First let me say that I consider the sources and have profound doubts. But, could there be any logic behind the rumors? Well, that is an another matter entirely as given where things stand right now, it is certainly possible.

The present climate:
1. The Big 10 is less than 2 years away from negotiating a new T1 deal. Should they expand again their prime targets are the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

2. The SECN is proving to be a lucrative entity whose opening broke all expectations. Should the SEC expand again they prefer the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

3. The ACC doesn't have a network and is probably not close to obtaining one.

4. If ESPN wants to hold onto Texas, gain more access to Oklahoma, and if the marketplace is truly more on board with college football rather than college basketball what would you want, a conference centered around a basketball leadership, or a conference centered around football leadership? ESPN could build a second football conference as valuable as the SEC by building it around Texas and Oklahoma rather than by placing the Longhorns in a conference run by basketball schools.

5. GOR's? If ESPN owns 100% of the ACC's rights this really isn't an issue if it is a move that ESPN wants to see happen and if ESPN intends to have a much higher percentage of the conference they might move into, or if they can make a lot more with those schools if they are placed in another ESPN friendly conference.

6. Texas wants to keep the Big 12 together so they can remain the kingpin in their own creation.

7. Even with a slowly developing Big12N the earning potential there will be far greater than in the ACC. Add to that the fact that the Big 10 and SEC will be earning far more as well and the climate for a change is ripe.

8. Given the right deal Notre Dame might likely make the jump as well. With Notre Dame and B.Y.U. as partials a B12N might work just fine.

So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?
Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Now why would any of this take place?
Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia give the Big 10 the Northeast and the Beltway, and some Southern exposure. It fulfills Delany's mission, and ESPN gets a new T1 Big 10 deal out of it.

The SEC gains 19 million new viewers and more money for the SECN without diluting their brand and by defensively keeping the Big 12 essentially out of the Southeast's best recruiting grounds. ESPN profits by including N.C. State and Virignia Tech's markets in the SECN and they get huge content boosts with Clemson and F.S.U.

ESPN builds a very profitable 2nd strong football conference to set up as a rival with the SEC, and gets border rivalries between the Big 10 and SEC two brands that fans love to watch go to war.

ESPN makes more money off of every ACC property than they would have otherwise and the new P4 doesn't have the problem of having 1 of the 4 as a glorified basketball conference dabbling in football.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech all make much more money. So do F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The Big12N gets huge markets for Texas and Oklahoma to exploit and for ESPN to finally find an effective way to monetize Texas in the kinds of markets they had hoped to obtain by considering a Texas to the ACC move, but only without having to leave the ACC in the hands of basketball first schools.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

(10-24-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First let me say that I consider the sources and have profound doubts. But, could there be any logic behind the rumors? Well, that is an another matter entirely as given where things stand right now, it is certainly possible.

The present climate:
1. The Big 10 is less than 2 years away from negotiating a new T1 deal. Should they expand again their prime targets are the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

2. The SECN is proving to be a lucrative entity whose opening broke all expectations. Should the SEC expand again they prefer the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

3. The ACC doesn't have a network and is probably not close to obtaining one.

4. If ESPN wants to hold onto Texas, gain more access to Oklahoma, and if the marketplace is truly more on board with college football rather than college basketball what would you want, a conference centered around a basketball leadership, or a conference centered around football leadership? ESPN could build a second football conference as valuable as the SEC by building it around Texas and Oklahoma rather than by placing the Longhorns in a conference run by basketball schools.

5. GOR's? If ESPN owns 100% of the ACC's rights this really isn't an issue if it is a move that ESPN wants to see happen and if ESPN intends to have a much higher percentage of the conference they might move into, or if they can make a lot more with those schools if they are placed in another ESPN friendly conference.

6. Texas wants to keep the Big 12 together so they can remain the kingpin in their own creation.

7. Even with a slowly developing Big12N the earning potential there will be far greater than in the ACC. Add to that the fact that the Big 10 and SEC will be earning far more as well and the climate for a change is ripe.

8. Given the right deal Notre Dame might likely make the jump as well. With Notre Dame and B.Y.U. as partials a B12N might work just fine.

So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?
Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Now why would any of this take place?
Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia give the Big 10 the Northeast and the Beltway, and some Southern exposure. It fulfills Delany's mission, and ESPN gets a new T1 Big 10 deal out of it.

The SEC gains 19 million new viewers and more money for the SECN without diluting their brand and by defensively keeping the Big 12 essentially out of the Southeast's best recruiting grounds. ESPN profits by including N.C. State and Virignia Tech's markets in the SECN and they get huge content boosts with Clemson and F.S.U.

ESPN builds a very profitable 2nd strong football conference to set up as a rival with the SEC, and gets border rivalries between the Big 10 and SEC two brands that fans love to watch go to war.

ESPN makes more money off of every ACC property than they would have otherwise and the new P4 doesn't have the problem of having 1 of the 4 as a glorified basketball conference dabbling in football.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech all make much more money. So do F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The Big12N gets huge markets for Texas and Oklahoma to exploit and for ESPN to finally find an effective way to monetize Texas in the kinds of markets they had hoped to obtain by considering a Texas to the ACC move, but only without having to leave the ACC in the hands of basketball first schools.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

You were doing OK until your got to #7 and #8.........

(10-25-2014 08:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First let me say that I consider the sources and have profound doubts. But, could there be any logic behind the rumors? Well, that is an another matter entirely as given where things stand right now, it is certainly possible.

The present climate:
1. The Big 10 is less than 2 years away from negotiating a new T1 deal. Should they expand again their prime targets are the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

2. The SECN is proving to be a lucrative entity whose opening broke all expectations. Should the SEC expand again they prefer the markets of the East coast. ESPN owns the rights to those prospects.

3. The ACC doesn't have a network and is probably not close to obtaining one.

4. If ESPN wants to hold onto Texas, gain more access to Oklahoma, and if the marketplace is truly more on board with college football rather than college basketball what would you want, a conference centered around a basketball leadership, or a conference centered around football leadership? ESPN could build a second football conference as valuable as the SEC by building it around Texas and Oklahoma rather than by placing the Longhorns in a conference run by basketball schools.

