Thanks, JR, I appreciate it.

Numbers of a different kind are now adding up. You already know that the SECN has carriage with UVerse (AT&T), and Dish for our opening this Fall. Bullet has reported citing the Houston Chronicle that Direct TV has now contacted the SEC about carrying the SECN by this Fall as well. I don't see how Charter which relies upon the Southeast for business as well can be far behind. I'd say we are way ahead of the curve on potential earnings now. With the Big 12 relying on their own T3 negotiations, the ACC still "several years away" from pursuing a network of their own, the PACN suffering distribution problems because of the independence from corporate networks it looks like the two tickets to punch are with the SEC and Big 10. These moves and the proposed mergers which could also land the SECN on Comcast before it is over are catalysts that could drive the kind of 3 conference scenario that we have laid out here. A PAC merger with the Big 10 solves their potential dilemma, an ACC merger with the SEC gets them caught up in a hurry, and then it's a battle to see who lands the best of the Big 10 properties. I'd say even though still a long shot in the short term the prospects for further consolidation are now more likely than not. We'll see.

(05-18-2014 10:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 10:10 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I understand that the networks are behind expansion moves. That is beyond dispute.

I also understand that most states are bankrupt and that impacts state supported schools.

That said, I still don't think the networks are going to get their way completely and/or that enough schools, particularly the key ones (Texas, North Carolina, ND) are going to make the radical moves required to fulfil this vision.

That said, I will stop polluting your board with my stubborn, anachronistic viewpoints. Take care, JR.

Terry, I wish we had more differing discussion on this board and you are certainly not polluting it. JayhawkMVP, BewarethePhog, XLance, Ohio1317, and He1nous all feel welcomed here and they certainly don't all agree. I had always hoped that there would be rancor-less exchange of ideas on the CS&CR board, but there isn't and these days it is far from it. What you believe is part of who you are and both you and your ideas are always welcome here no matter how contrary they may seem because you can't have a discussion when everyone agrees and because you are always informed and civil. Come back anytime and disagree all you want. JR

Yeah Terry, feel free to drop by anytime. It's not like you haven't been in the South long enough to acquire a taste for sweet tea.

(05-19-2014 03:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 10:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-18-2014 10:10 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I understand that the networks are behind expansion moves. That is beyond dispute.

I also understand that most states are bankrupt and that impacts state supported schools.

That said, I still don't think the networks are going to get their way completely and/or that enough schools, particularly the key ones (Texas, North Carolina, ND) are going to make the radical moves required to fulfil this vision.

That said, I will stop polluting your board with my stubborn, anachronistic viewpoints. Take care, JR.

Terry, I wish we had more differing discussion on this board and you are certainly not polluting it. JayhawkMVP, BewarethePhog, XLance, Ohio1317, and He1nous all feel welcomed here and they certainly don't all agree. I had always hoped that there would be rancor-less exchange of ideas on the CS&CR board, but there isn't and these days it is far from it. What you believe is part of who you are and both you and your ideas are always welcome here no matter how contrary they may seem because you can't have a discussion when everyone agrees and because you are always informed and civil. Come back anytime and disagree all you want. JR

Yeah Terry, feel free to drop by anytime. It's not like you haven't been in the South long enough to acquire a taste for sweet tea.

Vandiver I think this thread answers your question in the Just by the numbers thread about how to handle the divergence of the ACC and Big 12. It also handles the fundamental issues with distribution and divergence in the PAC. The Continental becomes a fairly cohesive (geographically speaking) buffer conference for the upper tier and it allows for inclusion of those schools on the bubble which I think we need for more balance competitively and to avoid possible legal entanglements. At 24 the SEC adds 7 from the ACC and 3 from the Big 12. The Big 10 adds 9 from the PAC and 1 from the ACC. Thoughts?

(05-19-2014 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandiver I think this thread answers your question in the Just by the numbers thread about how to handle the divergence of the ACC and Big 12. It also handles the fundamental issues with distribution and divergence in the PAC. The Continental becomes a fairly cohesive (geographically speaking) buffer conference for the upper tier and it allows for inclusion of those schools on the bubble which I think we need for more balance competitively and to avoid possible legal entanglements. At 24 the SEC adds 7 from the ACC and 3 from the Big 12. The Big 10 adds 9 from the PAC and 1 from the ACC. Thoughts?

I would contend that in your P3 scenario that the B1G comes out ahead. Now, I can live with that considering how you've divided the major CFB powers. I imagine the Continental Conference is within $5-10 million dollars distribution wise and would need to get some scheduling considerations to ameliorate the likes of OKST and UL.

Playoff wise, you state the each conference would be guaranteed two slots. Does this mean that the conference essentially conduct quarter-final match-ups to determine who makes it? I would think you would still like to have a definite Conference Champ.

(05-20-2014 03:33 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 04:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Vandiver I think this thread answers your question in the Just by the numbers thread about how to handle the divergence of the ACC and Big 12. It also handles the fundamental issues with distribution and divergence in the PAC. The Continental becomes a fairly cohesive (geographically speaking) buffer conference for the upper tier and it allows for inclusion of those schools on the bubble which I think we need for more balance competitively and to avoid possible legal entanglements. At 24 the SEC adds 7 from the ACC and 3 from the Big 12. The Big 10 adds 9 from the PAC and 1 from the ACC. Thoughts?

I would contend that in your P3 scenario that the B1G comes out ahead. Now, I can live with that considering how you've divided the major CFB powers. I imagine the Continental Conference is within $5-10 million dollars distribution wise and would need to get some scheduling considerations to ameliorate the likes of OKST and UL.

Playoff wise, you state the each conference would be guaranteed two slots. Does this mean that the conference essentially conduct quarter-final match-ups to determine who makes it? I would think you would still like to have a definite Conference Champ.

I would say the three conference champs get consideration to host the first round and each conference's runner up gets in as that conference's #2. With two at large you seed the teams and play it off. Or you could just take the champs and 1 at large and have a 4 team playoff. It just depends on the time frame.

