1. Realignment is not over. It never will be over. In the history of college football there have been few years where there was no movement. Movement does slow down however, but usually when it is no longer financially attractive for schools to move. Therefore the next lull for the P5 will be when each of the conferences earn roughly the same amount of TV dollars again. Ditto for the G5.

2. For the Big 10 realignment enthusiasts you need to check out Frank the Tank's list from about 2 years ago showing the prospects for the Big 10. It's been pretty darned accurate. Kudos to Frank. For all of the ACC poster's who doubt the legitimacy of Maryland and Rutgers as targets it is a must read.

3. For the SEC realignment enthusiasts there has never been a blackball system against Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville or now Texas formed by South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or Texas A&M. The fabrication of this is simply an internet distortion spun out of control. South Carolina offered no rejection of Clemson the last time around and in 1992 it was the Florida Gators who sponsored F.S.U. for SEC membership. There is, and only has been, one reason they have not been invited. ESPN owns them through the ACC and LHN and has no desire to pay more for the product by placing an SEC brand upon them while weakening the product group they are currently in. As for the SEC the same rule applies to these schools as applies to all prospects, "Do they earn everyone already in the SEC more money by their inclusion?" The answer to that is some do and some don't. So for the SEC to expand again the schools that earn us more money have to apply, and have the backing of ESPN (and CBS to a much much lesser extent).

4. You may feel free to disagree with this point as many do, but realignment is being driven by the economy and the Networks. The economy provides the motivation and the networks write the checks without which very little realignment would have occurred. Therefore the angst or joy you may feel about realignment is best laid at the feet of the corporate offices of FOX, ESPN, CBS, and any other player in the college sports contract game.

5. The PAC is secure geographically but suffers from a lack of support for carriage of the network which is privately owned by the PAC. Those problems with distribution will likely go away when they sell a share of the network to a major Network. Until that time neither FOX nor ESPN, who both lease their product from the PAC, will be likely to encourage product under contract to them to move to the PAC. So unless a smaller West Coast Target makes itself profitable to the PAC I don't think they will be a major player until the Corporate Networks who have some leverage over their carriage get a stake in their game.

6. The Big 12 and ACC are both still vulnerable. But, being vulnerable isn't the same thing as a guaranteed demise. Their vulnerability will cease when their earnings are at parity with the Big 10 and SEC. Until then rumors will continue.

7. This round of realignment has been more significant than many in the past, but it is because it is a byproduct of the uncertainty generated by the global and national economic picture. It was the pursuit of secure revenue streams more than greed that drove this realignment. Schools like Missouri who had been with the various iterations of their former conference for a 100 years thereabout would not have moved if not for the insecurity of the bigger picture. The networks just seized the opportunity to organize their product into more profitable packages.

8. The environment is still very shaky economically, legally, and even somewhat culturally for anyone to declare an end to realignment even for a decade. Court cases that could change the very nature of the NCAA, or make it moot, a decline in private contributions, the growing reliance on corporate grants, intellectual property issues surrounding grants, and the death of amateurism all could create some significant changes to the structure of our existing conferences.

Think about these things, count down three weeks, and get ready for some football! We need the distraction and a break from the realignment talk as well.

The only thing different this time is that the P5'ers are filling up. Movement from that direction will probably be rarer.

(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.

In realignment as well as the law, the best answer is " I don't know. It all depends."

(08-11-2014 03:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Realignment is not over. It never will be over. In the history of college football there have been few years where there was no movement. Movement does slow down however, but usually when it is no longer financially attractive for schools to move. Therefore the next lull for the P5 will be when each of the conferences earn roughly the same amount of TV dollars again. Ditto for the G5.

Pure human nature. It seems each generation believes all that is worth doing has been done on their watch.

The P5 is in a lull brought about by their current TV deals, yet the Big 10 primary deal is not done or at least not announced. That is the last element that can move the P5 in the near term. Depending on what happens with the various lawsuits, we could see turmoil that makes the past decade calm.

One added element is that sometimes when the music stops and everyone catches their breath, some decisions made in haste no longer look so good (see WAC16).

Quote:2. For the Big 10 realignment enthusiasts you need to check out Frank the Tank's list from about 2 years ago showing the prospects for the Big 10. It's been pretty darned accurate. Kudos to Frank. For all of the ACC poster's who doubt the legitimacy of Maryland and Rutgers as targets it is a must read.

