Scenario 1

ACC:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Miami

SEC:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech

Big 10:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

PAC:

Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
******************************************************

Scenario 2

ACC:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Duke, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas

SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky

N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska

PAC:

Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Christian

Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
*****************************************************

Scenario 3

SEC:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Big 10:

Duke, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia

Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Big 12:

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Iowa State, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Baylor, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

PAC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
****************************************************

Scenario 4

ACC:

Boston College, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

SEC:

Arkansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma State

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

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Big 10:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

PAC 10:

Baylor, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas

Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
****************************************************

Scenario 5:

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

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

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Big 10:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

PAC:

Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

Arizona, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
****************************************************

Pick your favorite scenario of these 5 and explain why you like it. Or, submit your own 4 x 16 scenario, or scenarios and we'll debate and maybe come up with a better one by consensus.

Big Ten
Penn State, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Maryland
Ohio State, Purdue, Illinois, Vanderbilt
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota

SEC
LSU, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, ECU
Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia

PAC
USC, UCLA, Stanford, California
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Wash State
Arizona State, Arizona, Utah, Colorado
Texas Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State

ACC
Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami
North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest
Virginia, Syracuse, UConn/Pitt/Cincy, Boston College
Louisville, Cincy/Pitt, Baylor, TCU

Notre Dame and Texas as partial members. Notre Dame has a five game deal and Texas has a six game deal. The placement of Pitt in this scenario is dependent upon the choice of Cincy or UConn. Hard to argue UConn into that other division but if the choice is Cincy then I think Pitt can argue themselves into a much more geographic division for them unless they want the opportunity for that extra visibility in Texas then Cincy could be put up in that Northeastern division.



That is my outside of the box scenario that I thought you might be interested in. You already know my #1 Scenario, no reason for me to repost it. Basically, any scenario with Iowa State to the Big Ten is DOA.

The New Power 4

SEC
A&M/LSU/MU/Ark
UA/AU/UM/MSU
UF/UGA/USC/UK
UT/VU/VT/NCSU

PAC
UO/OSU/UW/WSU
USC/CAL/STAN/UCAL
UA/ASU/UU/CU
UT/TT/OU/OSU

B1G
NU/UI/UMN/UW
KU/IL/NW/IU
PU/OSU/MSU/UM
PSU/RU/UMD/UConn

ACC
ND/Pitt/SU/BC
UL/WVU/BU/TCU
UVA/UNC/WF/Duke
FSU/CU/GT/UM

SOL: KSU & ISU who join the new 14 team American:

UH/SMU/TU/TU/ISU/KSU/Memphis
Temple/Navy/Umass/UCF/USF/ECU/Cincy

Here are a few things that we know or at least think we know:
The PAC does not want to expand unless Texas is involved (supposedly they already turned Oklahoma down without Texas).
Texas won't go to the PAC without Oklahoma (they are afraid the Sooners will go to the SEC and have A&M success and the Horns will be screwed for a long long time).
Politics in North Carolina will keep NC State and Carolina in the same conference.
The SEC needs markets more that it needs more good teams. Some say that Alabama and LSU don't want any more stiff competition.
Nobody seems to want to elevate another school (beyond 65). Add one school and you either have 16, 16, 16, 18 or two 16 two 17 team conferences. Add two or more and you have a really big mess.

(01-30-2014 05:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  Here are a few things that we know or at least think we know:
The PAC does not want to expand unless Texas is involved (supposedly they already turned Oklahoma down without Texas).
Texas won't go to the PAC without Oklahoma (they are afraid the Sooners will go to the SEC and have A&M success and the Horns will be screwed for a long long time).
Politics in North Carolina will keep NC State and Carolina in the same conference.
The SEC needs markets more that it needs more good teams. Some say that Alabama and LSU don't want any more stiff competition.
Nobody seems to want to elevate another school (beyond 65). Add one school and you either have 16, 16, 16, 18 or two 16 two 17 team conferences. Add two or more and you have a really big mess.

XLance, lets unpack the hearsay shall we?

1. The PAC says they won't expand unless they get Texas.

Okay that is what the PAC says. But the truth of the matter is that every single team in the Big 12 is rated higher in almost every statistical category than any of the remaining West Coast teams except B.Y.U. (cultural differences with the secular California mindset). That includes San Diego State (too redundant), Hawaii (too much to enhance in a short time), Wyoming (too small), Colorado State (redundant), New Mexico (below the Mendoza line of 72nd in investment), Nevada (see New Mexico), and Boise State (not rated in a lot of academic rankings and too few sports offered).

