Okay, you were forewarned that this is a long one. Harkens back to my earlier posting days when many of my posts were long ones.

JRsec posits a theory that ESPN will do just about everything it can to make the SEC as strong as possible. Which has resulted in the past scenarios by him and others of the SEC expanding with a North Carolina school (usually NC State) and a Virginia school (VT) to enhance their SECN.

Lately he has modified this and says the SEC may wind up taking OU and UT and if they lose one or the other for various reasons, he thinks it might be one of OU or UT and FSU as the second one. There is also a line of thinking out there by others as well as JR that it might be necessary for the ACC to take on the Longhorns in an ND type deal while adding one or two of "some Texas friends" which will then mean at least one ACC program might need to be moved.

In a recent post exchange over on the SEC board JR tried to make the case that Texas > FSU and that Baylor and TCU have been much better than VT recently.

I give him an "A" for effort on that, (and I believe many FSU fans would like the scenario where the Noles wind up in the SEC). However, ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So, in my eyes, the attempt to get equivalent value falls short mainly because Miami by itself cannot carry the state of Florida, so I don't think it profits the ACC to gain Texas on a partial basis and possibly losing the state of Florida. And I think that "trade-off" might likely weaken the ACC enough to allow for some programs to consider going to the B1G, which in turn could hurt the ACC in either the state of North Carolina or the state of Virginia or both.

But the conversation did get me to thinking: Does ESPN and the SEC want to build enough of a wall around protecting the southern rabid fan bases from the B1G (not to mention the distinct recruiting advantage) to make the ACC strong enough and profitable enough to succeed? If they do (and the B12 as we know it now as a P5 implodes), then Texas would seem to me have to wind up in the ACC, even though it might be a "bad fit" or come at a huge price.

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC (outside of CBS contract) and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and is probably way more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then than anything that might happen in the ACC.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN more for its basketball than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as they did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity. If the SEC can corral them that will be fine with them, but if they go to the B1G or the PAC, I am not sure they will lose a lot of sleep over it.

So, if UT and OU do indeed go to the SEC then it just makes the greatest football conference ever even stronger. If I am Tennessee or South Carolina or Ole Miss or Mizzou or A&M, it would worry me that those two have been added to the likes Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, and Georgia, but like I said more power to the SEC.

If, as Heinous1 has been touting for a long time now, the B1G were to get OU and KU (two of the 4 B12 schools of high value, imho, although KU's value is in bb, not fb), then the B12's days are numbered and Texas and ESPN would have to know this.

In this case, I think Texas may relent and join the SEC along with either WVU (the other high value school in the B12, imho) or perhaps one of the other B12 texas schools - TTU, Baylor, or TCU. I give the WVU possibility simply because with A&M already in the conference, there may not need to be an additional state of Texas friend in this scenario. It doesn't even need to be WVU, it could an ACC team if JR is correct that the SEC has always wanted FSU but time and circumstances have prevented it in the past (FSU picking the ACC over the SEC in 1990, ESPN protecting the ACC back in 2011).

If, however, the Sooners go to the SEC and UT is adamant about not wanting to go to the SEC (or the SEC takes both OU and one other such as OSU, WVU, etc) and the Longhorns indicate to ESPN they are willing to consider an ND type deal with the ACC (with ESPN getting the indy football contract), what will be the price and will the ACC be willing to pay that price?

Personally, I have seen nothing that would indicate Texas would want an ND type deal, but assuming they did, what would be the cost? Would it be an addition of two other B12 schools as full members? would one suffice? would it possibly go as high as three or four?

And assuming the above happens, the conference championship rules change passes, what scenario, if any, allows for ND and/or Texas to participate in a 4-team ACC football championship?

I would think that for the latter to even be considered there would need to be three divisions (even though I prefer the non-division set-up myself), with each division champion getting 3 of the spots while either Texas, ND, or a higher ranked runner-up ACC team getting the fourth based upon some guidelines.

Lastly, if the B12 implodes, what happens with the Sugar Bowl? Does the ACC take the B12's place? Is it done similar to the Orange where either a B1G or an ACC team or a higher ranked Texas or ND play in it and get a reduced price?

Lots of interesting stuff to consider in the slow months of June (now over, but a lot of this discussion has heated up toward the end of that month) and through July now until football practices start up in earnest in August.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-01-2015 08:16 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Okay, you were forewarned that this is a long one. Harkens back to my earlier posting days when many of my posts were long ones.

JRsec posits a theory that ESPN will do just about everything it can to make the SEC as strong as possible. Which has resulted in the past scenarios by him and others of the SEC expanding with a North Carolina school (usually NC State) and a Virginia school (VT) to enhance their SECN.

