Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #21
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
Yes, great thoughts by both JR and jhawk. Bringing up Fox's potential to overpay is important. As you said, they overpaid for the NFC years ago and have raked in billions as a result. It may be a while until we see the full implications of ESPN overpaying for Texas with the LHN, but I have a feeling that it was for long term interests. The same may go for another game changer in 12 years. I agree with some sentiments that any major action in college sports will be done by ESPN or Fox in the short term. After 8-10 years, who knows.

I have nothing to back this up other than a gut feeling, but I don't think the PAC sells out to ESPN, Fox, or another party. Their schools are the ones that have produced a vast majority of Silicon Valley types, and if there is any group that has access to knowing how media will likely be handled in the upcoming years, it is the leadership at those schools. Selling 50% to an existing powerhouse network is the formula for the last couple of years and the present. The PAC does not strike me as a money grab group. If I had to guess, I think the PAC will ride out this first round of GOR expirations and work with the rest of college football on a contract basis, namely Texas, Notre Dame, and BYU. We all know what Texas is, but we can't be sure about what they will be. New leadership may indeed lead them toward a more PAC mentality. The PAC seems stable and comfortable now, and there are truly no remaining schools that are obvious additions. Texas is as close to the next best fit as the PAC will have for a long time, and I see no reason why they should not wait if media independence is what they seek.

Wait on Texas to be done with ESPN and bring along Texas Tech, wait on New Mexico, wait on Colorado State, have San Diego State change their brand to California State and then wait on them, too. In the meantime, maximize revenues by cutting solid deals for PACN coverage in mainstream and non-traditional ways, knowing that retaining ownership is your long term equity. All of their schools are in excellent financial shape ($400 million or more in endowments, $50 million or more in athletic revenue).

Having said all of that, Fox does have a major presence in Los Angeles, and ESPN has slowly shifted more and more operations there, but it is not a headquarters by any means. If the PAC does sell out, my money would be on Fox winning it because 1) I think they would overpay, 2) The PAC's relationship with the B1G will open up partnerships that are harder when one party is with Fox and the other is with ESPN, and 3) Fox Sports is headquartered in L.A., and they would hit the ground running, especially with the PAC schools having already invested in media infrastructure on campus.

So, what does Texas do? Does the PAC take potentially less money, influence, and cooperation with the B1G by going with ESPN just to gain Texas, which we all know would come in and think they were the new sheriff in town? How does Texas Tech play into all of this? Could a Texas Tech after 12 years of all around improvements give the PAC enough of the foothold they desire in the state, or is Texas-Austin the end all, be all?
03-18-2014 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-18-2014 11:50 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Yes, great thoughts by both JR and jhawk. Bringing up Fox's potential to overpay is important. As you said, they overpaid for the NFC years ago and have raked in billions as a result. It may be a while until we see the full implications of ESPN overpaying for Texas with the LHN, but I have a feeling that it was for long term interests. The same may go for another game changer in 12 years. I agree with some sentiments that any major action in college sports will be done by ESPN or Fox in the short term. After 8-10 years, who knows.

I have nothing to back this up other than a gut feeling, but I don't think the PAC sells out to ESPN, Fox, or another party. Their schools are the ones that have produced a vast majority of Silicon Valley types, and if there is any group that has access to knowing how media will likely be handled in the upcoming years, it is the leadership at those schools. Selling 50% to an existing powerhouse network is the formula for the last couple of years and the present. The PAC does not strike me as a money grab group. If I had to guess, I think the PAC will ride out this first round of GOR expirations and work with the rest of college football on a contract basis, namely Texas, Notre Dame, and BYU. We all know what Texas is, but we can't be sure about what they will be. New leadership may indeed lead them toward a more PAC mentality. The PAC seems stable and comfortable now, and there are truly no remaining schools that are obvious additions. Texas is as close to the next best fit as the PAC will have for a long time, and I see no reason why they should not wait if media independence is what they seek.

Wait on Texas to be done with ESPN and bring along Texas Tech, wait on New Mexico, wait on Colorado State, have San Diego State change their brand to California State and then wait on them, too. In the meantime, maximize revenues by cutting solid deals for PACN coverage in mainstream and non-traditional ways, knowing that retaining ownership is your long term equity. All of their schools are in excellent financial shape ($400 million or more in endowments, $50 million or more in athletic revenue).

Having said all of that, Fox does have a major presence in Los Angeles, and ESPN has slowly shifted more and more operations there, but it is not a headquarters by any means. If the PAC does sell out, my money would be on Fox winning it because 1) I think they would overpay, 2) The PAC's relationship with the B1G will open up partnerships that are harder when one party is with Fox and the other is with ESPN, and 3) Fox Sports is headquartered in L.A., and they would hit the ground running, especially with the PAC schools having already invested in media infrastructure on campus.

So, what does Texas do? Does the PAC take potentially less money, influence, and cooperation with the B1G by going with ESPN just to gain Texas, which we all know would come in and think they were the new sheriff in town? How does Texas Tech play into all of this? Could a Texas Tech after 12 years of all around improvements give the PAC enough of the foothold they desire in the state, or is Texas-Austin the end all, be all?

Interesting speculation about FOX's potential to make a run at the PAC, and some really good points. Just one point to make here. The LHN contract lasts until the end of June 2031, or roughly 6 years after the Big 12's GOR expires. I think ESPN had that in mind when they set the terms. It will be a while before Texas can move to a FOX held property. Oklahoma and Kansas on the other hand have relatively short duration on their T3 rights and could be bought out fairly easily. So it appears to me that ESPN wanted to just halt movement in the Big 12 long enough to either take, or select with FOX, the properties of the Big 12 not named Texas. But, clearly the contract for the LHN was intended to keep Bevo in the right pasture.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2014 12:16 PM by JRsec.)
03-18-2014 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #23
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-18-2014 12:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(03-17-2014 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2014 10:55 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(03-14-2014 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-14-2014 03:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  If money is the organizing principle, think of how much you could make by starting a new league that puts together the six most valuable Big Ten schools and the six most valuable ACC schools. Or an all-southern league that cherry-picks UT and OU and adds them to the most valuable SEC and ACC properties while not including the less-valuable "athletic franchises".

We might get there Wedge, but I think like filtering fine wine, there are a few more transitions to go through first. And I do think so far the whole process has been one of filtration. The Big East was used as a filter for the top up and coming programs and some strong basketball product. Then the ACC was used to filter the Big East. Three conferences have been used to filter the Big 12. And I don't think the filtration is at all complete.

So far the Big 10 has been strengthened in markets with loads of Alumni and then there is the Nebraska content add. I look for more markets with their next two at minimum and 1 market and 1 content add at best.

The SEC got two market adds it's just fortunate that one was also a regional content add as well.

The PAC got two market adds that serve as bridges as well.

The ACC gained huge product in basketball and added some nice markets, but the Maryland loss bisected their market footprint. It will be interesting to see if they are now remade into the 4th national brand conference or whether they are filtered.

I consider the Big 12 the most likely to be filtered next and by the PAC if they sell part of their network rights. But Texas and Oklahoma along with Kansas could be rebuilt into the 4th national brand conference should something happen in the ACC. We'll see.

First, great thoughts as always, JR. You lay out a lot of good information that is actually being used in this realignment process. Your view of the Big 12 as the next conference to be filtered is accurate, and I think it was only disrupted by 2 things: 1) ESPN seeing it occurring and putting a stop to it by a move that a river gambler may not have even tried, the LHN. 2) Reading between the lines from Gee and others, the Big 10's blindness to conditions by concentrating solely on eastward expansion.

With the ACC rallying the troops, not adding Missouri and Kansas as Big 10 schools #15 and #16 has to be a regret. Texas, as is always the case and proven by JR's 1st and 2nd scenarios being completely contingent on them moving, might as well be the Notre Dame during the BCS years. If you all remember, it felt like the BCS commissioners and Notre Dame basically called the shots.

So BBB where does Texas go?
1. PAC if ESPN can acquire 50% ownership of the PACN When? Sooner than the grant of rights expire since ESPN is in position to place eight between the PAC/SEC/ACC and/or possibly Big 10.

2. ACC if ESPN can get a commitment date out of Notre Dame. When? Soon if they can get to PAC and Big 10 to both take a pair. In 12 years if they can't.

3. Big 12 if ESPN can get a long term commitment out of the Big 10 for T1 and can morph the LHN into a New Big 12 Conference Network. When? At the end of 12 years.

4. SEC only if at the end of 12 years Texas and OU make the most money there, and that is possible.

5. Independent in the ACC but only if N.D. refuses to join and they can bring their friends from the Big 12.

There is one more option:

6. Independent in a rebuilt B12 after KU, OU, and maybe a few others leave. They would still probably rule that conference, while at the same time having the national schedule they want for FB.

It will be interesting to see what direction Texas goes. Dodds favored a eastern path if they left the B12 and he was infatuated with Notre Dame. So it is almost certain that they would have gone to the ACC if the B12 failed and he had his way. He helped convince Powers to back out of the PAC 16 deal in 2010. Now that he is out, Patterson, the new AD, has been a PAC guy (ASU) and worked for Portland in the NBA, and their president Powers is a PAC guy. I think they will be more open to the PAC than they were when Dodds was the AD.

Texas will try to keep the B12 intact for now and if it fails, I still think they look east first, but if they get a better deal from the PAC than one of the eastern conferences they might take it the next go around. They probably go where they feel they will have the most power as they mint money regardless. So probably options 5 or 6, if option 3 (keeping the B12 intact) fails.

One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?
03-18-2014 09:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #24
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-18-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 12:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(03-17-2014 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2014 10:55 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  
(03-14-2014 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We might get there Wedge, but I think like filtering fine wine, there are a few more transitions to go through first. And I do think so far the whole process has been one of filtration. The Big East was used as a filter for the top up and coming programs and some strong basketball product. Then the ACC was used to filter the Big East. Three conferences have been used to filter the Big 12. And I don't think the filtration is at all complete.

So far the Big 10 has been strengthened in markets with loads of Alumni and then there is the Nebraska content add. I look for more markets with their next two at minimum and 1 market and 1 content add at best.

