It's not the obvious and I quite succinctly pointed that out. Travel to Minnesota and Indiana once every six years versus the every other year travel to Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State right now? You overpush the travel issue. Texas doesn't care so much about Away games. It's home games that matter. You keep pushing none issues because they sound good. It's not that I claim you hate the Big Ten, but you always tout the negatives while only touting positives of SEC membership. It is not out of line for me to call you on this. It is out of line for you to try and pigeon hole my responses with this straw man labeling.

Once again, Texas is not following Texas A&M. All this flailing and wailing still hasn't changed that and you STILL don't address it. Write as many paragraphs as you like, you aren't changing this very real aspect on the ground there in Texas.

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

H1, pointing out the obvious is not attacking the Big 10. Travel for fan bases will be the second leading factor in any realignment, outside of money. The only ones willing to place their fans at a travel disadvantage are schools that fear being left out altogether. That's not Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Stating that the Big 10 has 6 content schools is also not an attack on the Big 10. Every time anybody engages your arguments with a counter position you claim foul and accuse them of hating the Big 10. You should be better than to resort to such a tactic.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.
I don't know how long it takes to absorb that fact for posters on this board, but the ACC with Louisville took the best available revenue producer and a product that enhanced their bottom line. Mighty Texas, the so called academic snob, pushed for West Virginia because they add the most to the bottom line (and because the networks favored the move). The wonderful California schools took Utah (nothing against the Utes but they aren't top 25 nationally in academics) and everyone tends to forget they took Arizona State not too many years ago. The Big 10 ignored the fact that Nebraska was losing AAU status to land a brand that enhanced their content value. So spare me the academic garbage please. State funds are exhausted in many states, Federal money is tightening, the cost has exceeded demand, and these schools are looking for 1 thing, money! If that can be acquired without rankling or inconveniencing the fan base then wonderful.

As to Lurker's suggestion that the SEC may go up to 24 to get the right schools, I think that might be possible but what they would really like to stop with would be 20. If they went after Texas and Kansas for instance with both being AAU then I believe adding Kansas is really an enticement for possible expansion down the road when income disparities may fuel more movement in 12 years. The Jayhawks (a bit out of the SEC culture there) signals to me that the SEC may one day hope to expand to 20 with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and either an Oklahoma or Florida State for content, or Georgia Tech for market consolidation and academics.

Once we are in a P4 any further moves will be for content (the only remaining factor for upping one's contract), or perhaps to consolidate markets if the payout model switches from a footprint model to either an actual household count, or a saturation model.

15 or 20 is the ideal size, but it would be near impossible with the SEC getting UT, OU, UNC and VT, and with the SEC having 4 divisions of 6 teams, it would be well worth it.

What many forget is the scheduling burden intra state rivalries would be when conferences go to 9 conference games, triply so at 10. For that reason, making UGA/GT, USC/Clemson, UF/FSU, and KY/Louisville conference games are going to have a lot more appeal.

The conventional wisdom on this issue is that the four current SEC teams would not want their instate rival upgraded into their conference where they would, theoretically, benefit in recruiting. The problem with that theory is FSU, Clemson and Louisville are recruiting quite well without the SEC label, especially the first two. GT's recruiting is an anomaly due to their Triple Option offense. The SEC making more money than their rival is a big deal, but the profits of ESPN are way more important, as is the desire of every school to make more money.

As to some speculation that the value to conferences and media deals would be maximized by two instate rivals being in 2 different conferences, that requires cooperation, or at least amicable negotiations, between media companies such as ESPN and FOX. While sharing is fine and dandy when two media companies such as ESPN and FOX are splitting an existing conference media rights, like the Big 12 or PAC 12, such is much harder when a conference is disintegrating and both really want the biggest schools. The same is true doubly when a media company already owns the rights, or most of them, to both schools of an instate rivalry, such as ESPN owning FSU/UF, USC/Clemson, UGA/GT, etc. I know these games are not always on an ESPN channel, but they factor into the pot of choices for CBS and which games may be sold for profit by ESPN. Why would ESPN want to give 1/2 of these games to FOX? Now consider the same with ACC rivals where ESPN owns all the rights.

