(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

I believe Disney has Jim Delany's picture on its dart board with his bald head as the bull's eye.

Every time the Big Ten got itchy fingers, ESPN had a fork out a LOT of money to keep them at bay.

The Big Ten went after Nebraska...and maybe wanted more of the Big 12...until ESPN slaughtered the fatted calf for Texas and the wildly awful Longhorn Network.

The Big Ten went after Maryland...and maybe wanted more of the ACC...until ESPN waved a fancy checkbook at the rest of the ACC. (And even then, the ACC had to sell its soul to Notre Dame to gain stability.)

It will be interesting to though to see how these "foes" negotiate this upcoming year as the Big Ten's new TV rights are available from 2016 onward.

(08-13-2014 09:40 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

I believe Disney has Jim Delany's picture on its dart board with his bald head as the bull's eye.

Every time the Big Ten got itchy fingers, ESPN had a fork out a LOT of money to keep them at bay.

The Big Ten went after Nebraska...and maybe wanted more of the Big 12...until ESPN slaughtered the fatted calf for Texas and the wildly awful Longhorn Network.

The Big Ten went after Maryland...and maybe wanted more of the ACC...until ESPN waved a fancy checkbook at the rest of the ACC. (And even then, the ACC had to sell its soul to Notre Dame to gain stability.)

It will be interesting to though to see how these "foes" negotiate this upcoming year as the Big Ten's new TV rights are available from 2016 onward.

A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

(08-13-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:40 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

I believe Disney has Jim Delany's picture on its dart board with his bald head as the bull's eye.

Every time the Big Ten got itchy fingers, ESPN had a fork out a LOT of money to keep them at bay.

The Big Ten went after Nebraska...and maybe wanted more of the Big 12...until ESPN slaughtered the fatted calf for Texas and the wildly awful Longhorn Network.

The Big Ten went after Maryland...and maybe wanted more of the ACC...until ESPN waved a fancy checkbook at the rest of the ACC. (And even then, the ACC had to sell its soul to Notre Dame to gain stability.)

It will be interesting to though to see how these "foes" negotiate this upcoming year as the Big Ten's new TV rights are available from 2016 onward.

A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

The SEC and ACC have realized split states are more valuable. Texas A&M is much more valuable to the SEC than it was the Big 12. FSU is more valuable to the ACC than it would have been to the SEC. Clemson is also more valuable to the ACC than it would be to the SEC. Georgia Tech would have little value in the SEC, but does in the ACC. Same with Louisville. But I don't think the ACC will offer a trade of NCSU for Vandy.

(08-13-2014 04:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 03:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:40 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

I believe Disney has Jim Delany's picture on its dart board with his bald head as the bull's eye.

Every time the Big Ten got itchy fingers, ESPN had a fork out a LOT of money to keep them at bay.

The Big Ten went after Nebraska...and maybe wanted more of the Big 12...until ESPN slaughtered the fatted calf for Texas and the wildly awful Longhorn Network.

The Big Ten went after Maryland...and maybe wanted more of the ACC...until ESPN waved a fancy checkbook at the rest of the ACC. (And even then, the ACC had to sell its soul to Notre Dame to gain stability.)

It will be interesting to though to see how these "foes" negotiate this upcoming year as the Big Ten's new TV rights are available from 2016 onward.

A few counter points if I may:
1. Businessmen may have enemies but they seldom act on those emotions in a way contrary to their own profits.
2. I think what ESPN was doing was stockpiling targets of leverage before a hostile Jim Delany's T1 contract came up for bid. They knew they had to overcome bad blood and inventory that the Big 10 desires may be the best way to hold onto Big 10 rights.
3. If holding that inventory does not gain ESPN leverage it at least denies the Big 10 an opportunity to expand if Delany makes business personal.
4. CEO's always look for the options in all angles. ESPN's moves with the ACC did that for them. They knew Delany had eyes to the East so what did the Mouse do? Sheltered some of the most valuable Big East property in the only conference in college sports whose broadcast rights are owned solely by 1 network, ESPN. The ACC has been enhanced with every ESPN acquisition, but their income has remained inferior to the that of the Big 10 and SEC. The Big 10 and SEC both find more targets of interest in the ACC than in any other conference.

Oklahoma and Kansas come from either a small market state or a state in which the Big 10 already has a strong draw. Texas is Texas and everyone wants the Horns.

Also don't rule out the presence of FOX for also spurring ESPN's property grab and the ACC is unassailable to FOX so it's a great place to shelter schools.