The SEC got two market adds it's just fortunate that one was also a regional content add as well.

The PAC got two market adds that serve as bridges as well.

The ACC gained huge product in basketball and added some nice markets, but the Maryland loss bisected their market footprint. It will be interesting to see if they are now remade into the 4th national brand conference or whether they are filtered.

I consider the Big 12 the most likely to be filtered next and by the PAC if they sell part of their network rights. But Texas and Oklahoma along with Kansas could be rebuilt into the 4th national brand conference should something happen in the ACC. We'll see.

First, great thoughts as always, JR. You lay out a lot of good information that is actually being used in this realignment process. Your view of the Big 12 as the next conference to be filtered is accurate, and I think it was only disrupted by 2 things: 1) ESPN seeing it occurring and putting a stop to it by a move that a river gambler may not have even tried, the LHN. 2) Reading between the lines from Gee and others, the Big 10's blindness to conditions by concentrating solely on eastward expansion.

With the ACC rallying the troops, not adding Missouri and Kansas as Big 10 schools #15 and #16 has to be a regret. Texas, as is always the case and proven by JR's 1st and 2nd scenarios being completely contingent on them moving, might as well be the Notre Dame during the BCS years. If you all remember, it felt like the BCS commissioners and Notre Dame basically called the shots.

So BBB where does Texas go?
1. PAC if ESPN can acquire 50% ownership of the PACN When? Sooner than the grant of rights expire since ESPN is in position to place eight between the PAC/SEC/ACC and/or possibly Big 10.

2. ACC if ESPN can get a commitment date out of Notre Dame. When? Soon if they can get to PAC and Big 10 to both take a pair. In 12 years if they can't.

3. Big 12 if ESPN can get a long term commitment out of the Big 10 for T1 and can morph the LHN into a New Big 12 Conference Network. When? At the end of 12 years.

4. SEC only if at the end of 12 years Texas and OU make the most money there, and that is possible.

5. Independent in the ACC but only if N.D. refuses to join and they can bring their friends from the Big 12.

There is one more option:

6. Independent in a rebuilt B12 after KU, OU, and maybe a few others leave. They would still probably rule that conference, while at the same time having the national schedule they want for FB.

It will be interesting to see what direction Texas goes. Dodds favored a eastern path if they left the B12 and he was infatuated with Notre Dame. So it is almost certain that they would have gone to the ACC if the B12 failed and he had his way. He helped convince Powers to back out of the PAC 16 deal in 2010. Now that he is out, Patterson, the new AD, has been a PAC guy (ASU) and worked for Portland in the NBA, and their president Powers is a PAC guy. I think they will be more open to the PAC than they were when Dodds was the AD.

Texas will try to keep the B12 intact for now and if it fails, I still think they look east first, but if they get a better deal from the PAC than one of the eastern conferences they might take it the next go around. They probably go where they feel they will have the most power as they mint money regardless. So probably options 5 or 6, if option 3 (keeping the B12 intact) fails.

One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?

It is the least likely of all of the scenarios. I think even then there are only two unlikely contingencies: 1. ESPN is able to make more money off of the parts of the ACC in the Big 10 and SEC which assumes of course that the Big 10 has warmed up tremendously and then it would depend upon the second condition, 2. Texas simply refuses to move period and Oklahoma stays with them. But all of their chat rooms on the Texas and Oklahoma sites have plenty of fans who definitely want to see a move and are tired of having so many non marquee games on the schedule. So we'll see.
03-18-2014 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #25
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
I agree with BBB about the PAC. I think they are pretty committed to keeping 100% ownership of their network at least for now. If in 5 years they are struggling I think they might consider selling part of it.

The PAC really needs some CST slots though to make the PACN more attractive nationally. I think not taking OU/OSU in 2011 was a huge mistake. Taking them would have killed the B12. They probably land TTU (fans really love the PAC) in that, even if they did not land Texas. Fill in the 16th slot with another B12 school (ISU or a Kansas school) or even a G5 property (Houston, New Mexico, Rice, UNLV, Hawaii). Would have gained them 3-4 valuable CST properties with better time slots for national exposure. IMO, inviting Utah and CU really hurt them in future expansion, as the mountain 4 (CU, Arizona, ASU, Utah) will be able to block any expansion they don't like (i.e. reducing their CA exposure).
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2014 12:58 AM by jhawkmvp.)
03-19-2014 12:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #26
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
I just can't see the B12 surviving long term. It is perfectly placed geographically to be picked apart by 3 conferences (all of whom have taken at least 1 school already) and the ACC has some possible targets as well. It only has 3 main properties of high value. OU and UT kill the B12 outright if they leave; Kansas mortally wounds it (BB value would be greatly decrease) enough OU and UT probably decide it is not worth salvaging. None of the 3 fan bases of the big 3 are thrilled with their current conference makeup or current B12 expansion possibilities. The B12 is shrinking back into a regional model when other conferences are actively expanding their reach and footprints. The B12 survival strategy is that they outlast the ACC financially and pick up SE ACC schools after the B1G and SEC feast (and stop at 16) on the ACC. Problem is ESPN really would like the ACC to survive since they own it completely and overall it has more schools of value (though so much dead weight). ESN's head is also a UNC grad. The B1G or SEC might decide FSU and Clemson are too valuable to pass up and go past 16. The B12's fate is largely out of their hands.
03-19-2014 12:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #27
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-19-2014 12:49 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I just can't see the B12 surviving long term. It is perfectly placed geographically to be picked apart by 3 conferences (all of whom have taken at least 1 school already) and the ACC has some possible targets as well. It only has 3 main properties of high value. OU and UT kill the B12 outright if they leave; Kansas mortally wounds it (BB value would be greatly decrease) enough OU and UT probably decide it is not worth salvaging. None of the 3 fan bases of the big 3 are thrilled with their current conference makeup or current B12 expansion possibilities. The B12 is shrinking back into a regional model when other conferences are actively expanding their reach and footprints. The B12 survival strategy is that they outlast the ACC financially and pick up SE ACC schools after the B1G and SEC feast (and stop at 16) on the ACC. Problem is ESPN really would like the ACC to survive since they own it completely and overall it has more schools of value (though so much dead weight). ESN's head is also a UNC grad. The B1G or SEC might decide FSU and Clemson are too valuable to pass up and go past 16. The B12's fate is largely out of their hands.

If the PAC stands pat with the ownership of their network it simplifies things from a network perspective. The issue then becomes how much does ESPN need to play ball with the Big 10? If they land the T1 deal, and I think the Big 10 does still need their exposure then I believe the top 3 properties are divided up. Kansas and Virginia Tech move to the Big 10.
Oklahoma and N.C. State moves to the SEC. And Texas, Baylor and West Virginia/T.C.U. moves to the ACC. If the PAC wants those central time zone states without selling a portion of their network then they get Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech.

Otherwise we wait.
03-19-2014 03:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #28
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-19-2014 03:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2014 12:49 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I just can't see the B12 surviving long term. It is perfectly placed geographically to be picked apart by 3 conferences (all of whom have taken at least 1 school already) and the ACC has some possible targets as well. It only has 3 main properties of high value. OU and UT kill the B12 outright if they leave; Kansas mortally wounds it (BB value would be greatly decrease) enough OU and UT probably decide it is not worth salvaging. None of the 3 fan bases of the big 3 are thrilled with their current conference makeup or current B12 expansion possibilities. The B12 is shrinking back into a regional model when other conferences are actively expanding their reach and footprints. The B12 survival strategy is that they outlast the ACC financially and pick up SE ACC schools after the B1G and SEC feast (and stop at 16) on the ACC. Problem is ESPN really would like the ACC to survive since they own it completely and overall it has more schools of value (though so much dead weight). ESN's head is also a UNC grad. The B1G or SEC might decide FSU and Clemson are too valuable to pass up and go past 16. The B12's fate is largely out of their hands.

If the PAC stands pat with the ownership of their network it simplifies things from a network perspective. The issue then becomes how much does ESPN need to play ball with the Big 10? If they land the T1 deal, and I think the Big 10 does still need their exposure then I believe the top 3 properties are divided up. Kansas and Virginia Tech move to the Big 10.
Oklahoma and N.C. State moves to the SEC. And Texas, Baylor and West Virginia/T.C.U. moves to the ACC. If the PAC wants those central time zone states without selling a portion of their network then they get Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech.

Otherwise we wait.

Texas fans will go crazy if all 3 of their biggest traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) are in the SEC together without Texas. Wow I would love to read Shaggy Bevo if this happens. Of course, if they go FB independent it is not a big deal, since they can then reestablish any 1 or even all of those rivalries again if they want.

Those 4 little brother schools would work fine for the PAC. None are sexy or traditional powers in FB or BB; however, they all have good athletic programs and they would make a nice eastern pod. If you went with 4 pods - plains, mountain, California, NW - did a 9 game schedule playing the 3 schools in your pod and playing 2 schools in each of the other pods each year, every one would get at least one game in California each year, which is what they probably average now. Those CST match ups get you some earlier on Saturday games so eastern viewers can see your western schools more often. I understand if the PAC wants to hold out for Texas and Oklahoma for now, but if they don't land them they really should consider those 4 schools. They would pay off for the PAC in the end with the new markets and valuable CST slots.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2014 12:09 AM by jhawkmvp.)
03-20-2014 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #29
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-20-2014 12:05 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(03-19-2014 03:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-19-2014 12:49 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I just can't see the B12 surviving long term. It is perfectly placed geographically to be picked apart by 3 conferences (all of whom have taken at least 1 school already) and the ACC has some possible targets as well. It only has 3 main properties of high value. OU and UT kill the B12 outright if they leave; Kansas mortally wounds it (BB value would be greatly decrease) enough OU and UT probably decide it is not worth salvaging. None of the 3 fan bases of the big 3 are thrilled with their current conference makeup or current B12 expansion possibilities. The B12 is shrinking back into a regional model when other conferences are actively expanding their reach and footprints. The B12 survival strategy is that they outlast the ACC financially and pick up SE ACC schools after the B1G and SEC feast (and stop at 16) on the ACC. Problem is ESPN really would like the ACC to survive since they own it completely and overall it has more schools of value (though so much dead weight). ESN's head is also a UNC grad. The B1G or SEC might decide FSU and Clemson are too valuable to pass up and go past 16. The B12's fate is largely out of their hands.