Frank is about the best there is on P5 realignment.

Quote:3. For the SEC realignment enthusiasts there has never been a blackball system against Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville or now Texas formed by South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or Texas A&M. The fabrication of this is simply an internet distortion spun out of control. South Carolina offered no rejection of Clemson the last time around and in 1992 it was the Florida Gators who sponsored F.S.U. for SEC membership. There is, and only has been, one reason they have not been invited. ESPN owns them through the ACC and LHN and has no desire to pay more for the product by placing an SEC brand upon them while weakening the product group they are currently in. As for the SEC the same rule applies to these schools as applies to all prospects, "Do they earn everyone already in the SEC more money by their inclusion?" The answer to that is some do and some don't. So for the SEC to expand again the schools that earn us more money have to apply, and have the backing of ESPN (and CBS to a much much lesser extent).

The only current P5 I've ever heard reliably to have put itself at the SEC's door and been told no thanks was Miami back in 1989.

Quote:4. You may feel free to disagree with this point as many do, but realignment is being driven by the economy and the Networks. The economy provides the motivation and the networks write the checks without which very little realignment would have occurred. Therefore the angst or joy you may feel about realignment is best laid at the feet of the corporate offices of FOX, ESPN, CBS, and any other player in the college sports contract game.

Simple economics. When there is an imbalance, someone will disrupt the system. I think we have reasonable evidence to conclude the networks if given the choice would just as soon we still have a six major player economy because they got the same content for less but the consolidation of that content makes it more valuable. Rather than ESPN aggregating six leagues to have the clout to demand greater payment from tv providers, the conferences have accomplished their own aggregation. And in the case of the former BE and ACC ESPN is probably delighted with the result. Some good quality football that suffers from a less interested local market is now made part of the enterprise of a conference where football is valued more in the home market. Likewise some quality basketball from the southern end of ACC is now "local" conference basketball in some markets that really like college hoops. The ACC raid is probably the most obvious synergy of all the moves.

Quote:5. The PAC is secure geographically but suffers from a lack of support for carriage of the network which is privately owned by the PAC. Those problems with distribution will likely go away when they sell a share of the network to a major Network. Until that time neither FOX nor ESPN, who both lease their product from the PAC, will be likely to encourage product under contract to them to move to the PAC. So unless a smaller West Coast Target makes itself profitable to the PAC I don't think they will be a major player until the Corporate Networks who have some leverage over their carriage get a stake in their game.

The Pac-12 is the only major player to not partner in this realm. The SEC has done it with ESPN after previously rejecting the same from Comcast. Texas doesn't even get equity in LHN until some targets are met. B1G has flipped the majority/minority stakes in BTN.

In the current marketplace, a conference going it alone is difficult simply because they lack the other pieces to leverage. Fox and ESPN each leveraged the vast inventory of sports and non-sports content to drive BTN and SECN. I fully expect that ESPN will repeat the process with the ACC once SECN is settled in, though the saturation of RSN's in the northeast makes it a harder fight but it also opens some doors to hybrid experiments as well partnering with existing RSN's.

Just how ESPN tackles the ACC and what P12 does going forward to me are the intriguing questions.

Quote:6. The Big 12 and ACC are both still vulnerable. But, being vulnerable isn't the same thing as a guaranteed demise. Their vulnerability will cease when their earnings are at parity with the Big 10 and SEC. Until then rumors will continue.

Merely being a weakpoint doesn't mean collapse. The right force has to be applied to the weak point. I'm not sure that the ACC hasn't stumbled unto the right formula for disruption. Conferences throughout most history have been rather loose confederations. There is no compelling reason a conference member has to play 8 or 9 football games under the banner. You can mandate playing 5 or 6 games and leave it to the members to play more if they so choose. A conference acting as a confederacy (assuming title game deregulation passes) can simply choose to pit its two highest rated teams to crown a champion in football. Given the geographic span of ACC/Big XII such a model could prove financially viable.

Quote:7. This round of realignment has been more significant than many in the past, but it is because it is a byproduct of the uncertainty generated by the global and national economic picture. It was the pursuit of secure revenue streams more than greed that drove this realignment. Schools like Missouri who had been with the various iterations of their former conference for a 100 years thereabout would not have moved if not for the insecurity of the bigger picture. The networks just seized the opportunity to organize their product into more profitable packages.