Moreover, when conferences fall apart, content comes into play more than just the historical strength and market appeal of individual schools. There are content value analysis both on the schools being added and the ones that might be left behind. For all the value TAMU added to the SEC, there is still much more value still to be had by bringing in UT and OU as their historic rivals. The same is true for many other schools such as FSU, Clemson, VT, UNC, NCS, GT, UVA, etc.

As to conference network carriage fees, while doubling up in small states would be a negative in that carriage rates are now set state and only one quality school is needed to obtain carriage rates in such states, there is more to the analysis. Instate rivalries that are extremely important to their fan bases but maybe not to the nation at large most years, such as VT/UVA and UNC/NCS are perfect matchups to put on the SECN when carriage fees are renegotiated. Now that the SECN is established what better way to increase leverage in such negotiations then to put such games on SECN where their value would be much greater than on other ESPN channels?

Do not underestimate the extra value instate rivalries could bring to carriage fee negotiations. If TAMU is worth $1.40 per household in Texas, what would TAMU and UT be worth? $2.00? And if TAMU will be worth $2.00 by themselves when the renegotiations occur, what would both be worth at that time? $3.00? More? Having the RRR every year solely be an ESPN property? Please remember that a 35 cent increase in carriage fees in Texas would bring as much a new state due to its population. The populations of North Carolina and Virginia supports 2 teams if the carriage rates increase 50 cents in such states by having a second school. Even the states of South Carolina and Oklahoma would be profitable at $4.00 carriage rates. Put the Clemson and OSU games on the SECN and you would get it in those 2 football intense states with their heated rivalries.

I predict if the SEC gets UT and not a schools from NC and VA, or vice versa, then the SEC likely stands at 16, maybe 20, but if the SEC gets UT, UNC and VT, the SEC goes to 24.

Lurker Above

(03-06-2015 08:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's not the obvious and I quite succinctly pointed that out. Travel to Minnesota and Indiana once every six years versus the every other year travel to Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State right now? You overpush the travel issue. Texas doesn't care so much about Away games. It's home games that matter. You keep pushing none issues because they sound good. It's not that I claim you hate the Big Ten, but you always tout the negatives while only touting positives of SEC membership. It is not out of line for me to call you on this. It is out of line for you to try and pigeon hole my responses with this straw man labeling.

Once again, Texas is not following Texas A&M. All this flailing and wailing still hasn't changed that and you STILL don't address it. Write as many paragraphs as you like, you aren't changing this very real aspect on the ground there in Texas.

You do not know that. There has been negativity expressed by UT on such a move, mostly be the fan base, but it is ridiculous to be so dogmatic when ESPN, the SEC and UT would make the most money together than UT, and especially ESPN, would make in any other scenario. For all the value UT vs USC and Oregon, or UT vs Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc,, would bring, such would be dwarfed by what UT with OU in the SEC would bring with the many strong programs in close geographical proximity. The SEC could put TAMU/UT on the SECN and that alone would match the entire value Texas could make in the B1G. Money talks, bullshite walks. We are talking really big money. Nobody can predict the future, but never bet against the money.

(03-06-2015 09:19 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 08:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's not the obvious and I quite succinctly pointed that out. Travel to Minnesota and Indiana once every six years versus the every other year travel to Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State right now? You overpush the travel issue. Texas doesn't care so much about Away games. It's home games that matter. You keep pushing none issues because they sound good. It's not that I claim you hate the Big Ten, but you always tout the negatives while only touting positives of SEC membership. It is not out of line for me to call you on this. It is out of line for you to try and pigeon hole my responses with this straw man labeling.

Once again, Texas is not following Texas A&M. All this flailing and wailing still hasn't changed that and you STILL don't address it. Write as many paragraphs as you like, you aren't changing this very real aspect on the ground there in Texas.

You do not know that. There has been negativity expressed by UT on such a move, mostly be the fan base, but it is ridiculous to be so dogmatic when ESPN, the SEC and UT would make the most money together than UT, and especially ESPN, would make in any other scenario. For all the value UT vs USC and Oregon, or UT vs Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc,, would bring, such would be dwarfed by what UT with OU in the SEC would bring with the many strong programs in close geographical proximity. The SEC could put TAMU/UT on the SECN and that alone would match the entire value Texas could make in the B1G when comparing carriage fees. Money talks, bullshite walks. We are talking really big money. Nobody can predict the future, but never bet against the money.