If the PAC stands pat with the ownership of their network it simplifies things from a network perspective. The issue then becomes how much does ESPN need to play ball with the Big 10? If they land the T1 deal, and I think the Big 10 does still need their exposure then I believe the top 3 properties are divided up. Kansas and Virginia Tech move to the Big 10.
Oklahoma and N.C. State moves to the SEC. And Texas, Baylor and West Virginia/T.C.U. moves to the ACC. If the PAC wants those central time zone states without selling a portion of their network then they get Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech.

Otherwise we wait.

Texas fans will go crazy if all 3 of their biggest traditional rivals (OU, A&M, and Arkansas) are in the SEC together without Texas. Wow I would love to read Shaggy Bevo if this happens. Of course, if they go FB independent it is not a big deal, since they can then reestablish any 1 or even all of those rivalries again if they want.

Really those 4 little brother schools would work fine for the PAC. None are sexy or traditional powers in FB or BB; however, they all have good athletic programs and they would make a nice eastern pod. If you went with 4 pods - plains, mountain, California, NW, did a 9 game schedule playing the 3 schools in your pod and playing 2 schools in each of the other pods each year every one would get at least one game in California each year which is what they probably average now. Then those CST match ups get you some earlier on Saturday games so eastern viewers can see your western schools more often. I understand if the PAC wants to hold out for Texas and Oklahoma, but if they don't land them they really should consider those 4 schools. They would pay off for the PAC in the end with the new markets and valuable CST slots.

Yep, in the end I think the only way Texas can have what they want is to go to the ACC, the only remaining conference that will do the deal. Even with a 6 game ACC schedule the Horns could schedule A&M, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Arkansas, Rice, and a Big 10 school or California school, get the ACC to count N.D. as one of their 6 obligatory games, play Baylor and T.C.U. for 2 more ACC games, and rotate the other 3. It is actually the only way they can move, keep the vast majority of the Texas state games they are interested in including A&M, keep the RRR, schedule the Irish annually, and alternate a California school and a Big 10 school and essentially have everything they want and still dissolve the Big 12 all while the ACC continues to give them 15 million a year until the end of June 2031. Even if the LHN is morphed into the ACCN Texas and ESPN can come out clean by getting the ACC schools to defray 1 million a year until 2031 to buy out the Horns at no expense to ESPN. The ACC gets their network and still earns more money just less the 1 million a year, the Horns get their perfect schedule and keep everyone they desire to play, and they shelter to the two Texas privates in the confines of the ACC. And expansion is over. The SEC is happy with Oklahoma and a share of North Carolina and the Big 10 is happy with Kansas and a stake in Virginia. If the PAC keeps their network at least they get 4 decent state schools in 4 central time zone states and 33 million potential new viewers for the PACN.

If that's not a happy wrap I don't know what is. We'll see.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2014 12:23 AM by JRsec.)
03-20-2014 12:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #30
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-18-2014 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 12:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(03-17-2014 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-16-2014 10:55 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  First, great thoughts as always, JR. You lay out a lot of good information that is actually being used in this realignment process. Your view of the Big 12 as the next conference to be filtered is accurate, and I think it was only disrupted by 2 things: 1) ESPN seeing it occurring and putting a stop to it by a move that a river gambler may not have even tried, the LHN. 2) Reading between the lines from Gee and others, the Big 10's blindness to conditions by concentrating solely on eastward expansion.

With the ACC rallying the troops, not adding Missouri and Kansas as Big 10 schools #15 and #16 has to be a regret. Texas, as is always the case and proven by JR's 1st and 2nd scenarios being completely contingent on them moving, might as well be the Notre Dame during the BCS years. If you all remember, it felt like the BCS commissioners and Notre Dame basically called the shots.

So BBB where does Texas go?
1. PAC if ESPN can acquire 50% ownership of the PACN When? Sooner than the grant of rights expire since ESPN is in position to place eight between the PAC/SEC/ACC and/or possibly Big 10.

2. ACC if ESPN can get a commitment date out of Notre Dame. When? Soon if they can get to PAC and Big 10 to both take a pair. In 12 years if they can't.

3. Big 12 if ESPN can get a long term commitment out of the Big 10 for T1 and can morph the LHN into a New Big 12 Conference Network. When? At the end of 12 years.

4. SEC only if at the end of 12 years Texas and OU make the most money there, and that is possible.

5. Independent in the ACC but only if N.D. refuses to join and they can bring their friends from the Big 12.

There is one more option:

6. Independent in a rebuilt B12 after KU, OU, and maybe a few others leave. They would still probably rule that conference, while at the same time having the national schedule they want for FB.

It will be interesting to see what direction Texas goes. Dodds favored a eastern path if they left the B12 and he was infatuated with Notre Dame. So it is almost certain that they would have gone to the ACC if the B12 failed and he had his way. He helped convince Powers to back out of the PAC 16 deal in 2010. Now that he is out, Patterson, the new AD, has been a PAC guy (ASU) and worked for Portland in the NBA, and their president Powers is a PAC guy. I think they will be more open to the PAC than they were when Dodds was the AD.

Texas will try to keep the B12 intact for now and if it fails, I still think they look east first, but if they get a better deal from the PAC than one of the eastern conferences they might take it the next go around. They probably go where they feel they will have the most power as they mint money regardless. So probably options 5 or 6, if option 3 (keeping the B12 intact) fails.

One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?

It is the least likely of all of the scenarios. I think even then there are only two unlikely contingencies: 1. ESPN is able to make more money off of the parts of the ACC in the Big 10 and SEC which assumes of course that the Big 10 has warmed up tremendously and then it would depend upon the second condition, 2. Texas simply refuses to move period and Oklahoma stays with them. But all of their chat rooms on the Texas and Oklahoma sites have plenty of fans who definitely want to see a move and are tired of having so many non marquee games on the schedule. So we'll see.

JR,
I think this scenario is becoming more and more likely.
It's obvious that ESPN is mounting an "A" team effort into the SEC network and would like to have a stable environment in which to launch. The status quo in the realignment world would allow ESPN to enter a stable marketplace and maximize advantages with stable allegiances for the SEC network.
Also, I would not be surprised if Texas indeed was getting cold feet about moving east. The longhorns are in a vulnerable position and they know it. The success of A&M in the SEC has the folks in Austin in a panic, and the ACC in Texas' eyes might not be the trick to turn the tide. I would look for Texas to be asking ESPN to move Missouri back into the Big 12 and put a full court press on BYU.
West Virginia could fill in for Missouri's vacant spot, or if the ACC's initiative passes, 13 could be the magic number.
03-20-2014 08:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-20-2014 08:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 12:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  
(03-17-2014 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So BBB where does Texas go?
1. PAC if ESPN can acquire 50% ownership of the PACN When? Sooner than the grant of rights expire since ESPN is in position to place eight between the PAC/SEC/ACC and/or possibly Big 10.

2. ACC if ESPN can get a commitment date out of Notre Dame. When? Soon if they can get to PAC and Big 10 to both take a pair. In 12 years if they can't.

3. Big 12 if ESPN can get a long term commitment out of the Big 10 for T1 and can morph the LHN into a New Big 12 Conference Network. When? At the end of 12 years.

4. SEC only if at the end of 12 years Texas and OU make the most money there, and that is possible.

5. Independent in the ACC but only if N.D. refuses to join and they can bring their friends from the Big 12.

There is one more option:

6. Independent in a rebuilt B12 after KU, OU, and maybe a few others leave. They would still probably rule that conference, while at the same time having the national schedule they want for FB.

It will be interesting to see what direction Texas goes. Dodds favored a eastern path if they left the B12 and he was infatuated with Notre Dame. So it is almost certain that they would have gone to the ACC if the B12 failed and he had his way. He helped convince Powers to back out of the PAC 16 deal in 2010. Now that he is out, Patterson, the new AD, has been a PAC guy (ASU) and worked for Portland in the NBA, and their president Powers is a PAC guy. I think they will be more open to the PAC than they were when Dodds was the AD.

Texas will try to keep the B12 intact for now and if it fails, I still think they look east first, but if they get a better deal from the PAC than one of the eastern conferences they might take it the next go around. They probably go where they feel they will have the most power as they mint money regardless. So probably options 5 or 6, if option 3 (keeping the B12 intact) fails.

One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?

It is the least likely of all of the scenarios. I think even then there are only two unlikely contingencies: 1. ESPN is able to make more money off of the parts of the ACC in the Big 10 and SEC which assumes of course that the Big 10 has warmed up tremendously and then it would depend upon the second condition, 2. Texas simply refuses to move period and Oklahoma stays with them. But all of their chat rooms on the Texas and Oklahoma sites have plenty of fans who definitely want to see a move and are tired of having so many non marquee games on the schedule. So we'll see.

JR,
I think this scenario is becoming more and more likely.
It's obvious that ESPN is mounting an "A" team effort into the SEC network and would like to have a stable environment in which to launch. The status quo in the realignment world would allow ESPN to enter a stable marketplace and maximize advantages with stable allegiances for the SEC network.
Also, I would not be surprised if Texas indeed was getting cold feet about moving east. The longhorns are in a vulnerable position and they know it. The success of A&M in the SEC has the folks in Austin in a panic, and the ACC in Texas' eyes might not be the trick to turn the tide. I would look for Texas to be asking ESPN to move Missouri back into the Big 12 and put a full court press on BYU.
West Virginia could fill in for Missouri's vacant spot, or if the ACC's initiative passes, 13 could be the magic number.

I'm not sure Missouri would get it done in the eyes of Texas and Oklahoma. And I don't see this thing ending in 5 conferences either. But let's play with your idea here. How does Missouri improve anything significantly for the Big 12 other than academically? They don't improve the historical perception of the conference. They would need Nebraska back to do that. They don't improve baseball. They would help Kansas with hoops on most years. But I just don't think that move does a thing for Texas or the Big 12 even with B.Y.U.. And on the other end why would the SEC yield Missouri to pick up a smaller state and a school with a history of fan violence and weaker academics to take the place of Missouri?