Presidents also have access to the demographic trends that tell them enrollment competition will become more fierce. They can also see the political trends of the US. With the ever increasing political power of aging boomers, governmental financing of higher education is only just beginning to be cut.

Quote:8. The environment is still very shaky economically, legally, and even somewhat culturally for anyone to declare an end to realignment even for a decade. Court cases that could change the very nature of the NCAA, or make it moot, a decline in private contributions, the growing reliance on corporate grants, intellectual property issues surrounding grants, and the death of amateurism all could create some significant changes to the structure of our existing conferences.

First, second, and last, university presidents believe in the mantra that athletics is a window to view the university. There is no reason to believe that if athletics becomes a secondary operation with employee players that all 65 P5 schools will choose to have that be the window.

Quote:Think about these things, count down three weeks, and get ready for some football! We need the distraction and a break from the realignment talk as well.

9. Never listen to a fan of a desperate school (namely Cincinnati) when they explain to you how their school is better than "xyz" but they were lucky to be included 50 years ago. That talk is pure bs.

(08-11-2014 03:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Realignment is not over. It never will be over. In the history of college football there have been few years where there was no movement. Movement does slow down however, but usually when it is no longer financially attractive for schools to move. Therefore the next lull for the P5 will be when each of the conferences earn roughly the same amount of TV dollars again. Ditto for the G5.

Pure human nature. It seems each generation believes all that is worth doing has been done on their watch.

The P5 is in a lull brought about by their current TV deals, yet the Big 10 primary deal is not done or at least not announced. That is the last element that can move the P5 in the near term. Depending on what happens with the various lawsuits, we could see turmoil that makes the past decade calm.

One added element is that sometimes when the music stops and everyone catches their breath, some decisions made in haste no longer look so good (see WAC16).

Quote:2. For the Big 10 realignment enthusiasts you need to check out Frank the Tank's list from about 2 years ago showing the prospects for the Big 10. It's been pretty darned accurate. Kudos to Frank. For all of the ACC poster's who doubt the legitimacy of Maryland and Rutgers as targets it is a must read.

Frank is about the best there is on P5 realignment.

Quote:3. For the SEC realignment enthusiasts there has never been a blackball system against Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville or now Texas formed by South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, or Texas A&M. The fabrication of this is simply an internet distortion spun out of control. South Carolina offered no rejection of Clemson the last time around and in 1992 it was the Florida Gators who sponsored F.S.U. for SEC membership. There is, and only has been, one reason they have not been invited. ESPN owns them through the ACC and LHN and has no desire to pay more for the product by placing an SEC brand upon them while weakening the product group they are currently in. As for the SEC the same rule applies to these schools as applies to all prospects, "Do they earn everyone already in the SEC more money by their inclusion?" The answer to that is some do and some don't. So for the SEC to expand again the schools that earn us more money have to apply, and have the backing of ESPN (and CBS to a much much lesser extent).

The only current P5 I've ever heard reliably to have put itself at the SEC's door and been told no thanks was Miami back in 1989.

Quote:4. You may feel free to disagree with this point as many do, but realignment is being driven by the economy and the Networks. The economy provides the motivation and the networks write the checks without which very little realignment would have occurred. Therefore the angst or joy you may feel about realignment is best laid at the feet of the corporate offices of FOX, ESPN, CBS, and any other player in the college sports contract game.

Simple economics. When there is an imbalance, someone will disrupt the system. I think we have reasonable evidence to conclude the networks if given the choice would just as soon we still have a six major player economy because they got the same content for less but the consolidation of that content makes it more valuable. Rather than ESPN aggregating six leagues to have the clout to demand greater payment from tv providers, the conferences have accomplished their own aggregation. And in the case of the former BE and ACC ESPN is probably delighted with the result. Some good quality football that suffers from a less interested local market is now made part of the enterprise of a conference where football is valued more in the home market. Likewise some quality basketball from the southern end of ACC is now "local" conference basketball in some markets that really like college hoops. The ACC raid is probably the most obvious synergy of all the moves.

Quote:5. The PAC is secure geographically but suffers from a lack of support for carriage of the network which is privately owned by the PAC. Those problems with distribution will likely go away when they sell a share of the network to a major Network. Until that time neither FOX nor ESPN, who both lease their product from the PAC, will be likely to encourage product under contract to them to move to the PAC. So unless a smaller West Coast Target makes itself profitable to the PAC I don't think they will be a major player until the Corporate Networks who have some leverage over their carriage get a stake in their game.

