There are two sets of strategies to be considered: Network Strategies and Conference Strategies.

I. Network Strategies

ESPN has variables that they can play. FOX not so many. First let's look at FOX.

Their options are likely these:

1. Go all out to land the Big 10 contract in total. For this privilege the only means at their disposal is a large pile of cash. What does that gain them? Content on the Northern Eastern Seaboard and an exclusivity in one large mostly Mid-Western market. What does it miss? A presence in the Sunbelt outside of possibly sharing the Big 12 the smallest market of the P5.

2. Press hard for the PACN to sell a share of their network. What do they have as leverage? A large pile of cash and offices in L.A. with which to produce it. What do they gain? A conference that in spite of decent product lacks penetration in markets with many other entertainment industries in play for that demographic. What does it lack? An ability to draw East coast viewers late at night after a long day of watching East Coast football.

3. Try to get the Big 12 to expand in Florida and the Southeast. The problem? Texas is an ESPN product and they don't want to expand. Oklahoma who would like out if possible doesn't want the extra obstacles that additions would bring. Neither does Kansas.

ESPN has many more likely options than FOX and their options include access to expansion properties, if needed.

1. Try to land a Big 10 T1 deal long term. What are their means? Perhaps access to the final expansion products the Big 10 would like to have. Obstacles? The Big 10 is overvalued already. In a transition phase that will move now from markets for networks (which in the Big 10 is owned by FOX with 51% of the share) to content what does a flagging Big 10 have to offer? Their expansion targets would likely be Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, North Carolina or Duke. Imagine now that you are back in the fifth grade and reading Highlights magazine. Find the content in this jumbled picture? You won't! The CIC will prevent imaginative adds like Florida State or Clemson, and quite possibly would object even to Virginia Tech. So even if ESPN was interested in the Big 10 T1 rights what would they be buying to further expand their markets with zero football content in a league that has lots of basketball props already? When you stop and really think about it there is not a lot of incentive for ESPN to go that route for the very few marquee games the Big 10 plays annually. If they lost the few games played between Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn State, and to a lesser degree Michigan State what have they really lost that they couldn't easily top by displaying better content in the SEC or even Big 12? Not much. So unless they want one uber basketball conference I just don't see the incentive. And more importantly ESPN holds the hammer on two of the only three remaining products potentially available to the Big 10 outside of the ACC. But more on that later. However, if the ACC refuses to do what is profitable for ESPN then accommodations on markets for the BTN might still be more profitable than slugging through the ACC as it is presently constructed year after year with a lackluster content conference for football comprised of only 1 star and couple of less dependable support players.


2. ESPN could make product and cash available to the PAC for a partial ownership of the PACN. I find this possibility more probable than option 1. Some kind of Big 12 Texas led exodus to the West might be possible for ESPN. The problem? Texas. The Longhorns have two priorities in all of this: keep their Big 12 fiefdom or take their entourage with them when they move. Texas has already realized that heading West won't help their ratings. Yes without a doubt it would be an academic coup, but it is not what their fan base wants (to keep it local) and it is not the most profitable move for them either. Will the Longhorns and Sooners head North? No. ESPN which has its hooks into the Horns until June of 2031 is not going to lose their prime property to the PAC without substantial remuneration and they danged sure aren't going to let the Horns drive up the Chisholm Trail for the last cattle drive to Chicago where they would become the filet on the FOX menu. And since the Sooners have no desire to go North leaving their recruiting grounds in Texas to a Longhorns' team that is in another conference they won't go North either. Prognosis: If the PAC wants those CTZ markets and they want a share of Texas they will likely have to go through Lubbock to Dallas / Ft. Worth and maybe even into Houston. If they add Oklahoma State and Kansas State then they have 6 million more viewers. But will they want to do that? Maybe to gain carriage but certainly not on an academic level or brand level. Likelihood of this transpiring? 15-25% depending on how bad they want that additional carriage.

3. ESPN lands the second sacred cow of college football from South Bend by putting Texas and Notre Dame all in with the ACC. I strongly suspect that this pipe dream would result in a conference that at least in prestige would stand toe to toe with the SEC. Would Texas do this? Maybe if a few contingencies were covered somewhere else. Baylor and Texas Tech and Oklahoma State would likely have to have a home. But if all other viable futures were excluded I believe that Bevo will act in its own self interest. ACC purists might not like this but it may well be the only way the get a viable network and with it the potential to keep pace with the SEC and Big 10 financially. Plus it would make F.S.U., Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, B.C., Virginia Tech, Miami, and Clemson ecstatic. I think this is the price that Chapel Hill will have to pay to keep it's own world intact. It will be changed for sure, but still their bailiwick. Likelihood? We'll see but it sets up tremendous future options for both ESPN and the ACC.

4. ESPN lands Texas for the ACC but with a twist. Notre Dame stays independent but affiliated with the ACC. Virginia Tech and N.C. State head to the SEC to make room for a Western division of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State. The ACC 's basketball and football are enhanced and their academic standing is upheld. They lose no part of their footprint and gain nearly 36 million viewers. The SEC is happy by remaining Southeastern exclusively and gaining 19 million viewers.

5. ESPN sends only Texas to the ACC and encourages both Kansas and Oklahoma to the SEC. This situation sets the future for ESPN and both the SEC and ACC and does so at the least expense to the Network. Even if they had to add a couple more to both the ACC and SEC to get it done it is still the best long range plan they could have.

a. They would own all of the most valuable product of the Big 12 essentially outright by placing them in the SEC and ACC respectively.

b. They deny those products to FOX and FOX owned networks so three large national brands can't draw against them for ratings and advertising dollars.

c. Long term tying up the only viable product the Big 10 could want with a viable ACC and with the placement of Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas in secure ESPN hands leaves a Big 10 lacking for content and nowhere else to go to get it. It locks them out of the Southern recruiting grounds they need, and out of the fastest growing markets. Put that into a pressure cooker of 30 years or less and here are the possible outcomes: the Big 10 dwindles as does their marketability, or Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, and Ohio State all get tired of feeding those who chose not to compete and along with Iowa and Michigan State and possibly Minnesota they look to get out. Then the ACC might well expand with Penn State and Rutgers and the SEC might well land Michigan and Ohio State. Far-fetched? Time and money create some bizarre possibilities and the Big 10 has a few that have carried everyone's load for a long time. It's possible. The other possibility is already being encouraged in the Big 10. Everyone must spend more on getting competitive for coaches and players. Isolation could force them to get stronger. It looks to me that Delany is already preparing for this contingency.

