(02-15-2014 11:14 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  By 2022, I agree this might be possible (although only under the right circumstances). I think going to one league structurally would be very difficult though and, while I think there could be monetary advantages, I think the practical problems are well beyond what the schools would consider at this time.

The biggest thing is simply that this requires the most powerful conferences to agree to become less powerful. The conferences right now are set to make very different amounts of money. The Big Ten (after its new contract) and SEC (with the SEC Network) along with likely Texas and Notre Dame are going to be making a lot more than money in the medium term than the ACC, PAC-12, or other Big 12 members (not that their contracts are bad, just not as high). They also get a lot more national exposure.

Joining a national type league actually helps the bottom conferences more than top conferences. The Big Ten and SEC members might get a slight bump (although might not) while the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 erase all differences in TV revenue. Agreeing to the structure of a national league right now would mean the strongest two conferences would be gaining the least and I just don't see Slive and Delany pushing us there.

What your saying is logical, except I would point out that making more money in the short term, or even in the mid term, is not the same as power. I believe that all of the conferences have already lost power. They did that when they sold out to the networks for gain. It is the networks that now have the most leverage. I've long argued on another board that once the big conferences were all locked into contracts that the carrot dangled to realign according to network preferences would be replaced from the market model preached and followed in order to rake in the big increases in revenue to a more practical market saturation model in which the switch would replace the bait and we would be paid based on the percentage of actual viewers within a state as opposed to for the entire footprint which the networks now are paying for twice in many cases. Now that Texas and Florida are split in essence between various conferences then justification can be made that the SEC, Big 12, Big 10 or whomever doesn't actually carry the entire state and adjustments have to be made. All of the sudden the SEC might well regret leaving F.S.U. on the table when they had the chance to take them. A conference fully in control of its destiny might still have taken a proven content team. But we didn't. Why? We weren't in control. ESPN was and they weren't going to pay us to take F.S.U. even though from a sports perspective F.S.U. is worth more in the SEC for the content they generate than they are worth in the ACC by the same measure.

Yes we all needed new markets, but we all should also have consolidated (if we had been truly free to do so and that is the measure of our loss of power). Prudence says that closer games generate more money that doesn't have to be shared: Gate, concessions, contributions from businesses locally that depend upon sports crowds, etc. If there is further brokered moves I fell confident that with the exception of small population states with more than 1 major program (Oklahoma) that we will see schools split. In that regard Chapel Hill and Virginia are smart to hold tight and Ohio is fortunate to be the only big time program in a large state. But I think they want to bust up conference monopolies in large states with the exception of the West coast where product is just too thin to do so. The more blurred conference lines are the more games there are that can be scheduled between schools with affiliations in two different regions even though they are within the same state. That draws eyeballs from two fan bases instead of 1 and maximizes ad revenue. That coupled with a payout model shift is what they are after. And they've just about gotten it. Time will tell, I wouldn't bet the farm on either of our scenarios and I do indeed see the reasoning behind your position and could buy that as an outcome as well. JR

Wow, so many mini threads in these conversations that I'm not sure which message I should respond to, so I'll do a bunch at once. The consistent theme, though, is that while it's fun to think about seismic changes, change most often happens incrementally. I just don't think wholesale changes will occur.

Ohio 1317 wrote: 1. Massive debt/funding problems at schools well beyond what we see now. This probably coincides with a major economic downturn and much reduced TV value. (Note: I actually do think this is likely in the next decade).

Funding problems at schools make revenue sources more valuable. Unless football becomes a less popular spectator sport, the $ will continue to flow and the top tier schools will be even more addicted to it during harder times.

I think an economic downturn comes sooner (2016-18), when interest rates rise and interest on the massive and ever growing national debt begins to take up a larger and larger share of the federal budget. More taxes or significant cuts in spending will be needed, triggering the next downturn. Democrats will blame Bush.

2. I really think the power of ESPN and FOX here is a bit overstated and misses one fundamental thing. They don't want realignment and really haven't from the start imo.

I agree, and for another reason. The power ESPN and Fox have is the power to price various scenarios - e.g. if VT and NCSt. go to the SEC or UVA and UNC go to the B1G, how much would they pay above and beyond current contracts to get the media rights for those teams too. In terms of adding members, the conferences will listen to what ESPN and Fox say, but ultimately the conferences have the product ESPN and Fox need to buy to be successful. The conferences also won't just do what ESPN or Fox says will result in the most money. University presidents take a longer term view, particularly the B1G presidents. Academic compatibility is important to the B1G and to some extent the PAC, in-state rivalries are important to Texas, cultural compatibility seems important to the SEC.

