We've all talked about it before...

If taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together creates enough leverage then that's more than worth it.

I'd even be for taking Kansas in that scenario. Perhaps that would give UT a little extra leverage to say "we can't take Texas Tech with us...they don't have enough spots."

(12-30-2017 01:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  We've all talked about it before...

If taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State together creates enough leverage then that's more than worth it.

I'd even be for taking Kansas in that scenario. Perhaps that would give UT a little extra leverage to say "we can't take Texas Tech with us...they don't have enough spots."

We need a P4. It's time to do it. Take those two. And then see if it shakes loose anyone else we want. I'm sure the networks would help with the placement.

It might make Texas go indy, or it might make the Big 10 take UT and Kansas. If the big 3 are gone it's over anyway. The rest will scatter.

There is no telling what those crazy Texans will do, but the possibilities abound.

PAC adds BYU for football only (13)
ACC adds Texas and TCU (yes this is still talked about in several circles) I do believe that Notre Dame not join the ACC as a full member until the end of the contract or such time they are forced to join by not being a conference member.
B1G adds Missouri and Kansas
SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech

(01-10-2018 08:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  There is no telling what those crazy Texans will do, but the possibilities abound.

PAC adds BYU for football only (13)
ACC adds Texas and TCU (yes this is still talked about in several circles) I do believe that Notre Dame not join the ACC as a full member until the end of the contract or such time they are forced to join by not being a conference member.
B1G adds Missouri and Kansas
SEC adds Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech

I could see the ACC add T.C.U. and West Virginia for full members and add Texas as a partial.

The PAC won't add anyone, certainly not B.Y.U., not even for football only.

The B1G might well add Kansas, and then choose between Connecticut and Iowa State.

The SEC adds Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

If we only add two that will likely be the two.

This discussion might shed some lite on possibilities discussed in this thread:

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-840807.html

Well ESPN is picking up the Big 12's T3 by virtue of their purchase from FOX, not to mention their RSN's. It's too bad FOX couldn't go ahead and sell ESPN FS1 & FS2 but they were skirting the possibility the deal wouldn't go through due to monopolistic issues concerning one network buying out another. The government is touchy when it comes to the broadcasting.

But if FOX sells out its college sports interests to Amazon it opens a new can of worms for the Mouse.

Does Disney really want to have to bid on Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas at auction? Or would they rather handle this matter in house. They now possess the Tier 3 rights necessary to with FOX's blessing to make a move on the whole Big 12 if they wanted to do so.

How would you place all 10 schools of the Big 12 so that dissolution of the conference could occur, all of them could receive equal T1/T2/& T3 revenues, and the LHN could go away?

Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and West Virginia could go to the SEC to create a conference of 20 that looked like this:

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi State

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia

Why would the SEC do this? A guaranteed payout of 55 million per school.

What about the others? Well the ACC could be included in the move to 20.

Baylor, Houston, Kansas State, Texas, T.C.U.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Why would the ACC do this? A guaranteed payout of 50 million per school. Which is why Notre Dame would throw in. With the Big 12 gone there is nobody left that would give them a deal. What's more where else would they land 50 million for TV rights? And Texas and Notre Dame together deliver the Northeast and Southwest with their many eyeballs for the launch of the ACCN.

Why would ESPN do it? Because that gives them exclusivity over the largest market footprint (the ACC) and the most viewed (SEC) and the the strongest and wealthiest brands left up for realignment (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas).

How much would it cost them? Between 708 and 738 million to pay both halves of the Big 12 contract, to up the 4 schools going to the ACC, to promote Houston to the big time, and to up the 6 schools going to the SEC, and to give the existing ACC and SEC members the bump.

So why would they do this? It's 8 of the top 10 grossing schools in the nation, 15 of the top 25, and with the AAC schools under contract that is literally every school South of Virginia to the Mississippi River and beyond into the Southwest. That gives ESPN 6 schools in Texas which can deliver a whopping number of the 32 million Texas who would be interested each week and it would give Texans an appetite for the SECN and ACCN. The LHN could be converted into a Spanish language studio for the SECN & ACCN.

And with anti monopoly issues ahead if they let go of their portion of the Big 10 and PAC contracts so that a competitor picked them up they could do this for between 183 million to 213 million more. And with ESPN looking to cut out some expensive pro coverage they might even be able to cover it all at no added expense.