5. So what I'm telling you is that the ACC is a product enhanced by ESPN in which the parts of that conference are worth more to the Mouse in other conference packages than they are as an unit. If U.N.C., Duke, Virginia, and Syracuse leverage a long term deal for the Big 10's T1 rights and Clemson, F.S.U., Virginia Tech and N.C. State make the SECN even more profitable for ESPN then so be it. If either the Big 10 or SEC (the two most profitable conferences) balk then ESPN cuts off their independent expansion by holding onto the schools and markets they desire. And, ESPN will maximize the ACC in that case to the best of their abilities.

So what you have is a brilliant corporate move. ESPN has built the carrot conference (ACC) in hopes that the work mules of the Big 10 and SEC are enticed to pull together for the Mouse. The PAC which remains a sole proprietorship, is the cheese that stands alone until they sell out to the networks. What the ACC crowd doesn't grasp is that just as it was 3 years ago their parts are more valuable elsewhere and that they may have been fattened up to be the enticement for super long commitments out of the two biggest dogs. And if they don't bite, the ACC is shaping up nicely and will still be profitable to ESPN for a long time to come.

The SEC and ACC have realized split states are more valuable. Texas A&M is much more valuable to the SEC than it was the Big 12. FSU is more valuable to the ACC than it would have been to the SEC. Clemson is also more valuable to the ACC than it would be to the SEC. Georgia Tech would have little value in the SEC, but does in the ACC. Same with Louisville. But I don't think the ACC will offer a trade of NCSU for Vandy.

I don't think the SEC would want that trade anyway Bullet. But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

ESPN wins both ways. They now have two conference super powers instead of just the SEC, the SECN is now worth even more, and Notre Dame and Texas tacitly with the same conference and accompanied by Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Clemson, Miami, Louisville, and Florida State now carry weight in the football world on par with anyone which only enhances the value of the entire conference making them imminently more profitable for ESPN. Plus the LHN could be morphed into an ACCN and the Horns could be paid by the forfeiture of 1 million a year in revenue from the significant increase for all ACC schools until the LHN contract is paid off.

Do you see another way that Baylor, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Oklahoma can stay together with Texas, outside of the Big 12, and the Horns can enjoy the benefits of independent schedule making and still reap the profits of the LHN? I sure don't.

(08-13-2014 09:40 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

I believe Disney has Jim Delany's picture on its dart board with his bald head as the bull's eye.

Every time the Big Ten got itchy fingers, ESPN had a fork out a LOT of money to keep them at bay.

The Big Ten went after Nebraska...and maybe wanted more of the Big 12...until ESPN slaughtered the fatted calf for Texas and the wildly awful Longhorn Network.

The Big Ten went after Maryland...and maybe wanted more of the ACC...until ESPN waved a fancy checkbook at the rest of the ACC. (And even then, the ACC had to sell its soul to Notre Dame to gain stability.)

It will be interesting to though to see how these "foes" negotiate this upcoming year as the Big Ten's new TV rights are available from 2016 onward.

I really dislike anything related to Disney but posts like this may get me to soften my views..

Two giant issues that imho are not being discussed here: (1) state politics and (2) financial strength of the school targeted for expansion.

(1) State politicians, namely governors and legislatures, play a much larger role in the governance of must public universities than people here seem to acknowledge. Even if elected officials do not exercise direct control, they usually appoint members to the boards that run these universities. Many of these board members are themselves politicos and would be well served not to completely run afoul of whoever is calling the shots.

I think this diminishes the possibility of many in-state conference members being broken up. I know the loyalty Oklahoma shows Oklahoma State (it seems without political interference which is admirable) has been cited here before. Also have seen posts saying the same thing about Virginia and Virginia Tech, although pressure to keep them together clearly originates from the political sphere (not sure about the schools themselves). I think the same applies to the North Carolina schools in the ACC and the remaining Texas schools in the Big 12 (although A&M's move does weigh against my argument here). Nonetheless, I believe there would be strong pressure to keep the following pairs together: Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, Virginia/Virginia Tech and North Carolina/NC State. If I am right about this, may scuttle a few of the realignment scenarios around here regardless of the money involved.