T.C.U. delivers Dallas/Ft. Worth the best remaining market within grasp.

Texas Tech connects the Arizona schools to Texas recruiting, has oil endowment income, connects Colorado and Utah to Texas recruiting.

Kansas State, Iowa State, & Oklahoma State, combined add almost 8 million viewers, 1 AAU school, 3 more central time zone slots, and potentially sets up two PAC/Big 10 rivalries (Iowa & Kansas).

Central Time Zone slots put the PAC into a new paradigm for marketing product and stands as the biggest boost to overall PAC accessibility to a heretofore unreachable audience. It's almost as big of a priority to the success of the PAC network as the addition of Texas. Through in a goodly % of the 26 million viewers in Texas delivered with Tech & TCU and it is totally conceivable that the PAC will relent, especially should it find a way to land at least 1 name brand school. But even if it doesn't it expands its product into a much broader and less regionally defined market.

2. Texas won't go to the PAC without Oklahoma because they fear what Oklahoma in the SEC might be able to do with A&M to their stranglehold on the Texas market.

There is some truth to this as a Texas perspective. Oklahoma's perspective is just to keep the RRR going regardless of whether or not they are in the same conference. But to Oklahoma's credit they know that even if Texas refused to play them (a move that would create tremendous backlash with Texas donors and be among the most unpopular of Texas's moves thus far, and some have already been unpopular, that the Horns are all hat and no action on this threat. But if they did the RRR could simply shift to Oklahoma vs Texas A&M in Dallas. Texas doesn't have the upper hand here. Oklahoma does. The issue is that Boren has his sights set on Big 10 inclusion. Texas doesn't want that. If Oklahoma and Kansas move to the Big 10 and the Horn's get pissed and call of the RRR then the Sooners have screwed themselves royally. Then it's advantage Texas. Neither school upon further reflection of their fan bases want to move that far out West, and Texas fans in particular don't wan't the Big 10. Schools may want academics, but fans want to see local games against teams they are interested in.

Therefore if Texas or Oklahoma move I expect to see them in either the SEC or ACC as that is where ESPN will want to place the Horns. As far as Texas is concerned ESPN would much rather have them in the totally owned ACC than the partially owned SEC, and either of them than the zero owned 50% leased PAC and the only minority influenced Big 10. So really the talk board BS about Texas to the PAC only gets done if the PAC sells a chunk of interest in the PACN to ESPN. All other scenarios are a non-starter.

I do suspect that Oklahoma and Texas would like to travel together. If they want to avoid name brand competition they will choose the ACC where there is only 1 national brand in football (F.S.U.) and several regional brands of note and access to Florida recruiting. If they choose the games that will be of the most interest to their fans and fill their stadiums most often they will join the SEC. It reunites them with Arkansas and A&M, through in Missouri, and long ago rival L.S.U. and the close proximity of the Mississippi schools and it's a win win for public relations.

Texas has a new administration and a new head coach with SEC ties. Who knows what the Horns will do? Oklahoma and Stoops don't want an SEC home.

3. Politics will keep North Carolina and N.C. State in the same conference.

Why? If they both can make more money by one of them moving they will not be changing their board of regents, their in state political structure, or their research sharing. None of those things affects athletics, period. In a time when cash is king and states are having a tough time supplying higher ed with lower sales tax bases and other forms of revenue streams any scenario that earns all of their state schools more money will be on the table. Plus the state tourism would more than double in the Fall with two conference's out of state teams coming into North Carolina to play and the SEC travels a helluva lot better than the ACC and that data is rock solid. We even average more in basketball attendance than the ACC and if you don't think the SECN being home based in North Carolina isn't going to have some political pull then think again. There are businesses in North Carolina that are going to profit by a closer association with the SEC.

4. The SEC needs more markets than it needs more good teams.

I totally agree with this, but if you can have both it increases your value all the more with content. And as far as seeking a Virginia and North Carolina school to accomplish this they fit perfectly for your assertion as neither of them will affect the upper tier balance of the SEC but both add very valuable markets.

Alabama and LSU will not stand in the way of better competition. Why? Each will be made a king of one of the new 4 divisions. So let's say Texas and Oklahoma come on board (not likely in my opinion but for the sake of bringing in two more powers how would it work?)

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
L.S.U., Ole Miss, Miss State, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Each 4 team division would have 2 solid programs competing each year, and 1 or 2 capable of mounting an occasional challenge, and in 3 of the divisions at least 1 fairly weak team.

