https://twitter.com/sapakoff/status/1706993508031045728?s=46
But Clemson fans likely won't have to wait that long to soothe the sting of a relatively disappointing season with big-picture perspective.
School administrators indicate an announcement about a Clemson bolt from its growing financial disadvantage in the ACC relative to SEC and Big Ten schools is coming soon, probably along with Florida State and North Carolina and perhaps another ACC school or more — even as University of South Carolina officials try to block Clemson from the SEC.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
And there it is. Its just more posturing and more peacocking by an entity that has no way out. And negotiating is a 2-way street. Clemson can demand whatever they want, but their rights are signed, and the ACC has no obligation to listen. They're every bit as stuck as FSU, and this is just more saber rattling to get the public on their side.
Once again, I'll believe it when I see it.
Kind of hoping this come to a head in 3 years when we are good at football again. Then we might be able to go somewhere better than the Big 12 or sun belt.
Same. I know a lot of people on here think we would be a shoe in for SEC if the ACC disbanded today, but I am not so sure we would get an invite. I'm hoping that our administration is a firm "no" on dissolving the ACC unless we already have a SEC invite locked down.
I see no world where VT is on anyone's radar right now. The ACC is our best and only home, for better or worse. We don't want the turmoil of a disintegrating ACC.
Unrelated, where was FSU's and Clemson's enthusiasm for uneven revenue distribution when they both sucked and VT was carrying the league? (Admittedly not w/ FSU's reputation or Clemson's results.)
First of all, it's not about how good a program is at football. It's about the value they would bring to the conference.
Secondly, unless there are major changes to the coaching staff, we're not going to be "good at football" again in 3 years
Has almost nothing to do with win/loss record...unless you're bringing national championship revenue you aren't adding anything. It's about adding TV sets/subscriptions in states you don't have footprint. Virginia is not representative in either the SEC or B1G. I guarantee you if the acc breaks up uva and VT go to either conference, but not to the same one.
Respectfully disagree. Cord cutting is gaining traction. The paradigm of today is the brand attraction and number of eyeballs a school/brand can bring to a game. Also consider that as payouts for each school in the B1G/SEC approaches $100M per team per year, we (VT) would need to be worth at least $1.28B in TV Media Rights Deal. I don't even think Norte Dame is worth this much. Why $1.28B? Let's be conservative and say each SEC team get $80M per year in TV Rights. So if VT joins an SEC that already has 16 teams, 16x$80M = $1.28B. No team already in the SEC or B1G is going to want to add a team that reduces shares. Maybe we shallow our pride and take a partial share like Stanford and Cal-Berkeley. Okay, but how much less? I'm telling you, College Football has gone completely plaid.
We are decades behind on laws catching up with cord cutting. Blackouts and ad revenue, it's all a mess.
ESPN is dying, they are looking like Kodak, not fuji films. They are getting rid of their on air "talent" in droves to stay afloat. It will be interesting to see what happens but they seem like they are dying. They are devoid of personality which is what made them. They seem so focused on selling the product they bought (NFL, SEC) than selling the product they made (sports center, the Big show, pardon the interruption, etc.) Unless management evolved and ESPN changes what they do then they will continue to make decisions like it's 2003.
There are a lot of things that will have too happen for eyes on a team to trump tv markets because the system and they people in charge aren't built for that.
I'm not convinced ESPN is dying, but I do think they are at a critical impasse. They are - and always have been - a middleman in what is essentially a supply chain for a non-physical product. In the future though, this middleman may not be necessary.
This is where it gets tricky... eyes on a team isn't close to trumping TV markets, buttt it matters a lot more than it used to. No one knows what the next 5, 10, 15 etc years hold for broadcasting. ESPN/Disney is confident that the NFL, NBA, and the SEC will still attract casual viewers for the next 5-10 years, hence their investment. They are less confident about every other piece of inventory they have.
ESPN is saying 'we're going to buy the known quantity, and sit on everything else for now'
I agree they are buying the know quantity and sitting on everything else, which is how companies die. They were the ones that bucked the trend, no one thought a bunch of yahoos talking about sports would be a big hit. They came at sports differently yelling boo-yah instead of a simple applaud, they made commercials that were simply amazing. They weren't supposed to succeed but they did because they led the way. And now they are sitting back.
