(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:45 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  I am still not convinced that there is any "Master Plan" to morph into a 4 x 16 configuration. Yes, the media companies would love to have everything wrapped up with ribbons and permanently settled. That would allow them to collude on rights deals and maximize their haul. But the conferences retain their bargaining power by each simply pursuing its own maximum configuration, both in membership and in media partners. If you don't think so, take a long look at the ACC's marriage to ESPN.
Most of us believe that the Big12 should expand. But maybe ten is the optimum number for this conference in this geography. I'm glad they are not rushing into any rash changes. (I think they moved too quickly with WV & TCU) Deliberation is sensible. These conferences have likely learned that while they're competing against each other, they should beware of media companies bearing gifts. ESPN is not necessarily your enemy, but they are definitely not your friend.

There is no master plan and there hasn't been one.

Some people have understood the direction of things and taken advantage by making smart moves.

We could eventually end up with 60 team conferences if the numbers work or we could end up with most everyone becoming an independent if the numbers work.

If the price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools (and one of the three is OU), the SEC would have no qualms being an 18 team league and if a year later UNC, Duke, Florida State and VaTech came knocking the SEC wouldn't hesitate to go to 22.

There isn't a magic number of members, the magic is in creating the demand for product to drive up revenue.

I dispell the idea of a Master Plan, because so many so many CR posts declare "eventually there will be four 16 team conferences or four 20 team conferences", as though it's a foregone conclusion. It would, in fact, be an extaordinary coincidence. You say that "some people... made some smart moves." Well some have been smart (Missouri & aTm, Rutgers & MD), but most have been rather questionable. TCU & WV to the Big12 were panic moves. Utah and Colorado could end up eating more than they earn. As for the ACC, it was once such a beautiful conference. Then along came ESPN: BC, Syracuse, Louisville. How very sad. Now they stand by holding ND's purse while she tries-on other possibilities.
A 60 team conference is, technically, within the realm of possibility. But it really would not be a conference, more like Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras.
You say that the "price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools". Only ACC/ESPN would agree to that. The other conferences will invite only the team/teams that they want. Texas cannot bring along the poor relatives. I subscribe to the FrankTheTank theory that when considering CR you must think like a university president. The Conference Commissioners do the legwork, produce the plans, and address the press/public. But the presidents make the decisions and sign the checks. Presidents in most conferences will not allow just any old school to belly-up to their esteemed football buffet. I will be astonished if the SEC or the B1G expand beyond 16. I think they both want to add the states of VA and NC. But they may both rest at 14 indefinitely, unless they get just the right properties.

The conferences will do what they get paid to do. The presidents long ago ceded their authority over such issues to the Mike Slives of the world. Hell they hired former TV contract lawyers to negotiate their contracts. The only problem is the lawyers never forgot who really pays the bills. There is no ninja Swofford, there is only a guy close to retirement who wanted to set up his son at the expense of his conference. They all do what pays them and nothing else. If you want to know those that pull the strings all you have to do is follow the money trail. The B.C. president told you that but those in denial will do anything to avoid facing the truth about their whole existence. The SEC will add whoever the networks will pay us the most to obtain. That's it. There is no other answer. So since we dance to the tune of the networks (see Missouri) the networks are moving the pieces to suit themselves. That's the way life works now. Get used to it.

You clearly put a lot of thought into this, and the header raises a thought that you may be able to answer:

How difficult would it be, and what would be involved, to dissolve the SEC and its TV contract, and re-form a new conference of a smaller number of higher-value members (ejecting the Mississippi schools, Vanderbilt etc.) and reaping even greater profits?

(07-01-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First let me once again dispel some standard message board garbage for the heretofore uninitiated:

1. There is no "Gentlemen's Agreement" in the SEC that prohibits the taking of a second school from a state. Mike Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement among the presidents of his schools that they would not nominate their in state rival for the 13th and 14th slots because in order to open the renegotiation clause in the SEC's contract they had to add two new markets. Slive said after that in state rivals may be nominated. This was necessary because Florida and South Carolina were interested in having their in state rivals on board, not because they love them, but because those games provided the greatest leverage for athletic donations in their states. Florida sponsored F.S.U. in a failed attempt in 1991 and they were interested in doing it again. They feared that if we did expand to 16 that there would be precious few games remaining with which to schedule such rivals were they to be in another conference. So money and the desire to add in state rivals was the reason for the "gentlemen's agreement", not the other way around. And other than A&M no other school (Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, or South Carolina) has ever expressed a desire to block there in state rival in spite of what message board posters erroneously post in peat and repeat scenarios around the country. And quite frankly I have my doubts about what the A&M leadership would express in this regard.

2. The SECN's first year payout increased our per team to 31.2 million. Everybody knows that. What most don't know is that 9.5 million was withheld this year, and will be again this Fall to pay the start up costs of the network in full. Beginning in May of 2017 the SEC's disbursements for the existing network footprint will be 9.5 million more taking our total payout close to 41 million. Also unlike some idiots seem to think the SEC didn't naively hand the keys to the vault to ESPN like some posters on a certain board here seem to think. Built into the contract and starting in the third year (when overhead has been cleared) is the right to purchase up to 10% ownership of the network back with the total buyback limited to 50%. Remember Mike Slive is a UVa educated lawyer who practiced contract law for broadcast rights and he isn't slow on such matters. So the SEC has a major upside built into this contract and may renegotiate further with additions. Also bear in mind that the SEC receives 1 full share of conference revenue prior to disbursing the remainder to the conference members every spring. In 2017 when the payout is 40 million the SEC office which has operated comfortably on 21-22 million will have an extra 18-19 million to put on the buyback of those rights should they decide that the model is favorable going forward and worth investing into. With 19 years remaining on the contract I'd say 50% is doable if that is the direction we want to go. By not insisting on 50% upfront we are not roped into a model that may shift, but if it doesn't we can buy in.

3. When schools change conferences they are never moving for what the conference is paying now. They are moving for what the conference will pay with them in it. Keep that in mind.