Lately he has modified this and says the SEC may wind up taking OU and UT and if they lose one or the other for various reasons, he thinks it might be one of OU or UT and FSU as the second one. There is also a line of thinking out there by others as well as JR that it might be necessary for the ACC to take on the Longhorns in an ND type deal while adding one or two of "some Texas friends" which will then mean at least one ACC program might need to be moved.

In a recent post exchange over on the SEC board JR tried to make the case that Texas > FSU and that Baylor and TCU have been much better than VT recently.

I give him an "A" for effort on that, (and I believe many FSU fans would like the scenario where the Noles wind up in the SEC). However, ESPN themselves have said, value isn't based upon what have you done over the past decade or so. So, in my eyes, the attempt to get equivalent value falls short mainly because Miami by itself cannot carry the state of Florida, so I don't think it profits the ACC to gain Texas on a partial basis and possibly losing the state of Florida. And I think that "trade-off" might likely weaken the ACC enough to allow for some programs to consider going to the B1G, which in turn could hurt the ACC in either the state of North Carolina or the state of Virginia or both.

But the conversation did get me to thinking: Does ESPN and the SEC want to build enough of a wall around protecting the southern rabid fan bases from the B1G (not to mention the distinct recruiting advantage) to make the ACC strong enough and profitable enough to succeed? If they do (and the B12 as we know it now as a P5 implodes), then Texas would seem to me have to wind up in the ACC, even though it might be a "bad fit" or come at a huge price.

ESPN has two basically exclusive properties - the SEC (outside of CBS contract) and the ACC. They have done more than enough in terms of the SEC to keep them happy through the next two decades. The SEC isn't going anywhere. If anything, I believe that when the next SEC national contract is up (which will end prior to the other stuff), the CBS part of their contract could likely become an exclusive ABC contract. But that's a ways off so that is certainly subject to change and is probably way more dependent upon what happens with the upcoming B1G Tier 1 contract, Texas, and ND prior to then than anything that might happen in the ACC.

After their love affair with the SEC (and well earned on the SEC's part) and owning the ACC (which was coveted by ESPN more for its basketball than its football) it is no secret that ESPN covets the single entities of Texas and ND. I think if they truly coveted OU, they would have made a similar deal with the Sooners as they did the Longhorns. So I see OU as a nice to have for ESPN, but not a necessity. If the SEC can corral them that will be fine with them, but if they go to the B1G or the PAC, I am not sure they will lose a lot of sleep over it.

So, if UT and OU do indeed go to the SEC then it just makes the greatest football conference ever even stronger. If I am Tennessee or South Carolina or Ole Miss or Mizzou or A&M, it would worry me that those two have been added to the likes Alabama, Auburn, Florida, LSU, and Georgia, but like I said more power to the SEC.

If, as Heinous1 has been touting for a long time now, the B1G were to get OU and KU (two of the 4 B12 schools of high value, imho, although KU's value is in bb, not fb), then the B12's days are numbered and Texas and ESPN would have to know this.

In this case, I think Texas may relent and join the SEC along with either WVU (the other high value school in the B12, imho) or perhaps one of the other B12 texas schools - TTU, Baylor, or TCU. I give the WVU possibility simply because with A&M already in the conference, there may not need to be an additional state of Texas friend in this scenario. It doesn't even need to be WVU, it could an ACC team if JR is correct that the SEC has always wanted FSU but time and circumstances have prevented it in the past (FSU picking the ACC over the SEC in 1990, ESPN protecting the ACC back in 2011).

If, however, the Sooners go to the SEC and UT is adamant about not wanting to go to the SEC (or the SEC takes both OU and one other such as OSU, WVU, etc) and the Longhorns indicate to ESPN they are willing to consider an ND type deal with the ACC (with ESPN getting the indy football contract), what will be the price and will the ACC be willing to pay that price?

Personally, I have seen nothing that would indicate Texas would want an ND type deal, but assuming they did, what would be the cost? Would it be an addition of two other B12 schools as full members? would one suffice? would it possibly go as high as three or four?

And assuming the above happens, the conference championship rules change passes, what scenario, if any, allows for ND and/or Texas to participate in a 4-team ACC football championship?

I would think that for the latter to even be considered there would need to be three divisions (even though I prefer the non-division set-up myself), with each division champion getting 3 of the spots while either Texas, ND, or a higher ranked runner-up ACC team getting the fourth based upon some guidelines.

Lastly, if the B12 implodes, what happens with the Sugar Bowl? Does the ACC take the B12's place? Is it done similar to the Orange where either a B1G or an ACC team or a higher ranked Texas or ND play in it and get a reduced price?