With all due respect your numbers are way off. 16 current teams at 80 million each in TV rights would indeed be the 1.28 billion you calculate.
If VT (or any other school) was then to be added to the conference, then the TV rights would have to increase by $80 million so that none of the existing schools would receive less.
If the contracts had to go up by the 1.28 billion you mention that would be almost doubling the money for all schools.
You are correct. So then the next logical question; is VT worth $80 Million in Media Rights?
At this point, I don't even think it's just the coaching. VT would get obliterated in the Big Ten or SEC right now, and not just on the field. I think we need a reboot from top-to-bottom in the athletics department. Whit just doesn't have a grasp on how to manage and operate a successful large football enterprise. And we have too many old guard loyalists still with roles who think we can just follow the Beamer blueprint back to success.
If - and enormous if - we ever do get an invite to a P2 conference, I sincerely hope we are set up administratively better than we are now. We will not survive in football with the current leadership, again from top-to-bottom in the AD.
I also agree with this - I think it even goes beyond the AD too. The entire organization needs to be aligned on mission, values, goals in order to be successful. I just don't believe that VT is, as an organization, wholly committed to big time football success. Therefore, until such an alignment exists, I think finding success is going to be extremely difficult. We have excruciating times ahead for the foreseeable future and I have very little faith that we will return to even modestly competitive levels (8ish wins most years) for at least the next two decades. I would love nothing more than to be wrong here. I think it would be prudent, however, for all of us to set our expectations a bit lower for the future. My thinking is if we're expecting 1-3 wins each year it will hurt less when that's what we get.
It is. Just not for football.
This take is already worn out. You and VTJ12 have absolutely zero knowledge on any of these claims. You have spent no time in the athletic department, have no idea who the power players are (outside of an article from espn throwing shade at Whit that everyone swore was a hit piece based on ACC negotiations), what the structure of the organization looks like, what the donors are saying, etc. I personally am not a fan of Sands but I have no idea how committed to football he is. I would say the increase in our coaching staff budget is evidence that it is at least somewhat important. I do know Whit and he understands exactly how important football is. I have a bold take for you. Football coaches are extremely hard to hire. If it were so easy then Auburn, Nebraska, Michigan, Miami, FSU, Oregon, USC, Texas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, Notre Dame, etc wouldn't have had decade plus stretches of bad football. That isn't even getting to the NFL which are highly run organizations solely focused on football.
To say you don't believe we will even be competitive for more than 2 decades is the most outrageous thing I've read on TKP. Tell me what else your crystal ball tells you about the year 2045! I would love to hear your thoughts on the financial markets two decades from now. Will we have flying cars?? Will cancer be cured? Will the US still be the hedgemon?
Can we please talk about the current roster, current recruits, current opponents, current strategic decisions and leave this Chicken Little/Eeyore alone for one thread. At least stop pretending its remotely insightful.
Honestly, I'm sick to death of the "Whit and Sands aren't committed enough to football" schtick. It seems like the reasoning goes "football is bad and other sports are good so we must be devoting too many resources to other sports and not enough to football". No one has any insider knowledge or evidence, they're just looking at results and drawing their own conclusions about the cause based on what some dude said on the internet.
If you have a solid reason to believe that Whit isn't devoted to success in football, please share it. And if you think that the football team being bad is sufficient proof that the administration doesn't care about football, then you fail at logic.
Totally entitled to your opinion and that's fine. But to come here and post this on a thread that's about complete rumor and speculation to begin with and basically tell people to stick to discussing the facts is a pretty interesting take. I'm also entitled to my opinion, and I have nearly a decade of football getting increasingly worse under the current AD's watch to point to. Hit piece or not, the ESPN article was researched and sources checked. Sometimes the truth is the best disinfectant.
Just so we're clear, I'm stating absolutely none of this as fact. I am not professing to know what is going on behind the scenes.
However, based on what little evidence I've seen (our general downward trajectory over the last 13 years, bungled coaching hires and way-too-soon and way-too-big contract extensions, the ESPN expose, voting to add cal standford and smu, etc) I simply said that I don't believe our administration is committed to successful football. And that I have little faith things will improve markedly any time soon. I hope I'm wrong. I think it would be a good idea to temper expectations.