Thanks for contributing Terry. This board as been a pretty civil place to discuss realignment, unlike a lot of the net or even the realignment forum here in the Lounge. To answer your question:

I guess I would say that ND gains nothing they desire really. They only keep from being left out. I guess the question would then be if they had to join a conference to still be able to play CFB at the highest level, which conference would they choose of the 3 suggested? I am guessing that the new B10 with all those PAC schools and schools they have played frequently would be their preferred spot, if they had to choose from those 3 conferences, even though they despise the B10. They would have allies in that conference in the PAC schools, especially USC and Stanford. The original B10 schools would be outnumbered by the new schools. Of course, ND goes their own way so maybe they would go to the SEC or 3rd conference, maybe drop to a lower division or drop FB all together, rather than feel forced into a structure they don't want.

In the end the other schools will do what is best for themselves. If that means ND is left out or is forced to join a conference, no power school would shed a tear for them and quite a few might be happy. ND would just be forced to decide if independence is worth giving up CFB at the highest level. I have no clue what they would decide in the end, but I lean towards joining a conference (though maybe not the B10).

(05-21-2014 02:26 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Thanks for contributing Terry. This board as been a pretty civil place to discuss realignment, unlike a lot of the net or even the realignment forum here in the Lounge. To answer your question:

I guess I would say that ND gains nothing they desire really. They only keep from being left out. I guess the question would then be if they had to join a conference to still be able to play CFB at the highest level, which conference would they choose of the 3 suggested? I am guessing that the new B10 with all those PAC schools and schools they have played frequently would be their preferred spot, if they had to choose from those 3 conferences, even though they despise the B10. They would have allies in that conference in the PAC schools, especially USC and Stanford. The original B10 schools would be outnumbered by the new schools. Of course, ND goes their own way so maybe they would go to the SEC or 3rd conference, maybe drop to a lower division or drop FB all together, rather than feel forced into a structure they don't want.

In the end the other schools will do what is best for themselves. If that means ND is left out or is forced to join a conference, no power school would shed a tear for them and quite a few might be happy. ND would just be forced to decide if independence is worth giving up CFB at the highest level. I have no clue what they would decide in the end, but I lean towards joining a conference (though maybe not the B10).

I think this is a fairly honest assessment. I just don't see Notre Dame ever dropping football unless it is a health related decision at some point in which case they won't be the only major program to do so. But I don't think it is the other schools that won't shed a tear as much as it would be any networks not named NBC.

If ESPN or FOX could corral them they would. The reason I am an ardent believer in further realignment is because the first few rounds have been about consolidation of product with a reasonable amount of product placement. Rutgers and Maryland to the Big 10 is pure product placement. Missouri to the SEC is pure product placement. In both cases the top two conference's had their product placed in front of more customers. That makes advertising sales for the top two products more lucrative for the networks controlling them. ESPN would be happy to exploit the broad market of Notre Dame's national brand. That's one reason why the ACC is sheltered for the moment. The fact that ESPN owns them outright as far as rights are concerned is another.

Look at the contracts that are in place. ESPN sews up the entire ACC, gains a large stake in Texas, and a reasonable share in Kansas. By doing so they control the greatest reservoir of realignment targets from two disparate conferences. The Big 12 with a miniscule footprint and no peers for targets and the ACC with a odd array of state and public, North and South, basketball and football first schools with the largest market footprint, but the lowest viewing percentages outside of the PAC are both potentially fatally flawed. If one assumes that the PAC is isolated enough geographically to be the least likely to have teams taken from them, then ESPN controls all of the top product necessary to shape the final stages of realignment.

If Notre Dame comes all in then ESPN can make a move for Texas very enticing in an effort to resculpt the conference. If the PAC wants to give up a share of its network ESPN can encourage Texas to move west. If the SECN proves as profitable as some think then ESPN is in a position to do some dramatic product placement from what they hold in the ACC or in Big 12 product they support. They can add even more to the Big 10 if they warm up to the Mouse again (which they may not). But still it places ESPN in the brokers position which also means that FOX needs to come to them for desirable product which is yet more leverage over the process.

Ask yourselves these questions. If the SECN is successful why would ESPN want the ACC to open as a competitor? This is why the ACCN is several years away. If the SECN is successful the two will either be bundled for product placement, or merged either by a partial absorption of the ACC into the SEC or perhaps even a full absorption although the former would be far more profitable. Do you think not? Since the SEC is the leader in viewers nationwide and by a fairly wide margin and the ACC really fails to deliver their own market, why wouldn't ESPN want SEC product placement in ACC markets? The game on their end is advertising rates and sustainable advertising. Live events still draw good rates because people are forced to see the commercials. This is one reason that college sports, although nowhere nearly as popular as the NFL, can draw premium ad rates. Everything besides live events can be viewed with the means of skipping ads. Ad money pays for realignment. Realignment enhances ad money.

Structure? Structure will become the final tool for maximizing profits. When the final rounds of realignment are negotiated product placement will still be at the forefront, but structure will also be sought which will engage the widest number of viewers nationwide until the deepest part of the season possible. We will move to 4 conferences because 4 conferences yield 4 champions which engage all four regions of the country's interest until the completion of the semifinals.

So what does this mean? It means that the need for regionalism will again become important. The notion that you can't have two schools from one state will be gone because product placement will be over and structuring will be in. The states that will be split will be large market states on the borders between regions. If four somewhat balanced conferences can be attained that will be our model. If not, three balanced conferences can be created and the network gains through an at large 4th playoff spot which to them will represent the opportunity to maximize the interest in the region of the country they feel will likely be the weakest based upon the three champions. Wild cards in the NFL have done more to sustain regional interest than about any other invention of structure.