But why would they do it? Exclusivity for Saturday football advertising throughout the Eastern Seaboard down to Miami and throughout the Southwest to Lubbock. Plus these schools deliver championships in Football, Baseball, Basketball (men's and women's), Softball and Gymnastics. That's a lot of stuff for the RSN's as well as the conference networks and ESPN & ESPN2 and ESPNU.

Furthermore by doing this early ESPN can work it all out without having to bid piecemeal, they can secure all of the key college brands, utilize existing conference networks with a much higher threshold for profit, and eliminate the overhead loss of the LHN. And the also increase the content value of both the SEC and ACC in the process.

Why would Texas do it? The get a division that has 3 other Texas schools and the familiar foe Kansas State. That's a division they can win. Plus the keep the RRR as a cross conference game and they don't lose money making this move. They can have an annual with Notre Dame. And scheduling difficulties with A&M can be worked out as well.

Why else would the ACC & SEC go for it? It locks down recruiting within their footprint. How? Each would play 10 conference games (4 division games, 5 games from a rotating division, and 2 OOC games between the two conferences per school). By playing all P games between the conference games and the OOC games with each other they keep competitors from being able to play in the region in a key venue until bowl season.

Texas and Oklahoma lose nothing. Kansas gains all of the hoops brands it could want. And the money between these three conferences levels the playing field for them.

Demographics are making college football a Southeast and Southwest game anyway. We might as well capitalize on it.

I doubt that ESPN would want or know what to do with FS1 & FS2.
The way I look at it, ESPN has a problem with the lack of inventory.
If they fully commit inventory to the SEC network and the ACC network, then there isn't much left over for ESPN, ESPN2, and ESPNU., much less trying to support two additional networks.
Being able to consolidate the rights for the Big 12 is huge just to be able to support three networks all in the eastern and central time zones.

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I think the SEC would have a better chance for Kansas when paired with their in-state rival. The Big Ten won't take Iowa State without a brand program. So, essentially, flyover country becomes the SEC's turf.

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Iowa State

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia, Miami

Virginia Tech, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State

Wake Forest, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville

Texas and Notre Dame play 5 games each against ACC football teams and be members in all other sponsored sports.

(02-28-2018 05:10 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I think the SEC would have a better chance for Kansas when paired with their in-state rival. The Big Ten won't take Iowa State without a brand program. So, essentially, flyover country becomes the SEC's turf.

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Iowa State

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia, Miami

Virginia Tech, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State

Wake Forest, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville

Texas and Notre Dame play 5 games each against ACC football teams and be members in all other sponsored sports.

Let's reorganize that ACC a bit.

Baylor, Houston, Miami, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Boston College, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Wake Forest.

Keep Iowa State up North even though the distance will still be there and Miami has an easier flight over the Gulf of Mexico to play the Texas schools than they do elsewhere except in the Southeast. Plus they might recruiting Texas the way Texas schools will like recruiting South Florida.

(02-28-2018 05:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:10 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri

Texas A&M, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

I think the SEC would have a better chance for Kansas when paired with their in-state rival. The Big Ten won't take Iowa State without a brand program. So, essentially, flyover country becomes the SEC's turf.

Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Iowa State

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, West Virginia, Miami

Virginia Tech, Virginia, UNC, Duke, NC State

Wake Forest, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville

Texas and Notre Dame play 5 games each against ACC football teams and be members in all other sponsored sports.

Let's reorganize that ACC a bit.

Baylor, Houston, Miami, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Boston College, Iowa State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Wake Forest.

Keep Iowa State up North even though the distance will still be there and Miami has an easier flight over the Gulf of Mexico to play the Texas schools than they do elsewhere except in the Southeast. Plus they might recruiting Texas the way Texas schools will like recruiting South Florida.

Yes, Iowa State could benefit from having exposure on the East Coast since, being that they're surrounded by flagship public schools in their region, they don't have much room to expand their influence. The ACC would also benefit by continuing their westward expansion into the Midwest, which they had started with Louisville and Notre Dame. Face it, strict regionalism is not coming back when the name of the game is putting your school's name in the minds of high school students across different regions of the country and abroad. The old ACC guard is resisting until the bitter end but they're already losing on that front.

Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

(03-04-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

Spurrier is pretty smart.