Since Texas plays Oklahoma every year anyway, Alabama plays Auburn every year anyway, Florida plays Georgia every year anyway, and L.S.U. and A&M will be playing every year anyway like they once did long ago, then having two challengers in every 4 team division is nothing they don't face already.

5. Difficulty in conference distribution without watering down the field.

I agree, but that is exactly why the networks have been paying for realignment. They want better content and fewer teams that they have to pay top dollar to to get it. It is in the networks interest for providing a much more profitable, understandable, and popular structure to simply an awkward 5 into a much more powerful 4 conferences. In the end the only thing holding up that move is the PAC. They will either sell a percentage of their network to ESPN, or get paid a nice tidy sum to accept the little brothers and/or Iowa State in order to get this done. Content and regional crossovers are where they make their advertising dollars because both optimize eyeballs on the product. What they don't want more of is T.C.U. vs Iowa State, Baylor vs.Texas Tech, etc. But those schools do have value as venues in the Central Time Zone.

So if they don't sell a piece of their network they will be well paid to take 4 schools in either 3 or 4 CTZ states. If they do sell a percentage of their network then they get Texas and Oklahoma, but probably with Texas Tech and T.C.U. I think if the SEC can't get N.C. State and they won't if Texas is going to the PAC then we take Oklahoma State for a better % of DFW and Kansas State for the markets. IMO that's the worse case scenario for the SEC and Big 10 because the Big 10 would be pulling in Kansas and likely Connecticut or Iowa State. The ACC could have West Virginia in that case if they wanted to reconnect their footprint. But since that would be the most unpopular of all of the scenarios for the top two conferences I doubt that happens.

Logic says in the end that Texas, Oklahoma, and Baylor will form 3 of the Big 12 parties on their way to becoming the Western division of a 4 division ACC. Baylor is not marketable to the PAC and Texas Tech and T.C.U. are. ESPN would work out the details for the SEC and Big 10 (provided they are any kind of terms with the Big 10 at that time). They could work it so that the SEC gets N.C. State and Virginia Tech, or the SEC gets N.C. State and Oklahoma State and the Big 10 gets Kansas and Virginia Tech. But if the ACC takes 4, the PAC is paid to take 4, and the Big 10 takes 2 its done. If the PAC is paid to take 4, the ACC takes 4 and the SEC and Big 10 take 1 each still all 10 Big 12 teams get placed.

Brokering deals are something that can be managed as long as it is a win win for everyone. In the last scenario the Big 10 gets into Virgina and Kansas, the SEC into North Carolina and DFW through Oklahoma State. Both are huge wins. The ACC adds Texas and Oklahoma with Baylor and either T.C.U., or West Virginia. The two top 10 most profitable teams in the nation arriving in a conference with none is a tremendous content victory that puts the ACC on equal footing with the Big 10 and SEC. If politics in North Carolina stand in the way of that your conference won't be worth a plugged nickel by the end of the present GOR. Nobody could argue that a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State and Clemson isn't just as strong in football perception wise as any other conference. Texas and Oklahoma also bring decent hoops. And I might add so does Baylor. T.C.U. gives most ACC teams another conference win.

And one final caveat if I may. Let's say that the PAC just flat refuse to take anyone. The networks simply guarantee equal shares for any being absorbed into the SEC and ACC beyond what we would have taken anyway. The Big Ten takes Oklahoma and Kansas only if ESPN is so inclined, but more likely Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC gets Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and Baylor owns a state of 26 million plus Oklahoma and West Virginia.

Then our conferences look like this:
ACC
North: Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Wake Forest
West: Baylor, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

SEC
North: Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Mississippi State
West: Arkansas, Kansas State, Louisiana State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

So we would wind up with two conference of 18, one of 16, and one of 12. No big deal, but both the ACC and SEC would come out way ahead and the Big 10 would solve its scheduling issues and pick up 1 desired target. Not optimal for them, but still a plus.

So what I see listed as what you've heard is exactly that....just talk. The math, the money, the facts, and the impetus of the networks all say differently. Take care. JR

(01-30-2014 05:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  Here are a few things that we know or at least think we know:
The PAC does not want to expand unless Texas is involved (supposedly they already turned Oklahoma down without Texas).
Texas won't go to the PAC without Oklahoma (they are afraid the Sooners will go to the SEC and have A&M success and the Horns will be screwed for a long long time).
Politics in North Carolina will keep NC State and Carolina in the same conference.
The SEC needs markets more that it needs more good teams. Some say that Alabama and LSU don't want any more stiff competition.
Nobody seems to want to elevate another school (beyond 65). Add one school and you either have 16, 16, 16, 18 or two 16 two 17 team conferences. Add two or more and you have a really big mess.