6. The ACC core schools refuse to cooperate in realignment. ESPN sees a chance to unload some of those without great content to the Big 10 for markets and piece of the T1 of the Big 10. They choose to place the prime properties in the SEC to build value in the SECN. And they take the rest of the best product and place 6 of them in the Big 12 to give King Texas a royal entourage befitting the history of the Horns and Sooners. Scoff if you will but such a move routing the new Big 12N through the LHN would give ESPN the lions share of the Big 12 and suddenly exploit the content value of two dynamite conferences the Big 12 and the SEC. That's dominant football for a hungry audience and content galore with intentional crossover rivalries being set up. And don't forget if this happens they still land a nice slice of the Big 10's T1.

II. Conference Strategies:

The B1G: They might have to take a pile of cash from FOX but that is not what is in their best interest. The Big 10 had better deal with ESPN sweetly if they want into the Beltway in a big way and into the recruiting markets of Virginia and North Carolina. Any further South than North Carolina and the SEC would raise hell with ESPN. If the Big 10 takes Syracuse, and B.C./Notre Dame and Pitt, along with North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia the ACC would then be free to beef up the SEC. Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech and Miami complete that SECN quite beautifully. Then moving 8 from the Big 12 to the PAC complete with national brands Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma make the deal that the PAC might well sell part of the PACN to get.

FOX can deliver none of that.

The compromise is that the Big 10 signs a long term T1 deal and in return get exclusivity to New England and Southern recruiting grounds in Virginia and North Carolina with flagship research schools. The SEC doesn't get the top prizes in North Carolina and Virginia but gains exclusivity in the Southeast with natural season ending rivalry games with the Big 10 and to a lesser extent the PAC. The three conferences with networks are maximized and ESPN keeps a prime part of the Big 10 while FOX, which has no teams to leverage, keeps leased property in the PAC and the rights to the BTN. IMO that is as good as it can get for the Big 10. Without such a move they could be locked out of their objectives in realignment because ESPN was quick to sew up the product they needed in order to gain this leverage over them.

If Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas wind up in ESPN conferences where can the Big 10 go to expand meaningfully? I'll wait. It really is just that serious for them.

The SEC: They would love to have the markets of Virginia and North Carolina within their footprint but would also settle for Oklahoma and Kansas, or Oklahoma and Texas for content and either pair would help academics in the SEC since Oklahoma is at our mean and both Kansas and Texas are a plus. The SEC situation is totally dependent upon what ESPN wants. That is why Slive has said we will take what plumbs fall into our lap.

The Big 12: I've said what they want. Texas wants its own conference, and if it can't have that they want their friends to be available to them in their new home whether by making the same move with Texas or being set up in an annual cross conference game with them. They will wait upon ESPN and the ACC's response to ESPN plans to learn their fate.

The ACC: If they are willing to do what is best for ESPN they will flourish because the network can really reconstruct them in a healthy fashion as a business model. But if the recalcitrant core of the ACC rebuffs such plans then the factions within that conference that almost blew it apart earlier could resurface in force. Three to five schools can no longer stand in the way of progress for 9 and half others. If they are accommodative the network will virtually assure their competitiveness in all areas, athletically, financially, and in merchandising. If that is what they choose then Texas and friends will pack their luggage for new digs. If the core rejects the progressive plans of their benefactor then their underdeveloped markets and their real value will be parsed out to where the network can make more of the various parts of that conference than they presently make as a whole. In that case the Big 10 expands to meet their needs, the SEC is sated, and Texas gains a new kingdom.

The PAC: The PAC is secure no matter what. But they could be maximized in value with the right additions. They will get those if the ACC refuses progress. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and T.C.U. could well head West to spread the coverage of the PACN in a very large and sustainable way. The SEC and Big 10 won't care because that will save them the travel miles in the lower Mid-West and they will be too busy counting the cash they will make off of former ACC product.

If the ACC comes to its senses then the PAC will have to nurture and grow product like New Mexico State, Nevada, San Diego State, and possibly Boise State. They might well pick up a piece of Texas but without picking up the national brand. But either way they survive and at least do as well if not better than they do now. The simple reduction of a P5 conference will increase their pay by 12.5 million a year and add bowl tie ins and open up cross conference slots for content games.

IN CONCLUSION:

ESPN and their plans versus what the ACC is willing to do will dictate how the future of college football plays out. And in the whizzing contests between the payer and the payee the payer always wins. So if you love the ACC encourage their old heads to play ball with Disney. You can't win by refusing to make yourself more profitable and it's a business now. So sit back accept their boons and enjoy the ride of the next few decades of American Collegiate Sports. Because, if you don't you might not have a conference at all in a few years.

The Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and PAC are way more profitable long term (or in the case of the Big 12 at least individual brands are) than you are. Obstacles to what everyone else wants won't be humored for very long. Otherwise buy a good overcoat for the Fall games in Madison, State College, Ann Arbor, and Columbus.

A good synopsis of what is really going on.

More of the same sky is falling for the Big Ten.

I really think that the Big12 or some form of the Big 12 will eventually add Colorado state & New Mexico.

(12-21-2014 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

More of the same sky is falling for the Big Ten.

I'll get you a helmet for Christmas. You're going to need it.

(12-21-2014 09:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

More of the same sky is falling for the Big Ten.

I'll get you a helmet for Christmas. You're going to need it.

You are wishing upon every star you see aren't you?

(12-21-2014 08:13 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I really think that the Big12 or some form of the Big 12 will eventually add Colorado state & New Mexico.