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

That's irrelevant. Texas will do what it wants to do. A&M might think that way but not Texas.

It will be amount money, future success and prestige. Right now, the Big 12 is the best platform for all of that.

(03-05-2015 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:34 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  If Texas does decide to leave the Big 12, it will not be for the SEC.

Agreed, most likely would be the Pac-12 where some sort of merger would take place between the LHN and the Pac-12 Networks. I'd bet ESPN would get a significant but not necessarily majority stake in Pac-12 Networks in exchange for negotiating carriage deals on their behalf and of course integrating the network with their other properties the way they had LHN and have SECN.

Why?:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/05/the-pac-12s-financial-future-comparing-tv-revenue-to-the-sec-and-big-ten/

And to answer the traditional dismissals he accounts for the 50% contracted split between ESPN and the SEC following the first two years that cover start up costs, and the reporter reduces the actual estimates by another entity.

I was just about to link that.

Texas to Pac-12 is simply too great a burden without several schools going and I have my doubts that four Central time zone schools cuts the mustard.

The thing about LHN is that while the message board trope is often bad ol Texas starting a network, Texas sold two things to ESPN. The rights to a limited slate of games and other was the right to use UT's logos and trademarks, equity isn't in play unless targets are met. That is blessing/curse for UT.

Texas is viable to be independent in football but they a lack a viable home for sports other than football (though my offer on behalf of the Sun Belt stands).

I don't see a fix for the Pac-12 without coming into the Central time zone and if you aren't adding Texas football and Kansas hoops I don't see the money being there.

LHN complicates most anything Texas might want to do.

Pac-12, Big 10, or SEC, the LHN deal prohibits Texas from participating in their conference networks unless ESPN agrees and in the case of Pac-12 and Big 10 there appears to be no reason for ESPN to consent unless ESPN is getting equity in their networks. In the case of the SEC, ESPN agreeing seems easy enough, but getting the SEC on board if it remains independently branded seems a long shot. ESPN is on the hook until July 1, 2031 and doesn't have a great deal of incentive to give up that branding unless its getting a stake in something it doesn't have like P12 or B1G networks.

The deal is more problematic than the GOR which expires June 30, 2025. Under GOR arguably nothing happens if TV continues to pay at the current rate and would at most let Fox grab two or three games if Texas joined SEC or ACC.

An interesting possible wrinkle. If Fox grabs the B1G rights up for bid, ESPN suddenly has incentive to come to the table if Texas wants to join the Big 10. The LHN deal plus their claim to a couple top tier games under the GOR gives ESPN an incentive to see Texas join the Big 10 to get a piece of the Big 10 and use the LHN deal to trade for more B1G content.

With the ACC complaining about wanting their own network, agreeing to take Texas on Notre Dame terms in return for speeding it up could have some merit but the ACC seems to have little wiggle room unless they want to go really big.

The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

One obvious flaw-Wilner thinks the payout for previously sold rights continues indefinitely. It almost certainly is all gone within 5 years. That adds 750k to the Pac 12 number.

I'm also not sure that $33 million projection for the Big 10 (and it is a "projection") isn't "conference distributions" instead of "TV distributions." That makes a significant difference if it includes the NCAA tourney and other conference revenues. Also, the Pac 12 makes an extra million from the college football playoff because they have 12 schools instead of 14.

(03-06-2015 12:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The interesting part of the LHN deal is that if Texas goes independent ESPN has first negotiation rights AND has right to match any offer Texas receives.

If ESPN wins the next B1G deal it may well make sense for ESPN to demolish the Big XII. Find a home for five schools other than Texas, no conference, no GOR, Fox loses the programming. Then you either get Texas into the conference of their choosing or help Texas form a new league out of the Big XII wreckage that Texas doesn't participate in for football (or does an ND and plays four games) and they get 100% of Texas football.

I don't see it. ESPN doesn't care that much about taking Fox's Big 12 rights away. Those rights are limited to football and mostly on FS1 which in all likelihood will never be a real threat to ESPN. It's not like they would be depriving Fox of NFL rights, which is about the "reward" you'd have to get to make it worth it to have ESPN's fingerprints all over the destruction of the Big 12.

Looking at the indy possibility, that's a good long-term play for ESPN. IMO, UT as a football indy would be more valuable than ND as a football indy, and if that ever comes to pass it falls right into ESPN's lap.