Now if ESPN wanted the most stable market for the SECN they would make sure that the SEC had the additional markets of Virginia and North Carolina. The only way I see Missouri moving back to the Big 12 would be if the SEC were adding Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. And since the latter is not likely neither is the former.

If we are talking about maximizing both the SEC and ACC there is really only 1 solution as hackneyed as it may be. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. We gain 14 million viewers, you gain 27 million and a network. Anyway that's why we are in a pause. ESPN has to figure out what is going to be the most profitable.

But rest assured if Texas and Oklahoma truly want to stay where they are and they need to be solidified it will be from the ACC but only if ESPN has total control of the resulting network and keeps a 50% share of the Tier 1 & 2 rights as they have now in the Big 12.

However since the Big 12 can't exist competitively in its present configuration with its present footprint I think the former is still more likely. ESPN didn't rescue Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College for nothing and Notre Dame is still a subject of interest for them. So I still wouldn't rule out some form of the scenario you showed me originally. And remember this if what the ACC is proposing for scheduling goes through there is no optimum number of teams. That proposal works as well for 18 as 14 or 12. It actually opens up the possibility of expanding beyond 16 in a workable way. And if the ACC and SEC could move to 18 a piece that does solidify things for both of us. And so what if that forces the PAC and Big 10 to partner. The ACC and SEC would just counter with a partnership of their own and we are right back on top. Besides, what if FOX makes their all out push for the PAC? With their 51% ownership of the BTN that then makes ESPN's investment in the best product and best market a much clearer path to dominance, especially if they can land the best of the Big 12 for our two conference.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2014 12:08 PM by JRsec.)
03-20-2014 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,882
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 898
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #32
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-20-2014 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2014 08:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 12:18 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  There is one more option:

6. Independent in a rebuilt B12 after KU, OU, and maybe a few others leave. They would still probably rule that conference, while at the same time having the national schedule they want for FB.

It will be interesting to see what direction Texas goes. Dodds favored a eastern path if they left the B12 and he was infatuated with Notre Dame. So it is almost certain that they would have gone to the ACC if the B12 failed and he had his way. He helped convince Powers to back out of the PAC 16 deal in 2010. Now that he is out, Patterson, the new AD, has been a PAC guy (ASU) and worked for Portland in the NBA, and their president Powers is a PAC guy. I think they will be more open to the PAC than they were when Dodds was the AD.

Texas will try to keep the B12 intact for now and if it fails, I still think they look east first, but if they get a better deal from the PAC than one of the eastern conferences they might take it the next go around. They probably go where they feel they will have the most power as they mint money regardless. So probably options 5 or 6, if option 3 (keeping the B12 intact) fails.

One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?

It is the least likely of all of the scenarios. I think even then there are only two unlikely contingencies: 1. ESPN is able to make more money off of the parts of the ACC in the Big 10 and SEC which assumes of course that the Big 10 has warmed up tremendously and then it would depend upon the second condition, 2. Texas simply refuses to move period and Oklahoma stays with them. But all of their chat rooms on the Texas and Oklahoma sites have plenty of fans who definitely want to see a move and are tired of having so many non marquee games on the schedule. So we'll see.

JR,
I think this scenario is becoming more and more likely.
It's obvious that ESPN is mounting an "A" team effort into the SEC network and would like to have a stable environment in which to launch. The status quo in the realignment world would allow ESPN to enter a stable marketplace and maximize advantages with stable allegiances for the SEC network.
Also, I would not be surprised if Texas indeed was getting cold feet about moving east. The longhorns are in a vulnerable position and they know it. The success of A&M in the SEC has the folks in Austin in a panic, and the ACC in Texas' eyes might not be the trick to turn the tide. I would look for Texas to be asking ESPN to move Missouri back into the Big 12 and put a full court press on BYU.
West Virginia could fill in for Missouri's vacant spot, or if the ACC's initiative passes, 13 could be the magic number.

I'm not sure Missouri would get it done in the eyes of Texas and Oklahoma. And I don't see this thing ending in 5 conferences either. But let's play with your idea here. How does Missouri improve anything significantly for the Big 12 other than academically? They don't improve the historical perception of the conference. They would need Nebraska back to do that. They don't improve baseball. They would help Kansas with hoops on most years. But I just don't think that move does a thing for Texas or the Big 12 even with B.Y.U.. And on the other end why would the SEC yield Missouri to pick up a smaller state and a school with a history of fan violence and weaker academics to take the place of Missouri?

Now if ESPN wanted the most stable market for the SECN they would make sure that the SEC had the additional markets of Virginia and North Carolina. The only way I see Missouri moving back to the Big 12 would be if the SEC were adding Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. And since the latter is not likely neither is the former.

If we are talking about maximizing both the SEC and ACC there is really only 1 solution as hackneyed as it may be. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. We gain 14 million viewers, you gain 27 million and a network. Anyway that's why we are in a pause. ESPN has to figure out what is going to be the most profitable.

But rest assured if Texas and Oklahoma truly want to stay where they are and they need to be solidified it will be from the ACC but only if ESPN has total control of the resulting network and keeps a 50% share of the Tier 1 & 2 rights as they have now in the Big 12.

However since the Big 12 can't exist competitively in its present configuration with its present footprint I think the former is still more likely. ESPN didn't rescue Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College for nothing and Notre Dame is still a subject of interest for them. So I still wouldn't rule out some form of the scenario you showed me originally. And remember this if what the ACC is proposing for scheduling goes through there is no optimum number of teams. That proposal works as well for 18 as 14 or 12. It actually opens up the possibility of expanding beyond 16 in a workable way. And if the ACC and SEC could move to 18 a piece that does solidify things for both of us. And so what if that forces the PAC and Big 10 to partner. The ACC and SEC would just counter with a partnership of their own and we are right back on top. Besides, what if FOX makes their all out push for the PAC? With their 51% ownership of the BTN that then makes ESPN's investment in the best product and best market a much clearer path to dominance, especially if they can land the best of the Big 12 for our two conference.


I assume that you are talking after the 2015-2025 ND/NBC contract extension that was just signed expires?
03-21-2014 07:06 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-21-2014 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(03-20-2014 12:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-20-2014 08:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-18-2014 09:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  One wonders to what extent ESPN will go to to keep the Big 12 together.
If the Big 12 stays intact then we will keep the status quo.
The PAC can't expand and will continue with distribution struggles if they can not move east. The B1G is kind of an incomplete work of art. Weak eastern additions in Rutgers and Maryland and the odd duck in Nebraska stuck out in the west.
All the while the ESPN properties keep getting stronger. But to what extent would ESPN go to keep the Big 12 viable?

It is the least likely of all of the scenarios. I think even then there are only two unlikely contingencies: 1. ESPN is able to make more money off of the parts of the ACC in the Big 10 and SEC which assumes of course that the Big 10 has warmed up tremendously and then it would depend upon the second condition, 2. Texas simply refuses to move period and Oklahoma stays with them. But all of their chat rooms on the Texas and Oklahoma sites have plenty of fans who definitely want to see a move and are tired of having so many non marquee games on the schedule. So we'll see.

JR,
I think this scenario is becoming more and more likely.
It's obvious that ESPN is mounting an "A" team effort into the SEC network and would like to have a stable environment in which to launch. The status quo in the realignment world would allow ESPN to enter a stable marketplace and maximize advantages with stable allegiances for the SEC network.
Also, I would not be surprised if Texas indeed was getting cold feet about moving east. The longhorns are in a vulnerable position and they know it. The success of A&M in the SEC has the folks in Austin in a panic, and the ACC in Texas' eyes might not be the trick to turn the tide. I would look for Texas to be asking ESPN to move Missouri back into the Big 12 and put a full court press on BYU.
West Virginia could fill in for Missouri's vacant spot, or if the ACC's initiative passes, 13 could be the magic number.

I'm not sure Missouri would get it done in the eyes of Texas and Oklahoma. And I don't see this thing ending in 5 conferences either. But let's play with your idea here. How does Missouri improve anything significantly for the Big 12 other than academically? They don't improve the historical perception of the conference. They would need Nebraska back to do that. They don't improve baseball. They would help Kansas with hoops on most years. But I just don't think that move does a thing for Texas or the Big 12 even with B.Y.U.. And on the other end why would the SEC yield Missouri to pick up a smaller state and a school with a history of fan violence and weaker academics to take the place of Missouri?

Now if ESPN wanted the most stable market for the SECN they would make sure that the SEC had the additional markets of Virginia and North Carolina. The only way I see Missouri moving back to the Big 12 would be if the SEC were adding Virginia, North Carolina and Duke. And since the latter is not likely neither is the former.

If we are talking about maximizing both the SEC and ACC there is really only 1 solution as hackneyed as it may be. Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, and Oklahoma State to the ACC. Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. We gain 14 million viewers, you gain 27 million and a network. Anyway that's why we are in a pause. ESPN has to figure out what is going to be the most profitable.

But rest assured if Texas and Oklahoma truly want to stay where they are and they need to be solidified it will be from the ACC but only if ESPN has total control of the resulting network and keeps a 50% share of the Tier 1 & 2 rights as they have now in the Big 12.

However since the Big 12 can't exist competitively in its present configuration with its present footprint I think the former is still more likely. ESPN didn't rescue Syracuse, Pitt, and Boston College for nothing and Notre Dame is still a subject of interest for them. So I still wouldn't rule out some form of the scenario you showed me originally. And remember this if what the ACC is proposing for scheduling goes through there is no optimum number of teams. That proposal works as well for 18 as 14 or 12. It actually opens up the possibility of expanding beyond 16 in a workable way. And if the ACC and SEC could move to 18 a piece that does solidify things for both of us. And so what if that forces the PAC and Big 10 to partner. The ACC and SEC would just counter with a partnership of their own and we are right back on top. Besides, what if FOX makes their all out push for the PAC? With their 51% ownership of the BTN that then makes ESPN's investment in the best product and best market a much clearer path to dominance, especially if they can land the best of the Big 12 for our two conference.


I assume that you are talking after the 2015-2025 ND/NBC contract extension that was just signed expires?