5. GOR's? If ESPN owns 100% of the ACC's rights this really isn't an issue if it is a move that ESPN wants to see happen and if ESPN intends to have a much higher percentage of the conference they might move into, or if they can make a lot more with those schools if they are placed in another ESPN friendly conference.

6. Texas wants to keep the Big 12 together so they can remain the kingpin in their own creation.

7. Even with a slowly developing Big12N the earning potential there will be far greater than in the ACC. Add to that the fact that the Big 10 and SEC will be earning far more as well and the climate for a change is ripe.

8. Given the right deal Notre Dame might likely make the jump as well. With Notre Dame and B.Y.U. as partials a B12N might work just fine.

So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?
Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Now why would any of this take place?
Georgia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia give the Big 10 the Northeast and the Beltway, and some Southern exposure. It fulfills Delany's mission, and ESPN gets a new T1 Big 10 deal out of it.

The SEC gains 19 million new viewers and more money for the SECN without diluting their brand and by defensively keeping the Big 12 essentially out of the Southeast's best recruiting grounds. ESPN profits by including N.C. State and Virignia Tech's markets in the SECN and they get huge content boosts with Clemson and F.S.U.

ESPN builds a very profitable 2nd strong football conference to set up as a rival with the SEC, and gets border rivalries between the Big 10 and SEC two brands that fans love to watch go to war.

ESPN makes more money off of every ACC property than they would have otherwise and the new P4 doesn't have the problem of having 1 of the 4 as a glorified basketball conference dabbling in football.

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia Tech all make much more money. So do F.S.U., Clemson, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The Big12N gets huge markets for Texas and Oklahoma to exploit and for ESPN to finally find an effective way to monetize Texas in the kinds of markets they had hoped to obtain by considering a Texas to the ACC move, but only without having to leave the ACC in the hands of basketball first schools.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

You were doing OK until your got to #7 and #8.........

Nah.... Jr is right about #7...
#8 might be a bit of a stretch, but after seeing the Mizzou Tigers playing in the SEC, anything is possible... if I had made that prediction five years ago, I would have been laughed off this board.

(10-24-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?

I think the rumor is just wild speculation. Texas, OU, and to a lesser extent KU have no reason to want a B12 conference network unless the new additions give a large bump to our existing t1 and/or T2 to make up for the loss of T3 revenue or there is very unequal revenue sharing of it. However, this is more an academic exercise than anything else.

Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

B1G would be happy with this no doubt. But none of these schools bring much fb value. BB would be dominant though.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

If i was the SEC I'd rather stop at 16 with NCST and VT and it would be better for the B12/ESPN as well. FSU is either going to knock a current SEC school down a peg (most likely) or have an erosion of it's brand in the SEC (unlikely due to FL recruiting, but Arkansas is a good example IMO). I see little upside to Clemson because I can't see them displacing anyone and likely they struggle ala Arkansas (compared to their past pre-SEC performance). Clemson and FSU bring value to the SEC, but they would bring much more to the B12.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

None of those current ACC schools increase the football value of the B12. WF would be gladly dropped for East Carolina, UCF, or UConn or even lesser schools. Really without their ties to UNC/Duke/NC State there is not really much value in WF and since we gain none of those 3 schools why would we want WF just to keep the NC schools happy that WF did not get demoted to the G5. Louisville has had some good years lately, but they are not a football school; however, they add the most football value of these 4 which is not saying much. Syracuse and Pitt add basketball value, but really don't bring anything extra to the table in FB any more. BC is also meh like WF and i'd prefer a hndful of schools over them. Boston is just not a college sports market.

Texas is not as enthralled with ND since Dodds left. They were planning a 4 game series, but it got dropped to 2 after Dodds retired. I am not sure the B12 gets all that wound up over a ND partial membership. We balked at a lot of stuff they wanted like the bowl tie ins before. I doubt we give them a better deal now that their biggest fan, Dodds has retired.

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Cincinnati is not exciting. If they had much allure to the B12 they would already be a member. OU and OSU really would not want to go back to no TX schools in their division I strongly believe.

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

Miami is a great name and it the best FB add of all the new additions; however, they may never get back to their former glory and if so their value will start to fade (Pitt used to be Miami). They also pull most of their alumni from the NE. I am not sure this is the division for them. Playing all these Texas schools with their access to similar talent as Miami has in FL means Miami probably is always up and down. Throw them in the east and they would stand a better chance of getting back to their glory days and those east teams need FL access for recruiting. CSU is another weak add. CO is a pro sports market. I lived there for a decade and nobody talked college sports with me. It was all pro sports. Because of this CU was not valued highly by the networks in the B12. BYU is only worth it to me as an all in addition. If they moved the needle very well the SEC and ACC would not have given them G5 status.

This conference is second to the B1G in BB, but actually weaker than the current B12 in FB IMO.

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

This is much better and more likely to be acceptable. No WF or CSU. However, ND is never joining this or giving up independence unless forced to by a champs only playoff model. BYU would jump at it in a second though, if the B12 was willing to put up with the headaches they bring. ND is the only school that really adds a lot of FB value though. BB would be better, but I think FB really gains little and would be about the same as the current B12 in FB strength. Throw FSU and Clemson in instead of Syracuse and BC and then we are talking a much improved FB product.

In the end this does nothing to make a strong second competitor to SEC FB like the original B12 was. FSU is the only top FB school and they join the SEC. ND is not joining a conference in full until forced and it FSU's only equal. And Clemson is a clear second in FB currently in the ACC, and they also join the SEC. VT is probably in the top 4 ACC FB schools traditionally since joining, and they join the SEC.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

If I was ESPN and could do whatever I wanted, I'd move:

UConn, UNC, UVA, Duke, BC, and Syracuse to the B1G 20 to land the T1 rights. B1G owns the east coast to VA. Builds a fantastic BB conference to drive the B1GN in the NE which they totally dominate now. Best academic conference among the P4 by far. B1G at 20 also allows a possible future merger with the PAC 12, who has poor expansion options outside of B12 schools which are now off the board. B1G gains VA and NC FB recruiting, but little added FB prowess beyond average. Might be sticking point with OSU and NU. Gains BC hockey to help with B1GN as well and some lacrosse powers to go with John Hopkins and Maryland. B1G would drive the removal of basketball monies from the NCAA's control and would benefit the most from such a change.

