Texas and Oklahoma waited too long to move. The TV models that supported market grabs collapsed. New models for delivery seem to trend toward content value only.
Rate the last additions:
ACC: Pittsburgh & Syracuse and then Notre Dame as a partial.
Big 10: Maryland & Rutgers
Big 12: T.C.U. & West Virginia
PAC: Colorado & Utah
SEC: Texas A&M & Missouri
State your reasoning. Remember if you got them to reach another target the plan is no longer viable. Long term how are they going to pan out for you now that the market model is dead?
ACC: culturally and academically, Syracuse and Pitt fit well. It does however shift the league north. Louisville is an academic outlier but necessary as a strong athletic department. ND is obviously a win.
PAC 12: both schools are solid adds, help the league get a championship.
Big 10: Maryland is probably ok as a decent all around school, but the conference probably would rather have Kansas/Missouri over Rutgers.
SEC: Texas a&m is a great fit. Missouri is still an outlier, but has academics and had a better athletic department when we got them. Jury is still out on them.
Big 12: both are solid schools but neither contribute much to the overall power and reputation of the league. They had to grab these to stay alive, but grabbing Louisville, cincy, WVU all at the same time would be stronger.
I don't think that there are any losers but some conferences are bigger winners.
ACC: Pittsburgh & Syracuse does shift the center of the ACC north but they also bring in northern markets. Academically they are great adds & both improve ACC athletics in different ways. ND brings additional credibility to the conference in both academics & athletics. They also bring additional revenue in various ways like the tv contract & ticket sales. Having them on the ACCN will be a great asset. Louisville was a great, so far, athletic replacement for Maryland. There were 2 teams being mentioned for the CFP's this year & 1 of them wasn't FSU.
SEC: Missouri & A&M were great adds for the SEC. They bring two great markets & they don't dilute the content. Getting into Texas will pay dividends for the SEC. Both have shown the potential to compete for at least divisional titles in football & they strengthen basketball as well.
PAC: Colorado & Utah were pretty good adds all around but probably not to sexy from a national perspective. Colorado helped pick up the slack from a down football year for the conference. Their addition brought the PAC CG, even though now you can have one with only 10 members.
B1G: Maryland & Rutgers are solid academic adds, Maryland being the superior overall addition. They were mainly market adds so their value will be mostly tied to the tv model. They also help satisfy a desire by Penn St for a more eastern presence. The jury is still out.
B12: TCU & WV were good short term adds. They were likely the only two available on the short timeframe required to salvage their tv contract & conference. Their long term value looks limited as the B12 failed to make additional adds that would have strengthened the conference. WV is an outlier with no connection to the rest of the conference but they are still a good athletic add. Neither had a strong market affect. The conference remains in turmoil but that says more about the leadership than the additions.
1. SEC with A&M and Mizzou. Had huge markets and recruiting bases to setup their new network. Probably the P5 competitive football programs added by the groups
2. B12 with TCU and WVU. B12 only expanded because they had to as required by their TV contract. So they added the best football programs that would join them. TCU was the hot MWC team that was moving to the more competitive Big East off of a fresh rose bowl victory while WVU were the cream of the crop in the BE and had many memorable BCS bowl wins and blowouts--coined the term "Clemsoning"
3. ACC with Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame as a partial. Not much excitement about 'cues and Pitt, but notre Dame was the addition that eventually cemented an ACC Network and secured its long term survival
4. PAC with Utah and Colorado. Added like members within their region after the failed Texahoma grab fell through
5. B1G with Rutgers and Maryland. Pure money grab additions. Might, might be a decade before either could be football competitive
The "market model" never existed. The myth was a fan invention, nothing more.