Correct. The duration of that contract is not as significant as the LHN deal for instance that runs until 2031. So movement with that deal in mind would not be precluded. Associations could be formed with total inclusion set at a particular future date for either or both Notre Dame and Texas.
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2014 09:44 AM by JRsec.)
03-21-2014 09:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zombiewoof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,854
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 136
I Root For: players
Location:
Post: #34
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2014 01:55 AM by Zombiewoof.)
03-23-2014 01:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #35
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-23-2014 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.

Well I think you're a lot closer to what is happening than you might realize. Instead of adding schools (which either means increasing the overhead of both FOX and ESPN to accommodate them and make what are much weaker producers of revenue with much fewer fans competitive, or reducing the payouts of the most viewed schools) reduce those conferences down to 8 teams each. Then take the two most geographically compatible conferences and pair them up. As a network exec you get weary having to negotiate so many different deals with so many conference headquarters and not only is that inefficient for you, but it is also inefficient for the schools. If you could shrink all of the conferences by half then you cut out 4 equal shares (the conference's cut) of revenue to be redistributed among the 64 remaining schools and you increase the variables of regional play that spur interest which will help with advertising. If the average payout for the final 64 teams is 40 million a year, and you saved 4 equal shares by eliminating 4 conference structures to maintain, then now you have 160 million dollars with which to increase 64 schools annual payouts and you haven't spent 1 extra nickel to do it. That's 2.5 million more per school per year by ditching 4 bureaucracies. What were 8 conferences of 10 schools each essentially have become 8 divisions of 8 schools each within 4 conferences.

By studying the success of the NFL you have discovered that average fans of the sport with no significant connection to a particular team enjoy following the play because the structure yields predictable results. Division Champions and the best at large teams are selected for a playoff by their on field play and head to head, or common competition factors. This predictability attracts larger numbers of casual fans and makes them trust the fairness of the system (something the present system fails with). More eyes than just alumni now means better market saturation which means more advertising dollars.

The structuring is made possible by cooperation between ESPN and FOX. The Big 12 is shared, the lease of PAC rights are shared, FOX has the BTN and ESPN T1 in the Big 10. Does ESPN want to share the cash cow of the SEC? No. But they will lease out some games to FOX to get the structure they desire and to cap the payouts that you have suggested that they share a mutual interest in controlling. Further product placement is necessary to tweak borders between regional conferences which doubles the interest in a local game where two regional conferences share a state (Texas vs A&M for instance). All that remains to be done is to eliminate 1 existing conference.

The two weakest conferences are the Big 12 because of its lack of market reach, and the ACC because of its product and lack of market saturation. The two strongest conferences could be capped with additions from ACC which has adjoining markets of high value which are under utilized and the market size could be added to the diminutive footprint of the Big 12 where the saturation is the better. But what about the PAC? It needs markets in the central time zone to enhance its value by increasing the number of marketable hours on a Saturday. There is redundancy in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three central time zone states. So ideally the elimination of the ACC permits ESPN to divest itself of some properties by sharing them with FOX while maximizing the value of the moving ones by where they are placed. Dividing North Carolina and Virginia between the SEC and Big 10 to maximize the markets of the two most profitable conferences and to place them into a shared head to head competition with one another annually only makes the four schools involved in such a move even more profitable.

The New Big 12 emerges built around four industry giants:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas

Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

The PAC adds Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
The Big 10 adds Virginia and Duke
The SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia Tech

The New Big 12 has T3 owned through ESPN by converting the LHN into a new conference network and they share T1 & 2 rights with FOX getting them into the Southeast and Atlantic Coast.

If the ACC must be preserved they add West Virginia and eventually get N.D. on board. (they aren't thrilled)
The Big 10 adds Kansas and Iowa State (they're not totally happy)
The SEC adds Oklahoma and Kansas State (they're not totally happy)
The PAC adds Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (and they aren't happy)

The problem and hold up with realignment is that you can't make anyone happy totally utilizing the division of the Big 12 and you leave inherent weaknesses in at least 1 if not 2 conferences by trying to do it. The Big 10 for football is built around Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and Michigan State. The SEC is built around Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee and now A&M and to a lesser extent Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and Missouri. The PAC is built around the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. The Big 12 however is built around three: Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas. The ACC is built around 2 for football: Clemson and Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech and Miami. Notre Dame is an adornment only until they join in full. Because of the issue of the latter two only the division of the ACC results if 4 fairly balanced conferences.

So the networks are stuck trying to figure out how to get from where we are today to where they want to go, provided of course they cooperate. Undervaluing the ACC and not coming forth with a conference network for them is a prod that may or may not work. It is much easier to build a football conference around Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Notre Dame than it is to try to build one around a part time Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. Put those brands together and voila you have a fourth balanced and competitive conference.

Anyway Zombiewoof, your idea is on target I believe, but the monetary overhead of 80 schools needs to be reduced and that means 64 instead of 80 and 4 conferences instead of 8. So those regional conferences of 10 which I loved in my younger days will be morphed into something like what is proposed above while keeping its original regional flavor as much as possible. Furthermore why pay for four schools fully that only benefit 1 conference (as with North Carolina), or as you propose 7 schools that only benefit 1 conference (Texas) when you can benefit 3 conferences (Big 10, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (North Carolina) and 4 schools, or 3 conferences (PAC, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (Texas) and only 4 schools. And that is where we are headed, some day.

The only other alternative that could work would be to place Texas, Oklahoma, and two of their buddies in the ACC to send Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, North Carolina State and Okalhoma State to the SEC, and Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and T.C.U./Baylor to the PAC. But I'm not sure that works as well as the first concept because it doesn't give the two kings (Oklahoma and Texas) enough regional games.

BTW the investment in athletics by schools has two major break down, or division points. The first is around 60 schools, and again at 71 with a minor break around 65. The attendance really falls off at around 64. That figure seems to be the mean for maximizing eyeballs and minimizing overhead and it is divisible into a discernible and understandable format.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2014 10:23 AM by JRsec.)
03-23-2014 03:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #36
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-23-2014 03:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.

Well I think you're a lot closer to what is happening than you might realize. Instead of adding schools (which either means increasing the overhead of both FOX and ESPN to accommodate them and make what are much weaker producers of revenue with much fewer fans competitive, or reducing the payouts of the most viewed schools) reduce those conferences down to 8 teams each. Then take the two most geographically compatible conferences and pair them up. As a network exec you get weary having to negotiate so many different deals with so many conference headquarters and not only is that inefficient for you, but it is also inefficient for the schools. If you could shrink all of the conferences by half then you cut out 4 equal shares (the conference's cut) of revenue to be redistributed among the 64 remaining schools and you increase the variables of regional play that spur interest which will help with advertising. If the average payout for the final 64 teams is 40 million a year, and you saved 4 equal shares by eliminating 4 conference structures to maintain, then now you have 160 million dollars with which to increase 64 schools annual payouts and you haven't spent 1 extra nickel to do it. That's 2.5 million more per school per year by ditching 4 bureaucracies. What were 8 conferences of 10 schools each essentially have become 8 divisions of 8 schools each within 4 conferences.

By studying the success of the NFL you have discovered that average fans of the sport with no significant connection to a particular team enjoy following the play because the structure yields predictable results. Division Champions and the best at large teams are selected for a playoff by their on field play and head to head, or common competition factors. This predictability attracts larger numbers of casual fans and makes them trust the fairness of the system (something the present system fails with). More eyes than just alumni now means better market saturation which means more advertising dollars.

The structuring is made possible by cooperation between ESPN and FOX. The Big 12 is shared, the lease of PAC rights are shared, FOX has the BTN and ESPN T1 in the Big 10. Does ESPN want to share the cash cow of the SEC? No. But they will lease out some games to FOX to get the structure they desire and to cap the payouts that you have suggested that they share a mutual interest in controlling. Further product placement is necessary to tweak borders between regional conferences which doubles the interest in a local game where two regional conferences share a state (Texas vs A&M for instance). All that remains to be done is to eliminate 1 existing conference.

The two weakest conferences are the Big 12 because of its lack of market reach, and the ACC because of its product and lack of market saturation. The two strongest conferences could be capped with additions from ACC which has adjoining markets of high value which are under utilized and the market size could be added to the diminutive footprint of the Big 12 where the saturation is the better. But what about the PAC? It needs markets in the central time zone to enhance its value by increasing the number of marketable hours on a Saturday. There is redundancy in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three central time zone states. So ideally the elimination of the ACC permits ESPN to divest itself of some properties by sharing them with FOX while maximizing the value of the moving ones by where they are placed. Dividing North Carolina and Virginia between the SEC and Big 10 to maximize the markets of the two most profitable conferences and to place them into a shared head to head competition with one another annually only makes the four schools involved in such a move even more profitable.

The New Big 12 emerges built around four industry giants:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas

Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

The PAC adds Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
The Big 10 adds Virginia and Duke
The SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia Tech

The New Big 12 has T3 owned through ESPN by converting the LHN into a new conference network and they share T1 & 2 rights with FOX getting them into the Southeast and Atlantic Coast.

If the ACC must be preserved they add West Virginia and eventually get N.D. on board. (they aren't thrilled)
The Big 10 adds Kansas and Iowa State (they're not totally happy)
The SEC adds Oklahoma and Kansas State (they're not totally happy)
The PAC adds Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (and they aren't happy)

The problem and hold up with realignment is that you can't make anyone happy totally utilizing the division of the Big 12 and you leave inherent weaknesses in at least 1 if not 2 conferences by trying to do it. The Big 10 for football is built around Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and Michigan State. The SEC is built around Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee and now A&M and to a lesser extent Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and Missouri. The PAC is built around the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. The Big 12 however is built around three: Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas. The ACC is built around 2 for football: Clemson and Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech and Miami. Notre Dame is an adornment only until they join in full. Because of the issue of the latter two only the division of the ACC results if 4 fairly balanced conferences.

So the networks are stuck trying to figure out how to get from where we are today to where they want to go, provided of course they cooperate. Undervaluing the ACC and not coming forth with a conference network for them is a prod that may or may not work. It is much easier to build a football conference around Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Notre Dame than it is to try to build one around a part time Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. Put those brands together and voila you have a fourth balanced and competitive conference.