Because of the goegraphy of the Big 12 as a boundary area between the Big 10, PAC, and SEC you have seen all three feed off of the middle and lower upper end of that conference already. The Big 12 can now be used to either bolster the PAC and ACC, or the ACC can be used to bolster the Big 12. Reason and geography says the former is far more likely than the latter.

The SEC is not short on strength of product so product placement would still be the network priority for the SEC.

The PAC is weak on distribution and desperately needs central time zone slots in which to open a whole new merchandising vista. A brand couldn't hurt them either.

The Big 10 is now fairly secure with product placement and they need football branding.

The ACC needs football branding desperately.

If it was left to just ESPN, since FOX is a competitor, I think the SEC would land N.C. State and Virginia Tech simply for product placement. The absence of those two schools would not negatively impact the ACC in any dramatic way. So, there would be no further need for the SEC to look West. This is why Clay Travis and others have speculated on this kind of move. Texas to the ACC with a Baylor and T.C.U. along with a West Virginia would add the football cache that the ACC needs to increase their brand in the most viewed sport and the sales of the two networks (SEC/ACC) in a bundle then make a great deal of sense.

If the PAC plays ball with ESPN Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State make sense for them. I know they don't want Oklahoma State, but the Cowboys are top 30 in profitability and are an upper mid-tier football program. That's the price for taking Oklahoma.

The drawback here is that only leaves Kansas and Iowa State for the Big 10. This gets solved if the PAC is compensated for taking Oklahoma State without Oklahoma and adding Iowa State. The PAC now has 4 central time zone states and a scheduling arrangement with the Big 10. Throw in a bundling of the PACN with the BTN and Oklahoma and Kansas are off to the Big 10 and both conferences get much broader distribution. Maybe FOX even gets 51% of the PACN in the process.

The PAC is happy with the surge in distribution and a new time zone in which to sell product. Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State now have rivalry games with Big 10 members. And the PAC has a piece of the Texas market.

The Big 10 keeps peace within its ranks by having some Midwest expansion with two national brand schools and gets to hype the reunion of Oklahoma and Nebraska and thanks to bundling is now more widely distributed in the Pacific time zone.

The SEC has the entire Southeast as a footprint and 19 million more potential viewers so they are happy.

The ACC gets a big boost up with Texas and Notre Dame together, they add 28 million viewers and don't lose footprint in the process and gain a piggyback for their network with the most viewed conference in the nation.

From a network standpoint those are big wins for balance, structure, and national interest.

The whittling may take a while and the threat of moving to 3 conferences may have to look like a reality before agreement is achieved, but I still look for something like this to happen. If the ACC rejects it or the PAC refuses the schools offered then the 3 conferences scenario with an uber Big 10 and uber SEC become possible.

(05-21-2014 09:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 02:26 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Thanks for contributing Terry. This board as been a pretty civil place to discuss realignment, unlike a lot of the net or even the realignment forum here in the Lounge. To answer your question:

I guess I would say that ND gains nothing they desire really. They only keep from being left out. I guess the question would then be if they had to join a conference to still be able to play CFB at the highest level, which conference would they choose of the 3 suggested? I am guessing that the new B10 with all those PAC schools and schools they have played frequently would be their preferred spot, if they had to choose from those 3 conferences, even though they despise the B10. They would have allies in that conference in the PAC schools, especially USC and Stanford. The original B10 schools would be outnumbered by the new schools. Of course, ND goes their own way so maybe they would go to the SEC or 3rd conference, maybe drop to a lower division or drop FB all together, rather than feel forced into a structure they don't want.

In the end the other schools will do what is best for themselves. If that means ND is left out or is forced to join a conference, no power school would shed a tear for them and quite a few might be happy. ND would just be forced to decide if independence is worth giving up CFB at the highest level. I have no clue what they would decide in the end, but I lean towards joining a conference (though maybe not the B10).

I think this is a fairly honest assessment. I just don't see Notre Dame ever dropping football unless it is a health related decision at some point in which case they won't be the only major program to do so. But I don't think it is the other schools that won't shed a tear as much as it would be any networks not named NBC.

If ESPN or FOX could corral them they would. The reason I am an ardent believer in further realignment is because the first few rounds have been about consolidation of product with a reasonable amount of product placement. Rutgers and Maryland to the Big 10 is pure product placement. Missouri to the SEC is pure product placement. In both cases the top two conference's had their product placed in front of more customers. That makes advertising sales for the top two products more lucrative for the networks controlling them. ESPN would be happy to exploit the broad market of Notre Dame's national brand. That's one reason why the ACC is sheltered for the moment. The fact that ESPN owns them outright as far as rights are concerned is another.

Look at the contracts that are in place. ESPN sews up the entire ACC, gains a large stake in Texas, and a reasonable share in Kansas. By doing so they control the greatest reservoir of realignment targets from two disparate conferences. The Big 12 with a miniscule footprint and no peers for targets and the ACC with a odd array of state and public, North and South, basketball and football first schools with the largest market footprint, but the lowest viewing percentages outside of the PAC are both potentially fatally flawed. If one assumes that the PAC is isolated enough geographically to be the least likely to have teams taken from them, then ESPN controls all of the top product necessary to shape the final stages of realignment.

If Notre Dame comes all in then ESPN can make a move for Texas very enticing in an effort to resculpt the conference. If the PAC wants to give up a share of its network ESPN can encourage Texas to move west. If the SECN proves as profitable as some think then ESPN is in a position to do some dramatic product placement from what they hold in the ACC or in Big 12 product they support. They can add even more to the Big 10 if they warm up to the Mouse again (which they may not). But still it places ESPN in the brokers position which also means that FOX needs to come to them for desirable product which is yet more leverage over the process.