The PAC doesn't want to expand "of it's own volition" without Texas. If the Networks promise them the money to expand without Texas, then problem solved.

I agree with some of your points. In regards to the SEC not wanting to get anymore elite programs that could further threaten their longstanding elite programs, I absolutely agree. Despite that though I came up with a different scenario just to see what folks like JR think about it.

I still stand by my Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big Ten, Texas/TCU/Baylor to the ACC, OSU/WVU to the SEC and TTU/KSU/ISU along with one more school to the PAC. The Networks would provide for this to happen, in my opinion.

And JR, I just love how you think that the Big Ten is chicken feed in the whole situation. The SEC isn't more attractive to the folks that run Oklahoma. I don't see why they would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten if Texas is going ACC with partial membership.

(01-30-2014 06:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And JR, I just love how you think that the Big Ten is chicken feed in the whole situation. The SEC isn't more attractive to the folks that run Oklahoma. I don't see why they would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten if Texas is going ACC with partial membership.

He1nous, I acknowledged Boren's preference for the Big 10 in my remarks. In the end I think they stay with Texas and I don't see any way that ESPN is going to let the Horns go to the Big 10, or the PAC (unless ESPN gets a chunk of the PACN in return). So that's why I don't see the Sooners headed to the Big 10. In my most likely scenario (IMO) it will be Kansas and Virginia Tech to the Big 10 and N.C. State and Oklahoma State to the SEC. But a lot will be dependent on the networks paying the PAC to take Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech. I think Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia will be ACC bound.

(01-30-2014 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 06:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And JR, I just love how you think that the Big Ten is chicken feed in the whole situation. The SEC isn't more attractive to the folks that run Oklahoma. I don't see why they would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten if Texas is going ACC with partial membership.

He1nous, I acknowledged Boren's preference for the Big 10 in my remarks. In the end I think they stay with Texas and I don't see any way that ESPN is going to let the Horns go to the Big 10, or the PAC (unless ESPN gets a chunk of the PACN in return). So that's why I don't see the Sooners headed to the Big 10. In my most likely scenario (IMO) it will be Kansas and Virginia Tech to the Big 10 and N.C. State and Oklahoma State to the SEC. But a lot will be dependent on the networks paying the PAC to take Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech. I think Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia will be ACC bound.

I see you liked my out of the box scenario.

I just cant see Oklahoma in the ACC. The Texas/Oklahoma rivalry has much more history as a non conference rivalry than a conference rivalry game. If Texas gets a six game deal with the ACC then there is no problem maintaining that Oklahoma game. Oklahoma would be free to go anywhere. With that out of the way, there is no way Oklahoma would choose the ACC over the other three conferences.

Don't forget, Stoops has Big Ten ties and has been quite vocal in his disfavor of the SEC.

(01-30-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 07:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 06:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And JR, I just love how you think that the Big Ten is chicken feed in the whole situation. The SEC isn't more attractive to the folks that run Oklahoma. I don't see why they would prefer the SEC over the Big Ten if Texas is going ACC with partial membership.

He1nous, I acknowledged Boren's preference for the Big 10 in my remarks. In the end I think they stay with Texas and I don't see any way that ESPN is going to let the Horns go to the Big 10, or the PAC (unless ESPN gets a chunk of the PACN in return). So that's why I don't see the Sooners headed to the Big 10. In my most likely scenario (IMO) it will be Kansas and Virginia Tech to the Big 10 and N.C. State and Oklahoma State to the SEC. But a lot will be dependent on the networks paying the PAC to take Iowa State, Kansas State, T.C.U. and Texas Tech. I think Baylor, Texas, Oklahoma, and West Virginia will be ACC bound.

I see you liked my out of the box scenario.

I just cant see Oklahoma in the ACC. The Texas/Oklahoma rivalry has much more history as a non conference rivalry than a conference rivalry game. If Texas gets a six game deal with the ACC then there is no problem maintaining that Oklahoma game. Oklahoma would be free to go anywhere. With that out of the way, there is no way Oklahoma would choose the ACC over the other three conferences.

Don't forget, Stoops has Big Ten ties and has been quite vocal in his disfavor of the SEC.

If you had read my whole post you would have seen that I validated Stoops feelings as well.

Does the LHN still exist if the Big 12 goes away?