Now for the main point of the post. The Big 10 and SEC will both be clearing over 40 million a team by 2017 or at least be close enough to that figure that the addition of one good brand carries them well beyond. When one brand is added the acquiring conference's total payout goes up. The conference from which the school leaves goes down. Therefore any remaining targets within that conference are given incentive to depart as well. Raiding a conference is therefore a tipping point which with the exception of the ACC so far has not been overcome.

Since this is not a debate about which conference lands Texas or Oklahoma lets just assume for a minute that either Big 10 or SEC does. The addition of those two brands could easily jump the content value of the acquiring conference by a multiple of 2 x the existing brand schools within that conference. For the Big 10 that would be potentially 2 x at least 5 and possibly 6 schools. For the SEC it would be x 6 or 7 schools. If the desirability of games to be shown in prime time goes up by 12 to 14 games you can bet that the per school payout in that conference will get bumped between 2.5 to 5 million depending upon the % of prime games increase over the existing schedule. For market additions like you would have with the remaining two untapped East Coast objects of envy (North Carolina and Virginia) the numbers would be similar.

So let's say right now the only conference teetering toward dissolution was the Big 12. If the top 4 brands of the Big 12 are divided evenly among the remaining conferences a little harm is done to the balance of power, but not enough to cause a tipping point. Let's say the biggest prize of Texas goes to the PAC (I don't see that happening unless ESPN lands a share of the PACN but let's suppose) the shift in balance would be negligible. If Oklahoma goes to the SEC the SEC gets a multiplier but with only one it would be offset to a good degree by Kansas's value multiplier to Big 10 basketball. There would be a slight advantage to the SEC but not enough to alter the balance of power. West Virginia to the ACC just keeps them in the hunt. But if Texas and Oklahoma move together anywhere but the PAC and ACC then the balance of power hits a tipping point. If either the SEC or Big 10 lands that pair nothing will be safe going forward. ESPN knows this.

The whole reason for the push to 16 and a P4 is to offer the American public a competitive 4 regions of college athletics, but to do so for the networks bottom line. If one conference becomes too strong that balance is lost and along with it potentially the interest of a whole region. That does not maximize advertising rates, it lowers them.

So what about the Longhorns? ESPN gave them the LHN to hold them and then signed them to 2031. They just didn't want the PAC getting them without ESPN making something off the deal and the PACN is independently owned. I don't think ESPN wants Texas going to either the SEC or Big 10. They don't want them in the SEC because if Oklahoma goes with them the SEC worth will dwarf that of the ACC to the point that defections to the SEC would be not only profitable, but logical. Logical because if North Carolina and Virginia tagged along the payout would hit $50 million then the pull for other brands becomes a destabilizing factor in college sports. ESPN wants a recipe that takes them to 4 relatively equal regional conferences so that everyone stays profitable.

ESPN stockpiled Big East property in the ACC (leverage for Jim Delany to stay affable). ESPN sewed up top brands in the Big 12 (except for Oklahoma) so that they had some say in where they went. ESPN knew all to well that addition by subtraction is an irresistible force of nature. The Big East was nipped at until it imploded. Each school taken subtracted from their future worth and added to another's. The Big 12 was picked apart the same way but with Texas looking to do it's own thing and with Oklahoma nervous and Kansas feeling the threat that Missouri felt they realized they couldn't have a free for all so the LHN and GOR cemented things for a while and WVU and TCU gave them the numbers they needed to enforce their existing contract at the time. The GOR's though did another thing. They placed future realignment into the hands of the networks who can honor payouts to reduce damages, or in the event they have the preponderance of leverage in two conferences the ability to move schools within house so to speak. No more scared schools leaving on their own. Instead we would have a brokered well managed negotiation of future homes. Homes that would not be permitted to become too strong or too weak. Ad revenue protected.

So I'm not alarmed at the potential of the demise of the Big 12, nor do I think Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the same conference, nor do I think Oklahoma and Kansas will wind up in the same conference (with one caveat). I do think Texas will wind up either in the ACC or PAC for balance. If it is the PAC then network rights will have been transferred to one or both networks involved. If it is the ACC Texas will likely be a stand alone independent and possibly taking the opposite approach of N.D. They might go all in for football and yet remain affiliated with a more local conference for minor sports. Who knows there are many angles to be considered. Personally the PAC makes sense to me because it is likely the only conference where they can protect in state schools by taking 1 or 2 of them with them.

The SEC is going to want 1 big brand as a payoff for two former favors they thought ESPN would grant them which in both cases were taken away prior to fulfillment because of ancillary events. So I do buy OU to the SEC as a viable possibility. I also believe in exchange for this FOX will essentially swap T3 rights for Oklahoma with Kansas from ESPN with the two values being essentially identical. So I think if the Big 12 is absorbed that Kansas goes to the Big 10. I also believe it likely that the SEC will then take another Big 12 school. So 4 to the PAC, 2 to the SEC, 1 maybe 2 to the Big 10 and 1 to the ACC. GOR dissolved.

If or when this or something like it transpires it will only be a few years before the P4 play only other P4 schools. Many coaches have already alluded to this. I look for all conferences to play 9 conference games and 1 game against each of the other P4 conferences. In some cases the one game will be static and played against their instate rival annually. In some cases where no rival exists the games will rotate.

Back to the gentlemen's agreement that never really was. Once Missouri and A&M were added ESPN simply refused to pay the SEC to take FSU and/or Clemson. End of discussion. But if the master plan is something like I've laid out there was no need for the movement in the first place.

Now I say all of this to make a simple point. The conclusion of "The Great Realignment" will be about balance brought on by the brokering of schools by the networks working as silent partners to the conferences. Rivalries will be reestablished in cross conference games. I don't like corporate manipulation, but if the end result is the creation of 4 more competitive regions instead of one winner at Monopoly then it is good for the game, good for my school, and I can live with it.

My hypothetical scenario is what I think could happen, now we'll wait and see if it does or not. But I don't think any one conference will be permitted to land Texas and Oklahoma because if the SEC or Big 10 either one got them both it would create a black whole for the sport that would continue to gobble up top brands and demand more and more money to the detriment of all, especially the networks.