True. In fact, ESPN didn't have enough space to televise all the Pac 12 games. That's why they agreed to the idea of splitting it with Fox.

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

H1, pointing out the obvious is not attacking the Big 10. Travel for fan bases will be the second leading factor in any realignment, outside of money. The only ones willing to place their fans at a travel disadvantage are schools that fear being left out altogether. That's not Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Stating that the Big 10 has 6 content schools is also not an attack on the Big 10. Every time anybody engages your arguments with a counter position you claim foul and accuse them of hating the Big 10. You should be better than to resort to such a tactic.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.
I don't know how long it takes to absorb that fact for posters on this board, but the ACC with Louisville took the best available revenue producer and a product that enhanced their bottom line. Mighty Texas, the so called academic snob, pushed for West Virginia because they add the most to the bottom line (and because the networks favored the move). The wonderful California schools took Utah (nothing against the Utes but they aren't top 25 nationally in academics) and everyone tends to forget they took Arizona State not too many years ago. The Big 10 ignored the fact that Nebraska was losing AAU status to land a brand that enhanced their content value. So spare me the academic garbage please. State funds are exhausted in many states, Federal money is tightening, the cost has exceeded demand, and these schools are looking for 1 thing, money! If that can be acquired without rankling or inconveniencing the fan base then wonderful.

As to Lurker's suggestion that the SEC may go up to 24 to get the right schools, I think that might be possible but what they would really like to stop with would be 20. If they went after Texas and Kansas for instance with both being AAU then I believe adding Kansas is really an enticement for possible expansion down the road when income disparities may fuel more movement in 12 years. The Jayhawks (a bit out of the SEC culture there) signals to me that the SEC may one day hope to expand to 20 with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and either an Oklahoma or Florida State for content, or Georgia Tech for market consolidation and academics.

Once we are in a P4 any further moves will be for content (the only remaining factor for upping one's contract), or perhaps to consolidate markets if the payout model switches from a footprint model to either an actual household count, or a saturation model. The only other motivation for future realignment will be from the networks as they look for the minimum mix of content schools to achieve the markets they want. In some cases that might call for additions to existing conferences, but in most cases it will be for consolidation. So what I am suggesting is the winnowing of the existing P5 schools down to 60 or even 56 top revenue generators. But that process will occur a bit more naturally and over a larger time frame than the realignment moves that started up again in force in 1991-2.

For Texas, its not really "academic snobbery." Its the belief (fair or not) that almost all the SEC schools would admit marginal students that Texas wouldn't touch (and Texas athletes are already weaker students than the Texas average) and that SEC schools are more prone to cheat. I'm not trying to start a debate on that point, just saying that is a belief that drives the Texas thinking.

bullet gets the Burnt Orange mindset. Fair or not, the perception of the SEC academically is not attractive to the folk at Texas that make the decisions. I do agree that UT football independence would be VERY well received in Austin ... if it were believed that the Horns could make their way into the playoff from that position. The latter remains murky right now but if the playoff were expanded ...

ESPN could bump up the SEC academic standing if that is the goal

SEC 24

N: UVA, Vtech, Unc, Duke, Clem, S Car

E: UK, Ut, vandy, UGA, Gtech, UF

S: Ala, Aub, ole miss, MSU, LSU, Ark

W: Texas, T A&M, T Tech, OU, KU, Missouri

(03-06-2015 11:03 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ESPN could bump up the SEC academic standing if that is the goal

SEC 24

N: UVA, Vtech, Unc, Duke, Clem, S Car

E: UK, Ut, vandy, UGA, Gtech, UF

S: Ala, Aub, ole miss, MSU, LSU, Ark

W: Texas, T A&M, T Tech, OU, KU, Missouri

Well that sure would solve Comcast's content issue.

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

It is truly amazing how some of the SEC promoters postulate the same stuff over and over.......especially Texas to the SEC.

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.

But they do exist in college athletics.

Remember the leadership has known since 1967 an extra game after the bowls would produce greater revenue. A four team proposal came before the NCAA in 1975 that was defeated by the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-8.

In 1994 they had a proposal in hand that would greatly increase revenue nothing speculative about that one and it went no where.