(03-04-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

The ACC would somewhat overall reduce the geographic spread, even with adding the state of Texas into the mix, by ceding the Northeast to the Big 10. It might make some sense if the ACC concludes that they can't dislodge the Big East from basketball supremacy in the New York area. So they may as well let the Big 10 work in the DC-Boston corridor, picking up a lacrosse and hockey power in the process. Neither Cuse or BC are football powers but located in high population areas, especially Boston. The Northeast might work better with a Midwest-based conference than one centered in VA-NC-SC. Then those two would do similarly to balance out Kansas as Rutgers/Maryland did to balance out Nebraska.

Then in Florida a small private and a large-sized public school are traded in for two larger publics in growing urban centers, the academics overall slightly better with room to improve, with potential to compete fairly well at a higher level.

If the ACC is fine having USF and UCF then who am to I say otherwise?

(03-05-2018 11:46 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

The ACC would somewhat overall reduce the geographic spread, even with adding the state of Texas into the mix, by ceding the Northeast to the Big 10. It might make some sense if the ACC concludes that they can't dislodge the Big East from basketball supremacy in the New York area. So they may as well let the Big 10 work in the DC-Boston corridor, picking up a lacrosse and hockey power in the process. Neither Cuse or BC are football powers but located in high population areas, especially Boston. The Northeast might work better with a Midwest-based conference than one centered in VA-NC-SC. Then those two would do similarly to balance out Kansas as Rutgers/Maryland did to balance out Nebraska.

Then in Florida a small private and a large-sized public school are traded in for two larger publics in growing urban centers, the academics overall slightly better with room to improve, with potential to compete fairly well at a higher level.

If the ACC is fine having USF and UCF then who am to I say otherwise?

I found the proposal X made to be intriguing. But after reflecting on it for awhile I have a more profitable tweaking of it.

Why not have the ACC give up 1 Florida school to the SEC, give up Syracuse and Boston College to the Big 10, and concentrate on the money and brand pals of Texas?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Kansas move to the ACC in full and Notre Dame joins in full.

The SEC picks up either Florida State or Miami and then chooses a second Texas school, T.C.U.. That gives us two schools in Florida and Two in Texas including one in the DFW market where 6 SEC games would be played annually. If the SEC gets Miami we pick up a South Florida brand which we lack. If the SEC picks up Florida State we get another national brand. Either way we gain strength in the two largest states in the South.

The Big 10 makes enough off of Syracuse and Boston College that they don't need further expansion either. Now the SEC and Big 10 are more comfortable in the footprints they had been pursuing but neither gain the largest prizes so neither throws further imbalance into the college sport world.

The PAC remains essentially unchanged in the West.

B1G:

Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
L.S.U., Miami/F.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, T.C.U.

ACC:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, F.S.U./Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

If the PAC wanted in on the CTZ states they could add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech and Baylor could take Tech's place in the ACC.

Another work around might be for the ACC to keep Miami and add West Virginia then the ACC could look like this:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Kansas, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas

That would leave Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and Baylor for the PAC's perusal for CTZ slots.

This kind of move would leave balance. The PAC is too far away for minor sports for any of the Big 10, SEC, or ACC. The ACC needs to be brought up in power to maintain balance in the East. If they come out of this significantly behind the SEC and Big 10 then it only further destabilizes the college sports world moving forward.

Some kind of expansion like the one conjectured here would give the SEC and Big 10 a stronger presence in markets that each covet, without giving away the farm or promoting lesser brands. And moving the key pieces of the Big 12 to the ACC strengthens their branding and makes capitalizing them understandable. And by keeping it to 16 it is cheaper for the networks, even though the Big 10, SEC, and ACC would all get some kind of raise. I could see the SEC and Big 10 in the mid 50's, but the ACC getting the largest boost into the same range around 50 to 52. The Big 10's would be a slight bump and the SEC's would only be a slight bump after the new T1 contract with CBS or another suitor.

(03-05-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:46 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

The ACC would somewhat overall reduce the geographic spread, even with adding the state of Texas into the mix, by ceding the Northeast to the Big 10. It might make some sense if the ACC concludes that they can't dislodge the Big East from basketball supremacy in the New York area. So they may as well let the Big 10 work in the DC-Boston corridor, picking up a lacrosse and hockey power in the process. Neither Cuse or BC are football powers but located in high population areas, especially Boston. The Northeast might work better with a Midwest-based conference than one centered in VA-NC-SC. Then those two would do similarly to balance out Kansas as Rutgers/Maryland did to balance out Nebraska.