(01-31-2014 05:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  Does the LHN still exist if the Big 12 goes away?

Technically yes. But in the hypothetical case that Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and West Virginia were to move to the ACC here is what would likely happen. The LHN will have 15 years remaining on its contract at the conclusion of the 2015 season. It costs ESPN a guaranteed 15 million a year in payouts to the Horns. The balance remaining on the contract would be 225 million. Let's say that the additions of Texas and Oklahoma along with West Virginia and Baylor raises the ACC football content by an additional payout of 6 million a year per team (and that's not a bad estimate) and that their inclusion guarantees an ACC network which will be the old LHN being adapted by ESPN for the ACC. How might that be done so that ESPN relieves itself of the contractual obligation to Texas and yet still rewards the existing and incoming ACC schools?

First, ESPN and Texas might come to a settlement less than the remaining contract. But if they don't each school in the ACC could agree to accept an initial increase in payout of 2 million instead of 6. It would take 3 and 1/2 years at a reduced increase level to pay off the 225 million remaining on the Longhorn contract at that rate. So by the 4th year all schools would realize 4 million of their increase and by the 5th year the full 6 million. With the Longhorn network payout fully realized Texas would be seeing a raise in their conference payouts by little over 6 million, holding their LHN buyout, and looking to start making money off of the new ACCN. The new television contracts should be paying out around 28 million, not including tournament money and bowl payouts, or the money from the ACCN. There would be minimal start up costs for a network because many of them have been covered already through the LHN. There might be costs for a move but the ACC could share the ESPN facility that will be handling the SECN which also minimizes costs. When the network is up and running your payout per team should achieve parity or near parity with anything the SEC or Big 10 is offering and with the larger markets your upside would be greater, especially if Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, West Virginia, Louisville, and Miami all start playing better ball. And since the competition will be fiercer I believe the level of play will elevate, and significantly. And all of them would now have more money for facility improvements and for coaches.

That potential is well worth the cost of N.C. State and Virginia Tech. It enhances your football tremendously, your basketball moderately, your baseball moderately, and your earning potential maximally. You lose no footprint in the exchange. Your additions are vastly superior to your losses and that alone will help you gain ground on the SEC and cement yourself for the time being as the second best football conference in the nation, and in a longer span perhaps a rival for #1.

ESPN's payoffs are these:
1. They morph a turkey in the LHN into an instant winner in an ACCN.
2. They consolidate properties and operations reducing overhead.
3. They set up two rival conferences under their direction that account between them for the vast majority of NCAA championships and with an intrinsic sense of rivalry between them to max out the matches between them. They also control the regions of the country that are most fanatical about watching, attending, and giving to College Sports and couple that with large markets whose teams will draw interest.
4. They will control outright 7 of the 10 most profitable brands in college football, and obliquely can utilize an 8th, Notre Dame.
5. The zippered setup between the two conferences makes regional play OOC easy to schedule and easy to cover.
6. They have more product than they need and can lease some to regional telecasts (utilizing Raycom like organization or leasing to FOX).
7. They own rights to Texas and Oklahoma outright.

It's a win win win.

In essentially 1 move the ACC levels the playing field in college football everywhere except the PAC.
The SEC acquires its totally Southeastern footprint and doesn't have to move further west in order to expand.
ESPN winds up with two powerhouse conferences and a majority of top brands.

Two scenarios, both assume the Big 12 goes kaput.

Scenario 1
(drops Wake, TCU & KSU, adds Cincy and UConn, to P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn
Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati

SEC:
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.,
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State,
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State,
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State,
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC


Scenario 2
(drops Wake from P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Notre Dame,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, West Virginia
Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, TCU

SEC:
NC State, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St.

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas St.
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

(02-01-2014 07:04 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Two scenarios, both assume the Big 12 goes kaput.

Scenario 1
(drops Wake, TCU & KSU, adds Cincy and UConn, to P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn
Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati

SEC:
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.,
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State,
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State,
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State,
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC


Scenario 2
(drops Wake from P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Notre Dame,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, West Virginia
Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, TCU

SEC:
NC State, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St.

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas St.
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

Scenario 2 isn't bad if you swap Baylor for T.C.U.. Baylor would be acceptable in the ACC but not in the PAC. T.C.U. is totally secular outside of the theology school so the PAC shouldn't have trouble with them.

(02-01-2014 07:04 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Two scenarios, both assume the Big 12 goes kaput.