Ultimately the conferences and individual schools will decide realignment not the networks.

JRsec wrote: I don't think any raids will occur. The networks and conference commissioners will get together and broker out the wholesale parsing of the Big 12 if anything happens.

. . . if there is more movement prior to 2024 it will likely be brokered by ESPN in house if movement is between the SEC or ACC, and in cooperation with FOX if it is pertaining to the Big 12. If FOX and ESPN can agree upon an equitable split of Big 12 property that supersedes conference interference then we might well see 8 of their schools find homes, enough to dissolve the Big 12 and end their GOR.

Realistically, I don't think raids or movement will occur before the GOR expires, unless Texas decides to abandon the Big 12. When the GOR is ready to expire, however, I think some Big 12 teams will look around and see if they can land in a more stable conference (just like Missouri, Nebraska, A&M and Colorado did last time around) and at that point, nothing stops the SEC or B1G from picking off teams for periods after the GOR expires.

Having the networks and conferences decide realignment creates a real risk of lawsuits by the universities that are not happy with the results. Anti-trust violations, tortious interference with contracts and restraint of trade would become new words in the CSNbbs vocabulary. In any event, it's more likely that individual schools make decisions to move than the networks and conferences are able to both come up with a grand plan and get agreement from all of the affected schools and conferences.

JRsec wrote: Let's assume that you are correct. Consolidation into one "League" is what could well happen with a breakaway. I don't think that will be possible within the NCAA. But if there were to be a breakaway then consolidation for leverage would take place IMO, however "conferences" would exist more to maintain regional distinctions and a sense of rivalry and easy fan identification, but the designations would not affect any of the schools with regards to earnings. Everyone's base would be the same. Absorbing the Big 12 at that juncture for structure purposes would not be that big of an issue. Everyone gains, nobody loses, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State play within their natural region, West Virginia as well. Everyone has access to the playoffs and the structures are similar enough to be fair.

And all the schools will sing "Kumbaya" and live happily ever after playing their local rivals. Nope. Even if they broke away from the NCAA, I don't see the B1G, SEC or PAC deciding that historic conference membership doesn't matter anymore. You might see more coordinated OOC games to make sure historic rivalries across conferences are maintained (and because they generate big local $ for the networks) but I don't think you'll see any realignment along geographic lines that move conference members around.

I could certainly see the top conferences breaking away and deciding they don't need the NCAA, but the NCAA seems willing to give the big boys much more freedom now. As long as the NCAA doesn't get too greedy, the conferences are more likely to take the less controversial path and stay in the NCAA, but with their own rulebook.

(02-17-2014 12:52 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Wow, so many mini threads in these conversations that I'm not sure which message I should respond to, so I'll do a bunch at once. The consistent theme, though, is that while it's fun to think about seismic changes, change most often happens incrementally. I just don't think wholesale changes will occur.

Ohio 1317 wrote: 1. Massive debt/funding problems at schools well beyond what we see now. This probably coincides with a major economic downturn and much reduced TV value. (Note: I actually do think this is likely in the next decade).

Funding problems at schools make revenue sources more valuable. Unless football becomes a less popular spectator sport, the $ will continue to flow and the top tier schools will be even more addicted to it during harder times.

I think an economic downturn comes sooner (2016-18), when interest rates rise and interest on the massive and ever growing national debt begins to take up a larger and larger share of the federal budget. More taxes or significant cuts in spending will be needed, triggering the next downturn. Democrats will blame Bush.

2. I really think the power of ESPN and FOX here is a bit overstated and misses one fundamental thing. They don't want realignment and really haven't from the start imo.

I agree, and for another reason. The power ESPN and Fox have is the power to price various scenarios - e.g. if VT and NCSt. go to the SEC or UVA and UNC go to the B1G, how much would they pay above and beyond current contracts to get the media rights for those teams too. In terms of adding members, the conferences will listen to what ESPN and Fox say, but ultimately the conferences have the product ESPN and Fox need to buy to be successful. The conferences also won't just do what ESPN or Fox says will result in the most money. University presidents take a longer term view, particularly the B1G presidents. Academic compatibility is important to the B1G and to some extent the PAC, in-state rivalries are important to Texas, cultural compatibility seems important to the SEC.

Ultimately the conferences and individual schools will decide realignment not the networks.

JRsec wrote: I don't think any raids will occur. The networks and conference commissioners will get together and broker out the wholesale parsing of the Big 12 if anything happens.