The Pac-12 is the only major player to not partner in this realm. The SEC has done it with ESPN after previously rejecting the same from Comcast. Texas doesn't even get equity in LHN until some targets are met. B1G has flipped the majority/minority stakes in BTN.

In the current marketplace, a conference going it alone is difficult simply because they lack the other pieces to leverage. Fox and ESPN each leveraged the vast inventory of sports and non-sports content to drive BTN and SECN. I fully expect that ESPN will repeat the process with the ACC once SECN is settled in, though the saturation of RSN's in the northeast makes it a harder fight but it also opens some doors to hybrid experiments as well partnering with existing RSN's.

Just how ESPN tackles the ACC and what P12 does going forward to me are the intriguing questions.

Quote:6. The Big 12 and ACC are both still vulnerable. But, being vulnerable isn't the same thing as a guaranteed demise. Their vulnerability will cease when their earnings are at parity with the Big 10 and SEC. Until then rumors will continue.

Merely being a weakpoint doesn't mean collapse. The right force has to be applied to the weak point. I'm not sure that the ACC hasn't stumbled unto the right formula for disruption. Conferences throughout most history have been rather loose confederations. There is no compelling reason a conference member has to play 8 or 9 football games under the banner. You can mandate playing 5 or 6 games and leave it to the members to play more if they so choose. A conference acting as a confederacy (assuming title game deregulation passes) can simply choose to pit its two highest rated teams to crown a champion in football. Given the geographic span of ACC/Big XII such a model could prove financially viable.

Quote:7. This round of realignment has been more significant than many in the past, but it is because it is a byproduct of the uncertainty generated by the global and national economic picture. It was the pursuit of secure revenue streams more than greed that drove this realignment. Schools like Missouri who had been with the various iterations of their former conference for a 100 years thereabout would not have moved if not for the insecurity of the bigger picture. The networks just seized the opportunity to organize their product into more profitable packages.

Presidents also have access to the demographic trends that tell them enrollment competition will become more fierce. They can also see the political trends of the US. With the ever increasing political power of aging boomers, governmental financing of higher education is only just beginning to be cut.

Quote:8. The environment is still very shaky economically, legally, and even somewhat culturally for anyone to declare an end to realignment even for a decade. Court cases that could change the very nature of the NCAA, or make it moot, a decline in private contributions, the growing reliance on corporate grants, intellectual property issues surrounding grants, and the death of amateurism all could create some significant changes to the structure of our existing conferences.

First, second, and last, university presidents believe in the mantra that athletics is a window to view the university. There is no reason to believe that if athletics becomes a secondary operation with employee players that all 65 P5 schools will choose to have that be the window.

Quote:Think about these things, count down three weeks, and get ready for some football! We need the distraction and a break from the realignment talk as well.

We will continue to disagree on #4 & #8. I have seen no convincing evidence that (a) the conferences have been behind this as anything other than a benefactor of product placement by the Networks or that (b) the Networks have lost anything at all. In Fact the Networks have been amassing inventory and shaping it to be more profitable. Further realignment (consolidation) could actually eliminate some of their investments in product inventory and the major networks (rights holders) are becoming brokers of content that is less profitable to them by subletting it to more regional networks (e.g. Raycom). The appetite for college football has certainly not abated. And © actual statements by individuals with first hand knowledge of realignment (B.C.'s president) have indicated the full extent of network involvement right down to the recommendations of who to take.

As to point 8 until the actual costs are known it will be impossible to ascertain what levels of investment will become too steep for some of the more marginal P5 schools.

(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.

(08-11-2014 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will continue to disagree on #4 & #8. I have seen no convincing evidence that (a) the conferences have been behind this as anything other than a benefactor of product placement by the Networks or that (b) the Networks have lost anything at all. In Fact the Networks have been amassing inventory and shaping it to be more profitable. Further realignment (consolidation) could actually eliminate some of their investments in product inventory and the major networks (rights holders) are becoming brokers of content that is less profitable to them by subletting it to more regional networks (e.g. Raycom). The appetite for college football has certainly not abated. And © actual statements by individuals with first hand knowledge of realignment (B.C.'s president) have indicated the full extent of network involvement right down to the recommendations of who to take.