(2) My other point is about the money. Lenvillecards posted in the Maryland/ACC thread that all the Big Ten's bucks could only lure Maryland away. It seems to be a common assumption here in most realignment scenarios/fantasies that schools are going to bolt solely for the money, particularly if the payout is far more than the current conference's. But you have to take into account the financial strength of the school and if the need for the extra revenue outweighs the downsides to leaving the conference. Maryland needed the money badly and also had other reasons to leave (e.g. long held belief by students and alumni that we were the red headed stepchild of the conference)

However, extremely wealthy schools like UNC and UVA have absolutely no reason to bolt the ACC for a conference with higher payouts, let's say the common fantasied Big Ten. UNC would go from being large and in charge on Tobacco Road to just the geographic outlier and at best one of many major players. Both schools, highly respected southern institutions, would be leaving a mostly southern conference for a northern one. Considering these schools do not remotely need the extra money, why leave a conference that they have huge influence over and is much more in their comfort zone for extra money they do not really need?

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

(08-14-2014 02:05 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

Lou C, the only catalyst that needs to transpire to make this possible would be for the Big 10 to remain hostile toward ESPN getting a renewal on T1 rights, which could very well happen. In that event the mindset at ESPN would be how do we optimize this situation. With an obvious competition for college content with FOX ESPN would follow up on their T3 deals with Big 12 schools to try and lock down that property. Sharing them with FOX in the Big 12 might no longer be a palatable option at that point. In that climate, especially since ESPN holds all rights to the ACC and most of them to the SEC, the details to working out such a proposal would be in house. What's more important is that Texas would be under obligation to seriously consider it. If on board then Oklahoma (under T3 contract to FOX but for an amount easily bought out) would have to listen and all they would need to hear was that OSU was a part of the plan. Such a plan is very doable considering the forces already in place to make serious talks take place.

But, all it would take to sabotage it would be for the Big 10 to want a shot at some ESPN property for expansion and to exchange their T1 rights to ESPN to acquire it.

(08-14-2014 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:05 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

Lou C, the only catalyst that needs to transpire to make this possible would be for the Big 10 to remain hostile toward ESPN getting a renewal on T1 rights, which could very well happen. In that event the mindset at ESPN would be how to we optimize this situation. With an obvious competition for college content with FOX ESPN would follow up on their T3 deals with Big 12 schools to try and lock down that property. Sharing them with FOX in the Big 12 might no longer be a palatable option at that point. In that climate, especially since ESPN holds all rights to the ACC and most of them to the SEC, the details to working out such a proposal would be in house. What's more important is that Texas would be under obligation to seriously consider it. If on board then Oklahoma (under T3 contract to FOX but for an amount easily bought out) would have to listen and all they would need to hear was that OSU was a part of the plan. Such a plan is very doable considering the forces already in place to make serious talks take place.

But, all it would take to sabotage it would be for the Big 10 to want a shot at some ESPN property for expansion and to exchange their T1 rights to ESPN to acquire it.

I think the other catalyst has to be some kind of threat. If Texas remains happy where they are, if the SEC continues to be untouchable, the pieces just don't come into place. ESPN can't just snap their fingers and make it happen because the B1G is playing hardball.

I think it's a defensive move, although it will be a spectacularly offensive defensive move. Think the end of the Godfather.

But still defensive. It would have to be in response to something that threatened status quo.

(08-14-2014 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:05 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

Lou C, the only catalyst that needs to transpire to make this possible would be for the Big 10 to remain hostile toward ESPN getting a renewal on T1 rights, which could very well happen. In that event the mindset at ESPN would be how to we optimize this situation. With an obvious competition for college content with FOX ESPN would follow up on their T3 deals with Big 12 schools to try and lock down that property. Sharing them with FOX in the Big 12 might no longer be a palatable option at that point. In that climate, especially since ESPN holds all rights to the ACC and most of them to the SEC, the details to working out such a proposal would be in house. What's more important is that Texas would be under obligation to seriously consider it. If on board then Oklahoma (under T3 contract to FOX but for an amount easily bought out) would have to listen and all they would need to hear was that OSU was a part of the plan. Such a plan is very doable considering the forces already in place to make serious talks take place.

But, all it would take to sabotage it would be for the Big 10 to want a shot at some ESPN property for expansion and to exchange their T1 rights to ESPN to acquire it.

You boys shouldn't get too excited. The ACC has already turned down that foursome one time.

Domino theory is notably bad at predicting outcomes and influencing outcomes in realignment.