Then in Florida a small private and a large-sized public school are traded in for two larger publics in growing urban centers, the academics overall slightly better with room to improve, with potential to compete fairly well at a higher level.

If the ACC is fine having USF and UCF then who am to I say otherwise?

I found the proposal X made to be intriguing. But after reflecting on it for awhile I have a more profitable tweaking of it.

Why not have the ACC give up 1 Florida school to the SEC, give up Syracuse and Boston College to the Big 10, and concentrate on the money and brand pals of Texas?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Kansas move to the ACC in full and Notre Dame joins in full.

The SEC picks up either Florida State or Miami and then chooses a second Texas school, T.C.U.. That gives us two schools in Florida and Two in Texas including one in the DFW market where 6 SEC games would be played annually. If the SEC gets Miami we pick up a South Florida brand which we lack. If the SEC picks up Florida State we get another national brand. Either way we gain strength in the two largest states in the South.

The Big 10 makes enough off of Syracuse and Boston College that they don't need further expansion either. Now the SEC and Big 10 are more comfortable in the footprints they had been pursuing but neither gain the largest prizes so neither throws further imbalance into the college sport world.

The PAC remains essentially unchanged in the West.

B1G:

Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
L.S.U., Miami/F.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, T.C.U.

ACC:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, F.S.U./Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

If the PAC wanted in on the CTZ states they could add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech and Baylor could take Tech's place in the ACC.

Another work around might be for the ACC to keep Miami and add West Virginia then the ACC could look like this:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Kansas, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas

That would leave Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and Baylor for the PAC's perusal for CTZ slots.

This kind of move would leave balance. The PAC is too far away for minor sports for any of the Big 10, SEC, or ACC. The ACC needs to be brought up in power to maintain balance in the East. If they come out of this significantly behind the SEC and Big 10 then it only further destabilizes the college sports world moving forward.

Some kind of expansion like the one conjectured here would give the SEC and Big 10 a stronger presence in markets that each covet, without giving away the farm or promoting lesser brands. And moving the key pieces of the Big 12 to the ACC strengthens their branding and makes capitalizing them understandable. And by keeping it to 16 it is cheaper for the networks, even though the Big 10, SEC, and ACC would all get some kind of raise. I could see the SEC and Big 10 in the mid 50's, but the ACC getting the largest boost into the same range around 50 to 52. The Big 10's would be a slight bump and the SEC's would only be a slight bump after the new T1 contract with CBS or another suitor.

The ACC might find Baylor more acceptable than Texas Tech. Either way, Texas politics might necessitate adding a second school in the state over West Virginia. And if Lance's speculation have any validity, Miami may be the Florida school told to move on.

That makes for an interesting scenario for FSU's out of conference schedule in that they may end up in Miami's position where they might not play both UM and UF without complications.

Miami, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
L.S.U., Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor

I think the SEC would work to revive UM-UF as a divisional game, so that Kentucky-Tenn, Vandy-Ole Miss and UGA-AU become crossover games.

I'd switch Northwestern and Purdue so that two of the three privates play each other every year. I thought about putting Michigan and Minnesota in the same division but would disrupt too much elsewhere. The conundrum is avoiding a potential repeat of the Ohio State-Michigan game. Putting all three of UM-MSU-OSU in one division would be too unbalanced but I can't separate the two Michigan schools, either. Breaking Iowa-UMinn-Wis is a non-starter as well.

Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

(03-05-2018 02:15 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2018 11:46 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2018 05:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  Steve Spurrier is known to have said that all three Florida schools belong in the same conference and South Carolina belongs in the ACC.
Working on that premise:
While the ACC office is happy to see Miami football return to prominence there are some that were not happy to see Miami return to Miami form. The "turnover chain" seemed to be the breaking point for some of the old guard.
Here is how the "new" realignment works out to live out Spurrier's suggestion and to accommodate Texas' wishes.

First the ACC cedes Miami to the SEC and trades Florida State to the SEC for South Carolina.
The ACC then sends Boston College and Syracuse to the B1G.
Then we bring in Texas and their entire entourage which would include TCU, Baylor, West Virginia and Texas Tech. To complete expansion to 18 and keep a presence in Florida, the ACC adds UCF and USF.
The 3 pod system sets up like this:
Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Texas, USF, Louisville
Georgia Tech, UCF, Carolina, Duke, UVa, Virginia Tech
West Virginia, Pitt, Clemson, South Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest

The PAC remains the same at 12

The B1G:
Syracuse, Boston College, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa State

The SEC then becomes:
Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi State, ole Miss, Arkansas
LSU, A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas State

Notre Dame remains semi-independent with the ACC.