SEC gets VT, NCST. Gain the 2 most coveted states for their network. Keeps the B1G out of GA and FL by moving FSU and GT to B12. If the SEC wanted to go bigger and could get past culture problems Cincinnati and Pitt would be great for your network with Ohio and Pennsylvania being added to the footprint. Also they add BB value which the SEC could use.

B12: FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt. B12 network created from the LHN and T1 would get a bump due to some added name value to offset the loss in revenue Texas might take. This conference gives the SEC some competition for the best conference, though it is still likely #2 most of the time. Kansas gains a rival for BB dominance in Louisville which would give the B12 a UK/UF dynamic and Pitt and GT are often pretty good at roundball.

Wake Forest is odd man out and joins the Big East or AAC. ND does a partial with whoever does the best deal unless forced to join a conference by a champs only model. Problem is, ESPN has a lot of influence, but I am pretty sure they don't have this much pull, plus it probably is not what any of the involved conferences/schools want as well in many cases.

(10-27-2014 09:54 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  If I was ESPN and could do whatever I wanted, I'd move:

UConn, UNC, UVA, Duke, BC, and Syracuse to the B1G 20 to land the T1 rights. B1G owns the east coast to VA. Builds a fantastic BB conference to drive the B1GN in the NE which they totally dominate now. Best academic conference among the P4 by far. B1G at 20 also allows a possible future merger with the PAC 12, who has poor expansion options outside of B12 schools which are now off the board. B1G gains VA and NC FB recruiting, but little added FB prowess beyond average. Might be sticking point with OSU and NU. Gains BC hockey to help with B1GN as well and some lacrosse powers to go with John Hopkins and Maryland. B1G would drive the removal of basketball monies from the NCAA's control and would benefit the most from such a change.

SEC gets VT, NCST. Gain the 2 most coveted states for their network. Keeps the B1G out of GA and FL by moving FSU and GT to B12. If the SEC wanted to go bigger and could get past culture problems Cincinnati and Pitt would be great for your network with Ohio and Pennsylvania being added to the footprint. Also they add BB value which the SEC could use.

B12: FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt. B12 network created from the LHN and T1 would get a bump due to some added name value to offset the loss in revenue Texas might take. This conference gives the SEC some competition for the best conference, though it is still likely #2 most of the time. Kansas gains a rival for BB dominance in Louisville which would give the B12 a UK/UF dynamic and Pitt and GT are often pretty good at roundball.

Wake Forest is odd man out and joins the Big East or AAC. ND does a partial with whoever does the best deal unless forced to join a conference by a champs only model. Problem is, ESPN has a lot of influence, but I am pretty sure they don't have this much pull, plus it probably is not what any of the involved conferences/schools want as well in many cases.

Okay, Jayhawk, the set up is biased to the Big 10 and SEC so your critique is fair to a point. The reason I picked 18 is because it is the only way to dissolve that GOR. And I do firmly believe, especially now that Lou Holtz is saying it, that the Irish will be expected by everyone to join a conference should the structure continue to change. I agree Wake is the odd man out. But part of the reason I placed some of the Northeastern schools into the Big 12 was to garner for their "new network" which is the subject of the speculation, some larger market exposure. But if you truly want to look at balancing matters let's take another tack.

Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Virginia surprise everyone and become the Eastern division of the PAC 18.

Virginia Tech, N.C. State join the SEC.

Connecticut and Boston College join the Big 10.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, and B.Y.U. join the Big 12.

Now the Big 10 is:

Boston College, Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State

Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin


You know the SEC.

The Big 12 is:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Iowa State, Kansas, Louisville, West Virginia

Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas

Brigham Young, Kansas State, T.C.U., Texas Tech

The six schools leaving for the PAC are happy because they are with better academic schools.

The SEC is happy because they expend little to gain a lot.

The Big 12 is happy because they can compete.

Only the Big 10 is unhappy because while they sewed up New England they landed no football props.

The PAC is happy because they didn't have to trade academics to gain East coast exposure for their network.

Other than joining a conference Notre Dame should be happy because they are in a division they should dominate and they can probably work out the scheduling to keep U.S.C. and Stanford as annual cross divisional games.

How's that for out of the box and off the wall?

But seriously the way to parse the ACC is for the Big 10 to take Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Notre Dame to move to 18. This builds a new Eastern division of 6 and bolsters the Old Big 10 lineup.

Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin



The SEC takes North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech

Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M



The Big 12 takes 6: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, N.C. State and sticks to 16

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Iowa State, Louisville, N.C. State, West Virginia

Baylor, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Add the 12 PAC schools and we stand at 64.

Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

(10-28-2014 11:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

Actually the deal is better money wise at 3 x 20. T.C.U. vs Wake Forest is an issue that will be decided by how things eventually break. Will there be ACC defections? If so then Wake is odd man out. Will there be Big 12 defections? In that case T.C.U. could be odd man out, or even Baylor depending upon whether that break is to the East or West.

(10-28-2014 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

Actually the deal is better money wise at 3 x 20. T.C.U. vs Wake Forest is an issue that will be decided by how things eventually break. Will there be ACC defections? If so then Wake is odd man out. Will there be Big 12 defections? In that case T.C.U. could be odd man out, or even Baylor depending upon whether that break is to the East or West.

Money shouldn't influence the discussion, because it will eventually be there for everybody.
At 3 x 20 you will lose 5 teams and somebody is going to lose a long time rivalry (which is not good for the game, only good for money).
Two or more conferences can come together to share whatever to be able to increase revenue if necessary, but I haven't seen a model yet that was perfect.
I thought you might have that 6 conference breakdown "on file".
If Cincinnati, BYU and UConn get included then the Wake vs TCU/Baylor think is moot.