(07-02-2015 09:46 PM)58-56 Wrote:  You clearly put a lot of thought into this, and the header raises a thought that you may be able to answer:

How difficult would it be, and what would be involved, to dissolve the SEC and its TV contract, and re-form a new conference of a smaller number of higher-value members (ejecting the Mississippi schools, Vanderbilt etc.) and reaping even greater profits?

(07-01-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  First let me once again dispel some standard message board garbage for the heretofore uninitiated:

1. There is no "Gentlemen's Agreement" in the SEC that prohibits the taking of a second school from a state. Mike Slive asked for a gentlemen's agreement among the presidents of his schools that they would not nominate their in state rival for the 13th and 14th slots because in order to open the renegotiation clause in the SEC's contract they had to add two new markets. Slive said after that in state rivals may be nominated. This was necessary because Florida and South Carolina were interested in having their in state rivals on board, not because they love them, but because those games provided the greatest leverage for athletic donations in their states. Florida sponsored F.S.U. in a failed attempt in 1991 and they were interested in doing it again. They feared that if we did expand to 16 that there would be precious few games remaining with which to schedule such rivals were they to be in another conference. So money and the desire to add in state rivals was the reason for the "gentlemen's agreement", not the other way around. And other than A&M no other school (Georgia, Kentucky, Florida, or South Carolina) has ever expressed a desire to block there in state rival in spite of what message board posters erroneously post in peat and repeat scenarios around the country. And quite frankly I have my doubts about what the A&M leadership would express in this regard.

2. The SECN's first year payout increased our per team to 31.2 million. Everybody knows that. What most don't know is that 9.5 million was withheld this year, and will be again this Fall to pay the start up costs of the network in full. Beginning in May of 2017 the SEC's disbursements for the existing network footprint will be 9.5 million more taking our total payout close to 41 million. Also unlike some idiots seem to think the SEC didn't naively hand the keys to the vault to ESPN like some posters on a certain board here seem to think. Built into the contract and starting in the third year (when overhead has been cleared) is the right to purchase up to 10% ownership of the network back with the total buyback limited to 50%. Remember Mike Slive is a UVa educated lawyer who practiced contract law for broadcast rights and he isn't slow on such matters. So the SEC has a major upside built into this contract and may renegotiate further with additions. Also bear in mind that the SEC receives 1 full share of conference revenue prior to disbursing the remainder to the conference members every spring. In 2017 when the payout is 40 million the SEC office which has operated comfortably on 21-22 million will have an extra 18-19 million to put on the buyback of those rights should they decide that the model is favorable going forward and worth investing into. With 19 years remaining on the contract I'd say 50% is doable if that is the direction we want to go. By not insisting on 50% upfront we are not roped into a model that may shift, but if it doesn't we can buy in.

3. When schools change conferences they are never moving for what the conference is paying now. They are moving for what the conference will pay with them in it. Keep that in mind.

Now for the main point of the post. The Big 10 and SEC will both be clearing over 40 million a team by 2017 or at least be close enough to that figure that the addition of one good brand carries them well beyond. When one brand is added the acquiring conference's total payout goes up. The conference from which the school leaves goes down. Therefore any remaining targets within that conference are given incentive to depart as well. Raiding a conference is therefore a tipping point which with the exception of the ACC so far has not been overcome.

Since this is not a debate about which conference lands Texas or Oklahoma lets just assume for a minute that either Big 10 or SEC does. The addition of those two brands could easily jump the content value of the acquiring conference by a multiple of 2 x the existing brand schools within that conference. For the Big 10 that would be potentially 2 x at least 5 and possibly 6 schools. For the SEC it would be x 6 or 7 schools. If the desirability of games to be shown in prime time goes up by 12 to 14 games you can bet that the per school payout in that conference will get bumped between 2.5 to 5 million depending upon the % of prime games increase over the existing schedule. For market additions like you would have with the remaining two untapped East Coast objects of envy (North Carolina and Virginia) the numbers would be similar.

So let's say right now the only conference teetering toward dissolution was the Big 12. If the top 4 brands of the Big 12 are divided evenly among the remaining conferences a little harm is done to the balance of power, but not enough to cause a tipping point. Let's say the biggest prize of Texas goes to the PAC (I don't see that happening unless ESPN lands a share of the PACN but let's suppose) the shift in balance would be negligible. If Oklahoma goes to the SEC the SEC gets a multiplier but with only one it would be offset to a good degree by Kansas's value multiplier to Big 10 basketball. There would be a slight advantage to the SEC but not enough to alter the balance of power. West Virginia to the ACC just keeps them in the hunt. But if Texas and Oklahoma move together anywhere but the PAC and ACC then the balance of power hits a tipping point. If either the SEC or Big 10 lands that pair nothing will be safe going forward. ESPN knows this.

The whole reason for the push to 16 and a P4 is to offer the American public a competitive 4 regions of college athletics, but to do so for the networks bottom line. If one conference becomes too strong that balance is lost and along with it potentially the interest of a whole region. That does not maximize advertising rates, it lowers them.

So what about the Longhorns? ESPN gave them the LHN to hold them and then signed them to 2031. They just didn't want the PAC getting them without ESPN making something off the deal and the PACN is independently owned. I don't think ESPN wants Texas going to either the SEC or Big 10. They don't want them in the SEC because if Oklahoma goes with them the SEC worth will dwarf that of the ACC to the point that defections to the SEC would be not only profitable, but logical. Logical because if North Carolina and Virginia tagged along the payout would hit $50 million then the pull for other brands becomes a destabilizing factor in college sports. ESPN wants a recipe that takes them to 4 relatively equal regional conferences so that everyone stays profitable.