But I think we're all entitled to our own opinions so I value your perspective
Whit voted against adding Cal, Stanford, etc. Sands voted yes. There are two different levels of administration.
Whit doesn't have a Vote in matters like these. He's might've 'lobbied' Sands to vote no (we don't know this to be true), but Sands voted yes (we do know this).
I also don't understand how adding Cal/Stanford/SMU hurts us? I don't like it, but from what I understand it shouldn't be an issue.
For starters we'll be asking our students to fly across the country to regularly play conference games in all sports. Not only will that lead to significantly higher travel costs, but its going to take our students out of class for longer for these athletic events.
I know you know this, but Maurice Clarett and Manziel never attended real classes in college. UNC basketball players took fake no-show tests. DeAndre Ayton was paid 250,000 to go to Arizona, and took 8 hours one semester. Zion Williamson dropped all but 2 classes and never went spring semester. Ohio State has scores of players that take "online" classes in columbus. The academic shipped long, long, long sailed.
Man I'm not talking about revenue sports with kids on NIL deals. I'm talking about Olympic sport athletes who are going to feel the biggest brunt of the ramifications of this move. Those kids are fucked. They're not getting NIL money, a lot of them aren't even on scholarship, and they're going to be having to make these trips every year. Its bullshit.
Pretty sure the deal said that 1 trip from east coast to west coast once every 2 years, and a trip to dallas area every year. The west coast teams will be doing an outsized amount of travel.
I'm curious to know how this will work in football.
Does this mean the west coast teams will have "home" games against east coast teams at Jerry World? Does it mean that the west coast teams will rotate through the ACC opponents faster than the east coast teams, just so that the east coast teams only have to go out there every three years?
Quote from On3 interviewing Phillips:
Source
VT, which has largely been treated like dogshit by the conference since before we even joined, is inevitably going to be paired with one or two of the 3 new schools. And that is going to suck for VT to have to travel out to Texas/California every other year.
VT also has a better chance than most of the rest of the ACC at getting into a better league when the ACC eventually collapses (and, trust me, it will - no league has ever gone to un-even revenue sharing and survived to tell the tale) so making it harder for VT to leave the league and locking us into the ACC, which is plummeting to the bottom of the heap faster than the speed of sound, to be continually screwed on revenues is not good for the AD. There is a really good reason Babcock was lobbying Sands to vote no. And Sands has other reasons for voting yes (Cal is his alma mater - who of us wouldn't want to throw VT a bone if we were in position to do so?. He also thinks, foolishly IMO, that by throwing Cal and Stanford a bone, they'll help get VT into the AAU- giving up anything and providing a lifeline to anyone on an empty promise is dumb AF)
Expanding the ACC by adding west coast teams is bad for football. It's super short sighted as we get a little extra money for a few years (not enough to make a significant difference, mind you) but will end up with EVEN LESS money for the last 6 or so years of the ridiculously lousy existing contract. VT is completely pickle-f*ed here and the worst possible outcome is forcing the ACC to last a bit longer.
If you don't see it yet, just wait 10 years and then you'll see. The move is effectively a death penalty. A long, slow, painful death. And we did it to ourselves. It's the most embarrassing self own we could have mustered, and we did it. Shameful.
Schools that have a better chance than VT of getting into a better league:
FSU
Clemson
UNC
UVa
Schools with which we're equal:
NCSU
GT
Miami (thought about putting them in the previous group but couldn't do it)
Edit to include Dook here too. Their hoops alone is worth a lot.
If you can look at those top 4, then at our peers, and feel good about the number of open slots in the B1G and SEC, you're a more optimistic person than I am.
UVA doesn't bring in football revenue, nothing else matters. No one watches them. They aren't in the top tier
Yeah, I mean if we're talking about profile fits, the SEC is going to want VT over UVa. One will prioritize football, the other won't. One drives viewership numbers and ratings, even when their football program is garbage, UVa doesn't, even when they're good.
Good basketball and Olympic sports programs are great and all, but it doesn't get you invited into a premier football conference.