Slive even proposed a final post-bowl game to the BCS and couldn't get a second on the motion.

(03-06-2015 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  One obvious flaw-Wilner thinks the payout for previously sold rights continues indefinitely. It almost certainly is all gone within 5 years. That adds 750k to the Pac 12 number.

I couldn't figure out where Wilner was going with that one, either. Your assumption is better.

The TL;DR version of Wilner's series is this: The ESPN/Fox money is good, but Larry Scott screwed up by not partnering with ESPN or Fox on PTN (on top of the fact that his team botched negotiations with DirecTV). Many of us have been saying that for three years, but Wilner is just now realizing that he was premature when he fawned all over Scott for keeping full ownership of PTN.

(03-06-2015 09:44 AM)bullet Wrote:  I'm also not sure that $33 million projection for the Big 10 (and it is a "projection") isn't "conference distributions" instead of "TV distributions." That makes a significant difference if it includes the NCAA tourney and other conference revenues.

Yeah, I think the Big Ten projections given to Maryland and Rutgers were for conference distributions, not just TV money.

To be fair, Direct is a tough nut to crack.

ESPN had a hard time getting LHN and SECN on.

(03-06-2015 11:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.

But they do exist in college athletics.

Remember the leadership has known since 1967 an extra game after the bowls would produce greater revenue. A four team proposal came before the NCAA in 1975 that was defeated by the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-8.

In 1994 they had a proposal in hand that would greatly increase revenue nothing speculative about that one and it went no where.

Slive even proposed a final post-bowl game to the BCS and couldn't get a second on the motion.

Apples and oranges on the calendar dates. In 1975 endowments were drawing as much as 9% or higher on interest. In 1994 the Dot.com bubble had not yet popped. This is 2015 and we still aren't over 2008. There is no interest to be able to pull revenue off of your endowment without damaging the principal. In 1975 the WWII generation, the most generous in this nations history were at the peak of their giving. By 1994 those numbers had dwindled, but not stocks. So endowments were still yielding disposable income in places where under-funding was beginning to bite. Today the WWII generations is statistically gone. The Boomer's give 25% of what their parents gave and are the first generation of Americans to hit their retirement years with debt. Their children who will inherit much less than their parents did have even less disposable income due to the inflation of those things we don't count in inflation, food and fuel (although the latter is temporarily down the former has risen 30% in the last 6 years). Their educations cost more and their rate of return on that is much less. So we have what we have, large institutions that can't draw on endowments without long term damage, and who are getting cut at the state funding level while federal funding is getting harder to obtain as well. That recipe has given us what we have now, a cash grab called realignment where the sports revenue stream is one of only a very few sources that can yet be developed. That is why after decades of relative stasis, the sleepy little world of college sports suddenly erupted into what we have experienced in the last two decades, a movement that has not yet culminated although it may have peaked.

So back to your examples there was no movement when there was no need. And I say to you stop looking backwards to argue a point and look at what is before your eyes today. Larger conferences, likely an increased number of conference games, a 4 team playoff instead of the plus one (same difference in number of games), and the high degree of likelihood that we move to conference semis in a few years. Add to that the separation from the G5, the increased frequency of market grabs, the shattering of old rivalries, and the constant pursuit of revenue and by your own examples you have proven my points. The need for revenue has brought it all about. That's why for Texas, or any school, business now supersedes old allegiances, and antiquated notions of academia and its majesty. I'm all about it, but it just isn't the factor it was 40 years ago.

(03-06-2015 09:03 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

H1, pointing out the obvious is not attacking the Big 10. Travel for fan bases will be the second leading factor in any realignment, outside of money. The only ones willing to place their fans at a travel disadvantage are schools that fear being left out altogether. That's not Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas. Stating that the Big 10 has 6 content schools is also not an attack on the Big 10. Every time anybody engages your arguments with a counter position you claim foul and accuse them of hating the Big 10. You should be better than to resort to such a tactic.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.
I don't know how long it takes to absorb that fact for posters on this board, but the ACC with Louisville took the best available revenue producer and a product that enhanced their bottom line. Mighty Texas, the so called academic snob, pushed for West Virginia because they add the most to the bottom line (and because the networks favored the move). The wonderful California schools took Utah (nothing against the Utes but they aren't top 25 nationally in academics) and everyone tends to forget they took Arizona State not too many years ago. The Big 10 ignored the fact that Nebraska was losing AAU status to land a brand that enhanced their content value. So spare me the academic garbage please. State funds are exhausted in many states, Federal money is tightening, the cost has exceeded demand, and these schools are looking for 1 thing, money! If that can be acquired without rankling or inconveniencing the fan base then wonderful.