ESPN stockpiled Big East property in the ACC (leverage for Jim Delany to stay affable). ESPN sewed up top brands in the Big 12 (except for Oklahoma) so that they had some say in where they went. ESPN knew all to well that addition by subtraction is an irresistible force of nature. The Big East was nipped at until it imploded. Each school taken subtracted from their future worth and added to another's. The Big 12 was picked apart the same way but with Texas looking to do it's own thing and with Oklahoma nervous and Kansas feeling the threat that Missouri felt they realized they couldn't have a free for all so the LHN and GOR cemented things for a while and WVU and TCU gave them the numbers they needed to enforce their existing contract at the time. The GOR's though did another thing. They placed future realignment into the hands of the networks who can honor payouts to reduce damages, or in the event they have the preponderance of leverage in two conferences the ability to move schools within house so to speak. No more scared schools leaving on their own. Instead we would have a brokered well managed negotiation of future homes. Homes that would not be permitted to become too strong or too weak. Ad revenue protected.

So I'm not alarmed at the potential of the demise of the Big 12, nor do I think Texas and Oklahoma wind up in the same conference, nor do I think Oklahoma and Kansas will wind up in the same conference (with one caveat). I do think Texas will wind up either in the ACC or PAC for balance. If it is the PAC then network rights will have been transferred to one or both networks involved. If it is the ACC Texas will likely be a stand alone independent and possibly taking the opposite approach of N.D. They might go all in for football and yet remain affiliated with a more local conference for minor sports. Who knows there are many angles to be considered. Personally the PAC makes sense to me because it is likely the only conference where they can protect in state schools by taking 1 or 2 of them with them.

The SEC is going to want 1 big brand as a payoff for two former favors they thought ESPN would grant them which in both cases were taken away prior to fulfillment because of ancillary events. So I do buy OU to the SEC as a viable possibility. I also believe in exchange for this FOX will essentially swap T3 rights for Oklahoma with Kansas from ESPN with the two values being essentially identical. So I think if the Big 12 is absorbed that Kansas goes to the Big 10. I also believe it likely that the SEC will then take another Big 12 school. So 4 to the PAC, 2 to the SEC, 1 maybe 2 to the Big 10 and 1 to the ACC. GOR dissolved.

If or when this or something like it transpires it will only be a few years before the P4 play only other P4 schools. Many coaches have already alluded to this. I look for all conferences to play 9 conference games and 1 game against each of the other P4 conferences. In some cases the one game will be static and played against their instate rival annually. In some cases where no rival exists the games will rotate.

Back to the gentlemen's agreement that never really was. Once Missouri and A&M were added ESPN simply refused to pay the SEC to take FSU and/or Clemson. End of discussion. But if the master plan is something like I've laid out there was no need for the movement in the first place.

Now I say all of this to make a simple point. The conclusion of "The Great Realignment" will be about balance brought on by the brokering of schools by the networks working as silent partners to the conferences. Rivalries will be reestablished in cross conference games. I don't like corporate manipulation, but if the end result is the creation of 4 more competitive regions instead of one winner at Monopoly then it is good for the game, good for my school, and I can live with it.

My hypothetical scenario is what I think could happen, now we'll wait and see if it does or not. But I don't think any one conference will be permitted to land Texas and Oklahoma because if the SEC or Big 10 either one got them both it would create a black whole for the sport that would continue to gobble up top brands and demand more and more money to the detriment of all, especially the networks.

I'm sure the thought has crossed the minds of some of the conference's larger schools leadership, but the answer is simple. The SEC as is has the most viewers nationally of any conference, saturates its markets at a higher percentage than any other college conference, leads the nation in total attendance, earns more in total revenue that even the Big 10, and has enjoyed all of its success with a policy of never asking a member to leave. Very few entities of any kind ever willingly change directions while enjoying their zenith. Crisis and calamity remain the greatest motivators of innovation. So until there is a major crisis, whether we think about these things or not, there will be no change.

It is my understanding that toward the end of Dodd's tenure, Dooley told Bill Curry (HC at the time) that he would sponsor GT's entrance back into the SEC. Dodd's response was that that would not be possible due to the Mississippi schools (Tech refused to play them for a considerable amount of time early on).

So the relevance of GT in the SEC, AFAIK, hinges primarily upon Ole Miss and Miss State, and how many they can spread discontent among. I'm not sure Miss State's HC would mind, seeing as how Paul Johnson was the only person in CFB to honor the Miss State player who died of cancer. I believe Miss State drove overnight helmet stickers with the MSU logo so GT could wear them. Stories on this:

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/m...ort/njb8s/

GT has recently done a home and home with Miss State and played them in the Orange Bowl. They tried to play Ole Miss but they ducked out when Houston Nutt tanked their program.

The greater hurdle, IMO, with GT and the SEC these days in academics. The ACC joint research program churns through money that makes ESPN contracts look tiny. And even lil ole Wake Forest has a world class biomedical facility with bleeding edge research into grown organs. The SEC has NOTHING along these lines. Or even a serious research partner for GT.

(07-02-2015 10:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It is my understanding that toward the end of Dodd's tenure, Dooley told Bill Curry (HC at the time) that he would sponsor GT's entrance back into the SEC. Dodd's response was that that would not be possible due to the Mississippi schools (Tech refused to play them for a considerable amount of time early on).

So the relevance of GT in the SEC, AFAIK, hinges primarily upon Ole Miss and Miss State, and how many they can spread discontent among. I'm not sure Miss State's HC would mind, seeing as how Paul Johnson was the only person in CFB to honor the Miss State player who died of cancer. I believe Miss State drove overnight helmet stickers with the player's number so GT could wear them. Stories on this:

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/college/m...ort/njb8s/

GT has recently done a home and home with Miss State and played them in the Orange Bowl. They tried to play Ole Miss but they ducked out when Houston Nutt tanked their program.

The greater hurdle, IMO, with GT and the SEC these days in academics. The ACC joint research program churns through money that makes ESPN contracts look tiny. And even lil ole Wake Forest has a world class biomedical facility with bleeding edge research into grown organs. The SEC has NOTHING along these lines. Or even a serious research partner for GT.

