as the same 4 or 5 schools ( largely based on tv contracts) are promoted for and put in the playoff via artificial means each year ( rather than basing on actual on field results.). Fans were sick and tired of that. Of course with greed comes stupidity so we see certain elements ( see Texas/SEC) trying to monopolize the new system before it even comes to fruition. But no one outside those leagues wants 6 B10 and 7 SEC teams in playoffs. Years worth of bowl records shows that won’t ever be warranted.
Would be a death knell for the sport as viewers tune out. Again people want their programs of choice to have participation, not to watch meaningless SEC or B 10 teams.
Last edited:
Exactly.... and which school in Virginia gives them that, fits their profile? Not UVA. UVA is a B10 target.
UVA is the more academic and well known school. VT has dropped significantly from their Big East football successes.
Both the B10 and SEC will go after UVA before VT. The B10 may not even have VT on its radar. For the SEC they would likely go with VT only as backup if UVA joins the B10. Even then it wouldn’t be guaranteed- a school with more recent or long term football and basketball success and better ratings like Louisville probably has a better chance.
UVA is very similar to ie Ole Miss- don’t kid yourself. And it’s simply much more “ prestigious” than VT.
I have to disagree with that statement. Other than the students showing up to games wearing a shirt and tie, with the ladies in dresses, that's where the similarity ends. Charlottesville, Va is nothing like Oxford, Ms. This is more like Biden voters vs. Trump voters. Snotty rich kids vs. good ole rednecks.
Not talking about the towns although Oxford and Charlottesville aren’t all that different.
Both fanbases are very similar.
Try growing up, and acting like an adult. You're the same person that picks on a 90 year old man, and calls his mother a whore. You're truly a sick individual, which is why nobody on these forums wants you around.
Is that really what is being said here? Or the inevitable expansion for more conference revenue in the future.
I can explain it if you need me to...
With your logic, the SEC would not of grabbed TAMU, or even Texas really since they have had isolated success on the Natty level. B10 would not of grabbed UCLA since they only excell in basketball historically. Why on earth would Washington be on the B10's radar?
I know you are not that simple...
Last edited:
The SEC is interested in putting the best product on the field/court. The B1G is interested in markets/academic clout. I doubt the SEC sees VT as a priority, they could have had them at Beamer’s peak, I doubt they want them when they’re averaging less than 6 wins per year for over their last 5 seasons in a mediocre conference.
Shall I list your message board accomplishments turd?
If you think CFE is a 90 year old man....we are ALL laughing at you.
No one wants you here.....so leave.
I would venture to say that the BIG is interested in putting out the best product.
If they allow a white trash punk like you on the forum, then everybody will eventually leave. You add no content value to any post. White trash punk is all you are, and all you'll ever be.
Adding Rutgers, Maryland and UCLA suggests they are more motivated by market expansion. The 3 of them have probably a combined 20 weeks in the top 25 over the past 20 years.
I would say that UCLA is about to change some of that. Rutgers yes you are right about that. Maryland has potential to be as good as a lot of schools in the SEC. And how long was Texas in the top 25 the past 5-7 years??? That's why I think as soon as FSU gets the AAU the BIG might jump on them. They are a bigger name than Oregon and Washington.
Texas has won an NC and played for another within the last 20 years. There is a less than 1% chance either of the 3 schools I mentioned play in an expanded CFP, let alone win an NC in the next 20 years.
Oh bro...you mad?
Go back to the michigan board..no on wants your low iq posts here.
You should tell everyone how you went around here saying you were Message Board Royalty....remember that? OMG we laughed and laughed at you.
Now head over to the woodshed and tell your buddy queenie you are owning me....LMAO...OMG....you are such fun.
Last edited:
^^^^ Pure white trash
Bullies a 90 year old man, and calls his deceased mother a whore, and somehow thinks he's the cool guy on the forum. Pure white trash is all you are, and all you'll ever be.
Bullies a 90 year old man, and calls his deceased mother a whore, and somehow thinks he's the cool guy on the forum. Pure white trash is all you are, and all you'll ever be.
I disagree too.
I am not far from Charlottesville and have been in and out of it for decades. UVA is significantly more suited for the BIG 10 in many ways from culture to esteemed academics. Army law is there and their medical/nursing/pharmacy schools are national leaders. Ole Miss can't touch UVA. Now Vanderbilt.......that's another story.
VT has serious game in engineering and has a relatively new medical school (DO I think).
I'll give credit to Ole Miss's rifle team but they can't consistently beat us. LOL!
Similar threads