(12-03-2016 12:36 PM)murrdcu Wrote: [ -> ]1. SEC with A&M and Mizzou. Had huge markets and recruiting bases to setup their new network. Probably the P5 competitive football programs added by the groups
2. B12 with TCU and WVU. B12 only expanded because they had to as required by their TV contract. So they added the best football programs that would join them. TCU was the hot MWC team that was moving to the more competitive Big East off of a fresh rose bowl victory while WVU were the cream of the crop in the BE and had many memorable BCS bowl wins and blowouts--coined the term "Clemsoning"
3. ACC with Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame as a partial. Not much excitement about 'cues and Pitt, but notre Dame was the addition that eventually cemented an ACC Network and secured its long term survival
4. PAC with Utah and Colorado. Added like members within their region after the failed Texahoma grab fell through
5. B1G with Rutgers and Maryland. Pure money grab additions. Might, might be a decade before either could be football competitive
I can't speak for Pitt, but SU was T20 in the director's cup last year, brings a historically relevant football program (who know if it will come back - but history says it might), and an elite men's basketball program. Heck, the school sent 2 teams to the Final Four last year (and one to the NCG). Beyond that, SU has one of the strongest fan supports in the ACC as evidence by combined revenue sport attendance, ratings, and athletic revenue.
How exactly does that not generate much excitement?
**Also as an FYI, SU has an all time winning football record against WVU and has also won the last 3 games against the Mountaineers ('11, '12, and '13 - in the Pinstripe Bowl). SU also has more Heismans and NC's. Calling WVU the cream of the crop for the BE is a little generous. They were arguably the strongest team at the time, but their program was no better than UL's, Pitt's, or SU's.
(12-03-2016 02:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]The "market model" never existed. The myth was a fan invention, nothing more.
The concept was pushed heavily by ESPN, but for motives that varied. The fan momentum built upon it and the explanations that ESPN, FOX and other network writers aired at that time. So it wasn't a fan invention. It was a tool by the networks to justify their attempt at breaking up markets in large states like Texas, Florida, and their attempts in Virginia and North Carolina. It was also used as an excuse to dissuade the SEC from going after the two most SEC like candidates (Clemson and Florida State).
The simple truth was that ESPN was looking for a way to keep powerful conferences like the Big 10 and SEC from gaining even more leverage. So they pushed the market model to sell the ACC on B.C., Pitt, Syracuse, and Miami. This grew ESPN dominance in a conference they owned 100% of the rights to, and limited Big 10 and SEC expansion targets. They then used the SEC, as they might again some day, to access the products they wanted to protect in the Big 12.
I agree that the model was kind of a fiction, but I wrote a blog piece warning the conferences of the real motives back 2010. I even predicted a move to a content driven model though not completely for the reasons it is now emerging.
(12-03-2016 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 02:26 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]The "market model" never existed. The myth was a fan invention, nothing more.
The concept was pushed heavily by ESPN, but for motives that varied. The fan momentum built upon it and the explanations that ESPN, FOX and other network writers aired at that time. So it wasn't a fan invention. It was a tool by the networks to justify their attempt at breaking up markets in large states like Texas, Florida, and their attempts in Virginia and North Carolina. It was also used as an excuse to dissuade the SEC from going after the two most SEC like candidates (Clemson and Florida State).
The simple truth was that ESPN was looking for a way to keep powerful conferences like the Big 10 and SEC from gaining even more leverage. So they pushed the market model to sell the ACC on B.C., Pitt, Syracuse, and Miami. This grew ESPN dominance in a conference they owned 100% of the rights to, and limited Big 10 and SEC expansion targets. They then used the SEC, as they might again some day, to access the products they wanted to protect in the Big 12.
I agree that the model was kind of a fiction, but I wrote a blog piece warning the conferences of the real motives back 2010. I even predicted a move to a content driven model though not completely for the reasons it is now emerging.
No. It was pushed by A) former players turned writers who had/have zero business training and were catering to a myth created by fans, B) writers w/ zero business training who were catering to fans, and C) media shills catering to fans. And, it was used as an an excuse by conference commissioners who could use it as political cover to make the moves that they wanted. It was, however, never pushed by the guys actually making decisions - or at least not when they made the decisions. To clarify, it was never actually used to make decisions, and it was never used as an explanation by anybody with any credibility when they were addressing a sophisticated audience.
For instance, find one reputable academic article written since Adam Smith that uses a market model to monetize any product. I'll find you countless that use supply and demand if you would like.
And your contend driven prediction wasn't a prediction at all. It was already happening. It's always been happening in collegiate sports (as well as other industries). That's literally been true since before humanity knew what it was doing (Adam Smith didn't invent the idea that S&D dictated prices - he was just the first to explicitly notice what was going on).