Ask yourselves these questions. If the SECN is successful why would ESPN want the ACC to open as a competitor? This is why the ACCN is several years away. If the SECN is successful the two will either be bundled for product placement, or merged either by a partial absorption of the ACC into the SEC or perhaps even a full absorption although the former would be far more profitable. Do you think not? Since the SEC is the leader in viewers nationwide and by a fairly wide margin and the ACC really fails to deliver their own market, why wouldn't ESPN want SEC product placement in ACC markets? The game on their end is advertising rates and sustainable advertising. Live events still draw good rates because people are forced to see the commercials. This is one reason that college sports, although nowhere nearly as popular as the NFL, can draw premium ad rates. Everything besides live events can be viewed with the means of skipping ads. Ad money pays for realignment. Realignment enhances ad money.

Structure? Structure will become the final tool for maximizing profits. When the final rounds of realignment are negotiated product placement will still be at the forefront, but structure will also be sought which will engage the widest number of viewers nationwide until the deepest part of the season possible. We will move to 4 conferences because 4 conferences yield 4 champions which engage all four regions of the country's interest until the completion of the semifinals.

So what does this mean? It means that the need for regionalism will again become important. The notion that you can't have two schools from one state will be gone because product placement will be over and structuring will be in. The states that will be split will be large market states on the borders between regions. If four somewhat balanced conferences can be attained that will be our model. If not, three balanced conferences can be created and the network gains through an at large 4th playoff spot which to them will represent the opportunity to maximize the interest in the region of the country they feel will likely be the weakest based upon the three champions. Wild cards in the NFL have done more to sustain regional interest than about any other invention of structure.

Because of the goegraphy of the Big 12 as a boundary area between the Big 10, PAC, and SEC you have seen all three feed off of the middle and lower upper end of that conference already. The Big 12 can now be used to either bolster the PAC and ACC, or the ACC can be used to bolster the Big 12. Reason and geography says the former is far more likely than the latter.

The SEC is not short on strength of product so product placement would still be the network priority for the SEC.

The PAC is weak on distribution and desperately needs central time zone slots in which to open a whole new merchandising vista. A brand couldn't hurt them either.

The Big 10 is now fairly secure with product placement and they need football branding.

The ACC needs football branding desperately.

If it was left to just ESPN, since FOX is a competitor, I think the SEC would land N.C. State and Virginia Tech simply for product placement. The absence of those two schools would not negatively impact the ACC in any dramatic way. So, there would be no further need for the SEC to look West. This is why Clay Travis and others have speculated on this kind of move. Texas to the ACC with a Baylor and T.C.U. along with a West Virginia would add the football cache that the ACC needs to increase their brand in the most viewed sport and the sales of the two networks (SEC/ACC) in a bundle then make a great deal of sense.

If the PAC plays ball with ESPN Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State make sense for them. I know they don't want Oklahoma State, but the Cowboys are top 30 in profitability and are an upper mid-tier football program. That's the price for taking Oklahoma.

The drawback here is that only leaves Kansas and Iowa State for the Big 10. This gets solved if the PAC is compensated for taking Oklahoma State without Oklahoma and adding Iowa State. The PAC now has 4 central time zone states and a scheduling arrangement with the Big 10. Throw in a bundling of the PACN with the BTN and Oklahoma and Kansas are off to the Big 10 and both conferences get much broader distribution. Maybe FOX even gets 51% of the PACN in the process.

The PAC is happy with the surge in distribution and a new time zone in which to sell product. Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State now have rivalry games with Big 10 members. And the PAC has a piece of the Texas market.

The Big 10 keeps peace within its ranks by having some Midwest expansion with two national brand schools and gets to hype the reunion of Oklahoma and Nebraska and thanks to bundling is now more widely distributed in the Pacific time zone.

The SEC has the entire Southeast as a footprint and 19 million more potential viewers so they are happy.

The ACC gets a big boost up with Texas and Notre Dame together, they add 28 million viewers and don't lose footprint in the process and gain a piggyback for their network with the most viewed conference in the nation.

From a network standpoint those are big wins for balance, structure, and national interest.

The whittling may take a while and the threat of moving to 3 conferences may have to look like a reality before agreement is achieved, but I still look for something like this to happen. If the ACC rejects it or the PAC refuses the schools offered then the 3 conferences scenario with an uber Big 10 and uber SEC become possible.

This scenario seems as likely as any and probably more then most. While adding some football "cred" to the ACC, I happen to believe that in the long run, this will damage the ACC football product more then it will help. My reason for this belief revolves around the lifeblood of college football ..... recruiting. As it is now, it is very difficult for non-SEC schools to compete with the SEC for the top recruits. The only factor really in the ACC's favor when it comes to recruiting the states of NC and VA are proximity. If you now add SEC schools in the states of NC and VA, then this single advantage goes away. Existing ACC schools may be able to pull a recruit or two from Texas that they might not have otherwise gotten but this would be more then offset by the loss of NC and VA recruits to the new SEC schools (NCSU and VaTech). And let's face it, West Va has never been and never will be a recruiting hotbed - the same can be said for the other "northern" states where ACC schools are located (PA, Mass, or NY). In essence, this would relegate the ACC to perpetually being the second choice for recruits in all of the southern states where recruiting matters most. So, in the long run, I believe that this realignment scenario would serve to only increase the existing imbalance instead of stabilizing it. I would much prefer the 3 conference scenario that JR has proposed elsewhere but I agree that any moves will ultimately be dictated by the networks.

IR4CU, you bring up good points. It does not directly apply, but a while back I brought up an idea that may appease a realignment of the P5 into 3 or 4 conferences. I work in the branding field (primarily signage design and implementation), and it is astounding how personal a name becomes. More than holding one's own name, many fight tooth and nail to NOT be called another name. When company A and company B merge, regardless of who is most prominent or has the strongest brand, it is always a smoother transition when both become company C.