This is a fairly reasonable conclusion, however, New Mexico will have interest from the PAC 12 at some point too.

If the Texahoma 4 go to the PAC 12 and other leagues wind up at 16 or move higher, then the academic schools in new markets that PAC 12 would be okay with would be New Mexico and Hawaii at 18. They would have to decide about UNLV maybe at some point.

Until then, I see the most likely scenario being that the big 12 expands by 2 at a time until it has Cincy, Memphis, BYU and UCF. That sets up reasonable divisions. At that point, Kansas (and Virginia)leaves for the Big 10 and gets replaced with Colorado State or Boise State.

If Baylor (NC State, Virginia Tech and Miami or FSU) goes to the SEC at some point as many on here seem to believe, then the other of those two gets in.

Lets say the Texohoma 4 choose that point to move west (and I know Texas would prefer going east).

That leaves both the ACC and Big 12 at 10. ACC could try to steal some of the eastern schools from the Big 12. Cincy, Memphis, UCF, West Virginia to the ACC, leaving the Big 12 at 6 and the ACC at 14. The Big 12 has to expanded from the west now, and the Pac 12 and the Big 10 have to consider going to 18 like the SEC.

Lets say the Big 10 grabs UNC and Georgia Tech and moves Indiana west. The PAC has to expand or be left behind and now they are competing head to head with the Big 12. The Big 12 can get SDSU and Fresno State without a fight. PAC can probably get Hawaii easily as it has more value in that league.

The choices that are left are: UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, San Jose, Utah State, maybe Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Rice, UTEP, UTSA.

Here is where it gets interesting. ACC could snatch Houston/SMU/Tulane/UConn to get back to 16. Nevada, Wyoming and Utah State don't add any value since Big 12/PAC already have Utah schools.

So the reasonable options are: UNLV, New Mexico, Air Force, San Jose, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, UTSA. Lets say UTSA is still considered a tier lower, so its:

1) UNLV
2) New Mexico
3) Air Force - PAC already has colorado, Big 12 already has st, but they take Air Force
4) San Jose - Big 12 only.
5) Tulsa - Big 12 only since PAC has OK and St.
6) Rice
7) UTEP - Big 12 would be the only one interested.

That leaves UNLV, Rice and New Mexico. Would PAC take any or all of these? UNLV makes sense in PAC but are they prestigious enough academically? If they only take one I would think it would be New Mexico and let UNLV and Rice be 13 and 14 for the Big 12. But they could also go to 20 and leave the Big 12 at 12.

(12-21-2014 08:13 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I really think that the Big12 or some form of the Big 12 will eventually add Colorado state & New Mexico.

This is a fairly reasonable conclusion, however, New Mexico will have interest from the PAC 12 at some point too.

If the Texahoma 4 go to the PAC 12 and other leagues wind up at 16 or move higher, then the academic schools in new markets that PAC 12 would be okay with would be New Mexico and Hawaii at 18. They would have to decide about UNLV maybe at some point.

Until then, I see the most likely scenario being that the big 12 expands by 2 at a time until it has Cincy, Memphis, BYU and UCF. That sets up reasonable divisions. At that point, Kansas (and Virginia)leaves for the Big 10 and gets replaced with Colorado State or Boise State.

If Baylor (NC State, Virginia Tech and Miami or FSU) goes to the SEC at some point as many on here seem to believe, then the other of those two gets in.

Lets say the Texohoma 4 choose that point to move west (and I know Texas would prefer going east).

That leaves both the ACC and Big 12 at 10. ACC could try to steal some of the eastern schools from the Big 12. Cincy, Memphis, UCF, West Virginia to the ACC, leaving the Big 12 at 6 and the ACC at 14. The Big 12 has to expanded from the west now, and the Pac 12 and the Big 10 have to consider going to 18 like the SEC.

Lets say the Big 10 grabs UNC and Georgia Tech and moves Indiana west. The PAC has to expand or be left behind and now they are competing head to head with the Big 12. The Big 12 can get SDSU and Fresno State without a fight. PAC can probably get Hawaii easily as it has more value in that league.

The choices that are left are: UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, San Jose, Utah State, maybe Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Rice, UTEP, UTSA.

Here is where it gets interesting. ACC could snatch Houston/SMU/Tulane/UConn to get back to 16. Nevada, Wyoming and Utah State don't add any value since Big 12/PAC already have Utah schools.

So the reasonable options are: UNLV, New Mexico, Air Force, San Jose, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, UTSA. Lets say UTSA is still considered a tier lower, so its:

1) UNLV
2) New Mexico
3) Air Force - PAC already has colorado, Big 12 already has st, but they take Air Force
4) San Jose - Big 12 only.
5) Tulsa - Big 12 only since PAC has OK and St.
6) Rice
7) UTEP - Big 12 would be the only one interested.

That leaves UNLV, Rice and New Mexico. Would PAC take any or all of these? UNLV makes sense in PAC but are they prestigious enough academically? If they only take one I would think it would be New Mexico and let UNLV and Rice be 13 and 14 for the Big 12. But they could also go to 20 and leave the Big 12 at 12.

(12-22-2014 03:26 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(12-21-2014 08:13 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I really think that the Big12 or some form of the Big 12 will eventually add Colorado state & New Mexico.

This is a fairly reasonable conclusion, however, New Mexico will have interest from the PAC 12 at some point too.

If the Texahoma 4 go to the PAC 12 and other leagues wind up at 16 or move higher, then the academic schools in new markets that PAC 12 would be okay with would be New Mexico and Hawaii at 18. They would have to decide about UNLV maybe at some point.

Until then, I see the most likely scenario being that the big 12 expands by 2 at a time until it has Cincy, Memphis, BYU and UCF. That sets up reasonable divisions. At that point, Kansas (and Virginia)leaves for the Big 10 and gets replaced with Colorado State or Boise State.

If Baylor (NC State, Virginia Tech and Miami or FSU) goes to the SEC at some point as many on here seem to believe, then the other of those two gets in.