X, this is one of your more creative work arounds and one that I would find acceptable, if South Carolina did. It makes sense geographically, it holds value for both sides, and it restores rivalries in house. And it make sense brand wise for the SEC. KState would be a relatively small price to pay considering.

Interesting what it would do to the Big 10. But it is balanced for them.

The ACC would somewhat overall reduce the geographic spread, even with adding the state of Texas into the mix, by ceding the Northeast to the Big 10. It might make some sense if the ACC concludes that they can't dislodge the Big East from basketball supremacy in the New York area. So they may as well let the Big 10 work in the DC-Boston corridor, picking up a lacrosse and hockey power in the process. Neither Cuse or BC are football powers but located in high population areas, especially Boston. The Northeast might work better with a Midwest-based conference than one centered in VA-NC-SC. Then those two would do similarly to balance out Kansas as Rutgers/Maryland did to balance out Nebraska.

Then in Florida a small private and a large-sized public school are traded in for two larger publics in growing urban centers, the academics overall slightly better with room to improve, with potential to compete fairly well at a higher level.

If the ACC is fine having USF and UCF then who am to I say otherwise?

I found the proposal X made to be intriguing. But after reflecting on it for awhile I have a more profitable tweaking of it.

Why not have the ACC give up 1 Florida school to the SEC, give up Syracuse and Boston College to the Big 10, and concentrate on the money and brand pals of Texas?

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, & Kansas move to the ACC in full and Notre Dame joins in full.

The SEC picks up either Florida State or Miami and then chooses a second Texas school, T.C.U.. That gives us two schools in Florida and Two in Texas including one in the DFW market where 6 SEC games would be played annually. If the SEC gets Miami we pick up a South Florida brand which we lack. If the SEC picks up Florida State we get another national brand. Either way we gain strength in the two largest states in the South.

The Big 10 makes enough off of Syracuse and Boston College that they don't need further expansion either. Now the SEC and Big 10 are more comfortable in the footprints they had been pursuing but neither gain the largest prizes so neither throws further imbalance into the college sport world.

The PAC remains essentially unchanged in the West.

B1G:

Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Northwestern
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
L.S.U., Miami/F.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas Tech, T.C.U.

ACC:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, F.S.U./Miami, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

If the PAC wanted in on the CTZ states they could add Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech and Baylor could take Tech's place in the ACC.

Another work around might be for the ACC to keep Miami and add West Virginia then the ACC could look like this:

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Kansas, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas

That would leave Texas Tech, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, and Baylor for the PAC's perusal for CTZ slots.

This kind of move would leave balance. The PAC is too far away for minor sports for any of the Big 10, SEC, or ACC. The ACC needs to be brought up in power to maintain balance in the East. If they come out of this significantly behind the SEC and Big 10 then it only further destabilizes the college sports world moving forward.

Some kind of expansion like the one conjectured here would give the SEC and Big 10 a stronger presence in markets that each covet, without giving away the farm or promoting lesser brands. And moving the key pieces of the Big 12 to the ACC strengthens their branding and makes capitalizing them understandable. And by keeping it to 16 it is cheaper for the networks, even though the Big 10, SEC, and ACC would all get some kind of raise. I could see the SEC and Big 10 in the mid 50's, but the ACC getting the largest boost into the same range around 50 to 52. The Big 10's would be a slight bump and the SEC's would only be a slight bump after the new T1 contract with CBS or another suitor.

The ACC might find Baylor more acceptable than Texas Tech. Either way, Texas politics might necessitate adding a second school in the state over West Virginia. And if Lance's speculation have any validity, Miami may be the Florida school told to move on.

That makes for an interesting scenario for FSU's out of conference schedule in that they may end up in Miami's position where they might not play both UM and UF without complications.

Miami, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
L.S.U., Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia
Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, Wake Forest
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Baylor

I think the SEC would work to revive UM-UF as a divisional game, so that Kentucky-Tenn, Vandy-Ole Miss and UGA-AU become crossover games.