While Penn State was highly attractive, they were supposed to domino Notre Dame into the league. Arkansas was the domino to fall that would deliver Texas and Texas A&M or at least TAMU and would cause Florida State to want to join. Colorado was the domino to knock over Texas. Memphis and Cincy holding firm to form the Great Midwest would lead the Louisville domino to fall into place there. BYU was the domino that would fall to the WAC and shift the balance between the WAC and MWC.

Grand realignment plans fail far more often than they work, see Va.Tech to ACC.

The invisible hand of TV can do a lot but there are never guarantees it will work. ESPN might want to fold as many schools as possible into the SEC and ACC to have them bottled up but they have to get the presidents to agree to the invites and get the schools to agree to accept and that's never a given.

It's also why so many grand plans have failed.

(08-14-2014 02:37 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:05 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

Lou C, the only catalyst that needs to transpire to make this possible would be for the Big 10 to remain hostile toward ESPN getting a renewal on T1 rights, which could very well happen. In that event the mindset at ESPN would be how to we optimize this situation. With an obvious competition for college content with FOX ESPN would follow up on their T3 deals with Big 12 schools to try and lock down that property. Sharing them with FOX in the Big 12 might no longer be a palatable option at that point. In that climate, especially since ESPN holds all rights to the ACC and most of them to the SEC, the details to working out such a proposal would be in house. What's more important is that Texas would be under obligation to seriously consider it. If on board then Oklahoma (under T3 contract to FOX but for an amount easily bought out) would have to listen and all they would need to hear was that OSU was a part of the plan. Such a plan is very doable considering the forces already in place to make serious talks take place.

But, all it would take to sabotage it would be for the Big 10 to want a shot at some ESPN property for expansion and to exchange their T1 rights to ESPN to acquire it.

I think the other catalyst has to be some kind of threat. If Texas remains happy where they are, if the SEC continues to be untouchable, the pieces just don't come into place. ESPN can't just snap their fingers and make it happen because the B1G is playing hardball.

I think it's a defensive move, although it will be a spectacularly offensive defensive move. Think the end of the Godfather.

But still defensive. It would have to be in response to something that threatened status quo.

The growing disparity in income is the threat that disrupts the status quo.

(08-14-2014 02:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:05 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But, I could see (even though it is a remote possibility) Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State for the ACC, with N.C. State and Virginia Tech being encouraged by ESPN to move over to the SEC so that two 16 team conferences could emerge. If Texas makes that move as an independent then that makes room for Baylor as well. The ACC picks up nearly 30 million potential viewers without losing any footprint and the SEC picks up 19 million without having to be the aggressor. The ACC now has the football gravitas to merit a payday close enough to the Big 10 and SEC to bring stability and they gain enough of a rabid fan base to make an ACCN viable.

Wow, that's a scenario even I never thought of. That's not actually the craziest thing ever, even though it would be almost impossible to get there. The only way you'd have that happen, if at all, is you'd basically be setting the SEC and ACC up as equal partners as THE center of college football, almost an AFC/NFC thing, and everyone would have to be on board with the vision. It would be like a college football coup.

The Sugar bowl would be their two champions, while the PAC/B1G played the Rose, there's your playoff, goodbye committee.

That would add what...three more ACC/SEC matchups at the end of the season, for a total of seven? I'm sure you could drum up a couple more, like WF-Vandy pair up some of the big time programs without a season ending rival, like Tennessee-Miami.

I don't see how it could actually happen...but MAYBE if somehow the B1G loaded for bear, and looked like they were going to have a legit chance to land some combination of TX, OU, UNC, UVA, GT, etc. I don't think the B1G is actually in a position to do that, wealth or not, but if it started to be plausible, you'd have a lot of parties that would be seriously disturbed by that.

The SEC, who would see their football mindshare dominance seriously threatened.

The ACC, which would be severely wounded.

Texas Tech and Ok St.

ESPN, who risks losing major content from the ACC and Big 12.

Pretty much every player that would have to be on board, in that situation, would be interested in at least talking about accommodating that proposed move.

The question comes down to, would Texas, OU, UVA, UNC like your proposed outcome more than going to the B1G? I think you could make the case that your idea might be a lot more palatable.

Good brainstorm.

Lou C, the only catalyst that needs to transpire to make this possible would be for the Big 10 to remain hostile toward ESPN getting a renewal on T1 rights, which could very well happen. In that event the mindset at ESPN would be how to we optimize this situation. With an obvious competition for college content with FOX ESPN would follow up on their T3 deals with Big 12 schools to try and lock down that property. Sharing them with FOX in the Big 12 might no longer be a palatable option at that point. In that climate, especially since ESPN holds all rights to the ACC and most of them to the SEC, the details to working out such a proposal would be in house. What's more important is that Texas would be under obligation to seriously consider it. If on board then Oklahoma (under T3 contract to FOX but for an amount easily bought out) would have to listen and all they would need to hear was that OSU was a part of the plan. Such a plan is very doable considering the forces already in place to make serious talks take place.