Lots of interesting stuff to consider in the slow months of June (now over, but a lot of this discussion has heated up toward the end of that month) and through July now until football practices start up in earnest in August.

Cheers,
Neil

TExas has no interest in partnering with the SEC. THey see themselves as a national academic world class university and they feel they don't want to brand themselves with lacking universities. PAC 12 BIG TEN or ACC is more their liking. However they are not too keen on playing in a conference with most teams two time zone away. They see the BIG TEN as not offering them anything, they want east and south exposure which the ACC has. They are very close to Notre dame.

NOTHING allows a non-football member to participate in the ACC CG. That is ridiculous.

End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-01-2015 09:41 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  NOTHING allows a non-football member to participate in the ACC CG. That is ridiculous.

ACC fans would hope so, but if ESPN holds hostage both an ACCN and an increase in the national TV package that significantly narrows the gap between the ACC and the SEC that many of us are concerned with, then what would it take to allow for it to happen?

Cheers,
Neil

(07-01-2015 10:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  End game:
ACC adds WVU, Notre Dame for football*.
B1G adds Kansas and Oklahoma State
Pac adds Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and either Kansas St or Iowa St
SEC adds OU and TCU

4 conferences X 16 teams each = 64 (1 current Big XII school left out)

* because independence will no longer be viable at that point.

No way, no how does the B1G add Oklahoma State. If they didn't want TTU, they aren't going to take the Cowboys.

Texas has given every indication in the past that they don't want to head west or north.

I think this is the problem with the current situation. There simply is no cookie-cutter way to slice up the B12 and make it work to end up with 4 conferences with 16 teams tied up in a neat little bow. Which is why my focus is on the SEC, ACC, and Texas (with Oklahoma an interesting side piece since they are in play for the B1G, SEC, and PAC).

Now could there wind up being 4 P5 conferences with 16 teams? Sure, but at this point we could just as likely wind up with 1 P5 with 12 or 14, 2 with 16 teams, and another with 15 or 16 and 1 or 2 partial members.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points.

If the ACCN gets to a point of sufficient strength to press home the market and TV advantage .... I'd like raid Tennessee first and foremost. I'm negotiable with Pedo State, UCF, UF, WVU, and Auburn after that.

If the ACC cannot raid SEC members ..... I only see the Pac-12 as the people doing the raiding of the big TX/OU block. With the B1G sucking up the northern hoops schools. If the ACC can raid the SEC East .... then the SEC sucks up the TX/OU block ... B1G gets northern hoops schools still.

If the ACC tries to do some hideous monster conference with the TX/OU block ... then the conference is over and doomed to split from too many competing interests.

If the SEC and/or B1G raids Clemson, Duke, and UNC .... at that point I'm done with this conference. Pack it in. Get us the hell out of there along with the three previously mentioned. Last person to leave (Wake?) turn out the lights behind you.

The ACC will not be able to raid the SEC. That ship sailed when football surpassed basketball as the most important college sport.


Texas doesn't have anywhere near the value of Notre Dame on a national level. The ACC deal with Notre Dame screws the ACC despite the fact of Notre Dame being a national brand.....giving Texas the same type deal would be 10X worse.

No scenario where the ACC ends up with just Baylor or TCU is going to end up good for the public schools. We already have too many privates who don't tote their own weight.

Why would ESPN act to protect the ACC if it did nothing to stop the Big 12 Conference from imploding?

The Big 12 was ESPN's second most valuable property. Prior to Nebraska’s departure, the Big 12’s academic standing was pretty solid with 7 AAU schools (Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Texas and Texas A&M). Plus the conference had three recognized football jewels in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. Those three, along with Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame and USC, represent the old guard of college football royalty. It was not in ESPN's interest to allow the Big 12 to implode. Yet I don't recall reading of any intervention attempt by ESPN to stop the implosion.

So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

(07-02-2015 01:48 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Why would ESPN act to protect the ACC if it did nothing to stop the Big 12 Conference from imploding?

The Big 12 was ESPN's second most valuable property. Prior to Nebraska’s departure, the Big 12’s academic standing was pretty solid with 7 AAU schools (Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Texas and Texas A&M). Plus the conference had three recognized football jewels in Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas. Those three, along with Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame and USC, represent the old guard of college football royalty. It was not in ESPN's interest to allow the Big 12 to implode. Yet I don't recall reading of any intervention attempt by ESPN to stop the implosion.