In the vast majority of scenarios, the schools that would be natural and preferred fits in the SEC are directly Southern or are at least on the fringes. As a Clemson fan, do you surmise that there would be less resistance from the southern ACC schools (VA and down) to join the SEC schools if ESPN approached them and recommended a brand them all as the Southern Conference? Yes, there is strong familiarity in that name for most of the schools involved, but most of us do not remember those days before the major schools split off into the SEC and ACC. If the Southern schools of the Big 12 were to also join, then Southeastern really becomes a difficult term for those of us with common sense, anyway. Southern Conference, however, works from Texas to Virginia. Just an idea, but do you think that agreement on all sides to change their existing brand, or, rather, go back to both of our roots, would make a significant difference? With the recent addition of Louisville, not a single ACC school can use academics as a reason to not associate with any member of the ACC. I really do think there is something in a name, and the idea of taking on the "SEC" name is met with much stronger resistance than associating with the individual members that compose that conference.

For us SEC folks, would you be in support of this brand reversion if it meant gaining conference membership from the strongest of the remaining Southern schools?

(05-22-2014 06:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  IR4CU, you bring up good points. It does not directly apply, but a while back I brought up an idea that may appease a realignment of the P5 into 3 or 4 conferences. I work in the branding field (primarily signage design and implementation), and it is astounding how personal a name becomes. More than holding one's own name, many fight tooth and nail to NOT be called another name. When company A and company B merge, regardless of who is most prominent or has the strongest brand, it is always a smoother transition when both become company C.

In the vast majority of scenarios, the schools that would be natural and preferred fits in the SEC are directly Southern or are at least on the fringes. As a Clemson fan, do you surmise that there would be less resistance from the southern ACC schools (VA and down) to join the SEC schools if ESPN approached them and recommended a brand them all as the Southern Conference? Yes, there is strong familiarity in that name for most of the schools involved, but most of us do not remember those days before the major schools split off into the SEC and ACC. If the Southern schools of the Big 12 were to also join, then Southeastern really becomes a difficult term for those of us with common sense, anyway. Southern Conference, however, works from Texas to Virginia. Just an idea, but do you think that agreement on all sides to change their existing brand, or, rather, go back to both of our roots, would make a significant difference? With the recent addition of Louisville, not a single ACC school can use academics as a reason to not associate with any member of the ACC. I really do think there is something in a name, and the idea of taking on the "SEC" name is met with much stronger resistance than associating with the individual members that compose that conference.

For us SEC folks, would you be in support of this brand reversion if it meant gaining conference membership from the strongest of the remaining Southern schools?

There is already a Southern Conference.

That's a conference bordering on 30-ish members

That's not a conference, thats an entire league with 3x10 team conferences.

(05-22-2014 06:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  IR4CU, you bring up good points. It does not directly apply, but a while back I brought up an idea that may appease a realignment of the P5 into 3 or 4 conferences. I work in the branding field (primarily signage design and implementation), and it is astounding how personal a name becomes. More than holding one's own name, many fight tooth and nail to NOT be called another name. When company A and company B merge, regardless of who is most prominent or has the strongest brand, it is always a smoother transition when both become company C.

In the vast majority of scenarios, the schools that would be natural and preferred fits in the SEC are directly Southern or are at least on the fringes. As a Clemson fan, do you surmise that there would be less resistance from the southern ACC schools (VA and down) to join the SEC schools if ESPN approached them and recommended a brand them all as the Southern Conference? Yes, there is strong familiarity in that name for most of the schools involved, but most of us do not remember those days before the major schools split off into the SEC and ACC. If the Southern schools of the Big 12 were to also join, then Southeastern really becomes a difficult term for those of us with common sense, anyway. Southern Conference, however, works from Texas to Virginia. Just an idea, but do you think that agreement on all sides to change their existing brand, or, rather, go back to both of our roots, would make a significant difference? With the recent addition of Louisville, not a single ACC school can use academics as a reason to not associate with any member of the ACC. I really do think there is something in a name, and the idea of taking on the "SEC" name is met with much stronger resistance than associating with the individual members that compose that conference.

For us SEC folks, would you be in support of this brand reversion if it meant gaining conference membership from the strongest of the remaining Southern schools?

BBB the name Southern Conference was retained by remnant additions and is trademarked and cannot be re-assumed. It would take having a name like Greater Southern Conference, or Great South Conference. I would make the argument that the brand SEC is so strong with regards to players who are associated with it making a favorable association to the NFL that in sports it would only be the fans, as you pointed out, who would be the only ones to revolt over the name.

It really gets back to a suggestion I made here over two years ago. Athletic conferences need to be independent of Academic conferences. In that regard the University of Florida could be ACC for academics forming a conference affiliation along with Vanderbilt, A&M and Missouri that would be recognized as a top notch Southern research brand while Duke and North Carolina would benefit from an athletic perspective as conference members of the SEC. It ends a ton of hypocrisy and makes a great deal of sense for universities with similar missions academically to be able to freely associate without having to worry about regionalism while the athletics (with real overhead) could brand themselves to play regionally without those associations impacting the academic associations of the school. In such an arrangement I would think there would be few who would balk at the SEC brand for the athletic conference and many who would want to be included in the ACC if that moniker was used for the academic conference.

To the victor go the spoils. Following the civil war (less than 100 years ago at the beginning of my life, less than 50 years ago for my grandparents, and roughly contemporary at the beginning of my great-grandparent's lives) the congressional money was spent in the North and Midwest, the South was still treated as the agriculture region of the States, the Midwest was being developed as an agriculture base, and the upper Midwest as an industrial base because of the Great Lakes and their access to Canada and the greater North and through the St. Lawrence onto the North Atlantic. Nothing really changed that much until WWII and then because we feared grouping our industrial base in one region because it would make too enticing of a target (hence small military bases everywhere and industry locating where it never had before). The world you and I live in today is a post WWII world. Prior to that it was really a post Civil War world. My grandparents knew that well since their parents were either children during the Civil War or grew up during reconstruction.