I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.
(12-03-2016 10:15 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Texas and Oklahoma waited too long to move. The TV models that supported market grabs collapsed. New models for delivery seem to trend toward content value only.
Rate the last additions:
ACC: Pittsburgh & Syracuse and then Notre Dame as a partial.
Big 10: Maryland & Rutgers
Big 12: T.C.U. & West Virginia
PAC: Colorado & Utah
SEC: Texas A&M & Missouri
State your reasoning. Remember if you got them to reach another target the plan is no longer viable. Long term how are they going to pan out for you now that the market model is dead?
1. ACC
2a. SEC
2b. B1G
2c. PAC
5. B12
In my mind the ACC was the clear winner in realignment. The additions of Pitt and 'Cuse effectively killed off a competitor, while the partial agreement with the Irish provided much needed stability. The loser was the B12 because the new teams simply couldn't replace what was lost. While I think the PAC, B1G and SEC are all tied, I'd put the SEC slightly added for no other reason than getting into Texas.
Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
(12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
(12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
In '92 no there wasn't much chance if any. In 2010-1 they were listening pretty intently and putting out some informal feelers as well. In the entire history of the ACC you are far more correct than not. For a little less than a year in the midst of the last set of moves, not so much and if you hone in on a two week period of that less than a year blip, they were hot to go. Kudos for keeping it together.
(12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.
Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.
(12-04-2016 12:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 04:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]I would have picked SEC, but MIZZOU is a train wreck.
Mizzou was not good this year, but neither were many SEC teams. The SEC added the Aggies and Tigers to get into Texas and it's fertile recruiting grounds, and to expand TV markets with Missouri. Both are excellent academic institutions which add to the SEC goals of raising the academics bar in the SEC.The main SEC goal was the SEC Network... not a stepping stone to further expansion. I do not understand the outlier comment, as we border Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and are 66 miles from Mississippi. Many of the posters here are more than happy to invite Oklahoma. Every school in the SEC not named Alabama has had to rebuild programs... even LSU. Give Missouri a little love.
Medic, we don't yet know how good or bad the SEC was this year. The proof is yet in the bowls.
The prevailing attitude of this board and others I've read is decidedly negative to the extreme on all matters SEC. To believe them without putting it to the test would be to fail to vote in an election that the every media outlet in the nation said was a hopeless defeat for Trump. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Interestingly enough whether for Trump or against him the public through the electoral college chose otherwise. It could be we are having a bad year. It could also be that the only other strong conference is the ACC and that the PAC and Big 10 are unusually weak. There is evidence on both sides of this argument that indicates the latter may well be the case. So before I write off our season as being down I want to see how we do in the post season. Several of our weaker schools have gotten stronger. And while Auburn and A&M are banged up both will have a little more time to heal before bowls. So we'll see.
(12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions
(12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions
Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.
(12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]Rutgers and UMD kept PSU, and UMD is a good athletic add.
I'm not sure if the B1G improved its position, but it certainly improved its position compared to what I think it would have been but for their adds.
I'm not sure how that scores against the ACC, which strengthened the conference compared to what it was before the additions.
The SEC was a mixed bag. It bet wrong on MIZZOU. The Pac additions were "meh," and the B12 additions are a mess IMHO.
I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions
Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.
I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.
(12-04-2016 01:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2016 12:58 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2016 12:53 AM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:38 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (12-03-2016 09:03 PM)vandiver49 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think there was ever a chance of PSU moving anywhere.
There was never a chance that Clemson was going to leave the ACC, but that doesn't stop some posters from suggesting the possibility over and over again.
Crazy B12 fans' wishful thinking on internet forums and a PSU alum quoting the B1G commish and UW AD are two very different things. A large part of why RU was added was absolutely to keep PSU happy because the ACC was a very viable landing spot and the B1G got scared.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...tany-lions
Nope. It wasn't the Big 12 they were talking to. But things got real cozy for two weeks before ESPN stopped it.
I assumed that XL was referencing The Dude and his followers.
The Dude and his followers were always predicting the ACC's demise. What happened that stood as a legitimate threat took place in a small window of time that preceded Maryland's announcement by a just a little bit. The Dude had been predicting the ACC's demise going back way before any of this.