Anyway Zombiewoof, your idea is on target I believe, but the monetary overhead of 80 schools needs to be reduced and that means 64 instead of 80 and 4 conferences instead of 8. So those regional conferences of 10 which I loved in my younger days will be morphed into something like what is proposed above while keeping its original regional flavor as much as possible. Furthermore why pay for four schools fully that only benefit 1 conference (as with North Carolina), or as you propose 7 schools that only benefit 1 conference (Texas) when you can benefit 3 conferences (Big 10, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (North Carolina) and 4 schools, or 3 conferences (PAC, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (Texas) and only 4 schools. And that is where we are headed, some day.

The only other alternative that could work would be to place Texas, Oklahoma, and two of their buddies in the ACC to send Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, North Carolina State and Okalhoma State to the SEC, and Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and T.C.U./Baylor to the PAC. But I'm not sure that works as well as the first concept because it doesn't give the two kings (Oklahoma and Texas) enough regional games.

BTW the investment in athletics by schools has two major break down, or division points. The first is around 60 schools, and again at 71 with a minor break around 65. The attendance really falls off at around 64. That figure seems to be the mean for maximizing eyeballs and minimizing overhead and it is divisible into a discernible and understandable format.
We have covered the network aspect of this potential movement. Let's talk about very powerful state politicians, picky boosters with very deep pockets, and ultimately, fan support. They are the folks filling the stadiums. This combination may be as influential as any network as far as where their school winds up in a scenario such as this.
03-23-2014 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #37
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-23-2014 01:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 03:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.

Well I think you're a lot closer to what is happening than you might realize. Instead of adding schools (which either means increasing the overhead of both FOX and ESPN to accommodate them and make what are much weaker producers of revenue with much fewer fans competitive, or reducing the payouts of the most viewed schools) reduce those conferences down to 8 teams each. Then take the two most geographically compatible conferences and pair them up. As a network exec you get weary having to negotiate so many different deals with so many conference headquarters and not only is that inefficient for you, but it is also inefficient for the schools. If you could shrink all of the conferences by half then you cut out 4 equal shares (the conference's cut) of revenue to be redistributed among the 64 remaining schools and you increase the variables of regional play that spur interest which will help with advertising. If the average payout for the final 64 teams is 40 million a year, and you saved 4 equal shares by eliminating 4 conference structures to maintain, then now you have 160 million dollars with which to increase 64 schools annual payouts and you haven't spent 1 extra nickel to do it. That's 2.5 million more per school per year by ditching 4 bureaucracies. What were 8 conferences of 10 schools each essentially have become 8 divisions of 8 schools each within 4 conferences.

By studying the success of the NFL you have discovered that average fans of the sport with no significant connection to a particular team enjoy following the play because the structure yields predictable results. Division Champions and the best at large teams are selected for a playoff by their on field play and head to head, or common competition factors. This predictability attracts larger numbers of casual fans and makes them trust the fairness of the system (something the present system fails with). More eyes than just alumni now means better market saturation which means more advertising dollars.

The structuring is made possible by cooperation between ESPN and FOX. The Big 12 is shared, the lease of PAC rights are shared, FOX has the BTN and ESPN T1 in the Big 10. Does ESPN want to share the cash cow of the SEC? No. But they will lease out some games to FOX to get the structure they desire and to cap the payouts that you have suggested that they share a mutual interest in controlling. Further product placement is necessary to tweak borders between regional conferences which doubles the interest in a local game where two regional conferences share a state (Texas vs A&M for instance). All that remains to be done is to eliminate 1 existing conference.

The two weakest conferences are the Big 12 because of its lack of market reach, and the ACC because of its product and lack of market saturation. The two strongest conferences could be capped with additions from ACC which has adjoining markets of high value which are under utilized and the market size could be added to the diminutive footprint of the Big 12 where the saturation is the better. But what about the PAC? It needs markets in the central time zone to enhance its value by increasing the number of marketable hours on a Saturday. There is redundancy in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three central time zone states. So ideally the elimination of the ACC permits ESPN to divest itself of some properties by sharing them with FOX while maximizing the value of the moving ones by where they are placed. Dividing North Carolina and Virginia between the SEC and Big 10 to maximize the markets of the two most profitable conferences and to place them into a shared head to head competition with one another annually only makes the four schools involved in such a move even more profitable.

The New Big 12 emerges built around four industry giants:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas

Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

The PAC adds Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
The Big 10 adds Virginia and Duke
The SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia Tech

The New Big 12 has T3 owned through ESPN by converting the LHN into a new conference network and they share T1 & 2 rights with FOX getting them into the Southeast and Atlantic Coast.

If the ACC must be preserved they add West Virginia and eventually get N.D. on board. (they aren't thrilled)
The Big 10 adds Kansas and Iowa State (they're not totally happy)
The SEC adds Oklahoma and Kansas State (they're not totally happy)
The PAC adds Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (and they aren't happy)

The problem and hold up with realignment is that you can't make anyone happy totally utilizing the division of the Big 12 and you leave inherent weaknesses in at least 1 if not 2 conferences by trying to do it. The Big 10 for football is built around Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and Michigan State. The SEC is built around Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee and now A&M and to a lesser extent Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and Missouri. The PAC is built around the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. The Big 12 however is built around three: Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas. The ACC is built around 2 for football: Clemson and Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech and Miami. Notre Dame is an adornment only until they join in full. Because of the issue of the latter two only the division of the ACC results if 4 fairly balanced conferences.

So the networks are stuck trying to figure out how to get from where we are today to where they want to go, provided of course they cooperate. Undervaluing the ACC and not coming forth with a conference network for them is a prod that may or may not work. It is much easier to build a football conference around Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Notre Dame than it is to try to build one around a part time Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. Put those brands together and voila you have a fourth balanced and competitive conference.

Anyway Zombiewoof, your idea is on target I believe, but the monetary overhead of 80 schools needs to be reduced and that means 64 instead of 80 and 4 conferences instead of 8. So those regional conferences of 10 which I loved in my younger days will be morphed into something like what is proposed above while keeping its original regional flavor as much as possible. Furthermore why pay for four schools fully that only benefit 1 conference (as with North Carolina), or as you propose 7 schools that only benefit 1 conference (Texas) when you can benefit 3 conferences (Big 10, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (North Carolina) and 4 schools, or 3 conferences (PAC, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (Texas) and only 4 schools. And that is where we are headed, some day.

The only other alternative that could work would be to place Texas, Oklahoma, and two of their buddies in the ACC to send Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, North Carolina State and Okalhoma State to the SEC, and Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and T.C.U./Baylor to the PAC. But I'm not sure that works as well as the first concept because it doesn't give the two kings (Oklahoma and Texas) enough regional games.

BTW the investment in athletics by schools has two major break down, or division points. The first is around 60 schools, and again at 71 with a minor break around 65. The attendance really falls off at around 64. That figure seems to be the mean for maximizing eyeballs and minimizing overhead and it is divisible into a discernible and understandable format.
We have covered the network aspect of this potential movement. Let's talk about very powerful state politicians, picky boosters with very deep pockets, and ultimately, fan support. They are the folks filling the stadiums. This combination may be as influential as any network as far as where their school winds up in a scenario such as this.
The common fans that fill the stadium will be the last group of folks considered. The reason is that they make the least impact financially upon the institutions when their contributions are stacked up against television contracts. It will also not be necessary to try to win them over should several considerations be made.
1. Whatever movement takes place keeps them geographically centered and playing a core of familiar faces.
2. The move is considered to be an upgrade athletically or academically or both.
3. A good PR program much like Mizzou 2 SEC is put out well in advance of the move to get them ready for it.

State politicians don't care at all (except maybe in Texas) what conferences that their schools play in while their states are in budget crunches as long as their schools are somewhere good and making enough money to take the pressure off of the State legislative body's budgetary requirements.

Major boosters are another matter. Many of them are heavily invested in the very corporations that are seeking a better return by rearranging the product of college football. If their school makes more money that takes some pressure off of them. If their school joins a more prestigious conference then many of them will be satisfied, especially if they can consider themselves to have been in on it.

Truly Medic if your school makes more, keeps a core of familiar faces to play, and makes a move that is considered an upgrade especially academically there are very few who are going to complain and leave. And in the Fall when it is time to tee it up for the first kickoff those same folks we still be in the stands and that is simply reality.

If you have a difference of opinion then lay it out and we'll discuss it.
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2014 03:35 PM by JRsec.)
03-23-2014 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #38
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-23-2014 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 03:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.

Well I think you're a lot closer to what is happening than you might realize. Instead of adding schools (which either means increasing the overhead of both FOX and ESPN to accommodate them and make what are much weaker producers of revenue with much fewer fans competitive, or reducing the payouts of the most viewed schools) reduce those conferences down to 8 teams each. Then take the two most geographically compatible conferences and pair them up. As a network exec you get weary having to negotiate so many different deals with so many conference headquarters and not only is that inefficient for you, but it is also inefficient for the schools. If you could shrink all of the conferences by half then you cut out 4 equal shares (the conference's cut) of revenue to be redistributed among the 64 remaining schools and you increase the variables of regional play that spur interest which will help with advertising. If the average payout for the final 64 teams is 40 million a year, and you saved 4 equal shares by eliminating 4 conference structures to maintain, then now you have 160 million dollars with which to increase 64 schools annual payouts and you haven't spent 1 extra nickel to do it. That's 2.5 million more per school per year by ditching 4 bureaucracies. What were 8 conferences of 10 schools each essentially have become 8 divisions of 8 schools each within 4 conferences.

By studying the success of the NFL you have discovered that average fans of the sport with no significant connection to a particular team enjoy following the play because the structure yields predictable results. Division Champions and the best at large teams are selected for a playoff by their on field play and head to head, or common competition factors. This predictability attracts larger numbers of casual fans and makes them trust the fairness of the system (something the present system fails with). More eyes than just alumni now means better market saturation which means more advertising dollars.