I think both the B1G and SEC are kinda waiting for the ACC to collapse and then they'll make a bunch of moves. I know there is a pretty strong contingent of folks who believe that cord-cutters rule the landscape right now but I think good old fashioned TV contracts still drive the bus - for now. That said, VT and UVA are both sitting pretty in one of the best television markets that has not yet been tapped by either the SEC or the B1G (North Carolina is another). FSU and Clemson might be attractive to the B1G from a financial standpoint since that gives them better carriage fees in two states they don't currently have any teams in. Florida and South Carolina are already in the SEC portfolio so those teams aren't super attractive to the SEC (plus, I'll bet dollars to donuts that UF and USCe would lobby hard against the addition of FSU and Clemson respectively). With Virginia being one of the top untapped markets for both leagues I could see it going one of two ways. Either the B1G and SEC split the state (i.e. UVa and VT each get picked up by one or the other) or one of the leagues tries to big dog the other by grabbing both teams to lock up the state entirely. In either scenario, VT and UVA both end up in one of the two big leagues. The TV market is way too much money for these leagues to just leave on the table. The problem right now is the GOR. I would bet very large sums of money that not only lawyers from the ACC teams have looked at how to beat it - B1G and SEC executives want to know how soon they can tap into a very rich market without triggering huge sums of money to, essentially, "buy" those teams.
The ACC collapsing is going to be great for VT, UVA, UNC, and NC State. Those are the premier football properties in VA and NC and the SEC and B1G would be foolish not to want a piece of it. I think the SEC and B1G are each heading for 24 teams (split into, wait for it, 2 12-team divisions, each with 2 6-team sub-divisions). It wouldn't shock me if, given the B1G's latest moves and lack of apparent response from the SEC, that the SEC is waiting for the ACC to collapse so they can gobble up VT, UVA, UNC, and NCState in one fell swoop, adding two huge markets they don't already have and locking the B1G out of those markets simultaneously. Plus, unlike the B1G, I think the SEC is more interested in keeping their footprint more or less to the south east.
I think the only way VT gets screwed is if the ACC keeps on keeping on and the SEC gets impatient and takes JMU and/or ODU to get Virginia's market. But it's worth it to the SEC to hold out for VT and Uva since those programs have bigger profiles and have the infrastructure to move to big-boy football fairly seamlessly.
All of this, just perfect and 100% correct. Been banging this drum for a while, glad to see someone else who has seen the light!
USCe already said this week they don't want Clemson in the SEC.
I'll just say:
I hate what this means for college football. But I don't think it negatively impacts VT that much.
I think you and I agree on quite a lot, generally, but we just disagree on this.
The Big12 is going to be in much better shape than the ACC before long. When the ACC falls apart (and it will) VT going to the Big12 would still be better than the ACC lasting longer and VT staying put. IF VT doesn't make it into one of the P2 leagues (which, I'm fairly confident we would) the Big12 would absolutely take us and we'd be better off there than staying put. The ACC hanging on by a thread is the worst case scenario for VT. Therefore, adding teams to "stabilize the league" is bad for VT.
yes, that is precisely my point. The AD and the rest of the VT organization are NOT aligned.
Like, I don't think I could have spelled it out any better.
But we don't know that - we know that Sands voted to add these schools. Did I miss something where Whit said he was opposed to this?
Yes, Whit said he was against it.
Source? I haven't even seen this from any of the 'insiders' I follow.
If one assumes that the ACC is our only, best option (and I honestly think that's a pretty solid assumption), then doing whatever it takes to keep the ACC going would be seen as trying to ensure the ongoing success of our sports teams, including football. And, given current realities, adding those three teams helps stabilize the ACC. Even if I hate the fact that they're in our conference now.
I kind of hope we are good at football again.
Pure speculation.
But even if it was going down something like this, no way that Virginia (the state) isn't involved in either the B1G or the SEC wishlist.
Translation: "We're not interested, until we are."
UVa is the prize here. It's tough to admit, but we're not going to get a look.
Agree. A lot of people forget the initial announcement of the ACC raiding the Big East to expand did not include VT. It took Mark Warner strong-arming UVA to make it happen. I think eventual ACC add Syracuse was the initial want from the ACC along with BC and Miami.
That's because the ACC has been stupidly prioritizing basketball above all else this whole time.