As to Lurker's suggestion that the SEC may go up to 24 to get the right schools, I think that might be possible but what they would really like to stop with would be 20. If they went after Texas and Kansas for instance with both being AAU then I believe adding Kansas is really an enticement for possible expansion down the road when income disparities may fuel more movement in 12 years. The Jayhawks (a bit out of the SEC culture there) signals to me that the SEC may one day hope to expand to 20 with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, and either an Oklahoma or Florida State for content, or Georgia Tech for market consolidation and academics.

Once we are in a P4 any further moves will be for content (the only remaining factor for upping one's contract), or perhaps to consolidate markets if the payout model switches from a footprint model to either an actual household count, or a saturation model.

15 or 20 is the ideal size, but it would be near impossible with the SEC getting UT, OU, UNC and VT, and with the SEC having 4 divisions of 6 teams, it would be well worth it.

What many forget is the scheduling burden intra state rivalries would be when conferences go to 9 conference games, triply so at 10. For that reason, making UGA/GT, USC/Clemson, UF/FSU, and KY/Louisville conference games are going to have a lot more appeal.

The conventional wisdom on this issue is that the four current SEC teams would not want their instate rival upgraded into their conference where they would, theoretically, benefit in recruiting. The problem with that theory is FSU, Clemson and Louisville are recruiting quite well without the SEC label, especially the first two. GT's recruiting is an anomaly due to their Triple Option offense. The SEC making more money than their rival is a big deal, but the profits of ESPN are way more important, as is the desire of every school to make more money.

As to some speculation that the value to conferences and media deals would be maximized by two instate rivals being in 2 different conferences, that requires cooperation, or at least amicable negotiations, between media companies such as ESPN and FOX. While sharing is fine and dandy when two media companies such as ESPN and FOX are splitting an existing conference media rights, like the Big 12 or PAC 12, such is much harder when a conference is disintegrating and both really want the biggest schools. The same is true doubly when a media company already owns the rights, or most of them, to both schools of an instate rivalry, such as ESPN owning FSU/UF, USC/Clemson, UGA/GT, etc. I know these games are not always on an ESPN channel, but they factor into the pot of choices for CBS and which games may be sold for profit by ESPN. Why would ESPN want to give 1/2 of these games to FOX? Now consider the same with ACC rivals where ESPN owns all the rights.

Moreover, when conferences fall apart, content comes into play more than just the historical strength and market appeal of individual schools. There are content value analysis both on the schools being added and the ones that might be left behind. For all the value TAMU added to the SEC, there is still much more value still to be had by bringing in UT and OU as their historic rivals. The same is true for many other schools such as FSU, Clemson, VT, UNC, NCS, GT, UVA, etc.

As to conference network carriage fees, while doubling up in small states would be a negative in that carriage rates are now set state and only one quality school is needed to obtain carriage rates in such states, there is more to the analysis. Instate rivalries that are extremely important to their fan bases but maybe not to the nation at large most years, such as VT/UVA and UNC/NCS are perfect matchups to put on the SECN when carriage fees are renegotiated. Now that the SECN is established what better way to increase leverage in such negotiations then to put such games on SECN where their value would be much greater than on other ESPN channels?

Do not underestimate the extra value instate rivalries could bring to carriage fee negotiations. If TAMU is worth $1.40 per household in Texas, what would TAMU and UT be worth? $2.00? And if TAMU will be worth $2.00 by themselves when the renegotiations occur, what would both be worth at that time? $3.00? More? Having the RRR every year solely be an ESPN property? Please remember that a 35 cent increase in carriage fees in Texas would bring as much a new state due to its population. The populations of North Carolina and Virginia supports 2 teams if the carriage rates increase 50 cents in such states by having a second school. Even the states of South Carolina and Oklahoma would be profitable at $4.00 carriage rates. Put the Clemson and OSU games on the SECN and you would get it in those 2 football intense states with their heated rivalries.