The structuring is made possible by cooperation between ESPN and FOX. The Big 12 is shared, the lease of PAC rights are shared, FOX has the BTN and ESPN T1 in the Big 10. Does ESPN want to share the cash cow of the SEC? No. But they will lease out some games to FOX to get the structure they desire and to cap the payouts that you have suggested that they share a mutual interest in controlling. Further product placement is necessary to tweak borders between regional conferences which doubles the interest in a local game where two regional conferences share a state (Texas vs A&M for instance). All that remains to be done is to eliminate 1 existing conference.

The two weakest conferences are the Big 12 because of its lack of market reach, and the ACC because of its product and lack of market saturation. The two strongest conferences could be capped with additions from ACC which has adjoining markets of high value which are under utilized and the market size could be added to the diminutive footprint of the Big 12 where the saturation is the better. But what about the PAC? It needs markets in the central time zone to enhance its value by increasing the number of marketable hours on a Saturday. There is redundancy in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three central time zone states. So ideally the elimination of the ACC permits ESPN to divest itself of some properties by sharing them with FOX while maximizing the value of the moving ones by where they are placed. Dividing North Carolina and Virginia between the SEC and Big 10 to maximize the markets of the two most profitable conferences and to place them into a shared head to head competition with one another annually only makes the four schools involved in such a move even more profitable.

The New Big 12 emerges built around four industry giants:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas

Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

The PAC adds Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
The Big 10 adds Virginia and Duke
The SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia Tech

The New Big 12 has T3 owned through ESPN by converting the LHN into a new conference network and they share T1 & 2 rights with FOX getting them into the Southeast and Atlantic Coast.

If the ACC must be preserved they add West Virginia and eventually get N.D. on board. (they aren't thrilled)
The Big 10 adds Kansas and Iowa State (they're not totally happy)
The SEC adds Oklahoma and Kansas State (they're not totally happy)
The PAC adds Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (and they aren't happy)

The problem and hold up with realignment is that you can't make anyone happy totally utilizing the division of the Big 12 and you leave inherent weaknesses in at least 1 if not 2 conferences by trying to do it. The Big 10 for football is built around Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and Michigan State. The SEC is built around Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee and now A&M and to a lesser extent Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and Missouri. The PAC is built around the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. The Big 12 however is built around three: Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas. The ACC is built around 2 for football: Clemson and Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech and Miami. Notre Dame is an adornment only until they join in full. Because of the issue of the latter two only the division of the ACC results if 4 fairly balanced conferences.

So the networks are stuck trying to figure out how to get from where we are today to where they want to go, provided of course they cooperate. Undervaluing the ACC and not coming forth with a conference network for them is a prod that may or may not work. It is much easier to build a football conference around Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Notre Dame than it is to try to build one around a part time Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. Put those brands together and voila you have a fourth balanced and competitive conference.

Anyway Zombiewoof, your idea is on target I believe, but the monetary overhead of 80 schools needs to be reduced and that means 64 instead of 80 and 4 conferences instead of 8. So those regional conferences of 10 which I loved in my younger days will be morphed into something like what is proposed above while keeping its original regional flavor as much as possible. Furthermore why pay for four schools fully that only benefit 1 conference (as with North Carolina), or as you propose 7 schools that only benefit 1 conference (Texas) when you can benefit 3 conferences (Big 10, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (North Carolina) and 4 schools, or 3 conferences (PAC, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (Texas) and only 4 schools. And that is where we are headed, some day.

The only other alternative that could work would be to place Texas, Oklahoma, and two of their buddies in the ACC to send Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, North Carolina State and Okalhoma State to the SEC, and Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and T.C.U./Baylor to the PAC. But I'm not sure that works as well as the first concept because it doesn't give the two kings (Oklahoma and Texas) enough regional games.

BTW the investment in athletics by schools has two major break down, or division points. The first is around 60 schools, and again at 71 with a minor break around 65. The attendance really falls off at around 64. That figure seems to be the mean for maximizing eyeballs and minimizing overhead and it is divisible into a discernible and understandable format.
We have covered the network aspect of this potential movement. Let's talk about very powerful state politicians, picky boosters with very deep pockets, and ultimately, fan support. They are the folks filling the stadiums. This combination may be as influential as any network as far as where their school winds up in a scenario such as this.
The common fans that fill the stadium will be the last group of folks considered. The reason is that they make the least impact financially upon the institutions when their contributions are stacked up against television contracts. It will also not be necessary to try to win them over should several considerations be made.
1. Whatever movement takes place keeps them geographically centered and playing a core of familiar faces.
2. The move is considered to be an upgrade athletically or academically or both.
3. A good PR program much like Mizzou 2 SEC is put out well in advance of the move to get them ready for it.

State politicians don't care at all (except maybe in Texas) what conferences that their schools play in while their states are in budget crunches as long as their schools are somewhere good and making enough money to take the pressure off of the State legislative body's budgetary requirements.

Major boosters are another matter. Many of them are heavily invested in the very corporations that are seeking a better return by rearranging the product of college football. If their school makes more money that takes some pressure off of them. If their school joins a more prestigious conference then many of them will be satisfied, especially if they can consider themselves to have been in on it.

Truly Medic if your school makes more, keeps a core of familiar faces to play, and makes a move that is considered an upgrade especially academically there are very few who are going to complain and leave. And in the Fall when it is time to tee it up for the first kickoff those same folks we still be in the stands and that is simply reality.

If you have a difference of opinion then lay it out and we'll discuss it.
I do not disagree with you regarding the coming changes. It will just involve an incredible effort to tee up a new system like this. That is a lot of changes... look at the groundwork it took just to incorporate Missouri and the Aggies into the SEC. I believe it can and will be done, but too much change may not be so good for CFB. You can rock the apple cart until it turns over.04-cheers
03-24-2014 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
(03-24-2014 12:41 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 03:32 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-23-2014 01:54 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  OK JR, I took some dramamine and am back to put my two cents in. Starting with the original premise that conference realignment was driven entirely by the networks without conference input, I would say it would go in an entirely different direction. I would assume first that the goals of the networks are different. ESPN already either has T1 control of most properties or shares it with FOX in the other cases, with FOX holding more sway in the Big 10. If you believe that ESPN would either want to retain this level of control or expand it, then you would then have to believe that FOX's best course of action would be to attempt to enter into some kind of partnership with ESPN. Why would FOX do that? Trying to gain more control or properties currently with ESPN either in part or in whole would prove quite costly and I don't know that either of them wants costs to continue to escalate through bidding wars. Why would ESPN be willing to cede anything to FOX? Again, costs. They could enter into a favorable agreement with FOX that would allow FOX more access to programming, reducing costs to ESPN, while allowing ESPN to remain the big dog in terms of power, control and the ability to retain the best properties. Certainly, I don't know how the specifics of such an agreement would be hammered out, but the result would be 1) FOX gaining access to more programming, 2) both networks controlling costs, and I believe 3) total reorganization of conferences into a single new league.

The networks (read: ESPN) would arrange the participating schools into eight divisions, or conferences, of 10 -- or if they accepted the top 120 schools, 12 divisions of 10. This would allow for a year-end tournament in football of conference champions or in the other scenario, 12 division champions plus four wild cards. The reorganization would be done along geographical lines (again with costs in mind) while attempting to preserve long time relationships as much as possible. In fact, some conferences could be returned to their former states, such as the PAC10, SEC and Big 10.

Therefore the ESPN/FOX Athletic Association could be grouped as follows:

Pacific
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Arizona
Arizona State

Mountain
Utah
Colorado
BYU
Nevada
Nevada-Las Vegas
Fresno State
San Diego State
Air Force
Hawaii
Wyoming

Northern
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Iowa

Southeastern
LSU
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Kentucky

Atlantic
Florida State
Miami
South Carolina
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Wake Forest
Duke
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Virginia

Northeastern
Syracuse
Rutgers
Boston College
Pitt
Maryland
Penn State
Virginia Tech
Temple
Army
Navy

Southwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
SMU
Houston
TCU
Texas Tech

Midwest
Notre Dame
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
Iowa State
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati
Nebraska
West Virginia

Now, that's 80, but ESPN could make each division 12 schools (96) or even 14 schools (112). However, I think they would be more likely to add divisions and structure them accordingly, making it less likely than traditional conferences would be viable.

While I don't think any of this would or should happen (e.g. A&M would protest being realigned with Texas), if the networks drove realignment, this is similar to what I think would occur.

Well I think you're a lot closer to what is happening than you might realize. Instead of adding schools (which either means increasing the overhead of both FOX and ESPN to accommodate them and make what are much weaker producers of revenue with much fewer fans competitive, or reducing the payouts of the most viewed schools) reduce those conferences down to 8 teams each. Then take the two most geographically compatible conferences and pair them up. As a network exec you get weary having to negotiate so many different deals with so many conference headquarters and not only is that inefficient for you, but it is also inefficient for the schools. If you could shrink all of the conferences by half then you cut out 4 equal shares (the conference's cut) of revenue to be redistributed among the 64 remaining schools and you increase the variables of regional play that spur interest which will help with advertising. If the average payout for the final 64 teams is 40 million a year, and you saved 4 equal shares by eliminating 4 conference structures to maintain, then now you have 160 million dollars with which to increase 64 schools annual payouts and you haven't spent 1 extra nickel to do it. That's 2.5 million more per school per year by ditching 4 bureaucracies. What were 8 conferences of 10 schools each essentially have become 8 divisions of 8 schools each within 4 conferences.

By studying the success of the NFL you have discovered that average fans of the sport with no significant connection to a particular team enjoy following the play because the structure yields predictable results. Division Champions and the best at large teams are selected for a playoff by their on field play and head to head, or common competition factors. This predictability attracts larger numbers of casual fans and makes them trust the fairness of the system (something the present system fails with). More eyes than just alumni now means better market saturation which means more advertising dollars.

The structuring is made possible by cooperation between ESPN and FOX. The Big 12 is shared, the lease of PAC rights are shared, FOX has the BTN and ESPN T1 in the Big 10. Does ESPN want to share the cash cow of the SEC? No. But they will lease out some games to FOX to get the structure they desire and to cap the payouts that you have suggested that they share a mutual interest in controlling. Further product placement is necessary to tweak borders between regional conferences which doubles the interest in a local game where two regional conferences share a state (Texas vs A&M for instance). All that remains to be done is to eliminate 1 existing conference.