Lets say the Texohoma 4 choose that point to move west (and I know Texas would prefer going east).

That leaves both the ACC and Big 12 at 10. ACC could try to steal some of the eastern schools from the Big 12. Cincy, Memphis, UCF, West Virginia to the ACC, leaving the Big 12 at 6 and the ACC at 14. The Big 12 has to expanded from the west now, and the Pac 12 and the Big 10 have to consider going to 18 like the SEC.

Lets say the Big 10 grabs UNC and Georgia Tech and moves Indiana west. The PAC has to expand or be left behind and now they are competing head to head with the Big 12. The Big 12 can get SDSU and Fresno State without a fight. PAC can probably get Hawaii easily as it has more value in that league.

The choices that are left are: UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, Air Force, San Jose, Utah State, maybe Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Rice, UTEP, UTSA.

Here is where it gets interesting. ACC could snatch Houston/SMU/Tulane/UConn to get back to 16. Nevada, Wyoming and Utah State don't add any value since Big 12/PAC already have Utah schools.

So the reasonable options are: UNLV, New Mexico, Air Force, San Jose, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, UTSA. Lets say UTSA is still considered a tier lower, so its:

1) UNLV
2) New Mexico
3) Air Force - PAC already has colorado, Big 12 already has st, but they take Air Force
4) San Jose - Big 12 only.
5) Tulsa - Big 12 only since PAC has OK and St.
6) Rice
7) UTEP - Big 12 would be the only one interested.

That leaves UNLV, Rice and New Mexico. Would PAC take any or all of these? UNLV makes sense in PAC but are they prestigious enough academically? If they only take one I would think it would be New Mexico and let UNLV and Rice be 13 and 14 for the Big 12. But they could also go to 20 and leave the Big 12 at 12.

It is true that the Big 12 could reassemble itself in many different ways should Texas, Oklahoma and a few others leave. But, when the Longhorns and Sooners are gone so to will be the designation "Power Conference." So remember that what you may have at that time is some schools bleeding out to the AAC, MWC, or CUSA, or some form of merger with one or another of those conferences. But, any way you cut it whether they call themselves the Big 12 or not they will be seen and treated as any other G5 conference.

And if something like that happens the networks will have a hand in structuring the G5 just as surely as their hand is heavily upon the P5 realignment. What is ongoing is the product alignment for maximum exposure of brands and market penetration for advertising. In as much as it coincides with conference specifications you might still be able to call it "conference" realignment, but only obliquely. It is product restructuring by the networks (one network in particular).

Hail JRsec!

Good analysis overall, but I think you give way too much power to the networks involved. They will have a hand in it, sure, but if they really controlled things the way you imply then wouldn't certain programs within conferences be kicked to the curb?

Anyway, I want to focus in on your analysis from the weakest three conferences perspective. I realize you presented an analysis where they may be dependent upon what happens with the two major power conferences.

(12-21-2014 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 12: I've said what they want. Texas wants its own conference, and if it can't have that they want their friends to be available to them in their new home whether by making the same move with Texas or being set up in an annual cross conference game with them. They will wait upon ESPN and the ACC's response to ESPN plans to learn their fate.

Fully agree with your first statement. Texas wants its own fiefdom which is really the B12's best hopes of remaining in tact as is, or at worse case scenario expanding to 12 in the future. However, I can only see expansion to 12 or more in the future if the new CFP unofficially forces it (still very debatable even with what happened this year) or the ACC implodes (possible with further SEC or BiG expansion involving ACC teams).

As for your latter statement, interesting that you say "friends" plural. If Texas were to come on board fully, then that likely only leaves 1 friend spot to get to 16 or the ACC would have to be willing to go to 18 just for Texas. I don't see that happening because the ACC will want room for ND (and that most likely entails a spot for Navy as ND's price for full football membership).

If Texas were to be given an ND type deal, then that leaves two spots available for "friends" - I believe this is the Heinous One plan of taking Baylor and TCU. However, again, the hopes of possibly getting both ND and Texas on board fully would likely then mean expanding to 20 in the future. Again, I doubt the ACC will allow this to happen either, unless of course they see themselves losing 2-4 teams along the way to either the SEC or BiG or both (perhaps this is what you are implying with the rest of your analysis?) or having two programs decide enough is enough and give up 1-A football entirely.

Quote:The ACC: If they are willing to do what is best for ESPN they will flourish because the network can really reconstruct them in a healthy fashion as a business model. But if the recalcitrant core of the ACC rebuffs such plans then the factions within that conference that almost blew it apart earlier could resurface in force. Three to five schools can no longer stand in the way of progress for 9 and half others. If they are accommodative the network will virtually assure their competitiveness in all areas, athletically, financially, and in merchandising. If that is what they choose then Texas and friends will pack their luggage for new digs. If the core rejects the progressive plans of their benefactor then their underdeveloped markets and their real value will be parsed out to where the network can make more of the various parts of that conference than they presently make as a whole. In that case the Big 10 expands to meet their needs, the SEC is sated, and Texas gains a new kingdom.

I think this hinges more on the health of FSU, UNC, and Miami with a little of whether the ACC ever sees ND giving up their current semi-independent status mixed in slightly. That health looks bleak now, but a lot less bleak than it looked just two years ago. Time will tell.

Quote:The PAC: The PAC is secure no matter what. But they could be maximized in value with the right additions. They will get those if the ACC refuses progress. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and T.C.U. could well head West to spread the coverage of the PACN in a very large and sustainable way. The SEC and Big 10 won't care because that will save them the travel miles in the lower Mid-West and they will be too busy counting the cash they will make off of former ACC product.