But I say all of this to point out that these iterations of history shaped the Big 10 and that is what created them to be AAU schools. That is also why they are the only conference that would not have benefited from academic and athletic conferences being separate entities since there was no need for them to do that. Today however is the perfect time for such a change even for them. If they did so they could have Pitt in an academic association even though they have no intention of asking them in athletically. They could go for West Virginia in football without fear that it would negatively impact their academic profile. The true hypocrisy is in taking the worst of students for athletic ability, pretending to give them a college degree in a field unrelated to their gifts, making it extremely difficult upon them, and then claiming to be recognized (like North Carolina) as an impeccable academic institution.

What I propose would allow the teaching of technical jobs related to athletics the teaching of which would not impact the overall academic rating of the school (but would only be for for those athletes who would be more comfortable in pursuing those fields as those who wanted traditional education would be free to pursue it) and making the entrance requirements and standards applicable to the athletic wing of the school, while maintaining the standards of academia for those pursuing scientific or traditional educational disciplines. Auburn has much in common with Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc, but we don't have a medical school outside of veterinary medicine. It would be helpful to be in an academic conference with schools that share our disciplines. Athletically however there is no place like the SEC for us. You do know we were not always called Auburn. My mother went to Alabama Polytechnic Institute and had affiliation sweaters with API across them.

So when I see the dilemma for Florida State and Clemson and other ACC schools I do not think they would disdain SEC as a sports conference affiliation if they kept their ACC brand for academics. And I do believe many of our contemporary problems would be solved by having dual conference memberships, one for sports and one for athletics.

(05-22-2014 09:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  That's a conference bordering on 30-ish members

That's not a conference, thats an entire league with 3x10 team conferences.

Whether we go to that size sooner or later doesn't matter. It is coming and will be the conferences' best defense against the growing power imbalance between the schools and networks. The larger our grouping the better our leverage. 4 sixteen school conferences are minorities withing the bargaining structure. A 32 school conference is half of it. At least at 24 you represent a third of the total product.

As long as we are 4 sixteen team conferences there will be too much financial disparity between the 4 to remain static enough to have long spates of stability. With two 32 school conferences we would have 4 eight school division or 8 four team divisions and would be paid equitably with the other 32 school conference. We trim overhead and duplicated facilities and commercial property and keep more of the revenue. We then gain immense leverage in contract renegotiations. Standards are also uniformed.

I think the business climate of megacorporate influence will dictate the necessity of larger bargaining entities. I expect it to happen as a result. Your new conference essentially becomes the 8 schools from your regional groupings and you compete within what is essentially a league of 3 conferences but your cross scheduling while infrequent will have much more variety.

(05-22-2014 09:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 06:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  IR4CU, you bring up good points. It does not directly apply, but a while back I brought up an idea that may appease a realignment of the P5 into 3 or 4 conferences. I work in the branding field (primarily signage design and implementation), and it is astounding how personal a name becomes. More than holding one's own name, many fight tooth and nail to NOT be called another name. When company A and company B merge, regardless of who is most prominent or has the strongest brand, it is always a smoother transition when both become company C.

In the vast majority of scenarios, the schools that would be natural and preferred fits in the SEC are directly Southern or are at least on the fringes. As a Clemson fan, do you surmise that there would be less resistance from the southern ACC schools (VA and down) to join the SEC schools if ESPN approached them and recommended a brand them all as the Southern Conference? Yes, there is strong familiarity in that name for most of the schools involved, but most of us do not remember those days before the major schools split off into the SEC and ACC. If the Southern schools of the Big 12 were to also join, then Southeastern really becomes a difficult term for those of us with common sense, anyway. Southern Conference, however, works from Texas to Virginia. Just an idea, but do you think that agreement on all sides to change their existing brand, or, rather, go back to both of our roots, would make a significant difference? With the recent addition of Louisville, not a single ACC school can use academics as a reason to not associate with any member of the ACC. I really do think there is something in a name, and the idea of taking on the "SEC" name is met with much stronger resistance than associating with the individual members that compose that conference.

For us SEC folks, would you be in support of this brand reversion if it meant gaining conference membership from the strongest of the remaining Southern schools?

BBB the name Southern Conference was retained by remnant additions and is trademarked and cannot be re-assumed. It would take having a name like Greater Southern Conference, or Great South Conference. I would make the argument that the brand SEC is so strong with regards to players who are associated with it making a favorable association to the NFL that in sports it would only be the fans, as you pointed out, who would be the only ones to revolt over the name.

It really gets back to a suggestion I made here over two years ago. Athletic conferences need to be independent of Academic conferences. In that regard the University of Florida could be ACC for academics forming a conference affiliation along with Vanderbilt, A&M and Missouri that would be recognized as a top notch Southern research brand while Duke and North Carolina would benefit from an athletic perspective as conference members of the SEC. It ends a ton of hypocrisy and makes a great deal of sense for universities with similar missions academically to be able to freely associate without having to worry about regionalism while the athletics (with real overhead) could brand themselves to play regionally without those associations impacting the academic associations of the school. In such an arrangement I would think there would be few who would balk at the SEC brand for the athletic conference and many who would want to be included in the ACC if that moniker was used for the academic conference.

To the victor go the spoils. Following the civil war (less than 100 years ago at the beginning of my life, less than 50 years ago for my grandparents, and roughly contemporary at the beginning of my great-grandparent's lives) the congressional money was spent in the North and Midwest, the South was still treated as the agriculture region of the States, the Midwest was being developed as an agriculture base, and the upper Midwest as an industrial base because of the Great Lakes and their access to Canada and the greater North and through the St. Lawrence onto the North Atlantic. Nothing really changed that much until WWII and then because we feared grouping our industrial base in one region because it would make too enticing of a target (hence small military bases everywhere and industry locating where it never had before). The world you and I live in today is a post WWII world. Prior to that it was really a post Civil War world. My grandparents knew that well since their parents were either children during the Civil War or grew up during reconstruction.