(10-28-2014 04:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

Actually the deal is better money wise at 3 x 20. T.C.U. vs Wake Forest is an issue that will be decided by how things eventually break. Will there be ACC defections? If so then Wake is odd man out. Will there be Big 12 defections? In that case T.C.U. could be odd man out, or even Baylor depending upon whether that break is to the East or West.

Money shouldn't influence the discussion, because it will eventually be there for everybody.
At 3 x 20 you will lose 5 teams and somebody is going to lose a long time rivalry (which is not good for the game, only good for money).
Two or more conferences can come together to share whatever to be able to increase revenue if necessary, but I haven't seen a model yet that was perfect.
I thought you might have that 6 conference breakdown "on file".
If Cincinnati, BYU and UConn get included then the Wake vs TCU/Baylor think is moot.

XLance the issue with 6 conferences is that the last two in are inherently weak unless you break up the biggest 4. And since there are investment level breaks at 60th, 65th, and the 72nd positions after which the investment level is severely curtailed I'm not sure how you fix that. You won't like it but the best solution to the issue is simply a 4 x 18 model. And that I have. But the imperfection with this model is at the conference level where snootiness on all of the Big 4's part gets involved. The Big 10 stands pat on their AAU, the SEC stands pat on average attendance and market draw, the ACC stands pat on fit and academics, and the PAC just stands conflicted between the California schools and everyone else.

But here it is:

Big 10:
East:
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Central:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

ACC:
North:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central:
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

South:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

SEC:
East:
Auburn, East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Central:
Alabama, Central Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M


PAC:
North:
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

East:
Colorado, Kansas State, (pick one: Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada Las Vegas) Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

With the ACC of course WVU is a stinker academically but no worse than Louisville. It fills that hole in your footprint left by Maryland. Cincinnati gives you a nice slice of an Ohio market for the ACCN which if we went to a 4 x 18 model with N.D. all in would be a given. Tulane is your destination school with a nice slice of a large city market with academics that help to balance out W.V.U. If you don't take them who do you add? Temple is possible. U.S.F. you don't really need. Memphis doesn't get it done either from an academic or football perspective. Tulane balances out the South so that the Virginia and Carolina schools stay together and so that the North stays balanced.

The Big 10 won't be happy with Iowa State but the Cyclones support their programs well and fit there geographically and culturally and they are AAU. Connecticut is a New England add. Oklahoma gets them their football creds and Kansas their basketball creds.

The PAC has to make peace with B.Y.U. but the California schools don't have to have them in their division. They pick up Las Vegas or Albuquerque and add Texas and Kansas to their profile. And like their conference is already some of them are solid academic adds and some aren't.

But at the end of the day you have 4 conferences that make sense, divisions that are relatively good for travel for the fans, no great break up of anything but the Big 12 is fractious and tenuous anyway and everyone's markets are served.

We have the best 72 we are going to get and that's enough to have balanced competition.

From there each conference has a semi final and final for championships and the three division champs and the best at large fill that field. The champions of the four conferences play it off. T.C.U. and Wake are safe. B.Y.U., UConn, and Cincy all get in plus some other up and comers.

For the sake of peace and stability that may be as good as it gets.

(10-27-2014 08:27 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?

I think the rumor is just wild speculation. Texas, OU, and to a lesser extent KU have no reason to want a B12 conference network unless the new additions give a large bump to our existing t1 and/or T2 to make up for the loss of T3 revenue or there is very unequal revenue sharing of it. However, this is more an academic exercise than anything else.

Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

B1G would be happy with this no doubt. But none of these schools bring much fb value. BB would be dominant though.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

If i was the SEC I'd rather stop at 16 with NCST and VT and it would be better for the B12/ESPN as well. FSU is either going to knock a current SEC school down a peg (most likely) or have an erosion of it's brand in the SEC (unlikely due to FL recruiting, but Arkansas is a good example IMO). I see little upside to Clemson because I can't see them displacing anyone and likely they struggle ala Arkansas (compared to their past pre-SEC performance). Clemson and FSU bring value to the SEC, but they would bring much more to the B12.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

None of those current ACC schools increase the football value of the B12. WF would be gladly dropped for East Carolina, UCF, or UConn or even lesser schools. Really without their ties to UNC/Duke/NC State there is not really much value in WF and since we gain none of those 3 schools why would we want WF just to keep the NC schools happy that WF did not get demoted to the G5. Louisville has had some good years lately, but they are not a football school; however, they add the most football value of these 4 which is not saying much. Syracuse and Pitt add basketball value, but really don't bring anything extra to the table in FB any more. BC is also meh like WF and i'd prefer a hndful of schools over them. Boston is just not a college sports market.

Texas is not as enthralled with ND since Dodds left. They were planning a 4 game series, but it got dropped to 2 after Dodds retired. I am not sure the B12 gets all that wound up over a ND partial membership. We balked at a lot of stuff they wanted like the bowl tie ins before. I doubt we give them a better deal now that their biggest fan, Dodds has retired.

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Cincinnati is not exciting. If they had much allure to the B12 they would already be a member. OU and OSU really would not want to go back to no TX schools in their division I strongly believe.

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

Miami is a great name and it the best FB add of all the new additions; however, they may never get back to their former glory and if so their value will start to fade (Pitt used to be Miami). They also pull most of their alumni from the NE. I am not sure this is the division for them. Playing all these Texas schools with their access to similar talent as Miami has in FL means Miami probably is always up and down. Throw them in the east and they would stand a better chance of getting back to their glory days and those east teams need FL access for recruiting. CSU is another weak add. CO is a pro sports market. I lived there for a decade and nobody talked college sports with me. It was all pro sports. Because of this CU was not valued highly by the networks in the B12. BYU is only worth it to me as an all in addition. If they moved the needle very well the SEC and ACC would not have given them G5 status.

This conference is second to the B1G in BB, but actually weaker than the current B12 in FB IMO.