As to point 8 until the actual costs are known it will be impossible to ascertain what levels of investment will become too steep for some of the more marginal P5 schools.

The networks quite obviously were willing to prop up the Big XII to prevent it from being consolidated out of existence. The hand of god (the money god of Bristol) being part of the ACC raid of the Big East, I find more plausible because there was far more to gain for ESPN there. Maybe the unpredictability of the P12 motivated the Big XII salvation and if it had been the Big XII taking six or eight P12 schools the outlook would have been different.

I'm not sure the cost will be the sole determinant as to whether everyone chooses to blunder down the path of professionalism.

The prospect of your conference freshman of the year declaring his intent to hold out or transfer if not given a new deal probably makes a number of university presidents squeamish. If we go down the path of professionalism (and I think we are long way from that outcome based on the litigation so far) free agency and liberalized transfer will be the next arena of litigation. Having a standout sophomore declaring he's taking his talents to Tallahassee from Starkville because Miss State cannot win big is probably just too icky.

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.

(08-11-2014 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  We will continue to disagree on #4 & #8. I have seen no convincing evidence that (a) the conferences have been behind this as anything other than a benefactor of product placement by the Networks or that (b) the Networks have lost anything at all. In Fact the Networks have been amassing inventory and shaping it to be more profitable. Further realignment (consolidation) could actually eliminate some of their investments in product inventory and the major networks (rights holders) are becoming brokers of content that is less profitable to them by subletting it to more regional networks (e.g. Raycom). The appetite for college football has certainly not abated. And © actual statements by individuals with first hand knowledge of realignment (B.C.'s president) have indicated the full extent of network involvement right down to the recommendations of who to take.

As to point 8 until the actual costs are known it will be impossible to ascertain what levels of investment will become too steep for some of the more marginal P5 schools.

The networks quite obviously were willing to prop up the Big XII to prevent it from being consolidated out of existence. The hand of god (the money god of Bristol) being part of the ACC raid of the Big East, I find more plausible because there was far more to gain for ESPN there. Maybe the unpredictability of the P12 motivated the Big XII salvation and if it had been the Big XII taking six or eight P12 schools the outlook would have been different.

I'm not sure the cost will be the sole determinant as to whether everyone chooses to blunder down the path of professionalism.

The prospect of your conference freshman of the year declaring his intent to hold out or transfer if not given a new deal probably makes a number of university presidents squeamish. If we go down the path of professionalism (and I think we are long way from that outcome based on the litigation so far) free agency and liberalized transfer will be the next arena of litigation. Having a standout sophomore declaring he's taking his talents to Tallahassee from Starkville because Miss State cannot win big is probably just too icky.

Actually the nightmare (and I heard one article talk about this) is a bunch of agents running around on campus demanding this or that player get a better deal. This person (don't remember who) said these lawsuits were basically being driven by the agents. That's certainly believable.

(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.

I think the private/public distinction is fast eroding because of the growing disinterest of most of the 50 legislatures to support higher education.

In the past 25 years the share of education costs borne by students at public institutions has more than doubled.

In 2012 state and local higher ed spending per student was $5900 per student a 9.1% decrease. 2010 was the lowest spent per student in 25 years, then 2011 beat that low, and then 2012 beat that.

State colleges may eventually mean colleges that received intial capital funding from the state and can use state borrowing, not schools receiving operating funds from a state.

The major realignments have been driven by the economy and particularly the media markets.

1960s-pros changed everything and we had a lot of realignment.
1984-Supreme Court case where schools owned TV rights led directly to the realignment starting in 1989. Cable TV also helped speed things along (more places to televise your product).
2010-Conference networks and their potential profits drove Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC expansion.

Now we head into an era in which media will look very different 25 years from now. What it will look like isn't by any means certain, but it will clearly be very different.

(08-11-2014 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  The major realignments have been driven by the economy and particularly the media markets.

1960s-pros changed everything and we had a lot of realignment.
1984-Supreme Court case where schools owned TV rights led directly to the realignment starting in 1989. Cable TV also helped speed things along (more places to televise your product).
2010-Conference networks and their potential profits drove Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC expansion.

Now we head into an era in which media will look very different 25 years from now. What it will look like isn't by any means certain, but it will clearly be very different.

Transportation was a factor in the 1960's as well. Even into the late 40's and early 50's a school could be seen as a poor choice for a conference based on railroad schedules. Better highways, better busses, larger aircraft and more affordable charter costs made changes in who was a desirable league member.