But I say all of this to point out that these iterations of history shaped the Big 10 and that is what created them to be AAU schools. That is also why they are the only conference that would not have benefited from academic and athletic conferences being separate entities since there was no need for them to do that. Today however is the perfect time for such a change even for them. If they did so they could have Pitt in an academic association even though they have no intention of asking them in athletically. They could go for West Virginia in football without fear that it would negatively impact their academic profile. The true hypocrisy is in taking the worst of students for athletic ability, pretending to give them a college degree in a field unrelated to their gifts, making it extremely difficult upon them, and then claiming to be recognized (like North Carolina) as an impeccable academic institution.

What I propose would allow the teaching of technical jobs related to athletics the teaching of which would not impact the overall academic rating of the school (but would only be for for those athletes who would be more comfortable in pursuing those fields as those who wanted traditional education would be free to pursue it) and making the entrance requirements and standards applicable to the athletic wing of the school, while maintaining the standards of academia for those pursuing scientific or traditional educational disciplines. Auburn has much in common with Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc, but we don't have a medical school outside of veterinary medicine. It would be helpful to be in an academic conference with schools that share our disciplines. Athletically however there is no place like the SEC for us. You do know we were not always called Auburn. My mother went to Alabama Polytechnic Institute and had affiliation sweaters with API across them.

So when I see the dilemma for Florida State and Clemson and other ACC schools I do not think they would disdain SEC as a sports conference affiliation if they kept their ACC brand for academics. And I do believe many of our contemporary problems would be solved by having dual conference memberships, one for sports and one for athletics.

That's an interesting idea, JR, and I agree that academics and athletics certainly don't have to commingle. I do wonder, however, how much of all this is driven by the social/networking aspect of things. Just as many business deals are made on the golf course and in the lounge at the country club, how much schmoozing and networking is likely occurring in the suites at football and basketball games that may impact alliances for big-money research projects? If a game brings influential people together under the athletic/social context, it helps them build relationships that facilitate other common activities. It wouldn't surprise me if GA Tech and Purdue had some level of contact in the current environment, but imagine how much more might be occurring if they were regularly playing each other in football and basketball.

(05-22-2014 11:13 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 09:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 06:29 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  IR4CU, you bring up good points. It does not directly apply, but a while back I brought up an idea that may appease a realignment of the P5 into 3 or 4 conferences. I work in the branding field (primarily signage design and implementation), and it is astounding how personal a name becomes. More than holding one's own name, many fight tooth and nail to NOT be called another name. When company A and company B merge, regardless of who is most prominent or has the strongest brand, it is always a smoother transition when both become company C.

In the vast majority of scenarios, the schools that would be natural and preferred fits in the SEC are directly Southern or are at least on the fringes. As a Clemson fan, do you surmise that there would be less resistance from the southern ACC schools (VA and down) to join the SEC schools if ESPN approached them and recommended a brand them all as the Southern Conference? Yes, there is strong familiarity in that name for most of the schools involved, but most of us do not remember those days before the major schools split off into the SEC and ACC. If the Southern schools of the Big 12 were to also join, then Southeastern really becomes a difficult term for those of us with common sense, anyway. Southern Conference, however, works from Texas to Virginia. Just an idea, but do you think that agreement on all sides to change their existing brand, or, rather, go back to both of our roots, would make a significant difference? With the recent addition of Louisville, not a single ACC school can use academics as a reason to not associate with any member of the ACC. I really do think there is something in a name, and the idea of taking on the "SEC" name is met with much stronger resistance than associating with the individual members that compose that conference.

For us SEC folks, would you be in support of this brand reversion if it meant gaining conference membership from the strongest of the remaining Southern schools?

BBB the name Southern Conference was retained by remnant additions and is trademarked and cannot be re-assumed. It would take having a name like Greater Southern Conference, or Great South Conference. I would make the argument that the brand SEC is so strong with regards to players who are associated with it making a favorable association to the NFL that in sports it would only be the fans, as you pointed out, who would be the only ones to revolt over the name.

It really gets back to a suggestion I made here over two years ago. Athletic conferences need to be independent of Academic conferences. In that regard the University of Florida could be ACC for academics forming a conference affiliation along with Vanderbilt, A&M and Missouri that would be recognized as a top notch Southern research brand while Duke and North Carolina would benefit from an athletic perspective as conference members of the SEC. It ends a ton of hypocrisy and makes a great deal of sense for universities with similar missions academically to be able to freely associate without having to worry about regionalism while the athletics (with real overhead) could brand themselves to play regionally without those associations impacting the academic associations of the school. In such an arrangement I would think there would be few who would balk at the SEC brand for the athletic conference and many who would want to be included in the ACC if that moniker was used for the academic conference.

To the victor go the spoils. Following the civil war (less than 100 years ago at the beginning of my life, less than 50 years ago for my grandparents, and roughly contemporary at the beginning of my great-grandparent's lives) the congressional money was spent in the North and Midwest, the South was still treated as the agriculture region of the States, the Midwest was being developed as an agriculture base, and the upper Midwest as an industrial base because of the Great Lakes and their access to Canada and the greater North and through the St. Lawrence onto the North Atlantic. Nothing really changed that much until WWII and then because we feared grouping our industrial base in one region because it would make too enticing of a target (hence small military bases everywhere and industry locating where it never had before). The world you and I live in today is a post WWII world. Prior to that it was really a post Civil War world. My grandparents knew that well since their parents were either children during the Civil War or grew up during reconstruction.

But I say all of this to point out that these iterations of history shaped the Big 10 and that is what created them to be AAU schools. That is also why they are the only conference that would not have benefited from academic and athletic conferences being separate entities since there was no need for them to do that. Today however is the perfect time for such a change even for them. If they did so they could have Pitt in an academic association even though they have no intention of asking them in athletically. They could go for West Virginia in football without fear that it would negatively impact their academic profile. The true hypocrisy is in taking the worst of students for athletic ability, pretending to give them a college degree in a field unrelated to their gifts, making it extremely difficult upon them, and then claiming to be recognized (like North Carolina) as an impeccable academic institution.