As the SEC laughs as a powerhouse football conference that can shovel money to good rising basketball programs.
Yeah but the SEC still expects all schools to at least pretend to care about football.
UVa has not ever shown that it prioritizes football in the slightest. If they get money, it's going to basketball and the Olympic sports, it's been their business model since the 90s. If VT gets the money, it's going to football.
In hindsight... checks notes... Syracuse has done nothing for the ACC. Great call there ACC- should have taken them over VT, yeah. Football has never sniffed anything close to a division title, and your precious basketball was 100% meh/mid the whole time. And Beoheim openly cheated. congrats ACC. Like the ND move, another great decision there.
Maybe. But there are two major power conferences, and two power-conference-worthy schools in Virginia. We're going to get a look.
There's 69 P5-level teams right now, 32 are/will be in a P2. Of the remaining 37 teams, 25ish are relevant enough to 'get a look'.
Will VT make the cut? I don't know. I go back and fourth on it every day.
Whatever the case, I do think we're a 'bubble team.' I don't know if we're last 4 in or first 4 out, but I'm pretty confident that's where we sit.
Not to disagree but to provide another data point. When I moved to Charlotte area I always saw VT everyday while at work. Lived in Rock Hill SC and wasn't the only VT fan in the area. It's the edge of the 2 regions (Mid Atlantic and SE) but I would say it's got enough population to be at the bottom of the comparison for NOVA and Atlanta.
If your looking for whole brand promotion for the conference then we are a good sell since we always bring the views no matter who just let us see the game.
I also agree that we could be in or out and I really hope we have someone that can sell us better than we have before otherwise we are probably out.
I was in Montenegro last week, and ran into a guy wearing a VT hat.
Not sure what it means, but these kinds of data points are less and less rare.
That's probably a better way to put it than my blanket statement above. We're on the bubble. Which is unpleasant in basketball. It's existential when we're talking about conferences.
Our edge in that bubble area is that we travel well to games and bowls. We are selling out a stadium with a 1-3 record. We have a strong fan base. They just unfortunately don't donate as well as they attend.
Like I said - I tend to agree with this. I'm just not sure network execs and conference commissioners do.
Being the only ACC football team that regularly sells out its stadium- outside of Clemson recently- has to account for something. Do you want half empty stadiums on TV? Take UNC, Miami of UVA instead.
As with all things realignment, it's not real until it is.
ACC realignment reporting just feels like a boy-who-called-wolf
Phillips better take em for everything they've got
Our downfall really could not have happened at a worse time
If expansion was about on field results, UCLA wouldn't have been invited to the Big Ten
I don't think that expansion has anything to do with on field results, but I do think it has to do with on field potential. One could argue that VT's lack of success post-Beamer suggests that VT might have just capitalized on a great coach in a moment of time in the college football landscape.
If the decision makers feel that way, then we are not as attractive as we think/hope we are.
Meh
I would say that everything from 1995 through 2012 shows the potential that VT has. Enough to hold their own annually, capable of drawing big numbers on TV, selling out venues with a fanbase willing to travel to away destinations, and even those last points are still valid now while we are bad. And then our peak is being able to legitimately contend for National Championships while carrying the flag for an entire conference.
Just because we are down now doesn't mean we'll be down forever. Our potential is exactly why we'll get picked up. That and we are within one of the largest untapped tv markets remaining outside of the SEC and Big Ten.
So VT hasn't shown any potential in the modern recruiting era? Kinda supports the argument I had above, about VT capitalizing on a specific time in the college football landscape.
Not saying that I necessarily hold this opinion, but a lot of knowledgeable people in the media (Bud Elliott, Andy Staples, Richard Johnson) do. I wouldn't be surprised if network execs do too.
Yeah I don't think anyone is looking at it to that level of nuance. Broadly speaking, VT has shown the ability to fund and maintain a strong football program that contributes to the success of the overall conference. The school might be down now, but few are expecting it to stay there.
And a whole hell of a lot of talking heads in the media cannot think more than 2 years in the past. The culture of instant gratification and 'what have you done for me lately' is driving page clicks when it comes to talking points over expansion, and its completely muddying the discourse on why these moves are actually happening.