But, all it would take to sabotage it would be for the Big 10 to want a shot at some ESPN property for expansion and to exchange their T1 rights to ESPN to acquire it.

You boys shouldn't get too excited. The ACC has already turned down that foursome one time.

You do know what happens to obstacles to progress don't you? They get removed, bypassed, or blown up. Your intransigent egos can drag their feet but when ESPN can make more money off of your parts than your whole, and they can, and you have anxious members who worry about their futures, and you do, then the fuse and the charge are already in place.

(08-14-2014 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You do know what happens to obstacles to progress don't you? They get removed, bypassed, or blown up.

Not always. The bowl games and the leeches who run them have been obstacles to progress in CFB for a long time, and everyone knows it, and they still managed to glom onto the new system and make it less good (and less profitable for the schools) than it should be.

(08-14-2014 04:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 03:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You do know what happens to obstacles to progress don't you? They get removed, bypassed, or blown up.

Not always. The bowl games and the leeches who run them have been obstacles to progress in CFB for a long time, and everyone knows it, and they still managed to glom onto the new system and make it less good (and less profitable for the schools) than it should be.

It is true that they made it less profitable to the schools, but they have lined the advertising budgets of the networks for years.

(08-14-2014 02:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Domino theory is notably bad at predicting outcomes and influencing outcomes in realignment.

While Penn State was highly attractive, they were supposed to domino Notre Dame into the league. Arkansas was the domino to fall that would deliver Texas and Texas A&M or at least TAMU and would cause Florida State to want to join. Colorado was the domino to knock over Texas. Memphis and Cincy holding firm to form the Great Midwest would lead the Louisville domino to fall into place there. BYU was the domino that would fall to the WAC and shift the balance between the WAC and MWC.

Grand realignment plans fail far more often than they work, see Va.Tech to ACC.

The invisible hand of TV can do a lot but there are never guarantees it will work. ESPN might want to fold as many schools as possible into the SEC and ACC to have them bottled up but they have to get the presidents to agree to the invites and get the schools to agree to accept and that's never a given.

It's also why so many grand plans have failed.

What? Do you mean that Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are not under the jackboot of Commie dictatorship directed from Moscow?

Or, you mean domino theory as it relates to SPORTS realignment?

(08-14-2014 02:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Domino theory is notably bad at predicting outcomes and influencing outcomes in realignment.

While Penn State was highly attractive, they were supposed to domino Notre Dame into the league. Arkansas was the domino to fall that would deliver Texas and Texas A&M or at least TAMU and would cause Florida State to want to join. Colorado was the domino to knock over Texas. Memphis and Cincy holding firm to form the Great Midwest would lead the Louisville domino to fall into place there. BYU was the domino that would fall to the WAC and shift the balance between the WAC and MWC.

Grand realignment plans fail far more often than they work, see Va.Tech to ACC.

The invisible hand of TV can do a lot but there are never guarantees it will work. ESPN might want to fold as many schools as possible into the SEC and ACC to have them bottled up but they have to get the presidents to agree to the invites and get the schools to agree to accept and that's never a given.

It's also why so many grand plans have failed.

Agreed. I say that's because few to none of these were actually INSTIGATED by the networks. Most of the time they'd prefer the status quo. I bet ESPN would prefer to still be paying the SEC $17M a school, and the ACC $12M a school.

But once something gets rolling the networks WILL have their say to best steer the outcome in their preferred direction, usually fairly successfully - save the B12, stabilize the ACC, etc.

(08-12-2014 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The game is already too rich for the Service Academies blood. I could definitely see them dropping down.

They are giving full rides to everyone anyway.

Exactly. The net cost to a service academy of full cost of attendance is $0, the only difference is they no longer need the service academy exemption to do it.

Quote: But I do think it clashes with their mission. They don't need 200 lb. officers having their careers and knees destroyed playing against 300 lb. guys who plan a career in football. And they need to not try too hard to get football players and focus more on officer skills.