I don't see the PAC expanding without one of the teams being either Texas or Oklahoma. Obviously they want both, I just don't see them expanding with TTU, TCU, Kansas and either Oklahoma State or Kansas State as some seem to imply lately - just so those teams have "homes" per se appears to be the reason given but not much thought given to why the PAC would want that. Remember, they basically already said no to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Quote:IN CONCLUSION:

ESPN and their plans versus what the ACC is willing to do will dictate how the future of college football plays out. And in the whizzing contests between the payer and the payee the payer always wins. So if you love the ACC encourage their old heads to play ball with Disney. You can't win by refusing to make yourself more profitable and it's a business now. So sit back accept their boons and enjoy the ride of the next few decades of American Collegiate Sports. Because, if you don't you might not have a conference at all in a few years.

The Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and PAC are way more profitable long term (or in the case of the Big 12 at least individual brands are) than you are. Obstacles to what everyone else wants won't be humored for very long. Otherwise buy a good overcoat for the Fall games in Madison, State College, Ann Arbor, and Columbus.

I think the above is basically accurate in terms of the fact that the two most powerful conferences BiG and SEC covet teams from the ACC moreso than teams from the B12. Only Texas and Oklahoma are desired by those two whereas "lesser programs" like UNC, UVA, VT, and NC State are desired in the ACC.

Which is why I still believe that a strong FSU, UNC, and Miami gets the ACC on firmer ground than most think. Whether that happens or not is still the question.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 04:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Hail JRsec!

Good analysis overall, but I think you give way too much power to the networks involved. They will have a hand in it, sure, but if they really controlled things the way you imply then wouldn't certain programs within conferences be kicked to the curb?

Anyway, I want to focus in on your analysis from the weakest three conferences perspective. I realize you presented an analysis where they may be dependent upon what happens with the two major power conferences.

(12-21-2014 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 12: I've said what they want. Texas wants its own conference, and if it can't have that they want their friends to be available to them in their new home whether by making the same move with Texas or being set up in an annual cross conference game with them. They will wait upon ESPN and the ACC's response to ESPN plans to learn their fate.

Fully agree with your first statement. Texas wants its own fiefdom which is really the B12's best hopes of remaining in tact as is, or at worse case scenario expanding to 12 in the future. However, I can only see expansion to 12 or more in the future if the new CFP unofficially forces it (still very debatable even with what happened this year) or the ACC implodes (possible with further SEC or BiG expansion involving ACC teams).

As for your latter statement, interesting that you say "friends" plural. If Texas were to come on board fully, then that likely only leaves 1 friend spot to get to 16 or the ACC would have to be willing to go to 18 just for Texas. I don't see that happening because the ACC will want room for ND (and that most likely entails a spot for Navy as ND's price for full football membership).

If Texas were to be given an ND type deal, then that leaves two spots available for "friends" - I believe this is the Heinous One plan of taking Baylor and TCU. However, again, the hopes of possibly getting both ND and Texas on board fully would likely then mean expanding to 20 in the future. Again, I doubt the ACC will allow this to happen either, unless of course they see themselves losing 2-4 teams along the way to either the SEC or BiG or both (perhaps this is what you are implying with the rest of your analysis?) or having two programs decide enough is enough and give up 1-A football entirely.

Quote:The ACC: If they are willing to do what is best for ESPN they will flourish because the network can really reconstruct them in a healthy fashion as a business model. But if the recalcitrant core of the ACC rebuffs such plans then the factions within that conference that almost blew it apart earlier could resurface in force. Three to five schools can no longer stand in the way of progress for 9 and half others. If they are accommodative the network will virtually assure their competitiveness in all areas, athletically, financially, and in merchandising. If that is what they choose then Texas and friends will pack their luggage for new digs. If the core rejects the progressive plans of their benefactor then their underdeveloped markets and their real value will be parsed out to where the network can make more of the various parts of that conference than they presently make as a whole. In that case the Big 10 expands to meet their needs, the SEC is sated, and Texas gains a new kingdom.

I think this hinges more on the health of FSU, UNC, and Miami with a little of whether the ACC ever sees ND giving up their current semi-independent status mixed in slightly. That health looks bleak now, but a lot less bleak than it looked just two years ago. Time will tell.

Quote:The PAC: The PAC is secure no matter what. But they could be maximized in value with the right additions. They will get those if the ACC refuses progress. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and T.C.U. could well head West to spread the coverage of the PACN in a very large and sustainable way. The SEC and Big 10 won't care because that will save them the travel miles in the lower Mid-West and they will be too busy counting the cash they will make off of former ACC product.

I don't see the PAC expanding without one of the teams being either Texas or Oklahoma. Obviously they want both, I just don't see them expanding with TTU, TCU, Kansas and either Oklahoma State or Kansas State as some seem to imply lately - just so those teams have "homes" per se appears to be the reason given but not much thought given to why the PAC would want that. Remember, they basically already said no to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Quote:IN CONCLUSION:

ESPN and their plans versus what the ACC is willing to do will dictate how the future of college football plays out. And in the whizzing contests between the payer and the payee the payer always wins. So if you love the ACC encourage their old heads to play ball with Disney. You can't win by refusing to make yourself more profitable and it's a business now. So sit back accept their boons and enjoy the ride of the next few decades of American Collegiate Sports. Because, if you don't you might not have a conference at all in a few years.

The Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and PAC are way more profitable long term (or in the case of the Big 12 at least individual brands are) than you are. Obstacles to what everyone else wants won't be humored for very long. Otherwise buy a good overcoat for the Fall games in Madison, State College, Ann Arbor, and Columbus.

I think the above is basically accurate in terms of the fact that the two most powerful conferences BiG and SEC covet teams from the ACC moreso than teams from the B12. Only Texas and Oklahoma are desired by those two whereas "lesser programs" like UNC, UVA, VT, and NC State are desired in the ACC.

Which is why I still believe that a strong FSU, UNC, and Miami gets the ACC on firmer ground than most think. Whether that happens or not is still the question.

Cheers,
Neil

Thanks for a thoughtful reply Neil.