(08-11-2014 04:38 PM)arkstfan 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.

I think the private/public distinction is fast eroding because of the growing disinterest of most of the 50 legislatures to support higher education.

In the past 25 years the share of education costs borne by students at public institutions has more than doubled.

In 2012 state and local higher ed spending per student was $5900 per student a 9.1% decrease. 2010 was the lowest spent per student in 25 years, then 2011 beat that low, and then 2012 beat that.

State colleges may eventually mean colleges that received intial capital funding from the state and can use state borrowing, not schools receiving operating funds from a state.

The UT president said that UT was more of a state "assisted" university.

State share of the budget dropped from 47% in 1984-5 to 13% in 2012-3.
The Available University Fund (oil earnings) went from 12% down to 8%. Meanwhile gifts went from 3% to 9%, tuition from 5% to 25% and Research from 33% to 45%.

(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.

That's a fair assessment Bullet, but it overlooks the acquisition of the Big East property that ESPN stockpiled into the ACC after their disgruntlement with Delany. Could it be that they used the ACC as a repository for property that gave them leverage with the Big 10? Or that they enhanced the value of property they already had by adding product that accentuated its worth? Either way the motivation is internal to the Network. And as for the Big 12 it could as easily be argued that since the PACN is self owned that neither FOX or ESPN would want to lose contracted properties to that conference. Hence the agreement to pay old rates for less schools and then the early renegotiation to up the pay. That move secured the Big 12 properties from being lost. What was interesting to me were the subsequent T3 deals that were secured by FOX and ESPN as they tried to tie down the future interests of Big 12 individual schools. So the first contract being upheld and then increased was a successful attempt to stop properties from (contrary to the position taken here) acting in their own self interest independent of Network considerations and the T3 deals were the ties that bind those schools to the Networks for the future.

Now truthfully as long as the schools agree to be paid more they appear as independent agents. But in reality it was Network action that stabilized and then locked down the properties in the Big 12.

(08-11-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec 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.

That's a fair assessment Bullet, but it overlooks the acquisition of the Big East property that ESPN stockpiled into the ACC after their disgruntlement with Delany. Could it be that they used the ACC as a repository for property that gave them leverage with the Big 10? Or that they enhanced the value of property they already had by adding product that accentuated its worth? Either way the motivation is internal to the Network. And as for the Big 12 it could as easily be argued that since the PACN is self owned that neither FOX or ESPN would want to lose contracted properties to that conference. Hence the agreement to pay old rates for less schools and then the early renegotiation to up the pay. That move secured the Big 12 properties from being lost. What was interesting to me were the subsequent T3 deals that were secured by FOX and ESPN as they tried to tie down the future interests of Big 12 individual schools. So the first contract being upheld and then increased was a successful attempt to stop properties from (contrary to the position taken here) acting in their own self interest independent of Network considerations and the T3 deals were the ties that bind those schools to the Networks for the future.

Now truthfully as long as the schools agree to be paid more they appear as independent agents. But in reality it was Network action that stabilized and then locked down the properties in the Big 12.

There's definitely some reasons to believe ESPN was happy with the disintegration of the BE.

(08-11-2014 04:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  The major realignments have been driven by the economy and particularly the media markets.

1960s-pros changed everything and we had a lot of realignment.
1984-Supreme Court case where schools owned TV rights led directly to the realignment starting in 1989. Cable TV also helped speed things along (more places to televise your product).
2010-Conference networks and their potential profits drove Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC expansion.

Now we head into an era in which media will look very different 25 years from now. What it will look like isn't by any means certain, but it will clearly be very different.

Good point on the conference network because while the realignment starting in 1989 was the offspring of Regents vs. NCAA, that case was only mildly related to what we have just experienced.

This most recent realignment was driven by an economic model unknown in 1989, the carriage fee.

The stability of that economic form will dictate much of what happens next. This last weekend we watched a lot of hours of TV but from Friday evening to bedtime Sunday we didn't watch four hours of TV delivered by cable or satellite. We watched internet delivered programming and that includes just over 2 hours of sports viewed by internet delivery.

ESPN is trying to make the carriage model work on the internet. If they are successful then we may end up having a relatively stable period but if the model collapses we scramble again.

(08-11-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec 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.