Scenario 1
(drops Wake, TCU & KSU, adds Cincy and UConn, to P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn
Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati

SEC:
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.,
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State,
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State,
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State,
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC


Scenario 2
(drops Wake from P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Notre Dame,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, West Virginia
Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, TCU

SEC:
NC State, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St.

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas St.
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

?
Why, Why, Why would the ACC want to drop Wake Forest for Cincinnati?

(02-02-2014 02:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 07:04 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Two scenarios, both assume the Big 12 goes kaput.

Scenario 1
(drops Wake, TCU & KSU, adds Cincy and UConn, to P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn
Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati

SEC:
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.,
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State,
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State,
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State,
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC


Scenario 2
(drops Wake from P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Notre Dame,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, West Virginia
Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, TCU

SEC:
NC State, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St.

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas St.
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

?
Why, Why, Why would the ACC want to drop Wake Forest for Cincinnati?

My assumption is that the P4 schools by that time have agreed on minimum budgets, etc and based on recent statements by Wake, they may not want the financial burden of competing at that level. If instead Wake decides not to drop down a level, then either Cincy or UConn are out and Wake would stay in.

I am pretty sure in most scenarios with ISU in the B1G that ISU should be replaced with Connecticut. Doubling up in the small Iowa market would be a loser for them and ISU has no national ratings pull in FB or BB. I am assuming you are trying to find a home for all 10 B12 schools. That is not necessary. Just 8 votes to dissolve and ISU has nobody looking out for them. It's unfortunate because they get great support.

I can't see either Wake Forest of Iowa State being left out of an upper division of the NCAA, a P4 or a breakaway structure. ISU's budget of $55 million is too large to discard and Wake's at nearly $50 million should be large enough for inclusion, assuming athletic department budgets is a prime factor. I just don't see any current P5 school not making the cut.

(02-03-2014 11:09 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  I can't see either Wake Forest of Iowa State being left out of an upper division of the NCAA, a P4 or a breakaway structure. ISU's budget of $55 million is too large to discard and Wake's at nearly $50 million should be large enough for inclusion, assuming athletic department budgets is a prime factor. I just don't see any current P5 school not making the cut.

I think Iowa State with an average attendance over 50,000, AAU status, and the level of investment you speak of will be in along with their access to over 3 million viewers. The question is where? Wake Forest is in as long as the ACC is in. Their risk would occur if the ACC were to be raided out of existence. A fourth small North Carolina school would have a tough time finding a home. But since I don't expect a totally owned ESPN property to evaporate I think they are fine.

The question is how do you make the ACC stable? You add football power (Texas, OU, WVU, Kansas State, Baylor & AAU Iowa State) reduce your redundant footprint area to make room (N.C. State & Virginia Tech to the SEC) and gain a network (LHN into ACCN) and economic parity with the SEC & Big 10. The SEC moves to 18 also with Kansas and Oklahoma State. ESPN protects 8 solid properties by moving them to conferences they control. Texas Tech and T.C.U. deliver the PAC a significant portion of the Texas market.

ESPN with that move now has the two most dominant football conferences in the nation, adds two teams with rabid and loyal fan bases to the ACC and increases their potential viewers by 38 million. The SEC gets stronger but not just in football. We get our to desired Eastern markets, a basketball national brand in Kansas, and a very solid sports program in Oklahoma State that helps deliver the DFW market. The total improvement for the SECN is 4 new states and 19 million new viewers.

It's a win for the SEC, a win for the ACC, and a big win for ESPN.

Collateral advantages are:

1. It increases the ACC payout and SEC payout by 1/4 of 1/5 of the total playoff money.

2. It increases the bowl contracts by permitting the ACC and SEC to pick up some that once belonged to the Big 12.

3. It enhances end of season rivalry content between the two conferences.

(02-01-2014 07:04 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  Two scenarios, both assume the Big 12 goes kaput.

Scenario 1
(drops Wake, TCU & KSU, adds Cincy and UConn, to P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Duke,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, UConn
Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati

SEC:
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, LSU
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.,
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State,
Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois,
Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa State,
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State,
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC


Scenario 2
(drops Wake from P4)

ACC:
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Notre Dame,
Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Florida State
Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, West Virginia
Louisville, Texas, Oklahoma, TCU

SEC:
NC State, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, LSU
Auburn, Alabama, Ole Miss, Miss. St.
Texas A&M, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma St.

B1G:
Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas

PAC 12:
Arizona St., Arizona, Texas Tech, Baylor
Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas St.
Oregon, Washington, Washington State, Oregon State
Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

That's a pretty good breakdown.

I only have one point of contention in that I think Baylor is a squad that could get left out instead of KSU.