One ancillary point that needs to be elucidated broadly is that the commandants at the three service academies have quietly agreed not to pursue P5 membership. I think Navy would remove itself from Notre Dame requiring a spot for them. The height and weight standards virtually insure that the offensive and defensive lines for the service academies will be outweighed close to 80 pounds per man by the average P5 school. They are courageous enough to schedule a few of those games a year but prefer to spread them out and essentially realize that the injury rate for their cadets would spike if they played a full conference schedule of such. Also playoffs don't really coincide with their calendar and their primary mission focus is to produce career military officers. Ideally they are suited to an Ivy League schedule, but realistically they will remain in a G5 conference and have a couple of those historic and special P5 games as long as the P5 permits such.

Ideally just Texas and N.D. coming on board in the ACC would be the route to take to 16. If Texas insisted on a couple of buddies for full membership then the best solution is one that was originally considered to be possible with the surrendering of only 2 present ACC schools. In the original SEC talk of gaining Virginia Tech and N.C. State a raid was never an option. The original concept was that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State or another Texas school would be the foursome to the ACC and the SEC would pick up the Wolfpack and Hokies for the markets. In that swap the ACC gains 35 million viewers, loses none, and the Irish could come in fully or not. If the Irish come in then only Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make the move and Louisville slips over to the new Western division.
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma, Texas

If the Horns want the N.D. deal then travel companions are really not an issue because they have 6 or 7 non conference games with which to schedule whomever.
In that scenario the ACC stays at the present 14 with two partials. The SEC would pick up Oklahoma and either another Texas school, Kansas (as a present ESPN product), or even West Virginia.

As for ESPN restructuring the ACC into the good business model what I was referring to specifically is what is detailed above. Cut redundant schools inside the footprint by two, but do so in a way that profits not only the ACC, but the SEC as well since both are essentially ESPN properties. I think this would be their preference. Content will drive all future value after the realignment/conference network market model is over. ESPN may like to bolster content with the market transfers and maximize both with one set of realignment moves. If you place Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma in the ACC and give the SECN the 19 million viewers in North Carolina and Virginia you take care of all of your priorities at once.

1. You morph the economic loser of the LHN into the largest existing TV market footprint for any conference and add between 32 to 35 million viewers to it depending upon what N.D. chooses to do. (Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas = 35 million, leave out Iowa and add Indiana and Catholics everywhere and you are unofficially north of that figure). Now an LHN becomes the ACCN and is fully developed essentially at the launch.

2. You add 19 million households to the most successful conference network opening ever for the SECN.

3. You take a conference that has had great difficulty (outside of F.S.U.) of garnering significant rating numbers and exponentially increase it by having content games involving Texas, Oklahoma, possibly N.D. fully, to mix and match with Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. Throw in Louisville who is a growing brand and Syracuse should your Orange right the ship and you have a ratings bonanza waiting to grow. Double down on that with Kansas vs Duke, Cuse, UNC, Pitt, etc in hoops and voila for the Winter network programming.

Such a move would either come at or near the end of the GOR for the Big 12. The overhead investment for ESPN is simply going all in on Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's T1 & T2 partial inventory which is currently shared with FOX, buying out a meager Oklahoma T3 deal with FOX, and elevating the pay accordingly to both the ACC and SEC. In the world of collecting sports inventory that's a steal. If you have to go to 18 to accommodate more of the Big 12 that's no problem either. Then you add T.C.U. and either Baylor or T. Tech to the ACC and let ESPN worry about paying for them and go to three divisions of 6. The SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia or Kansas State or Baylor if they want another Texas school and it's done. I just don't think we have to go to 18.

If however the Chapel Hill core is afraid of losing their power and don't want to consider any of the moves that would be money makers for the network then as I explained in the original post there are other ways for ESPN to turn a profit on that inventory and content value for them would be in putting football brands in the SEC and basketball brands in the Big 10 in exchange for a long term T1 contract renewal. In that scenario then 8 to the PAC is not so far fetched provided that all three AAU schools and the three national brands were involved. T.C.U. has secularized so I think they would be in for the demographic and Baylor would be out. WVU would be out of the question for the PAC and in such a case as having the Big 10 and SEC parse the ACC we would be looking at 60 total schools anyway. That is when the 3 x 20 model becomes very probable. You would have something like this:

Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Penn State
Boston College, Notre Dame/Pitt, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

Those back on the outside would be Wake Forest, Louisville, likely Pitt, Baylor, and West Virginia. This is why I believe it would be even more essential to strike the compromise that allows the SEC and ACC to absorb the best of the Big 12. It preserves Louisville, Pitt, and Wake Forest, and could preserve Baylor and West Virginia, or at least one of them with T.C.U. being in that mix now as well.


As for the Irish if we move to four conferences of power schools then I think we also move to a four champions model which will keep all 4 regions of the country involved at least tangentially until the semifinals are over. I think they would have to go all in with the ACC or risk being left out of the playoffs. The conference playoffs would be comprised of the 4 division winners and that would be the expansion of the playoffs. It would be internal of the conferences and not external to them.

For ESPN to control the two 16 member conferences proposed above and to pair them off against one another (in house so to speak) is nothing but a money maker. You are marrying the two most viewer saturated markets (SEC & Big 12) with the largest potential market and boosting content in the process. Even if FOX continues to lease 50% of the PAC content and tries to marry that more completely to the Big 10 property (that they might well own totally at that point) they will still finish way down the rankings for all but the biggest names playing each other. But even in this eventuality ESPN would still be leasing the other 50% of the PAC games. Having the superior share of two top conferences and 50% of the third while not being invested at all in the one that is the weakest in content, would not be an untenable situation.

If this season has shown us anything it is that the Big 10, who added for just markets, is already vulnerable in a large way to what will be a future shift to content. Wisconsin and Michigan and Penn State have to pick it up quickly because the Buckeyes can't carry the load by themselves.