There was a sustained 20-25 year period where VT was in the national scene in football where they annually played games that mattered. And they did it by prioritizing football over everything, and making sure the football program remained healthy. One bad hire of a head coach will hurt any school and Fuente certainly hurt VT. Nobody is expecting them to stay there. Most are expecting us to pull out of it, either with Pry or the next coach. And if you're the SEC or Big Ten, you'd much rather bring on someone with the proven track record of VT, who is able to take additional funding and flourish (as we did right after being invited to the Big East and the ACC) rather than someone like UVa or UNC where they've never been able to truly step up to the plate in the sport. The conferences will take those schools, mainly because the UNC basketball brand is strong and UVa is a great academic school with strong Olympic sports in a big tv market, but if you're looking for the school (outside of FSU and Clemson) that will give you the biggest football ROI, you're looking at Virginia Tech.
Fun Fact: Virginia Tech has the 24th highest winning percentage and the 17th most wins in FBS
http://fs.ncaa.org.s3.amazonaws.com/Docs/stats/football_records/FBS.pdf
We are not just a flash in the pan because of Beamer. Shoutout to Shelton for his historical article.
The bold is what I disagree with. I think there are a lot of people in the industry who believe this is the new norm for VT. They think our ceiling is way closer to Pitt, UVA, etc than we are to PSU or Clemson.
And as I said, in the current culture of instant gratification, short attention spans, and inability to think of data more than 24 months old, I would expect nothing less.
Before Dabo, those same people thought Clemson was permanently washed and they would never regain the footing they had in the 90s. Even last year there were people convinced FSU was never going to be good again. Before Fedora, there were people who thought UNC would never put together a competent football program capable of playing in meaningful games. So yeah, excuse me while I scoff at the thought of the opinions of those same people about VT in the current state are at all meaningful.
When you refer to these "people" they are the ones that will also bang the drum on the trend (almost always down) and if not, will openly root for failure. That sells. That's the "people" you hear saying these things. For those on the inside, that you never hear from, that's not their take. It's easy to say never, then hop on board as it's getting better.
Cynicism and controversy sells. Just look at the prevailing mantra around VT twitter right now, its all negative all the time.
Doesn't mean its right, its just what gets the most page clicks.
What I meant was, even if we end up in the B1G or SEC within the next couple of years, in the midst of a complete rebuild with coaches who have not yet shown that they are capable of righting the ship...unless we completely pull a 180 in the next season or two, we'll be a bottom feeder for at least a decade. Sure it'll be good being in one of the big conferences, but not gonna make watching football any easier for the foreseeable future.
I think getting into the SEC would be a boon for recruiting. Like, automatically add 10 spots to our recruiting rating a year after it's announced.
if I had to choose between bottom feeder in the SEC or bottom feeder in the ACC I would take the SEC. Every. Single. Time.
we are currently an ACC bottom feeder and there are approximately zero signs pointing to that changing any time soon. If we got into the SEC in the next couple years that would be a huge shot in the arm for our coffers and, as bar points out, recruiting. We may still be a bottom feeder in the SEC for a decade but at least we'd have the resources to win our OOC games. If we stay in the ACC, we'll be a bottom feeder in the ACC for a decade AND we'll lose all our OOC games.
Sure, but the ACC is going to die, so it'll be a choice between SEC bottom feeder or middling Sun Belt, lol
kinda kidding
Fuck Clemson and FSU- let them go- fuck them. We used to beat Clemson like a drum. And they are too good for us now- fuck them. Their hoops program is certainly too good for the ACC too of course. Fuck you- leave. FSU was coached by Willie Taggart a few years ago and hired Memphis's coach- fuck them too- bye.
Classic DC right here. Love it.
I mean, he's not wrong. Fuck'em. With a cactus.
Oh, I was not disagreeing with him, just pointing out that the post was "classic DC"
With a cactus.
Leg
PREACH
Yeah. Fuck 'em. Let 'em leave. And if we can, follow 'em out the door. Because fuck 'em (the ACC this time).
My hopes is Phillips and the rest of the ACC screws them over hot coals on exit fees and GOR if they try it. There is no reason not to make an example of them.