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

This is much better and more likely to be acceptable. No WF or CSU. However, ND is never joining this or giving up independence unless forced to by a champs only playoff model. BYU would jump at it in a second though, if the B12 was willing to put up with the headaches they bring. ND is the only school that really adds a lot of FB value though. BB would be better, but I think FB really gains little and would be about the same as the current B12 in FB strength. Throw FSU and Clemson in instead of Syracuse and BC and then we are talking a much improved FB product.

In the end this does nothing to make a strong second competitor to SEC FB like the original B12 was. FSU is the only top FB school and they join the SEC. ND is not joining a conference in full until forced and it FSU's only equal. And Clemson is a clear second in FB currently in the ACC, and they also join the SEC. VT is probably in the top 4 ACC FB schools traditionally since joining, and they join the SEC.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

Did someone from Kansas say Cincinnati isn't exciting? Kansas? Really?

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 04:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

Actually the deal is better money wise at 3 x 20. T.C.U. vs Wake Forest is an issue that will be decided by how things eventually break. Will there be ACC defections? If so then Wake is odd man out. Will there be Big 12 defections? In that case T.C.U. could be odd man out, or even Baylor depending upon whether that break is to the East or West.

Money shouldn't influence the discussion, because it will eventually be there for everybody.
At 3 x 20 you will lose 5 teams and somebody is going to lose a long time rivalry (which is not good for the game, only good for money).
Two or more conferences can come together to share whatever to be able to increase revenue if necessary, but I haven't seen a model yet that was perfect.
I thought you might have that 6 conference breakdown "on file".
If Cincinnati, BYU and UConn get included then the Wake vs TCU/Baylor think is moot.

XLance the issue with 6 conferences is that the last two in are inherently weak unless you break up the biggest 4. And since there are investment level breaks at 60th, 65th, and the 72nd positions after which the investment level is severely curtailed I'm not sure how you fix that. You won't like it but the best solution to the issue is simply a 4 x 18 model. And that I have. But the imperfection with this model is at the conference level where snootiness on all of the Big 4's part gets involved. The Big 10 stands pat on their AAU, the SEC stands pat on average attendance and market draw, the ACC stands pat on fit and academics, and the PAC just stands conflicted between the California schools and everyone else.

But here it is:

Big 10:
East:
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Central:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

ACC:
North:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central:
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

South:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

SEC:
East:
Auburn, East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Central:
Alabama, Central Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M


PAC:
North:
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

East:
Colorado, Kansas State, (pick one: Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada Las Vegas) Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

With the ACC of course WVU is a stinker academically but no worse than Louisville. It fills that hole in your footprint left by Maryland. Cincinnati gives you a nice slice of an Ohio market for the ACCN which if we went to a 4 x 18 model with N.D. all in would be a given. Tulane is your destination school with a nice slice of a large city market with academics that help to balance out W.V.U. If you don't take them who do you add? Temple is possible. U.S.F. you don't really need. Memphis doesn't get it done either from an academic or football perspective. Tulane balances out the South so that the Virginia and Carolina schools stay together and so that the North stays balanced.

The Big 10 won't be happy with Iowa State but the Cyclones support their programs well and fit there geographically and culturally and they are AAU. Connecticut is a New England add. Oklahoma gets them their football creds and Kansas their basketball creds.

The PAC has to make peace with B.Y.U. but the California schools don't have to have them in their division. They pick up Las Vegas or Albuquerque and add Texas and Kansas to their profile. And like their conference is already some of them are solid academic adds and some aren't.

But at the end of the day you have 4 conferences that make sense, divisions that are relatively good for travel for the fans, no great break up of anything but the Big 12 is fractious and tenuous anyway and everyone's markets are served.

We have the best 72 we are going to get and that's enough to have balanced competition.

From there each conference has a semi final and final for championships and the three division champs and the best at large fill that field. The champions of the four conferences play it off. T.C.U. and Wake are safe. B.Y.U., UConn, and Cincy all get in plus some other up and comers.

For the sake of peace and stability that may be as good as it gets.

I could only find room for 67 teams:

I think that 11 teams is the true sweet spot (PAC gets 12)
No divisions....10 conference games (11 for the PAC).

SEC

Ky
Tenn
Ga
Fla
Aub
Ala
MSU
Ole Miss
Vandy
LSU
A&M

B1G

OSU
Mich
MSU
Pur
Ind
Ill
NW
Wisc
Minn
Iowa
Neb

Eastern

BC
UConn
Syr
Rut
PSU
Pitt
ND
WVU
Md
L'Ville
Cincy

Great Plains

Tex
Bay
TCU
TT
Ark
Mizzou
Ok
OSU
KU
KSU
ISU

ACC

Mia
FSU
GT
SC
Clem
NCSU
WF
Dook
UNC
UVa
VT

PAC

ASU
Ariz
USC
UCLA
Stan
Cal
OSU
Ore
Wash
WSU
Colo
Utah

Not perfect.....but close!

(10-30-2014 08:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 04:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 12:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 11:40 AM)XLance Wrote:  Jr you will certainly win the prize for creativity with either of those ideas.
I liked Carolina going to the west coast, but you should have added Georgia Tech in with Duke and UVa going west and put Wake Forest in with Clemson and Florida State. TCU is my guess as to which school wouldl get the "boot" if we go to 64.

We continue to try to pound square pegs into round holes.

Try to work something out with 6 conferences (the PAC can keep Utah and stay at 12). Six conferences makes room for UConn/ Cincinnati/BYU, and there are already 6 spots available in the access bowls (it just means that no conference will ever get 2 teams).
When you can get that worked out, THEN we will really have something that would work for everybody.

Actually the deal is better money wise at 3 x 20. T.C.U. vs Wake Forest is an issue that will be decided by how things eventually break. Will there be ACC defections? If so then Wake is odd man out. Will there be Big 12 defections? In that case T.C.U. could be odd man out, or even Baylor depending upon whether that break is to the East or West.