I'd switch Northwestern and Purdue so that two of the three privates play each other every year. I thought about putting Michigan and Minnesota in the same division but would disrupt too much elsewhere. The conundrum is avoiding a potential repeat of the Ohio State-Michigan game. Putting all three of UM-MSU-OSU in one division would be too unbalanced but I can't separate the two Michigan schools, either. Breaking Iowa-UMinn-Wis is a non-starter as well.

Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

From a value protection standpoint I would think the move would have to be Miami.

The divisional alignment in the Big 10 might go well. But in the SEC more schools would want access to a game in Florida so that's why I split them. They could be each other's protected cross division game and there would be no reason why each couldn't give up an OOC game to schedule the Noles.

With further realignment I think the networks will end up getting some concessions for the bigger payouts and extra P games will be one of them. I wouldn't be surprised at some point in the future to see 9 conference games and 2 OOC P games as a requirement on everyone's schedule.

A synopsis post about the likely options regarding the Big 12:

From a Network perspective:

There's a good chance that ESPN will use their advantageous position to push for the 10 schools of the Big 12 to merge with the ACC and SEC. Why? It would cost them between 700 to 800 million to move those 10 schools to those two conferences and elevate the ACC's payouts to 50 million and the SEC's to 55 million. That's 4% of the NET Worth of ESPN.

So far Amazon has been pushing for pro sports probably because pro sports produce their own product. Amazon doesn't have the kind of production presence to be able to easily go to college venues around the nation and create product. And, the schools would need some lead time to be able to get ready to prepare their own. So far there is no indication that Amazon will pursue college sports. But if you are ESPN why take a chance?

If you are ESPN you know you have roughly 45% of the BTN product now and that you have 100% of the ACC product until 2036 and all of the SEC product but 1 game a week until 2034. By acquiring the Big 12, even at that expense you can boost the payouts of the two conferences you own the highest % of a stake in, renegotiate the current contracts with a 10 year extension into the 2040's and lock down 40 of the top 65 schools early and well before Amazon could make a legitimate move for it. That gives you virtually 2 decades in which to prepare for the changing markets and adapt. 4% is a small stake in the future. With 45% of the Big 10 product you don't need the rest of it to gain some of the key games out of the Big 10. And if the PAC sells out completely to FOX or Amazon they don't compete with your time zones that well.

FOX will make a push to acquire key members of the Big 12 for their investment in the Big 10. But the Big 10 can really only take 3 of the current Big 12 and FOX would find it impossible to place the other 7 prior to the expiration of the GOR whereas ESPN can move all 10 and dissolve the Big 12. So that's a nice angle to play if you are ESPN. There's precious little time remaining on the Big 12's T3 rights and with UT's in hand along with KU's, all that ESPN need worry about is OU's which they in part acquire when their purchase of FOX's RSN's goes through. The buyout on the rest would be very affordable and I have factored it into the 700-800 million figure already.

Setting up 2 twenty member conferences in the ACC and SEC would allow for conference semi final games and would lock down the top and third best viewing regions and tie them to the largest market footprint for the linear networks. it would also encapsulate the lion's share of major rivalries for the Big 12/ACC/&SEC.

The PAC is ill positioned to do much about it. Their payouts are low and they would probably have to sell out their PACN in order to attract the kind of money they would need to make a big push for the Big 12 product.

In the past the Big 12 has been interested in a merger, but with the SEC, not the PAC.

Ten schools is too many for the SEC to absorb profitably. But 6 would be easier especially if the Mouse makes it worth our while. For the ACC 4 current Big 12 schools and another friend of Texas would get it done. The Horns would have their own division and regional play for minor sports, especially if minor sports boundaries and schedules are blurred with those of the SEC.

And again the PAC likely couldn't afford to offer all 10 schools and certainly would be apprehensive about taking some of those Big 12 schools that lag academically or have their undergraduate work under a Church's oversight (Baylor).

So in spite of conventional internet logic (or lack thereof) the real driving force, if we even have further realignment, will come from the networks dangling cash. Therefore I like the chances of the this kind of move coming to fruition and if it does it will happen long before 2024-5. And there's only 1 network who could pull it off.

The only question in my mind is whether one of the following scenarios preempts this opportunity:

1. The court rules to allow for larger stipends and some smaller privates back out creating a much different realignment environment than we currently envision.