GTS the only way that Tech gets back into the SEC is if the ACC collapses and the Big 10 is cut off at North Carolina. Your choice then would be between academics and athletics, which IMO is a dumb decision to be forced into since one has little to do with the other in actual practice. There is nobody left in the SEC that would refuse Tech entrance if they wanted to come. Your academic standing would be welcomed. And in truth research projects are shared nation wide irrespective of conference affiliation. It just depends upon the disciplines being shared. Virginia Tech and Auburn are sharing osteopathic veterinary research. Human medical schools get all of the attention, but Purdue and Auburn have shared aerospace engineering projects for years. AAU is AAU and research is research. Less than 1% of anyone's athletes are going to graduate school in a research discipline. We talk about academics on these forums in association with athletics all the time, and yet undergraduate work (which athletes are a part of) never touch research or doctoral work.

By the way the opposition to Tech in the SEC died with Bear.

And just one more point if I may. When Bobby Dodd defended student athletes they were much closer to the moniker than any athlete today. In the old days successful sports teams that made money were a serendipity. Today athletic revenue may become a lifeline to offset state and federal budget cuts. There's your difference.

(07-02-2015 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:45 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  I am still not convinced that there is any "Master Plan" to morph into a 4 x 16 configuration. Yes, the media companies would love to have everything wrapped up with ribbons and permanently settled. That would allow them to collude on rights deals and maximize their haul. But the conferences retain their bargaining power by each simply pursuing its own maximum configuration, both in membership and in media partners. If you don't think so, take a long look at the ACC's marriage to ESPN.
Most of us believe that the Big12 should expand. But maybe ten is the optimum number for this conference in this geography. I'm glad they are not rushing into any rash changes. (I think they moved too quickly with WV & TCU) Deliberation is sensible. These conferences have likely learned that while they're competing against each other, they should beware of media companies bearing gifts. ESPN is not necessarily your enemy, but they are definitely not your friend.

There is no master plan and there hasn't been one.

Some people have understood the direction of things and taken advantage by making smart moves.

We could eventually end up with 60 team conferences if the numbers work or we could end up with most everyone becoming an independent if the numbers work.

If the price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools (and one of the three is OU), the SEC would have no qualms being an 18 team league and if a year later UNC, Duke, Florida State and VaTech came knocking the SEC wouldn't hesitate to go to 22.

There isn't a magic number of members, the magic is in creating the demand for product to drive up revenue.

I dispell the idea of a Master Plan, because so many so many CR posts declare "eventually there will be four 16 team conferences or four 20 team conferences", as though it's a foregone conclusion. It would, in fact, be an extaordinary coincidence. You say that "some people... made some smart moves." Well some have been smart (Missouri & aTm, Rutgers & MD), but most have been rather questionable. TCU & WV to the Big12 were panic moves. Utah and Colorado could end up eating more than they earn. As for the ACC, it was once such a beautiful conference. Then along came ESPN: BC, Syracuse, Louisville. How very sad. Now they stand by holding ND's purse while she tries-on other possibilities.
A 60 team conference is, technically, within the realm of possibility. But it really would not be a conference, more like Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras.
You say that the "price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools". Only ACC/ESPN would agree to that. The other conferences will invite only the team/teams that they want. Texas cannot bring along the poor relatives. I subscribe to the FrankTheTank theory that when considering CR you must think like a university president. The Conference Commissioners do the legwork, produce the plans, and address the press/public. But the presidents make the decisions and sign the checks. Presidents in most conferences will not allow just any old school to belly-up to their esteemed football buffet. I will be astonished if the SEC or the B1G expand beyond 16. I think they both want to add the states of VA and NC. But they may both rest at 14 indefinitely, unless they get just the right properties.

The conferences will do what they get paid to do. The presidents long ago ceded their authority over such issues to the Mike Slives of the world. Hell they hired former TV contract lawyers to negotiate their contracts. The only problem is the lawyers never forgot who really pays the bills. There is no ninja Swofford, there is only a guy close to retirement who wanted to set up his son at the expense of his conference. They all do what pays them and nothing else. If you want to know those that pull the strings all you have to do is follow the money trail. The B.C. president told you that but those in denial will do anything to avoid facing the truth about their whole existence. The SEC will add whoever the networks will pay us the most to obtain. That's it. There is no other answer. So since we dance to the tune of the networks (see Missouri) the networks are moving the pieces to suit themselves. That's the way life works now. Get used to it.

JR, the depth of you cynicism is breathtaking. That doesn't make you wrong, but conider a few ideas:
Conferences are not made up of football teams, they are made up of universities. I asssure you that the presidents of these universities have ceded NO authority to the Mike Slives of the world. Athletic budgets are small potatoes in the overall scheme of operating a large university.
These same presidents, believe it or not, are committed to the educational mission of their universities, which, even in the SEC, is more important to them than football. The high academic standing of the two newest members of the ACC was a point of pride for those presidents.
ESPN is not the all-powerful force that you make them out to be. They make money by delivering sports content on TV, but they don't own any of that content. They buy/rent it from, in this discussion, college conferences. The conferences who understand that, and negotiate wisely with ESPN AND the competing networks will prosper. Those who believe, as you do, that ESPN is the answer to everything, will not prosper, but will find themselves (ACC) beholden to ESPN and their whims.

(07-02-2015 10:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 02:45 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  I am still not convinced that there is any "Master Plan" to morph into a 4 x 16 configuration. Yes, the media companies would love to have everything wrapped up with ribbons and permanently settled. That would allow them to collude on rights deals and maximize their haul. But the conferences retain their bargaining power by each simply pursuing its own maximum configuration, both in membership and in media partners. If you don't think so, take a long look at the ACC's marriage to ESPN.
Most of us believe that the Big12 should expand. But maybe ten is the optimum number for this conference in this geography. I'm glad they are not rushing into any rash changes. (I think they moved too quickly with WV & TCU) Deliberation is sensible. These conferences have likely learned that while they're competing against each other, they should beware of media companies bearing gifts. ESPN is not necessarily your enemy, but they are definitely not your friend.

There is no master plan and there hasn't been one.

Some people have understood the direction of things and taken advantage by making smart moves.

We could eventually end up with 60 team conferences if the numbers work or we could end up with most everyone becoming an independent if the numbers work.

If the price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools (and one of the three is OU), the SEC would have no qualms being an 18 team league and if a year later UNC, Duke, Florida State and VaTech came knocking the SEC wouldn't hesitate to go to 22.