And yes I do put heavy emphasis on the Network approach because that is what I truly believe to be the hand on the strings, .....and cash. And BTW, I don't think the networks are as concerned with kicking some programs to the curb as they are with needlessly adding to the meal ticket. That is why I don't think we will see expansion in the Big 12 and if it is the Big 12 that is parsed that we will not see all of the 10 programs find new homes. Maybe 9, maybe 8 of them do. As for the SEC and ACC I think they would like to see the footprints maximized and redundancy eliminated. Should Wake ever bow out, then Connecticut or Cincinnati could make some sense. Other than that they do realize for their stars to shine they need several in house patsies. Take care, JR

You guys put way too much emphasis on Texas having their own "fiefdom". It is some crazy outsider stuff that has built up over the years.

What the folks at Texas want is Self-Control. They don't need to control their own conference, they just need self-control. They need to be able to do their own thing. They went to The Big 12 about doing a conference network. No one else wanted to do it at the time so Texas went and did their own thing. They exercised their ability to be self reliant thanks to all that money.

If Texas moves to the ACC, currently they wouldn't even need to dismantle the LHN. If they did it as a partial member then they would be joining the top basketball league in the country. They would be only playing the ACC for 5-6 games a year. That would be an amount of self controlling their own scheduling to a degree that they havn't had for a long time.

Texas doesn't need to control everyone else, they just need to be able to control themselves.

Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know why you think it is odd that you don't see scenario's where the Big Ten would accept either Wake Forest or ECU. In fact you know why and it's not that odd. I used to talk about the likes of UNC to the Big Ten. That was when The Big 12 signed a GoR and the ACC hadn't done anything. That was also when there was plenty of smoke coming out of the ACC that schools like UNC were actually looking into all their options. They looked and they ended up liking what they were offered by ESPN to stick with the ACC.

I also dont understand how you are so off on this concept of "everyone needing a place at the table". What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about the Big 12 implosion scenario?

I will put it to ya simple. The ten teams are all bound to each other legally with the GoR. If eight of the ten teams use the voting system to dissolve the conference then indirectly they also nullify the GoR. That doesn't mean they nullify their legal responsibilities. They would be opening themselves up to massive legal consequences coming from those two left behind schools. Using an indirect method to get out of a contractual agreement that they were signatories upon? The only way out of that is to have all ten teams getting a place so that none of them can claim losses.

Why is the PAC in such a weak position? They went all in because they KNEW they have the weakest position due to geography, time zones AND the fact that the West Coast has the weakest college sports viewing percentages of all the regions. No one else was so blatantly in the open about their attempts to jump the gun. They tried and they failed thus it has become obvious that they have the weakest negotiating position.

The PAC taking such programs as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU allows them to move into the Central Time Zone. That is a whole new TV slot that they will be able to have PAC games showcased in. That means games for the PACN at that time slot. That means games for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 at that time slot. That means games for FOX/FOX1 at that time slot. How many weeks is a season? Fifteen weeks? That makes for a nice even number. Take 15 x 6 and what do you get? You get 90 new television slots that the PAC can potentially fill. That doesn't mean they will fill them all obviously but being ABLE to fill them means a lot when it comes to negotiating new contracts with Fox and ESPN. They also get to claim improved programming for the PACN during their future negotiations with all the carriers that carry it.

That is why PAC would inevitably go with it.

As to the ACC? I think you need to let go of the victim mentality and I say that with the utmost respect. You are a smart dude but ACC and Big East folks have gone through a lot when it comes to Realignment stuff. The ACC getting Texas, Baylor and either WVU or UConn is not "getting the worst of it" at all. Baylor is one of the best all around athletic departments in The Big 12. They excel in Men's football, Men's basketball and Women's basketball. Those are the Big 3 right there. If they excel in those three then it isn't a stretch to say they are going to be just fine in going from the conference with the least amount of supported sports to the conference with the most. Their Athletics mean a lot to them now.

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
That's is what Dodds says in one of his video interviews. That the teams would be selected and then they would divide into conferences.

(12-22-2014 08:36 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil,
That's is what Dodds says in one of his video interviews. That the teams would be selected and then they would divide into conferences.

Actually if the SEC/Big12/ACC simply merged we could add one school and stand in 4 divisions of 10. You would play 9 divisional games and could have a permanent crossover with each of the other 3 divisions, or rotate those other divisional games and have your 12 game roster. The championship would be the 4 division champs playing it off and the winner would be our school for the National Championship game. Let the Big 10 and PAC do the same and you avoid antitrust issues.

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-22-2014 09:21 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

If you will duly note the preferred move was simply Texas with either with or without the N.D. deal. In which case there are only additions to both the ACC and SEC from the Big 12.

I'm sorry but your claims about North Carolina are no different that the ones that were made, and are still made about the state of Texas, and to a lesser extent Florida. The issue remains that 45% of all ACC properties reside in those 2 states.

And you totally skip over the issue that the ACC does not have a network, and won't be able to acquire one until they buy back the sublet rights that FOX presently controls, can't saturate the viewing within its own markets, and can't drive ratings in football with anyone but F.S.U. Viewing is down for all sports, a generational thing I suppose, but basketball is fading much faster than football. Considering the Big 10 saturates its markets far better than does the ACC, already has its network in place, and is capitalizing on it, proceed with the status quo at your own risk. You need brands in football more than you need an also ran in basketball and a fading program in football. Just an observation.

BTW in the 3 x 20 you do get the most equitable division of properties. Something that may not be able to be achieved without the absorption of the both the ACC and Big 12. And there would be no duplicated expense for the networks since the PAC owns theirs, FOX controls the Big 10 and the SECN is ESPN's. Just a thought.

While ND and Texas joining full on for #15 and #16 assures the ACC's survival, no one should put their eggs in that basket, because even if they were willing, they would want major concessions besides $$$, since they could have had more $$$ simply by joining the BiG.

Which is why the best the ACC might hope for is that Texas gets tired of their fiefdom and is willing to do an ND type deal. Still not likely, but that is the best I see happening in that regard - at least for the ACC.

What FOX sports has purchased from ESPN of the ACC is chicken feed compared to FOX sports investment with the SEC prior to the start-up of their network. I don't see this as a major issue at all. The major issue remains ESPN's willingness to back it. The success of the SEC network will likely determine that. If the SECN is a huge success, ESPN will back it. But if it is only a moderate success, they will probably be wary of an ACCN.