I predict if the SEC gets UT and not a schools from NC and VA, or vice versa, then the SEC likely stands at 16, maybe 20, but if the SEC gets UT, UNC and VT, the SEC goes to 24.

Lurker Above

If things go larger than 20 then I think we will be looking at essentially 2 conferences under one umbrella, at least as a transitional stage to a broader grouping. If the ACC moved to 16 or 18 and the SEC did the same and ESPN utilized Charlotte for the ACCN and Dallas for the SECN and packaged and sold them both at an increased rate within the combined footprints then we would in essence become the same product in fact if not in name. I think that is the comfortable place we are headed. Then if we broke into 6 to 8 divisions and scheduled two games a year OOC with each other the bonds would cement over the years. The formation of our own combined AAU associations and shared research projects would strengthen that further, and together we would have more leverage. The brands are still too important for an all out merger. But, in the end what together we could command in the market place would be immense. So immense that in earnings, attendance, and branding the combined totals of the SEC/ACC/ and Big 12 remnants would dwarf that of the Big 10 and PAC. And that has to keep some people up at night, especially if they live North of Kentucky and West of Pittsburgh.

(03-06-2015 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 11:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.

But they do exist in college athletics.

Remember the leadership has known since 1967 an extra game after the bowls would produce greater revenue. A four team proposal came before the NCAA in 1975 that was defeated by the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-8.

In 1994 they had a proposal in hand that would greatly increase revenue nothing speculative about that one and it went no where.

Slive even proposed a final post-bowl game to the BCS and couldn't get a second on the motion.

Apples and oranges on the calendar dates. In 1975 endowments were drawing as much as 9% or higher on interest. In 1994 the Dot.com bubble had not yet popped. This is 2015 and we still aren't over 2008. There is no interest to be able to pull revenue off of your endowment without damaging the principal. In 1975 the WWII generation, the most generous in this nations history were at the peak of their giving. By 1994 those numbers had dwindled, but not stocks. So endowments were still yielding disposable income in places where under-funding was beginning to bite. Today the WWII generations is statistically gone. The Boomer's give 25% of what their parents gave and are the first generation of Americans to hit their retirement years with debt. Their children who will inherit much less than their parents did have even less disposable income due to the inflation of those things we don't count in inflation, food and fuel (although the latter is temporarily down the former has risen 30% in the last 6 years). Their educations cost more and their rate of return on that is much less. So we have what we have, large institutions that can't draw on endowments without long term damage, and who are getting cut at the state funding level while federal funding is getting harder to obtain as well. That recipe has given us what we have now, a cash grab called realignment where the sports revenue stream is one of only a very few sources that can yet be developed. That is why after decades of relative stasis, the sleepy little world of college sports suddenly erupted into what we have experienced in the last two decades, a movement that has not yet culminated although it may have peaked.

So back to your examples there was no movement when there was no need. And I say to you stop looking backwards to argue a point and look at what is before your eyes today. Larger conferences, likely an increased number of conference games, a 4 team playoff instead of the plus one (same difference in number of games), and the high degree of likelihood that we move to conference semis in a few years. Add to that the separation from the G5, the increased frequency of market grabs, the shattering of old rivalries, and the constant pursuit of revenue and by your own examples you have proven my points. The need for revenue has brought it all about. That's why for Texas, or any school, business now supersedes old allegiances, and antiquated notions of academia and its majesty. I'm all about it, but it just isn't the factor it was 40 years ago.

I would argue that what is driving realignment is what has been driving it the last 40 years-media. ESPN led to basketball realignment. The end of the NCAA monopoly led to the end of the SWC and early 90s realignment with aftershocks for another 15 years. The success of conference networks clearly drove 2010-2013 realignment.

I think the major schools are set for the time being, until the change in the cable model triggers another round.

(03-06-2015 11:17 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

It is truly amazing how some of the SEC promoters postulate the same stuff over and over.......especially Texas to the SEC.

It's much easier to fantasize than to face the truth I suppose.

(03-06-2015 04:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 04:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 11:39 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:14 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh here we go, the same old attacks upon the Big Ten. What was it...pointing out playing at Minnesota or Indiana? I don't even advocate for Texas to the Big Ten but if they did they would be in a division that contained both Oklahoma and Nebraska. Funny how you don't point out the positive side. Texas would play them every year. At most they would play Minnesota and Indiana every other year with a four division system. More likely it would be once every three years which means a trip to Minnesota or Indiana once every SIX years.