This is one half of why the service academies are more comfortable in Go5 conferences where the size disparity is not as great. The other half is that the national brand recognition that they bring is more valuable to a Go5 conference, since it often comes with a fairly small viewing audience for many of their games from the perspective of the larger power conference schools.

And that is most especially the case with Army, which is at time the lightest average lines on both side of the ball in FBS, and which got whipped too bad for too many seasons when they tried conference play in CUSA and had to leave the conference for their own good. The new CUSA v3.0 might be a better fit for Army, but ongoing speculations about Army in the AAC, which is in effect a turbo-charged version of CUSA v1.0, seems to forget that history.

(08-14-2014 04:57 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(08-14-2014 02:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Domino theory is notably bad at predicting outcomes and influencing outcomes in realignment.

While Penn State was highly attractive, they were supposed to domino Notre Dame into the league. Arkansas was the domino to fall that would deliver Texas and Texas A&M or at least TAMU and would cause Florida State to want to join. Colorado was the domino to knock over Texas. Memphis and Cincy holding firm to form the Great Midwest would lead the Louisville domino to fall into place there. BYU was the domino that would fall to the WAC and shift the balance between the WAC and MWC.

Grand realignment plans fail far more often than they work, see Va.Tech to ACC.

The invisible hand of TV can do a lot but there are never guarantees it will work. ESPN might want to fold as many schools as possible into the SEC and ACC to have them bottled up but they have to get the presidents to agree to the invites and get the schools to agree to accept and that's never a given.

It's also why so many grand plans have failed.

Agreed. I say that's because few to none of these were actually INSTIGATED by the networks. Most of the time they'd prefer the status quo. I bet ESPN would prefer to still be paying the SEC $17M a school, and the ACC $12M a school.

But once something gets rolling the networks WILL have their say to best steer the outcome in their preferred direction, usually fairly successfully - save the B12, stabilize the ACC, etc.

Not really. Live sports commands the highest commercial value because people have to watch the ads. Ergo, live sports is worth more and the more people you can get to watch the more you make. Content is driving realignment for the networks because that is where their highest profits are. Contracts are merely a reflection of a portion of that value as networks jockey for the content that will make them the most. So in short Lou it is still supply and demand. The NFL found ways to optimize more of their own product thereby shrinking the content pool. College was yet to be optimized. So less available high dollar content means higher dollars for that content. Structure & product placement become important because structure provides an avenue to maximizing the national appeal, especially for the playoffs. The goal is to keep the whole country engaged through the semis. Most everyone watches the National Championship game anyway. The content keeps ad rates high during the regular season therefore where teams are placed keeps national interest up as well. Both of those are the desired byproduct of realignment and realignment is being driven by the networks who are positioning their product to maximize their profits.

If you get lost in the fact that they are paying more you are looking at the wrong angle. You should be asking how much they are keeping if they are willing to pay this much?

(08-11-2014 10:48 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:24 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The only thing different this time is that the P5'ers are filling up. Movement from that direction will probably be rarer.

That's probably going to prove to be more true than not, but the court cases in particular may cause enough distress that some programs reconsider their priorities. That's truly a wait and see.

And after that I wouldn't be surprised if there is some further movement into the P5 as content requirements for P5 games goes up (and it will because networks will want it in exchange for modest raises in income). If the schedules crowd out the room for games with the G5 then the AD's and commissioner's solution will be to include some of the stronger G5 schools. Then those games count as P5 games contractually and niche markets are added to the conference networks. Having a slightly larger pool I believe will be required by the top echelon of the P5 anyway. Their alumni will want better records than 8-4 and 9-3 in a championship season. Having a larger pool of competitors is the best way to enhance that IMO.

The schools to keep an eye on are the privates. Do some of them get fed up with the system? The costs of football are going up.

Duke doesn't "need" football. Neither do Northwestern or Vanderbilt. Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane may not be able (or willing) to afford football.

Good point. I believe that at some point some of the privates schools (and hopefully some public academic schools) are going to wake up and quit chasing the athletics dream and realize that academics is what makes a great university.

I would like to see SMU, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa and some of the other privates take a stand and say enough is enough. I think people would be surprised at the positive reaction they would get from fans and the media

As far as SMU, Tulane, Rice, and Tulsa affording it goes, they can afford it much easier than every non P5 public, except for most of those in the American. The others are under tighter budget controls, often at the whim of legislators and student fees. The privates can hang on as long as they choose - others, not so much.
And frankly, when Congress and the IRS take a hard look at the tax exemption and tax deductibility of all of this, who knows who is going to be in or out.