. . . if there is more movement prior to 2024 it will likely be brokered by ESPN in house if movement is between the SEC or ACC, and in cooperation with FOX if it is pertaining to the Big 12. If FOX and ESPN can agree upon an equitable split of Big 12 property that supersedes conference interference then we might well see 8 of their schools find homes, enough to dissolve the Big 12 and end their GOR.

Realistically, I don't think raids or movement will occur before the GOR expires, unless Texas decides to abandon the Big 12. When the GOR is ready to expire, however, I think some Big 12 teams will look around and see if they can land in a more stable conference (just like Missouri, Nebraska, A&M and Colorado did last time around) and at that point, nothing stops the SEC or B1G from picking off teams for periods after the GOR expires.

Having the networks and conferences decide realignment creates a real risk of lawsuits by the universities that are not happy with the results. Anti-trust violations, tortious interference with contracts and restraint of trade would become new words in the CSNbbs vocabulary. In any event, it's more likely that individual schools make decisions to move than the networks and conferences are able to both come up with a grand plan and get agreement from all of the affected schools and conferences.

JRsec wrote: Let's assume that you are correct. Consolidation into one "League" is what could well happen with a breakaway. I don't think that will be possible within the NCAA. But if there were to be a breakaway then consolidation for leverage would take place IMO, however "conferences" would exist more to maintain regional distinctions and a sense of rivalry and easy fan identification, but the designations would not affect any of the schools with regards to earnings. Everyone's base would be the same. Absorbing the Big 12 at that juncture for structure purposes would not be that big of an issue. Everyone gains, nobody loses, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State play within their natural region, West Virginia as well. Everyone has access to the playoffs and the structures are similar enough to be fair.

And all the schools will sing "Kumbaya" and live happily ever after playing their local rivals. Nope. Even if they broke away from the NCAA, I don't see the B1G, SEC or PAC deciding that historic conference membership doesn't matter anymore. You might see more coordinated OOC games to make sure historic rivalries across conferences are maintained (and because they generate big local $ for the networks) but I don't think you'll see any realignment along geographic lines that move conference members around.

I could certainly see the top conferences breaking away and deciding they don't need the NCAA, but the NCAA seems willing to give the big boys much more freedom now. As long as the NCAA doesn't get too greedy, the conferences are more likely to take the less controversial path and stay in the NCAA, but with their own rulebook.

1. The popularity of football is already in significant decline in those under 35.

2. What you call the national debt was altered under the Clinton administration to be the term applied to the interest of the national debt alone. What Congress is having a hard time paying is the 19 Trillion dollars we owe in interest on the debt. What Congress now calls a balanced budget is in reality occurring only when we manage to pay all of the interest we owe in a year. Take the interest rate that the Government has to pay and do the math and you will find the actual National Debt. Divide the 19 Trillion by the percentage of Interest and prepare to collapse. Balanced Budget meant 30 years ago that we actually had a zero sum year with assets against liabilities. Not any more and not for a long time.

3. Realignment is now handled by Commissioners. Commissioners are hired because of their inside knowledge and legal expertise surrounding media contracts. No movement happens unless the Networks pay. Boston College officials told you as much concerning ESPN's role in the parsing of the Old Big East. Nothing is any different in the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, or ACC. The PAC is different in that they are self owned. Presidents of universities by an large don't want to know anything except about their academics and their revenue streams and they know that their State and Federal funds are getting much harder to attain. (Go back and look at that national debt and then take a gander at actual unemployment not the figures put out monthly by the Labor Department).

4. No wholesale realignment will take place? I would call Maryland, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Texas A&M seismic compared to past movement. I would say the raiding out of existence of a BCS conference is more testimony to the severity of the movement.

5. No Kumbaya, just no damned money to travel for minor sports. That's why they stay geographically based. Leverage for survival and to maximize contract leverage is why they might leave as a unit (even though conference distinctions would be maintained). They would essentially become a cartel.

I guess about the only thing I do agree with is that the NCAA will likely cave to whatever extent to keep their cash cow from disintegrating before their eyes.

What we have here is the classic scenario of a frog in water that is being increased by degree until it boils. The college sports business is an entertainment industry. Entertainment in an economic downturn, or catastrophe, is a luxury. People do without luxuries when they need to keep their home and feed their families. Top tier cable packages have to be purchased to obtain many of the upper tier sports channels. There's the rub.

I understand why you feel the way you do I just respectfully disagree about how to interpret the data and the times. I guess I can genuinely say I hope you're right. But I don't think so.