There isn't a magic number of members, the magic is in creating the demand for product to drive up revenue.

I dispell the idea of a Master Plan, because so many so many CR posts declare "eventually there will be four 16 team conferences or four 20 team conferences", as though it's a foregone conclusion. It would, in fact, be an extaordinary coincidence. You say that "some people... made some smart moves." Well some have been smart (Missouri & aTm, Rutgers & MD), but most have been rather questionable. TCU & WV to the Big12 were panic moves. Utah and Colorado could end up eating more than they earn. As for the ACC, it was once such a beautiful conference. Then along came ESPN: BC, Syracuse, Louisville. How very sad. Now they stand by holding ND's purse while she tries-on other possibilities.
A 60 team conference is, technically, within the realm of possibility. But it really would not be a conference, more like Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras.
You say that the "price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools". Only ACC/ESPN would agree to that. The other conferences will invite only the team/teams that they want. Texas cannot bring along the poor relatives. I subscribe to the FrankTheTank theory that when considering CR you must think like a university president. The Conference Commissioners do the legwork, produce the plans, and address the press/public. But the presidents make the decisions and sign the checks. Presidents in most conferences will not allow just any old school to belly-up to their esteemed football buffet. I will be astonished if the SEC or the B1G expand beyond 16. I think they both want to add the states of VA and NC. But they may both rest at 14 indefinitely, unless they get just the right properties.

The conferences will do what they get paid to do. The presidents long ago ceded their authority over such issues to the Mike Slives of the world. Hell they hired former TV contract lawyers to negotiate their contracts. The only problem is the lawyers never forgot who really pays the bills. There is no ninja Swofford, there is only a guy close to retirement who wanted to set up his son at the expense of his conference. They all do what pays them and nothing else. If you want to know those that pull the strings all you have to do is follow the money trail. The B.C. president told you that but those in denial will do anything to avoid facing the truth about their whole existence. The SEC will add whoever the networks will pay us the most to obtain. That's it. There is no other answer. So since we dance to the tune of the networks (see Missouri) the networks are moving the pieces to suit themselves. That's the way life works now. Get used to it.

JR, the depth of you cynicism is breathtaking. That doesn't make you wrong, but conider a few ideas:
Conferences are not made up of football teams, they are made up of universities. I asssure you that the presidents of these universities have ceded NO authority to the Mike Slives of the world. Athletic budgets are small potatoes in the overall scheme of operating a large university.
These same presidents, believe it or not, are committed to the educational mission of their universities, which, even in the SEC, is more important to them than football. The high academic standing of the two newest members of the ACC was a point of pride for those presidents.
ESPN is not the all-powerful force that you make them out to be. They make money by delivering sports content on TV, but they don't own any of that content. They buy/rent it from, in this discussion, college conferences. The conferences who understand that, and negotiate wisely with ESPN AND the competing networks will prosper. Those who believe, as you do, that ESPN is the answer to everything, will not prosper, but will find themselves (ACC) beholden to ESPN and their whims.

You have no context in which to make your remarks. In my first post I spoke of an undervalued product that was the subject of a hostile takeover because of the deficits in funding the universities were facing due to state and federal cuts. Those have continued. I'm the last person who believes ESPN is the answer to everything and your damned right that I'm cynical because I have 40 plus years in these systems and have sat in rooms where the bottom line and motivations for making decisions were purely about money, not academics, not honor and tradition, but money. The unwillingness to face budget cuts practically led to the any port in the storm mentality and yes the presidents have abandoned many decisions to run amok athletic departments as well as commissioners. Why? That's what motivates boosters, drives enrollment from the state's masses, and basically permits those who have lived by COLA's all their lives to get another 3% raise again this year, while the rest of the staff endures a wage freeze. I have no idea how old you are but I would guess you need to respond again to my ghost in about 15 to 20 years and tell it then what you have learned in the interim. My guess is you are late 30's to early 40's and have never experienced what things once were and how far we have fallen. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope we get this over with and at least some balance may help preserve the interest. But quietly I think the college athletic boom dies with the boomers because the 30 somethings never played in sufficient number any of the major sports and have no touchstone with them to draw their interest from. To understand my positions and my fears for my grandchildren you need some time.

When I was young I lived on the Florida coast for a while. It was three and half miles to the next beach home. Pensacola was not developed. Nobody knew about Destin. Ft.Walton Beach was the sleepiest of vacation venues and a Coke from a machine had just moved from a nickel to a dime. In the U.S. 30% of the wealth was in the middle class and privately owned business provided a great living for a large % of people. Today 97% of the wealth is in 3% of the populations hands. Those were the numbers for what we considered an oppressive regime in Mexico in my youth. Today it's the U.S.A. Think about that. In the late 50's and early 60's even an attendant at McDonald's was capable of making change while doing the simple math in his head. Literacy was taken for granted. And everyone knew the difference between then and than when using them in a sentence. Since I took the ACT and SAT the tests have been downgraded for various reasons half a dozen times. Your generation (if I've guessed correctly), half a decade to a full decade behind my children, have had so many less advantages than I had, or even my children. We have pursued the corporate agenda to its fullest even granting them the common rights of citizens. We are reaping the whirlwind and it will come home to roost soon enough. Selling our most cherished traditions, ones venerated by generations of families, I thought would be the final straw to get our people to wake up and take hold of their futures and their government. No such luck! Enjoy the circus provided by the new Corporate Empire. Read their logos all over your stadium and embroidered on your uniforms, and remember that now they even invade your most cherished space, and have come up with reasons to watch you from above and listen in for the sake of security. And when you've had a belly full of it and you finally realize how it impinges your life, remember. They have taken everything once dear to Americans and all we care about is how much add revenue and corporate grants our Universities will land next year. That is our distraction from the real dilemmas of our lives. Things like underpaying jobs, long hours, limited retirement, curtailed healthcare options, and a rigorous indoctrination of your children on issues that raise your ire. Then remember these fine men and women in leadership in our schools learned how to make a symbiotic living through close association with these entities and then tell me with a straight face that they have the best of good ole State U at heart and only care about research. Please! There are a few and they are worth knowing, but their ranks are slim. Cynical? I think sometimes I've just lived too long. I hope you have the privilege and good fortune to do the same. But it sure as hell won't be a gift or byproduct of the state.