Nebraska going to the B1G was most likely seen as a blip. But when the PAC made a serious run for 6 B12 schools, both ESPN and FOX did step in and gave the conference a tv contract well beyond the value then. They stepped in again when the league lost A&M and Mizzou and maintained the tv contract. And as we now know, made a contractual promise that no matter who the B12 expands with in the future, the value per team would remain the same. So yes, both ESPN and FOX jointly stepped in kept the B12 alive.

ESPN prior to 2010 was basically the sole provider of sports. Then FOX came on board and wanted to become a player. They competed for the ACC rights that year and ESPN won. The next year, Comcast/NBC became a threat to potentially become a third player in college athletics. ESPN/FOX then worked together on both the PAC and B12 to effectively keep NBC out of the game.

Now ESPN and FOX are both experiencing minor economic setbacks and are being asked to tighten their belts just at the moment in time when the B1G tier 1 content will be up for grabs. This likely means they will end up working together again but if it's a competition with only one winner?

Cheers,
Neil

(07-02-2015 06:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Now ESPN and FOX are both experiencing minor economic setbacks and are being asked to tighten their belts just at the moment in time when the B1G tier 1 content will be up for grabs. This likely means they will end up working together again but if it's a competition with only one winner?

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, I saw that too... you think it's legit, or just poor-mouthing in advance of negotiations? ESPN certainly has a reputation for manipulating negotiations to their advantage, but it'll only work if Fox is in on it too... I could even see a case for shared Tier 1 rights for the Big Ten.

What Big 12 rules currently constrain what Texas would like to do with the LHN?
Would a move to the ACC in a ND type deal enable them (and ESPN) to do things differently with the LHN?
I'm asking because I've heard there are things the Big12 won't let Texas show on the LHN but I'm not familiar with the terms.

(07-02-2015 07:29 AM)Dasville Wrote:  What Big 12 rules currently constrain what Texas would like to do with the LHN?
Would a move to the ACC in a ND type deal enable them (and ESPN) to do things differently with the LHN?
I'm asking because I've heard there are things the Big12 won't let Texas show on the LHN but I'm not familiar with the terms.

That's a good question. As I see it, the LHN is pretty much history, it either gets folded into a B12 Network (if the league expands and stays alive), PACN, SECN, BTN, or future ACCN.

The only way the Longhorns gain an equivalent to $15M annually or more that the LHN provides (since being folded into a conference network isn't likely to do that) is an ND type NBC deal for 6 or 7 home football games but then they lose out on the B12 Tier 1 and 2 TV contract money of $20M annually. So if UT goes the indy route like ND and gets $20M for their indy football and then $5M from the ACC tv contract that gets them to $25M.

So what gets UT to $35M annually in TV revenue? It almost seems like the Longhorns have to wind up in either the B1G or the SEC to get that type of money from TV.

Cheers,
Neil

To Funny

I think the final outcome will allow more ACC/SEC football rivalries, ESPN will benefit with its two exclusive conferences. The SEC could add Oklahoma and WV and the ACC could add Texas and two more rivalry games could be added. WV vs VT and Texas vs A&M.

I have seen two assumptions on this thread that I am not sure are valid. The first is that CCG deregulation would permit a 4 team conference playoff. There are a lot of other options the NCAA member schools could adopt to accommodate the increased size of modern conferences without adding yet another game to an already long schedule (from the perspectives of the presidents and academic interests).

The second assumption I question is that the networks have a contractual obligation to the Big 12 to maintain their per team payout no matter whom they might add. If that were true, I suspect the Big 12 would have already gone back to 12 members.

There are a lot of scenarios offered in which the PAC expands by raiding the Big 12's plums. That assumes that the four current PAC schools not on the west coast would vote to approve that. My sense is that they don't want to wind up back in a division that looks a lot like what they left. I think they like the strong connection to the West Coast, where so many of their alumni reside. And while Texas may want to associate more closely with the four California schools, I'm not so sure that they consider the other 8 members an upgrade from their current associations.

Without the PAC taking the lion's share of the Big 12 carcass, I doubt there is enough meat left for the other three P5 conferences to accomplish an orderly dissolution of the Big 12. That isn't to say there won't be piecemeal raids, but without the PAC 12, those raids would be prohibitively expensive in the near term, IMO, and could tie up the courts for a long time.

(07-02-2015 02:56 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  So most of us agree these scenarios are jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce, yea?

I gave you two rep points for the use of the phrase "jiggery-pokery and pure applesauce."

ACC gets Texas as full with K State & TCU

B1G gets Oklahoma & Kansas

SEC gets WV, Oklahoma St, Baylor & TT

With a P4 ND is forced all in by CC only CFP. Perhaps Iowa St & UCONN (?) to the B1G to balance things out.