Money shouldn't influence the discussion, because it will eventually be there for everybody.
At 3 x 20 you will lose 5 teams and somebody is going to lose a long time rivalry (which is not good for the game, only good for money).
Two or more conferences can come together to share whatever to be able to increase revenue if necessary, but I haven't seen a model yet that was perfect.
I thought you might have that 6 conference breakdown "on file".
If Cincinnati, BYU and UConn get included then the Wake vs TCU/Baylor think is moot.

XLance the issue with 6 conferences is that the last two in are inherently weak unless you break up the biggest 4. And since there are investment level breaks at 60th, 65th, and the 72nd positions after which the investment level is severely curtailed I'm not sure how you fix that. You won't like it but the best solution to the issue is simply a 4 x 18 model. And that I have. But the imperfection with this model is at the conference level where snootiness on all of the Big 4's part gets involved. The Big 10 stands pat on their AAU, the SEC stands pat on average attendance and market draw, the ACC stands pat on fit and academics, and the PAC just stands conflicted between the California schools and everyone else.

But here it is:

Big 10:
East:
Connecticut, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Central:
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

West:
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

ACC:
North:
Boston College, Cincinnati, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Central:
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

South:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, Tulane

SEC:
East:
Auburn, East Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Central:
Alabama, Central Florida, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

West:
Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M


PAC:
North:
Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State

South:
Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford

East:
Colorado, Kansas State, (pick one: Nevada, New Mexico, Nevada Las Vegas) Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

With the ACC of course WVU is a stinker academically but no worse than Louisville. It fills that hole in your footprint left by Maryland. Cincinnati gives you a nice slice of an Ohio market for the ACCN which if we went to a 4 x 18 model with N.D. all in would be a given. Tulane is your destination school with a nice slice of a large city market with academics that help to balance out W.V.U. If you don't take them who do you add? Temple is possible. U.S.F. you don't really need. Memphis doesn't get it done either from an academic or football perspective. Tulane balances out the South so that the Virginia and Carolina schools stay together and so that the North stays balanced.

The Big 10 won't be happy with Iowa State but the Cyclones support their programs well and fit there geographically and culturally and they are AAU. Connecticut is a New England add. Oklahoma gets them their football creds and Kansas their basketball creds.

The PAC has to make peace with B.Y.U. but the California schools don't have to have them in their division. They pick up Las Vegas or Albuquerque and add Texas and Kansas to their profile. And like their conference is already some of them are solid academic adds and some aren't.

But at the end of the day you have 4 conferences that make sense, divisions that are relatively good for travel for the fans, no great break up of anything but the Big 12 is fractious and tenuous anyway and everyone's markets are served.

We have the best 72 we are going to get and that's enough to have balanced competition.

From there each conference has a semi final and final for championships and the three division champs and the best at large fill that field. The champions of the four conferences play it off. T.C.U. and Wake are safe. B.Y.U., UConn, and Cincy all get in plus some other up and comers.

For the sake of peace and stability that may be as good as it gets.

I could only find room for 67 teams:

I think that 11 teams is the true sweet spot (PAC gets 12)
No divisions....10 conference games (11 for the PAC).

SEC

Ky
Tenn
Ga
Fla
Aub
Ala
MSU
Ole Miss
Vandy
LSU
A&M

B1G

OSU
Mich
MSU
Pur
Ind
Ill
NW
Wisc
Minn
Iowa
Neb

Eastern

BC
UConn
Syr
Rut
PSU
Pitt
ND
WVU
Md
L'Ville
Cincy

Great Plains

Tex
Bay
TCU
TT
Ark
Mizzou
Ok
OSU
KU
KSU
ISU

ACC

Mia
FSU
GT
SC
Clem
NCSU
WF
Dook
UNC
UVa
VT

PAC

ASU
Ariz
USC
UCLA
Stan
Cal
OSU
Ore
Wash
WSU
Colo
Utah

Not perfect.....but close!

You are more of a mossback traditionalist than I am. If we could turn back the clock on network interference I would say what you suggest would be close to ideal. But, alas, I fear those days have passed until the economic necessity of regionalism returns.

The more we consolidate, the more expensive it gets for ESPN. Divide and conquer is the least costly avenue for the mouse.
ESPN already has their star in the SEC but is constantly having to up the ante on the remaining cannon fodder.
If you will recall, the ACC flirted with FOX and was able to squeeze more money out of ESPN than the industry expected (Omni has a lot of detail about the contract negotiations/what was projected/final outcome etc.). The very contract that people now point to as a bad deal, was hailed as a breakthrough at the time. And ESPN's costs keep going up. Now with the success of the B1G and SEC networks the pressure to pay more to everybody else continues to rise. At some point, when the time is right, ESPN will promote regionalism as a way to curtail long term runaway rights fees.
The question then becomes: can we get to regional conferences without further consolidation, or do we have to get bigger first before we start to split back apart?

(10-31-2014 07:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  The more we consolidate, the more expensive it gets for ESPN. Divide and conquer is the least costly avenue for the mouse.
ESPN already has their star in the SEC but is constantly having to up the ante on the remaining canon fodder.
If you will recall, the ACC flirted with FOX and was able to squeeze more money out of ESPN than the industry expected (Omni has a lot of detail about the contract negotiations/what was projected/final outcome etc.). The very contract that people now point to as a bad deal, was hailed as a breakthrough at the time. And ESPN's costs keep going up. Now with the success of the B1G and SEC networks the pressure to pay more to everybody else continues to rise. At some point, when the time is right, ESPN will promote regionalism as a way to curtail long term runaway rights fees.
The question then becomes: can we get to regional conferences without further consolidation, or do we have to get bigger first before we start to split back apart?

We consolidate further with more regionalism in our divisions. Then if there is a break up at some point divisions become the core of the smaller conferences (should that happen).

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

ECU and UCF just don't bring enough to the table. Those two could not bring enough money to the SECN to even keep the per team payouts the same. Honestly, if you are going to add two that will help the SECN's inventory, bring in UNC and Duke. Those two blue bloods with Kentucky would be a major upgrade to the basketball inventory and those two schools might be the catalysts that elevates the SEC into a very strong basketball league while the SEC brand and proper coaches could turn their football programs into something respectable to SEC standards.