What I propose would allow the teaching of technical jobs related to athletics the teaching of which would not impact the overall academic rating of the school (but would only be for for those athletes who would be more comfortable in pursuing those fields as those who wanted traditional education would be free to pursue it) and making the entrance requirements and standards applicable to the athletic wing of the school, while maintaining the standards of academia for those pursuing scientific or traditional educational disciplines. Auburn has much in common with Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, Purdue, etc, but we don't have a medical school outside of veterinary medicine. It would be helpful to be in an academic conference with schools that share our disciplines. Athletically however there is no place like the SEC for us. You do know we were not always called Auburn. My mother went to Alabama Polytechnic Institute and had affiliation sweaters with API across them.

So when I see the dilemma for Florida State and Clemson and other ACC schools I do not think they would disdain SEC as a sports conference affiliation if they kept their ACC brand for academics. And I do believe many of our contemporary problems would be solved by having dual conference memberships, one for sports and one for athletics.

That's an interesting idea, JR, and I agree that academics and athletics certainly don't have to commingle. I do wonder, however, how much of all this is driven by the social/networking aspect of things. Just as many business deals are made on the golf course and in the lounge at the country club, how much schmoozing and networking is likely occurring in the suites at football and basketball games that may impact alliances for big-money research projects? If a game brings influential people together under the athletic/social context, it helps them build relationships that facilitate other common activities. It wouldn't surprise me if GA Tech and Purdue had some level of contact in the current environment, but imagine how much more might be occurring if they were regularly playing each other in football and basketball.

Informal social events have always bred business. But the big decisions today are much more carefully crafted than T.C.U. to the Big 12 over a beer. Major corporations don't use money lightly and if deals are made political concessions are being made and with universities the ever increasing issue is intellectual property. The more schools are strapped for cash the more corporate involvement moves in for the kill. Pretty soon your football team becomes mannikins for the latest corporate uniform promotion. Corporate logos take the place of cherished players numbers in prominence of display inside the arenas and stadiums. Your research facility gets large corporate grants to replace diminishing Federal ones but the professors working on those projects lose their rights to their own intellectual property and that is at the schools where the school still permits professors to have intellectual property. The corporation gains, without having to fully fund a R&D department, a cheap access to innovation.

The whole process is being facilitated by the computer however because corporate files on friendly and unfriendly individuals who either facilitate or block their agendas are kept and shared and political pressure, albeit secret political pressure, ensues to remove the obstacles and replace them with facilitators. Star Trek depicted this perfectly with the Borg. If you are not for the collective and refuse to be assimilated you are targeted and removed. It is the same mentality that permeated the political infrastructure of the Third Reich and before it Napoleonic France and before it the Roman Empire and the power elite circle is so small that you and I can not access it, but will be excluded, without a word ever being publicly spoken or written, if we oppose it. You need to be permanently retired to talk about it but even then you need to examine documents you signed to make sure you can.

Test them and you will find that upward mobility ceases and in a world where most of the conglomerates control most of the employment opportunities you will be unofficially but solidly blackballed on opportunities. For instance most of the legal documentation you sign today if you are seeking employment includes a waiver for former employers to be immune to lawsuit for what they have to say about you. That provides cover for the unofficial blackball. In most cases, and for most average citizens it seems like, and functions like it is nothing. For whistle blowers, activists, pro union personnel and others who have circumvented cost cutting safety measures, enforcement of OSHA, workers rights, etc. it means no more jobs. It seems innocuous enough but if someone says something about you that prevents you from pursuing work or upward mobility you have a right to know what was said and to legally challenge false reports and misleading information as well as honest mistakes. All of your reputation and personal power is forfeited if you do not have this right. It would be like having a bad credit report that contained false information but never being allowed to see a copy of the report so that you can identify the mistakes and correct them.

I've been lucky but have worked in the past in positions to see how this has been used and abused. So, in light of your remarks, yes informal plans can easily be made at such events, but when they are usually the free market suffers at the least (competing bids), and at the most political pressure may be in the process of planning especially since that cannot be discussed in the official minutes of a board meeting, and in the case of our schools access to intellectual property may be jeopardized by these off the record communications tied to the solicitation of corporate support.

When you desire to say pooh to the notion just remember that all forms of fascism are corporate in nature. In fact the definitive structure for it is a corporate takeover of government where constitutional freedoms to the people are minimized in favor of broader state loyalty demands. And the state of course supports its supporters, big business. Hitler didn't rise to power on his own, he was sponsored by industrialist and bankers. His power lasted while he accomplished their agenda and when he crossed the line they conveniently disowned him, cried foul, and escaped prosecution for having utilized the state to accomplish their agendas. If you disagree with this I would remind you that Mercedes are still being sold everywhere, Lufthansa is very viable, arms merchants in Germany still produce their products, and the German banks that were able to seize much greater control after the closing of so many minority held banks occurred are still in business. Some changed names, but not leadership. The answer to the question why is also an interesting one. IBM, Ford, and many others were heavily invested in German industries prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Those industries remained viable after the war to prevent American corporate losses. It happened in Japan. And it is beginning all over again in Russia and China.

So yes these things happen, but they are seldom beneficial for the object of the meetings. Someone is usually being bought off and control over valuable institutions is usually being compromised.

BTW Georgia Tech, Auburn, Purdue, MIT, Cal Tech and other predominantly engineering schools, particularly aerospace engineering, do a lot of communicating, both formal and informal. Kansas State, Georgia, Auburn, Mississippi State, L.S.U., Cornell and many others communicate on Vet Med. Those kinds of communications are not, however, what gets talked about in sky box suites. It is simply big business that makes those kinds of events their informal brass only skull sessions. That's why the boxes have so many seats. Half of them will be occupied by the corporations that purchased them and the other half by the guest they bring to smooze and many times the discussions have nothing to do with the school, athletics, or anything particularly pertinent to the school. Take care. JR