2. ESPN decides it wants the Big 12 but doesn't want to pay them that much more so they dangle a smaller raise and get them to sign a more exclusive ESPN contract that allows ESPN to roll the LHN into a Big 12N and they extend the GOR and ESPN holds 3 conferences and there is no movement between them.

3. ESPN makes a play to own a much larger share of the Big 10 and they still pay to place all 10 Big 12 schools only the division includes the Big 10 now. But there would have to be some compromise. Everyone would get a prize, but nobody would get 2.

I would say what the conferences would prefer but most everybody has a good idea about that. The point here is the conferences will continue to take those the networks offer the most for them to accept. FOX and ESPN could be in opposition, but I'm more inclined to think that it would be cheaper for them if they gave each other a wink and worked out a profitable solution.

Time will tell. If I'm wrong nothing will happen in the next couple of years. If I'm right things could well bust wide open. Only this time there won't be any talk precipitating the moves. They'll be no news at all, and then surprisingly one day an announcement and things will be all over and done before the competition can get involved.

What we need to know in order to have a firm grasp on ESPN's intentions for the future, is the length of time the paired contracts with the ACCN and SECN are for.
If the Altice contract is for 5 years, then the Big 12 is in full play for an expanded conference and network, at which time I would fully anticipate the SEC excusing Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12, but continuing to guarantee them a full SEC payout for a period of time.
This would give ESPN three marketing units without allowing too much power to be concentrated in the hands of the schools.
By being able to market three distinct units, ESPN could tailor content and matchups and utilize regional advertisers for all three networks instead of relying national advertisers that may be more content to focus on pro sports.

(04-01-2018 09:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  What we need to know in order to have a firm grasp on ESPN's intentions for the future, is the length of time the paired contracts with the ACCN and SECN are for.
If the Altice contract is for 5 years, then the Big 12 is in full play for an expanded conference and network, at which time I would fully anticipate the SEC excusing Missouri and Arkansas to the Big 12, but continuing to guarantee them a full SEC payout for a period of time.
This would give ESPN three marketing units without allowing too much power to be concentrated in the hands of the schools.
By being able to market three distinct units, ESPN could tailor content and matchups and utilize regional advertisers for all three networks instead of relying national advertisers that may be more content to focus on pro sports.

That's not very likely for the following reasons:

1. If ESPN had been interested in keeping the Big 12 together as a unit they would have encouraged the additions of Brigham Young and Cincinnati. They didn't.

Texas which is alleged to want to keep the Big 12 together didn't push for them either. Which is why Boren at OU insisted that expansion be accomplished if the conference was going to stay together.

ESPN used the ACC to acquire schools in the Northeast that they didn't want to fall into the hands of what was then an independently owned Big 10 network.

ESPN has used the SEC to continue the bridge into the Big 12 that the SEC intended when it took Arkansas. So ESPN was helpful in the acquisitions of A&M and Missouri.

ESPN would never encourage the SEC to give up Missouri and Arkansas because the meddling in that regard would not be forgiven and it would damage the value of the SECN which splits profits with ESPN.

You really do need to drop the trolling in this regard.

The SECN contract is up after the 2029-30 season. The ACC's contract is up after the 2036-7 season. The LHN's contract ends in 2031. Since ESPN holds all three handling the T3 rights of the present Big 12 would be a task fairly easily accomplished.

With competition looming on the horizon for the Big 12's rights in 2024-5 only ESPN is in a position to act earlier. By absorbing the Big 12 into the ACC and SEC it not only sews up the Big 12 rights before they can come on the open market, but it permits ESPN to renegotiate the contracts of the ACC and SEC and extend them. And with the SEC's T1 rights coming to market around the close of the 2023-4 season the window for these potential moves could actually be tied up in one fairly neat package if the pricing is right.

ESPN has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by not acting on the Big 12. They risk losing even more in the by 2035 if they don't build value in the ACC. And they risk their investment in the ACCN if they don't add as many viewers as they can get to it.

While it gives the SEC and ACC more power to grow, it also makes ESPN's two most satisfied customers easier to manage if the Big 12 properties are absorbed. It's much easier to deal with two relatively happy entities than it is to deal with three, especially if the internal strife of the third leaves rights in doubt every time a contract nears expiration.

So if the Big 12 is kept intact it will likely remain as is and since that solves nothing, I'm not so sure that is a position that ESPN, or Oklahoma will take.