(07-02-2015 10:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  GTS the only way that Tech gets back into the SEC is if the ACC collapses and the Big 10 is cut off at North Carolina.

By the way the opposition to Tech in the SEC died with Bear.

These two seem incongruent.

What I refer to with research is the B1G CIC ... and while not formal, the ACC does a lot of cooperation between schools of a similar vein.

Well if we come, we're taking Clemson with us if at all possible. I can accept the swap of TN and Auburn for UNC and Duke. Though if I had my druthers I'd like them too. Then I'm peachy!

Hmmm lemme play with that a bit. Two to get to 16. Beyond that only 20 is viable IMHO.

16
SEC P1: Clemson, USC-E, GT, (THW)Georgia
SEC P2: Vandy, UK, Mizzou, TN
SEC P3: UF, Auburn, Alabama, Miss State
SEC P4: LSU, Arkiesaw, TAMU, Ole Miss

20
SEC P1: UNC, Duke, Clemson, USC-E, GT
SEC P2: (THW)Georgia, UF, FSU, Auburn, Alabama
SEC P3: UK, TN, Mizzou, VT, NCST
SEC P4: LSU, Arkiesaw, TAMU, Ole Miss, Miss State


Boy Mizzou just stands out as a total WTF when you try to play around with SEC membership.

(07-02-2015 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 10:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no master plan and there hasn't been one.

Some people have understood the direction of things and taken advantage by making smart moves.

We could eventually end up with 60 team conferences if the numbers work or we could end up with most everyone becoming an independent if the numbers work.

If the price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools (and one of the three is OU), the SEC would have no qualms being an 18 team league and if a year later UNC, Duke, Florida State and VaTech came knocking the SEC wouldn't hesitate to go to 22.

There isn't a magic number of members, the magic is in creating the demand for product to drive up revenue.

I dispell the idea of a Master Plan, because so many so many CR posts declare "eventually there will be four 16 team conferences or four 20 team conferences", as though it's a foregone conclusion. It would, in fact, be an extaordinary coincidence. You say that "some people... made some smart moves." Well some have been smart (Missouri & aTm, Rutgers & MD), but most have been rather questionable. TCU & WV to the Big12 were panic moves. Utah and Colorado could end up eating more than they earn. As for the ACC, it was once such a beautiful conference. Then along came ESPN: BC, Syracuse, Louisville. How very sad. Now they stand by holding ND's purse while she tries-on other possibilities.
A 60 team conference is, technically, within the realm of possibility. But it really would not be a conference, more like Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras.
You say that the "price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools". Only ACC/ESPN would agree to that. The other conferences will invite only the team/teams that they want. Texas cannot bring along the poor relatives. I subscribe to the FrankTheTank theory that when considering CR you must think like a university president. The Conference Commissioners do the legwork, produce the plans, and address the press/public. But the presidents make the decisions and sign the checks. Presidents in most conferences will not allow just any old school to belly-up to their esteemed football buffet. I will be astonished if the SEC or the B1G expand beyond 16. I think they both want to add the states of VA and NC. But they may both rest at 14 indefinitely, unless they get just the right properties.

The conferences will do what they get paid to do. The presidents long ago ceded their authority over such issues to the Mike Slives of the world. Hell they hired former TV contract lawyers to negotiate their contracts. The only problem is the lawyers never forgot who really pays the bills. There is no ninja Swofford, there is only a guy close to retirement who wanted to set up his son at the expense of his conference. They all do what pays them and nothing else. If you want to know those that pull the strings all you have to do is follow the money trail. The B.C. president told you that but those in denial will do anything to avoid facing the truth about their whole existence. The SEC will add whoever the networks will pay us the most to obtain. That's it. There is no other answer. So since we dance to the tune of the networks (see Missouri) the networks are moving the pieces to suit themselves. That's the way life works now. Get used to it.

JR, the depth of you cynicism is breathtaking. That doesn't make you wrong, but conider a few ideas:
Conferences are not made up of football teams, they are made up of universities. I asssure you that the presidents of these universities have ceded NO authority to the Mike Slives of the world. Athletic budgets are small potatoes in the overall scheme of operating a large university.
These same presidents, believe it or not, are committed to the educational mission of their universities, which, even in the SEC, is more important to them than football. The high academic standing of the two newest members of the ACC was a point of pride for those presidents.
ESPN is not the all-powerful force that you make them out to be. They make money by delivering sports content on TV, but they don't own any of that content. They buy/rent it from, in this discussion, college conferences. The conferences who understand that, and negotiate wisely with ESPN AND the competing networks will prosper. Those who believe, as you do, that ESPN is the answer to everything, will not prosper, but will find themselves (ACC) beholden to ESPN and their whims.

You have no context in which to make your remarks. In my first post I spoke of an undervalued product that was the subject of a hostile takeover because of the deficits in funding the universities were facing due to state and federal cuts. Those have continued. I'm the last person who believes ESPN is the answer to everything and your damned right that I'm cynical because I have 40 plus years in these systems and have sat in rooms where the bottom line and motivations for making decisions were purely about money, not academics, not honor and tradition, but money. The unwillingness to face budget cuts practically led to the any port in the storm mentality and yes the presidents have abandoned many decisions to run amok athletic departments as well as commissioners. Why? That's what motivates boosters, drives enrollment from the state's masses, and basically permits those who have lived by COLA's all their lives to get another 3% raise again this year, while the rest of the staff endures a wage freeze. I have no idea how old you are but I would guess you need to respond again to my ghost in about 15 to 20 years and tell it then what you have learned in the interim. My guess is you are late 30's to early 40's and have never experienced what things once were and how far we have fallen. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope we get this over with and at least some balance may help preserve the interest. But quietly I think the college athletic boom dies with the boomers because the 30 somethings never played in sufficient number any of the major sports and have no touchstone with them to draw their interest from. To understand my positions and my fears for my grandchildren you need some time.