The two weakest conferences are the Big 12 because of its lack of market reach, and the ACC because of its product and lack of market saturation. The two strongest conferences could be capped with additions from ACC which has adjoining markets of high value which are under utilized and the market size could be added to the diminutive footprint of the Big 12 where the saturation is the better. But what about the PAC? It needs markets in the central time zone to enhance its value by increasing the number of marketable hours on a Saturday. There is redundancy in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, three central time zone states. So ideally the elimination of the ACC permits ESPN to divest itself of some properties by sharing them with FOX while maximizing the value of the moving ones by where they are placed. Dividing North Carolina and Virginia between the SEC and Big 10 to maximize the markets of the two most profitable conferences and to place them into a shared head to head competition with one another annually only makes the four schools involved in such a move even more profitable.

The New Big 12 emerges built around four industry giants:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas

Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

The PAC adds Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
The Big 10 adds Virginia and Duke
The SEC adds North Carolina and Virginia Tech

The New Big 12 has T3 owned through ESPN by converting the LHN into a new conference network and they share T1 & 2 rights with FOX getting them into the Southeast and Atlantic Coast.

If the ACC must be preserved they add West Virginia and eventually get N.D. on board. (they aren't thrilled)
The Big 10 adds Kansas and Iowa State (they're not totally happy)
The SEC adds Oklahoma and Kansas State (they're not totally happy)
The PAC adds Texas, T.C.U., Oklahoma State and Texas Tech (and they aren't happy)

The problem and hold up with realignment is that you can't make anyone happy totally utilizing the division of the Big 12 and you leave inherent weaknesses in at least 1 if not 2 conferences by trying to do it. The Big 10 for football is built around Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and to a lesser extent Wisconsin and Michigan State. The SEC is built around Alabama, Florida, L.S.U., Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee and now A&M and to a lesser extent Kentucky, South Carolina, Ole Miss and Missouri. The PAC is built around the 4 California schools, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. The Big 12 however is built around three: Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent Kansas. The ACC is built around 2 for football: Clemson and Florida State and to a lesser extent Virginia Tech and Miami. Notre Dame is an adornment only until they join in full. Because of the issue of the latter two only the division of the ACC results if 4 fairly balanced conferences.

So the networks are stuck trying to figure out how to get from where we are today to where they want to go, provided of course they cooperate. Undervaluing the ACC and not coming forth with a conference network for them is a prod that may or may not work. It is much easier to build a football conference around Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and Notre Dame than it is to try to build one around a part time Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson. Put those brands together and voila you have a fourth balanced and competitive conference.

Anyway Zombiewoof, your idea is on target I believe, but the monetary overhead of 80 schools needs to be reduced and that means 64 instead of 80 and 4 conferences instead of 8. So those regional conferences of 10 which I loved in my younger days will be morphed into something like what is proposed above while keeping its original regional flavor as much as possible. Furthermore why pay for four schools fully that only benefit 1 conference (as with North Carolina), or as you propose 7 schools that only benefit 1 conference (Texas) when you can benefit 3 conferences (Big 10, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (North Carolina) and 4 schools, or 3 conferences (PAC, SEC & Big 12) with 1 state (Texas) and only 4 schools. And that is where we are headed, some day.

The only other alternative that could work would be to place Texas, Oklahoma, and two of their buddies in the ACC to send Virginia Tech and Kansas to the Big 10, North Carolina State and Okalhoma State to the SEC, and Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and T.C.U./Baylor to the PAC. But I'm not sure that works as well as the first concept because it doesn't give the two kings (Oklahoma and Texas) enough regional games.

BTW the investment in athletics by schools has two major break down, or division points. The first is around 60 schools, and again at 71 with a minor break around 65. The attendance really falls off at around 64. That figure seems to be the mean for maximizing eyeballs and minimizing overhead and it is divisible into a discernible and understandable format.
We have covered the network aspect of this potential movement. Let's talk about very powerful state politicians, picky boosters with very deep pockets, and ultimately, fan support. They are the folks filling the stadiums. This combination may be as influential as any network as far as where their school winds up in a scenario such as this.
The common fans that fill the stadium will be the last group of folks considered. The reason is that they make the least impact financially upon the institutions when their contributions are stacked up against television contracts. It will also not be necessary to try to win them over should several considerations be made.
1. Whatever movement takes place keeps them geographically centered and playing a core of familiar faces.
2. The move is considered to be an upgrade athletically or academically or both.
3. A good PR program much like Mizzou 2 SEC is put out well in advance of the move to get them ready for it.

State politicians don't care at all (except maybe in Texas) what conferences that their schools play in while their states are in budget crunches as long as their schools are somewhere good and making enough money to take the pressure off of the State legislative body's budgetary requirements.

Major boosters are another matter. Many of them are heavily invested in the very corporations that are seeking a better return by rearranging the product of college football. If their school makes more money that takes some pressure off of them. If their school joins a more prestigious conference then many of them will be satisfied, especially if they can consider themselves to have been in on it.

Truly Medic if your school makes more, keeps a core of familiar faces to play, and makes a move that is considered an upgrade especially academically there are very few who are going to complain and leave. And in the Fall when it is time to tee it up for the first kickoff those same folks we still be in the stands and that is simply reality.

If you have a difference of opinion then lay it out and we'll discuss it.
I do not disagree with you regarding the coming changes. It will just involve an incredible effort to tee up a new system like this. That is a lot of changes... look at the groundwork it took just to incorporate Missouri and the Aggies into the SEC. I believe it can and will be done, but too much change may not be so good for CFB. You can rock the apple cart until it turns over.04-cheers

Medic I agree with some of what you are saying and disagree slightly with some of it.

I agree that the placement of the schools from whichever conference is dissolved will be tricky. But this time it will be in the hands of the networks more than the conferences. ESPN and FOX are in much better position to negotiate out the moves and cover concerns and contingencies than conference commissioners.

What I disagree with is the part about turning over the apple cart. I just don't see it happening, especially if it is the Big 12 that is parsed out. The top schools in the Big 12 are wanting more peers to play and partner with academically. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would ultimately fit anywhere and likely be happy with the moves. The difficult part is how to place Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Baylor and West Virginia. If we move to 64 total schools T.C.U. could be odd man out unless the PAC agrees to take them. In that case Baylor could be in some trouble. I see Baylor as a good product for someone but they wouldn't pass the anti religious bias of the California schools out West. But they could fit rather nicely into the ACC and in some cases even into the SEC.

I think long term it will be much better for the second grouping of schools if movement happens before the GOR expires. Face it they are going to get trapped and hard feelings could result if the GOR expires and Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas all find new homes without them. That's why I think movement will happen sooner rather than later. But if those schools find new homes they will be happy too.

We start the final movement with 65 schools in the P5. If we move to a P4 and accommodate 64, or all 65 of them I don't see a riot overturning anything at the end of the realignment. If there is a riot it will come from the G5, but they are G5 because they don't have enough of a following or investment in the athletics, or both to make much of a difference and with a downsizing coming nationally in higher educations due to automation, rising educational costs, and birth rate decline in the middle class I expect some of them to scale down in every regard anyway. That is why all 4 conferences are pushing for large state schools, especially flagship schools.

But seriously if I were Iowa State, Baylor, West Virginia, Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas Tech I would be praying for a deal to get worked prior to the GOR expiring, and I wouldn't be pitching a fit if it did, because frankly that is what is best for their survival.

BTW, I always favored a 4 x 18 for 72 schools. The economic investment point that is really not contestable for inclusion in an upper division comes at position 71 before the second large drop off. Cincinnati occupies that 71st position.
(This post was last modified: 03-24-2014 07:28 PM by JRsec.)
03-24-2014 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IR4CU Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 139
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Clemson
Location:
Post: #40
RE: What If there was No Conference Involvement in Realignment, Only that of Networks
In one of his posts, JR mentions the possibility of the networks dividing up the Big 12 and ACC with UNC/Va Tech going to the SEC, Duke/UVA going to the BIG, ISU/KSU/TT/OSU to the PAC and the Big 12 & ACC reforming as follows:

Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas
Louisville, West Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest.

I think this is close to a dream scenario for the SEC and BIG (although the BIG would prefer UNC) and I agree that I can see the networks being very happy with this. However, I do not think this would work out well for the schools in the new makeshift conference in general and Clemson in particular.

From a conference perspective, although the pods help to some degree, this conference is clearly a makeshift conference with no geographic cohesion and not much in the way of cultural cohesion. There are certainly some good existing rivalries (UT/OU, FSU/CU, ND/SU) and some good potential new rivalries but as a whole this conference just has too many non-similar schools. Travel distances would not be favorable as the conference would stretch from Miami to Boston and the Atlantic Ocean to Kansas/Texas. The geographic center of this conference is somewhere near Jamestown, TN (northeast corner of TN). Clemson and ND would be the two schools closest to the conference center and for Clemson, the average distance from Clemson to all of the schools would be 530 miles straight line or 645 miles driving distance.

The biggest problem I see from Clemson’s perspective would be recruiting. Being able to regularly play UT, OU, ND, and WVU would certainly help from a recruiting standpoint but I think this would be far outweighed by now having to compete for NC and VA players with instate SEC schools (UNC and Va Tech). Granted, VA is not a big recruiting ground for Clemson but we do pull some decent talent out of that state from time to time. North Carolina on the other hand is one of Clemson’s prime recruiting grounds. Clemson already has to compete against the SEC in it’s other primary recruiting areas of SC, GA, and FL. It is nice and advantageous not to have to recruit against an in state SEC school in NC and VA. While Clemson does a decent job of recruiting against SEC schools in GA, FL, & SC we have lost several prime targets to SEC schools in the past several years simply because the kid wants to play in the SEC (and I certainly understand their motivation). It becomes harder and harder to recruit against the SEC every year and having UNC and Va Tech in the SEC would only make this worse for Clemson. From a recruiting standpoint, I fear any conference scenario that has an SEC school in the states of NC and VA without Clemson also being in the SEC. By the way, I believe that if Clemson ever became part of the SEC, they would become a recruiting monster.
03-24-2014 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.