I agree, unless we're one of the schools going with them, in which case, I think the ACC should take a fair and measured response lol
You mean like the schools leaving the PAC 12 tried to vote to say the conference would pay their exit fees before Oregon St. and Washington St. got that squashed in a hurry.
Let it burn. Let it all burn. College football is headed toward a reckoning day and this constant money grab and conference realignment cannot go on forever. ESPN and Disney are the major puppet master in all of this mess, alongside Fox and CBS, and all it has done is made the rich programs even richer and continuing to widen the gap with the have-nots, with a massive middle finger to "parity". They made this mess, and eventually this is going to either bankrupt them or greatly diminish the quality of the TV product, and likely both.
I agree with you and I want to believe you but as witnessed by Amazon paying billions to the NFL for one game per week for half a season, there seems to be unlimited TV/streaming money. My guess is no matter how absurd, the SEC contract with ESPN will be double the current one. I can't see the bubble in that case.
The difference is Amazon has a model that pays them for streaming. ESPN doesn't have that set up yet. I would love to be able to just pay for ESPN to get their content. Heck, the $10/month might be more then they are getting from a cable company for my business.
Please pander to the people that want to cut cords. Amazon is.
I am with the people thinking the bubble has to burst.
And until the money they think they can get streaming would be greater than what they're getting from cable bill subsidies, they're not going to have that option. The bubble is going to have to burst, first.
I think it will come back to haunt them if they enrich the SEC and B10 schools and give the middle finger to the rest.
How much you wanna bet that this day comes and go and nothing happens
at least it makes more geographical sense than USC and UCLA...
I'd buy this - I've been saying for ages that the SEC doesn't want Clemson or FSU. This is good for us too - if B10 keeps expanding, SEC will want to, and I'd much rather be in the SEC than B10.
That said - I'll believe it when it actually happens. Til then, it's all made up.
I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think it'll happen but I DO think the B1G makes a lot more sense for Clemson than the SEC does. Everyone talks about FSU, Miami and Clemson going to the SEC but that just doesn't make any sense because none of those teams bring the SEC anything they don't already have. UNC, UVA, VT and NCState, however, have a lot to offer both the B1G and SEC as neither league has any properties in VA or NC. I could see the two leagues splitting those states or, more boldly, I could see the SEC grabbing all 4 teams to grab both, huge, markets and lock the B1G out entirely. It would be a hell of a power move and the SEC is the league to pull it off.
Is that on the 10th or the 16th? 😏
Based on the big announcement they made on the 10th, must be the 16th. Or not at all...
Hope they leave. Today. Fuck them. Go to the B1G . Fuck off
Thank you. Either go or shut up, no one cares.
Still waiting lmao
It's not even 0900 yet... But yeah, I fully expect to be "still waiting" this time tomorrow.
I hope they leave today. honestly- go. Since you can't compete without Michigan and Georgia money of course- leave. this morning please.
Oh yea, you're right, they're probably announcing at 1G/1G at 1G:1G am. I'm just early.
Silent announcement. Interesting choice.
put me in the camp of disappointed but not surprised
I'm tired of this talking about fucking around phase, can everyone just get to the fuck around phase so we can find out and then laugh. Until something happens this is just a bunch of assholes talking about the potential of having a dick measuring contest with none of them wanting to actually whip it out.
I am being 100% honest and not sarcastic when I say- fuck Clemson and FSU- leave this afternoon- go. Get the fuck out. I could not give a fuck. They won't be happy staying unless they get 90% of the bowl revenue- even if they suck- etc. Fuck them both. Leave already. We know that those 2 programs will always be top 5 (lolololololololol) so they are too good for us. I mean look at Clemson this year- way too good for the ACC. Fuck them- get the fuck out- yesterday.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks Clemson is relevant to SEC or BiG. Clemson has had a recent decade of football relevance, which appears to be going down the drain right now. Other than that recent relevance, what do they have. So I agree, if SEC or BiG or anyone else wants them, then go ahead. Clemson would be one of the smallest schools in the SEC/BiG if not the smallest (in terms of living alumni #'s). In the long run, that will make it very hard for them to compete and stay relevant.
I think FSU is different story since they have a huge living alumni population in comparison to Clemson.
Oh, no B1G announcement?
LOL!
Eat another big spoonful of shit Klumpson