(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.