(10-31-2014 04:16 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now here's the deal. Nobody in the SEC will get excited about E.C.U. and U.C.F. but both are great growth prospects. E.C.U. does give us a share in the North Carolina. The SEC's presence in South Florida isn't as secure as in the upper Central and Panhandle of the State. Plus it's a destination game. Oklahoma State gives us a piece of DFW and Baylor gives us a second Texas school that with Oklahoma State nails down the DFW area. Are they home runs. No way. But they give us decent balance and a concise footprint.

ECU and UCF just don't bring enough to the table. Those two could not bring enough money to the SECN to even keep the per team payouts the same. Honestly, if you are going to add two that will help the SECN's inventory, bring in UNC and Duke. Those two blue bloods with Kentucky would be a major upgrade to the basketball inventory and those two schools might be the catalysts that elevates the SEC into a very strong basketball league while the SEC brand and proper coaches could turn their football programs into something respectable to SEC standards.

XLance asked about a way to get to 6 conferences without breaking up the ACC. I have no disagreement with your logic or post. I was merely illustrating how to include 72 schools without breaking up the ACC. Breaking up the Big 12 is the much more likely of the two scenarios as their top schools may eventually choose to do that out of self interest.

Personally I like 18 as a number but not the configuration I posted as a 4 x 18 where the ACC isn't touched. If it were just my world and I could pick an 18 school SEC I would take Virginia Tech and North Carolina to 16 and if I wanted expanded Western markets I would hope for Oklahoma and Texas. That would be a helluva conference, but unfortunately still weak in the East. At 16 it depends on whether we expand East or West. Either way the two schools remain the same as the 18 school scenario.

That said I don't think we will have an opportunity to expand from both the East and West. And if we expanded from the West the likelihood of landing two top prospects would be relatively low. We might wind up with an Oklahoma / West Virginia pair at best and an Oklahoma school and Baylor at worst. I don't see expansion from the West taking us to 18, just 16.

If the Big 10 raided the ACC again, or more likely ESPN leveraged some of their properties to get a long term T1 contract from the Big 10, then a move to 18 from the ACC might not only be possible, but even likely. Obviously to get North Carolina somebody is probably going to have to take Duke too. But what the Heels would really want is keeping the gang together. A combination of Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and Duke, or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, & N.C. State might be a requirement. And to be quite honest I'm not sure that would be in the SEC's best long term interest. That would be a 4 way voting block for the Heels. Not enough to challenge the SEC's relative harmony, but enough to make waves. I think that is why the early speculation was to avoid the egos and go for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. So even in this scenario 16 might be better unless the mixture was different. But who would you add instead of extra Virginia and Carolina schools? Pitt is a new market but no cultural fit. Georgia Tech doesn't give us anything that Georgia does already give us. Ditto for Clemson and South Carolina. Florida State could be a nice stop in the Sunshine State because at least then they would actually have to beat someone to make the national playoffs and it would add another Florida stop for recruiting for SEC schools and like Texas, Florida may be a state where we actually wind up needing a second school. So now who do you get for a 4th to go with Va Tech, N.C. St. & F.S.U.? Maybe then we lobby hard to get Oklahoma, a second Texas school, or West Virginia. But that's a hard road to 18. What are your thoughts on that?

And as an aside how would you feel about taking a Texahoma deal for the SEC to 18? I curious to hear a Hog's viewpoint on this because such a move might really open up those old Arkansas recruiting advantages in Texas.

(10-31-2014 05:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  XLance asked about a way to get to 6 conferences without breaking up the ACC. I have no disagreement with your logic or post. I was merely illustrating how to include 72 schools without breaking up the ACC. Breaking up the Big 12 is the much more likely of the two scenarios as their top schools may eventually choose to do that out of self interest.

Personally I like 18 as a number but not the configuration I posted as a 4 x 18 where the ACC isn't touched. If it were just my world and I could pick an 18 school SEC I would take Virginia Tech and North Carolina to 16 and if I wanted expanded Western markets I would hope for Oklahoma and Texas. That would be a helluva conference, but unfortunately still weak in the East. At 16 it depends on whether we expand East or West. Either way the two schools remain the same as the 18 school scenario.

That said I don't think we will have an opportunity to expand from both the East and West. And if we expanded from the West the likelihood of landing two top prospects would be relatively low. We might wind up with an Oklahoma / West Virginia pair at best and an Oklahoma school and Baylor at worst. I don't see expansion from the West taking us to 18, just 16.

If the Big 10 raided the ACC again, or more likely ESPN leveraged some of their properties to get a long term T1 contract from the Big 10, then a move to 18 from the ACC might not only be possible, but even likely. Obviously to get North Carolina somebody is probably going to have to take Duke too. But what the Heels would really want is keeping the gang together. A combination of Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina and Duke, or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, & N.C. State might be a requirement. And to be quite honest I'm not sure that would be in the SEC's best long term interest. That would be a 4 way voting block for the Heels. Not enough to challenge the SEC's relative harmony, but enough to make waves. I think that is why the early speculation was to avoid the egos and go for Virginia Tech and N.C. State. So even in this scenario 16 might be better unless the mixture was different. But who would you add instead of extra Virginia and Carolina schools? Pitt is a new market but no cultural fit. Georgia Tech doesn't give us anything that Georgia does already give us. Ditto for Clemson and South Carolina. Florida State could be a nice stop in the Sunshine State because at least then they would actually have to beat someone to make the national playoffs and it would add another Florida stop for recruiting for SEC schools and like Texas, Florida may be a state where we actually wind up needing a second school. So now who do you get for a 4th to go with Va Tech, N.C. St. & F.S.U.? Maybe then we lobby hard to get Oklahoma, a second Texas school, or West Virginia. But that's a hard road to 18. What are your thoughts on that?

And as an aside how would you feel about taking a Texahoma deal for the SEC to 18? I curious to hear a Hog's viewpoint on this because such a move might really open up those old Arkansas recruiting advantages in Texas.

