FSU and Clemson can suck

Grab North Carolina and Kansas.

FSU and Clemson are already in, you just don’t know it yet.

Look at Clemson now. Too big of pussies to leave the ACC when we did now they have to fight legal battles. Serves those redneck taters right.

I’m telling y’all the Big10, Fox, SEC, ESPN are going to make it 2 leagues NFL Jr. I still feel we are going to get two 32 team leagues.

quote:

---

The sec cares about nothing but money.

---

Damn right, we saw that shite when they added aggy and MIZZOU.

quote:

---

This shite has become a game of Risk between the SEC and Big 10 and they’re going to completely destroy college football in the process.

---

I don't know that Clemson would be the most valuable brand out there. FSU is up and down, too.

Short term I'd definitely lock up UNC or UVA if $ was my concern long term. Then FSU. I don't know that Clemson would be high on my list other than recent success in football that kind of hangs by a thread.

quote:

---

The whole thing is weird. ESPN already has control of the football content of FSU and Clemson at a discounted rate if they stay as members of the ACC. ESPN would have to pay them more for the same content if they join the SEC.

Also, if the ACC blows up, any decent football brands that join the B1G become FOX properties. This is a massive loss for ESPN.

---

It likely depends on if the ACC, as it is currently configured, survives and then if the media deal between the ACC and ESPN survives. We don't know how good a deal it is for ESPN without more data. Can ESPN actually make more by rolling in Clemson, Florida St., UNC, and another school into to the SEC. That shifts the most profitable ACC schools and the largest fanbases/TV ratings to the SEC where those schools can actually grow the media value. ESPN having those four schools play premium games every week, rather than just a few per year may actually be more profitable than paying all the schools in the conference $35-$40 million for the next decade but suffer from mediocre to terrible TV ratings. It's no longer about TV markets, it's about TV ratings, and that's a huge difference. No one in New England watches Boston College. Virginia fans don't really care about football and they get terrible TV ratings. Wake Forest and Duke have terrible TV ratings. Syracuse doesn't do much for TV. Georgia Tech isn't a valuable football brand, especially if it continues performing like it has in the recent past. The other schools - NC St., Miami, Louisville and even Virginia Tech right now don't provide compelling TV and they all dilute the average value of current SEC members. Actually, even UNC currently dilutes the average SEC team value, at least when considering football TV ratings.

So the question is, does Clemson, FSU, UNC and NCSU (which may be tied to UNC based on recent N.C. college system changes) help ESPN make more money with more compelling TV week to week than the current arrangement with the ACC. The answer is ... possibly.

quote:

---

I always thought Missouri was added because of recent football success (at that time).

---

Missouri was added because of the TV markets in their state.

You know I don’t think Espn, Sankey, or any of the other decision makers in the SEC give one single frick what any of us fans want or think about any of this. Expansion is inevitable- like Thanos, and you’ll get what you get (see Mizzu, A&M) and like it.