That's a fair assessment Bullet, but it overlooks the acquisition of the Big East property that ESPN stockpiled into the ACC after their disgruntlement with Delany. Could it be that they used the ACC as a repository for property that gave them leverage with the Big 10? Or that they enhanced the value of property they already had by adding product that accentuated its worth? Either way the motivation is internal to the Network. And as for the Big 12 it could as easily be argued that since the PACN is self owned that neither FOX or ESPN would want to lose contracted properties to that conference. Hence the agreement to pay old rates for less schools and then the early renegotiation to up the pay. That move secured the Big 12 properties from being lost. What was interesting to me were the subsequent T3 deals that were secured by FOX and ESPN as they tried to tie down the future interests of Big 12 individual schools. So the first contract being upheld and then increased was a successful attempt to stop properties from (contrary to the position taken here) acting in their own self interest independent of Network considerations and the T3 deals were the ties that bind those schools to the Networks for the future.

Now truthfully as long as the schools agree to be paid more they appear as independent agents. But in reality it was Network action that stabilized and then locked down the properties in the Big 12.

As I have argued, the ACC raid ended up being beneficial to ESPN (and why I'm more likely to see the hand of ESPN there) by making Duke basketball more valuable in the Northeast because Duke is now a conference mate of schools in the region and Syrcause football is now more valuable in South Carolina because of shared conference ties.

Georgia football and Kentucky basketball are now more valuable in Missouri than they had been and Alabama football and LSU basketball more valuable in Texas.

In a carriage fee environment those are critical developments.

Going back to a prior point you made about the need for a quasi P5 or two or three to be part of the equation. I think the schools recognize this better than the networks. The G5 by several accounts walked into the CFP meetings prepared to demand a certain percentage or fight and they were offered more than the amount they came to demand.

The elites have an incentive to brand a number of schools similarly to serve their purposes. Is that number 65 or (the eventual 66 if Sun Belt expands)? Or is it a smaller number like 24 or 48 or 60?

(08-11-2014 05:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec 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.

That's a fair assessment Bullet, but it overlooks the acquisition of the Big East property that ESPN stockpiled into the ACC after their disgruntlement with Delany. Could it be that they used the ACC as a repository for property that gave them leverage with the Big 10? Or that they enhanced the value of property they already had by adding product that accentuated its worth? Either way the motivation is internal to the Network. And as for the Big 12 it could as easily be argued that since the PACN is self owned that neither FOX or ESPN would want to lose contracted properties to that conference. Hence the agreement to pay old rates for less schools and then the early renegotiation to up the pay. That move secured the Big 12 properties from being lost. What was interesting to me were the subsequent T3 deals that were secured by FOX and ESPN as they tried to tie down the future interests of Big 12 individual schools. So the first contract being upheld and then increased was a successful attempt to stop properties from (contrary to the position taken here) acting in their own self interest independent of Network considerations and the T3 deals were the ties that bind those schools to the Networks for the future.

Now truthfully as long as the schools agree to be paid more they appear as independent agents. But in reality it was Network action that stabilized and then locked down the properties in the Big 12.

As I have argued, the ACC raid ended up being beneficial to ESPN (and why I'm more likely to see the hand of ESPN there) by making Duke basketball more valuable in the Northeast because Duke is now a conference mate of schools in the region and Syrcause football is now more valuable in South Carolina because of shared conference ties.

Georgia football and Kentucky basketball are now more valuable in Missouri than they had been and Alabama football and LSU basketball more valuable in Texas.

In a carriage fee environment those are critical developments.

Going back to a prior point you made about the need for a quasi P5 or two or three to be part of the equation. I think the schools recognize this better than the networks. The G5 by several accounts walked into the CFP meetings prepared to demand a certain percentage or fight and they were offered more than the amount they came to demand.

The elites have an incentive to brand a number of schools similarly to serve their purposes. Is that number 65 or (the eventual 66 if Sun Belt expands)? Or is it a smaller number like 24 or 48 or 60?

It will depend upon contract stipulations and language in the future renewals. If added P5 games are the content target of the negotiations then I thin the number expands from 65 to as many as 72. If it is understood that certain G5 schools will carry greater significance to the networks for play against P5 schools and that those games will be rewarded as well on the schedule then I think the number you are speaking of shrinks, but to somewhere around 60.

The risk with making the club too small is too great to go much lower IMO.