The old timer hog fans from the SWC days enjoy scheduling those Texas schools. The problem today as back then was there was just too much dead weight hence the collapse of that conference. We love playing Texas, but they won't be scheduling us anytime soon and I'll be surprised if we actually play that return leg that got pushed back to 2021 or whatever it is now. Getting into a scheduling series with Tech, A&M(before they joined), TCU and Baylor would be interesting games for the fan base. The Houston's and SMU's not so much just because of where those programs are at the moment.

According to the internet rumors for the past several years, VT has been keeping their options open and, per the dude, one of his sources in the NC State Athletic Department said they would jump all over a SEC invite.

I'm not a huge numbers fan. I prefer to grab schools worth expanding for like Oklahoma, UNC, Texas and then land the best available school to round off the numbers. I'd love to see OU, WVU, VT, UNC, or Duke join. If absolutely needed to round off expansion FSU or Clemson or Cincy or another Texas school.

(10-27-2014 08:27 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(10-24-2014 03:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So if this kind of rumor did develop legs what might arise?

I think the rumor is just wild speculation. Texas, OU, and to a lesser extent KU have no reason to want a B12 conference network unless the new additions give a large bump to our existing t1 and/or T2 to make up for the loss of T3 revenue or there is very unequal revenue sharing of it. However, this is more an academic exercise than anything else.

Georgia Tech, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke to the Big 10.

B1G would be happy with this no doubt. But none of these schools bring much fb value. BB would be dominant though.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC would be in position to pick up Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, and Florida State. Why Clemson and Florida State? Their average attendance, travel base, profitability, and demographics best match the SEC. So unless we pick up Oklahoma and another Texas school (doubtful in this scenario) I think we consolidate for brand purposes.

If i was the SEC I'd rather stop at 16 with NCST and VT and it would be better for the B12/ESPN as well. FSU is either going to knock a current SEC school down a peg (most likely) or have an erosion of it's brand in the SEC (unlikely due to FL recruiting, but Arkansas is a good example IMO). I see little upside to Clemson because I can't see them displacing anyone and likely they struggle ala Arkansas (compared to their past pre-SEC performance). Clemson and FSU bring value to the SEC, but they would bring much more to the B12.

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Now for the Big prize for ESPN, a new conference in the Big 12 shell with eventually all T3 under ESPN in an transformed LHN.

Big 12 East:
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, West Virginia
* Notre Dame as an independent

None of those current ACC schools increase the football value of the B12. WF would be gladly dropped for East Carolina, UCF, or UConn or even lesser schools. Really without their ties to UNC/Duke/NC State there is not really much value in WF and since we gain none of those 3 schools why would we want WF just to keep the NC schools happy that WF did not get demoted to the G5. Louisville has had some good years lately, but they are not a football school; however, they add the most football value of these 4 which is not saying much. Syracuse and Pitt add basketball value, but really don't bring anything extra to the table in FB any more. BC is also meh like WF and i'd prefer a hndful of schools over them. Boston is just not a college sports market.

Texas is not as enthralled with ND since Dodds left. They were planning a 4 game series, but it got dropped to 2 after Dodds retired. I am not sure the B12 gets all that wound up over a ND partial membership. We balked at a lot of stuff they wanted like the bowl tie ins before. I doubt we give them a better deal now that their biggest fan, Dodds has retired.

Big 12 North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Cincinnati is not exciting. If they had much allure to the B12 they would already be a member. OU and OSU really would not want to go back to no TX schools in their division I strongly believe.

Big 12 South:
Baylor, Colorado State, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

*B.Y.U. as an independent

Miami is a great name and it the best FB add of all the new additions; however, they may never get back to their former glory and if so their value will start to fade (Pitt used to be Miami). They also pull most of their alumni from the NE. I am not sure this is the division for them. Playing all these Texas schools with their access to similar talent as Miami has in FL means Miami probably is always up and down. Throw them in the east and they would stand a better chance of getting back to their glory days and those east teams need FL access for recruiting. CSU is another weak add. CO is a pro sports market. I lived there for a decade and nobody talked college sports with me. It was all pro sports. Because of this CU was not valued highly by the networks in the B12. BYU is only worth it to me as an all in addition. If they moved the needle very well the SEC and ACC would not have given them G5 status.

This conference is second to the B1G in BB, but actually weaker than the current B12 in FB IMO.

However what I would prefer to see happen would be this:
East:
Boston College, Louisville, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

North:
Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

South:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Miami, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

This is much better and more likely to be acceptable. No WF or CSU. However, ND is never joining this or giving up independence unless forced to by a champs only playoff model. BYU would jump at it in a second though, if the B12 was willing to put up with the headaches they bring. ND is the only school that really adds a lot of FB value though. BB would be better, but I think FB really gains little and would be about the same as the current B12 in FB strength. Throw FSU and Clemson in instead of Syracuse and BC and then we are talking a much improved FB product.

In the end this does nothing to make a strong second competitor to SEC FB like the original B12 was. FSU is the only top FB school and they join the SEC. ND is not joining a conference in full until forced and it FSU's only equal. And Clemson is a clear second in FB currently in the ACC, and they also join the SEC. VT is probably in the top 4 ACC FB schools traditionally since joining, and they join the SEC.

Now am I predicting this to happen? No. But I can see both the business motivation and the logic behind the rumors which is more than I can say for most of the rumors.

As an ND fan, I have below zero (actually absolute zero) interest in ND being in any conference based in the Midwest and especially in the Big 12 states.

Well, if we are looking for the mostly like place for expansion to happen next, that would be in the B1G in about two years.

Let's say they go after two ACC schools. I think UNC and Duke will try very hard to keep their conference regardless of tv pay outs. So AAU members UVA and GT join the B1G. This would leave VT in a financial short fall compared to UVA's B1G income, so they move the SEC. The SEC looks for a 16th and adds NC State when they play the A&M visibility card.

That would leave the ACC at 10 full members and ND. The ACC would lose teams in the Georgia and Virginia markets but all teams could play Notre Dame every other year which might boost the quality of the inventory, some what.