Obviously brands in football would help the ACC and that is what ND and Texas would provide the ACC. And I agree that the ACC can't survive on FSU alone, which is why I still believe the key is from within with Miami and UNC, Miami for the brand and UNC that could become the ACC's third best brand. The ACC has the secondary brands in Clemson, VT, GT, and a rising Louisville already.

Time will tell.

As for 3 x 20, I stand by what I said previously. Determine 'x' and then from there package it altogether, then break down into divisions (not conferences) that are smaller and more compact. It's the conference mentality, imho, that needs to be overcome, not making super-duper-conferences.

Cheers,
Neil

There are many in the ACC that prefer that Notre Dame stay a partial member. It allows the Irish a great deal of freedom, and the ACC a large amount of security without a lot of interference. It has proved to be a good working relationship to date. The same relationship could be extended to Texas as a partial member, but I don't thing the ACC would want Texas a as full member. I do think however that the ACC would take Baylor and Kansas as 15 and 16 if the Longhorns joined as a partial.

(12-22-2014 07:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 07:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Why would the ACC (or even ESPN acting in the best interests of the ACC and not the interests of the SEC or BiG) want to cut redundant football in Virginia? I think that state is capable of having two programs moreso than Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi or Tennessee.

The redundancy only exists in North Carolina with 4 instead of 2 and in that regard because of ACC basketball they (both the hardliners in the ACC and ESPN) might entertain the notion of an ACC with UNC, NCST, and Duke but not Wake Forest.

Odd that I don't see scenarios whereby the SEC and BiG, both interested in getting a foothold in North Carolina, take on ECU and Wake.

I also find it interesting that this notion of everyone currently in a P5 conference needs a place at the table when the music stops but conferences like the BiG and SEC get the jewels while it is expected that the PAC and either the B12 or ACC take the programs the other two do not.

Anyway, my belief is that the BEST model is not conference based, but rather determine what 'x' number of teams are worthy of inclusion in the new system beyond the NCAA and then all of them market themselves to TV together, then break down divisions as in pro sports that make sense geographically and in terms of historical rivalries. Doubt it ever happens though.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know why you think it is odd that you don't see scenario's where the Big Ten would accept either Wake Forest or ECU. In fact you know why and it's not that odd. I used to talk about the likes of UNC to the Big Ten. That was when The Big 12 signed a GoR and the ACC hadn't done anything. That was also when there was plenty of smoke coming out of the ACC that schools like UNC were actually looking into all their options. They looked and they ended up liking what they were offered by ESPN to stick with the ACC.

I also dont understand how you are so off on this concept of "everyone needing a place at the table". What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about the Big 12 implosion scenario?

I will put it to ya simple. The ten teams are all bound to each other legally with the GoR. If eight of the ten teams use the voting system to dissolve the conference then indirectly they also nullify the GoR. That doesn't mean they nullify their legal responsibilities. They would be opening themselves up to massive legal consequences coming from those two left behind schools. Using an indirect method to get out of a contractual agreement that they were signatories upon? The only way out of that is to have all ten teams getting a place so that none of them can claim losses.

There's nothing that says they can't wait until the GOR expires to then not re-up. The only teams that matter in either the ACC or the B12 will still have value until then. And besides, fans seem way more impatient than the conferences themselves in terms of expansion at this point in time. The new BiG TV contract and a few years of the CFP may spur the next round earlier than expected, but it isn't a given that will happen either.

Quote:Why is the PAC in such a weak position? They went all in because they KNEW they have the weakest position due to geography, time zones AND the fact that the West Coast has the weakest college sports viewing percentages of all the regions. No one else was so blatantly in the open about their attempts to jump the gun. They tried and they failed thus it has become obvious that they have the weakest negotiating position.

The PAC taking such programs as Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU allows them to move into the Central Time Zone. That is a whole new TV slot that they will be able to have PAC games showcased in. That means games for the PACN at that time slot. That means games for ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 at that time slot. That means games for FOX/FOX1 at that time slot. How many weeks is a season? Fifteen weeks? That makes for a nice even number. Take 15 x 6 and what do you get? You get 90 new television slots that the PAC can potentially fill. That doesn't mean they will fill them all obviously but being ABLE to fill them means a lot when it comes to negotiating new contracts with Fox and ESPN. They also get to claim improved programming for the PACN during their future negotiations with all the carriers that carry it.

That is why PAC would inevitably go with it.

The PAC already could have moved into the Central Time Zone by taking Oklahoma and Oklahoma State prior to the GOR, if they had wanted. Obviously they are waiting on a bigger prize, Texas. If Texas doesn't re-up when the GOR expires and decides to join either the BiG/SEC or goes east to the ACC in some ND type deal, then wait to see what the PAC does.

I'll bet you right now, it will not be Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech and TCU.

Quote:As to the ACC? I think you need to let go of the victim mentality and I say that with the utmost respect. You are a smart dude but ACC and Big East folks have gone through a lot when it comes to Realignment stuff. The ACC getting Texas, Baylor and either WVU or UConn is not "getting the worst of it" at all. Baylor is one of the best all around athletic departments in The Big 12. They excel in Men's football, Men's basketball and Women's basketball. Those are the Big 3 right there. If they excel in those three then it isn't a stretch to say they are going to be just fine in going from the conference with the least amount of supported sports to the conference with the most. Their Athletics mean a lot to them now.

Not disparaging either Baylor or WVU, who both have excellent athletic departments. Just questioning this notion by some that the ACC should accept their fate and offer up onto the altar for sacrifice UNC and UVA to the altar of the BiG and/or VT and NC State to the altar of the SEC and in return get a Baylor and WVU and be quiet about it.

I realize your stance on this usual comes with the caveat of getting Texas in an ND type deal, but not all scenarios out there have this as the foundation of it.

By the way, as a former Big East fan, if this were to happen I would be fine with TCU and WVU. I just know that the ACC itself will not be.

Cheers,
Neil