Your attempts are very low when you continuously attack the Big Ten like a petty t shirt fan. Ohio State won the very first College Football Playoff National Championship. Michigan State beat the best team from the big 12. Wisconsin beat a favored Auburn team that was the previous year's National Champion.

Face it, every time you attack The Big Ten now in that old, worn out manner...you are only hurting your own argument. Find something Real to say. You still havn't faced the fact that Texas will not want to be perceived as following in the footsteps of Texas A&M. The value of that within Texas politics means much more than you can grasp, obviously.

And as to the the Judge's academic snobbery claims, such things simply don't exist in the world of business.

But they do exist in college athletics.

Remember the leadership has known since 1967 an extra game after the bowls would produce greater revenue. A four team proposal came before the NCAA in 1975 that was defeated by the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-8.

In 1994 they had a proposal in hand that would greatly increase revenue nothing speculative about that one and it went no where.

Slive even proposed a final post-bowl game to the BCS and couldn't get a second on the motion.

Apples and oranges on the calendar dates. In 1975 endowments were drawing as much as 9% or higher on interest. In 1994 the Dot.com bubble had not yet popped. This is 2015 and we still aren't over 2008. There is no interest to be able to pull revenue off of your endowment without damaging the principal. In 1975 the WWII generation, the most generous in this nations history were at the peak of their giving. By 1994 those numbers had dwindled, but not stocks. So endowments were still yielding disposable income in places where under-funding was beginning to bite. Today the WWII generations is statistically gone. The Boomer's give 25% of what their parents gave and are the first generation of Americans to hit their retirement years with debt. Their children who will inherit much less than their parents did have even less disposable income due to the inflation of those things we don't count in inflation, food and fuel (although the latter is temporarily down the former has risen 30% in the last 6 years). Their educations cost more and their rate of return on that is much less. So we have what we have, large institutions that can't draw on endowments without long term damage, and who are getting cut at the state funding level while federal funding is getting harder to obtain as well. That recipe has given us what we have now, a cash grab called realignment where the sports revenue stream is one of only a very few sources that can yet be developed. That is why after decades of relative stasis, the sleepy little world of college sports suddenly erupted into what we have experienced in the last two decades, a movement that has not yet culminated although it may have peaked.

So back to your examples there was no movement when there was no need. And I say to you stop looking backwards to argue a point and look at what is before your eyes today. Larger conferences, likely an increased number of conference games, a 4 team playoff instead of the plus one (same difference in number of games), and the high degree of likelihood that we move to conference semis in a few years. Add to that the separation from the G5, the increased frequency of market grabs, the shattering of old rivalries, and the constant pursuit of revenue and by your own examples you have proven my points. The need for revenue has brought it all about. That's why for Texas, or any school, business now supersedes old allegiances, and antiquated notions of academia and its majesty. I'm all about it, but it just isn't the factor it was 40 years ago.

I would argue that what is driving realignment is what has been driving it the last 40 years-media. ESPN led to basketball realignment. The end of the NCAA monopoly led to the end of the SWC and early 90s realignment with aftershocks for another 15 years. The success of conference networks clearly drove 2010-2013 realignment.

I think the major schools are set for the time being, until the change in the cable model triggers another round.

The network influence is on this end of the continuum Bullet. The vacuum left by private contributions from the WWII generation was first filled by corporate grants. Many of those came with some wicked strings attached to the intellectual property rights of the researchers and of the schools. Hence the pursuit of sports revenues at a time that state and federal funding is also getting tighter. One leads to the other.

BTW here is an interesting sequel to the thread I posted above:
blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2015/03/06/the-pac-12s-financial-future-to-sell-the-pac12nets-or-not-to-sell/

Now if the PAC decides to sell a percentage of their network to FOX or ESPN it could be a game changer in the realignment picture. Under the right circumstances this could tip the thinking in favor of a P3 model, but there are still some reasons it might not. Nonetheless it is interesting that these talking points are being introduced by a respectable West Coast paper.

Also this kind of discussion seems to indicate to me that things are closer to a climax for realignment than most think, but that is just my opinion.