When I was young I lived on the Florida coast for a while. It was three and half miles to the next beach home. Pensacola was not developed. Nobody knew about Destin. Ft.Walton Beach was the sleepiest of vacation venues and a Coke from a machine had just moved from a nickel to a dime. In the U.S. 30% of the wealth was in the middle class and privately owned business provided a great living for a large % of people. Today 97% of the wealth is in 3% of the populations hands. Those were the numbers for what we considered an oppressive regime in Mexico in my youth. Today it's the U.S.A. Think about that. In the late 50's and early 60's even an attendant at McDonald's was capable of making change while doing the simple math in his head. Literacy was taken for granted. And everyone knew the difference between then and than when using them in a sentence. Since I took the ACT and SAT the tests have been downgraded for various reasons half a dozen times. Your generation (if I've guessed correctly), half a decade to a full decade behind my children, have had so many less advantages than I had, or even my children. We have pursued the corporate agenda to its fullest even granting them the common rights of citizens. We are reaping the whirlwind and it will come home to roost soon enough. Selling our most cherished traditions, ones venerated by generations of families, I thought would be the final straw to get our people to wake up and take hold of their futures and their government. No such luck! Enjoy the circus provided by the new Corporate Empire. Read their logos all over your stadium and embroidered on your uniforms, and remember that now they even invade your most cherished space, and have come up with reasons to watch you from above and listen in for the sake of security. And when you've had a belly full of it and you finally realize how it impinges your life, remember. They have taken everything once dear to Americans and all we care about is how much add revenue and corporate grants our Universities will land next year. That is our distraction from the real dilemmas of our lives. Things like underpaying jobs, long hours, limited retirement, curtailed healthcare options, and a rigorous indoctrination of your children on issues that raise your ire. Then remember these fine men and women in leadership in our schools learned how to make a symbiotic living through close association with these entities and then tell me with a straight face that they have the best of good ole State U at heart and only care about research. Please! There are a few and they are worth knowing, but their ranks are slim. Cynical? I think sometimes I've just lived too long. I hope you have the privilege and good fortune to do the same. But it sure as hell won't be a gift or byproduct of the state.

I don't mind taking a scolding from you. I'm glad that I was able to provoke that from you. You may be surprised that I share just about every complaint that you have about the changes that time has visited upon our society. I cannot dispute any of your remarks about the intrusion, in every aspect of our lives and institutuions, by corporate opportunists and government beaurocrats.
Where we disagree, is in the much less subsantial field of CR. I think most of the "realigning" is finished, and that the remaining moves will occur at, or near, the GoR expiry dates. They will be made according to the wishes of the involved schools, despite the wishes or objections of ESPN.

(07-02-2015 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:57 AM)IberianPanther Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The whole reason for the push to 16 and a P4 is to offer the American public a competitive 4 regions of college athletics, but to do so for the networks bottom line. If one conference becomes too strong that balance is lost and along with it potentially the interest of a whole region. That does not maximize advertising rates, it lowers them.

'Strong' in terms of what? The SEC and Big 10 are WAY ahead here in terms of FB 'kings' and 'barons', athletic budgets, TV revenue, etc. If the powers at be want to maintain the 'status quo', then having OU goto the SEC or Big 10 with Texas to the other (Big 10 or SEC) further solidifies all of that. How does that help interest in college FB in the the West Coast and 'Mid-Atlantic'/Northeast?

That's not what I wrote. I was placing the top brand in either the PAC or ACC. I specifically said that they simply couldn't go together to the SEC or Big 10 and that it would be best for Texas to wind up with either the PAC or ACC. Such a move would bring more balance.

Yes...sorry about that (Texas to PAC or ACC). But later on it seems that you suggest that OU to the SEC and I don't see how that keeps the balance with 4 competitive regions of college athletics. For that to happen, you really significantly improve FB and TV deals for the ACC and PAC.

(07-02-2015 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You have no context in which to make your remarks. In my first post I spoke of an undervalued product that was the subject of a hostile takeover because of the deficits in funding the universities were facing due to state and federal cuts. Those have continued. I'm the last person who believes ESPN is the answer to everything and your damned right that I'm cynical because I have 40 plus years in these systems and have sat in rooms where the bottom line and motivations for making decisions were purely about money, not academics, not honor and tradition, but money. The unwillingness to face budget cuts practically led to the any port in the storm mentality and yes the presidents have abandoned many decisions to run amok athletic departments as well as commissioners. Why? That's what motivates boosters, drives enrollment from the state's masses, and basically permits those who have lived by COLA's all their lives to get another 3% raise again this year, while the rest of the staff endures a wage freeze. I have no idea how old you are but I would guess you need to respond again to my ghost in about 15 to 20 years and tell it then what you have learned in the interim. My guess is you are late 30's to early 40's and have never experienced what things once were and how far we have fallen. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope we get this over with and at least some balance may help preserve the interest. But quietly I think the college athletic boom dies with the boomers because the 30 somethings never played in sufficient number any of the major sports and have no touchstone with them to draw their interest from. To understand my positions and my fears for my grandchildren you need some time.

When I was young I lived on the Florida coast for a while. It was three and half miles to the next beach home. Pensacola was not developed. Nobody knew about Destin. Ft.Walton Beach was the sleepiest of vacation venues and a Coke from a machine had just moved from a nickel to a dime. In the U.S. 30% of the wealth was in the middle class and privately owned business provided a great living for a large % of people. Today 97% of the wealth is in 3% of the populations hands. Those were the numbers for what we considered an oppressive regime in Mexico in my youth. Today it's the U.S.A. Think about that. In the late 50's and early 60's even an attendant at McDonald's was capable of making change while doing the simple math in his head. Literacy was taken for granted. And everyone knew the difference between then and than when using them in a sentence. Since I took the ACT and SAT the tests have been downgraded for various reasons half a dozen times. Your generation (if I've guessed correctly), half a decade to a full decade behind my children, have had so many less advantages than I had, or even my children. We have pursued the corporate agenda to its fullest even granting them the common rights of citizens. We are reaping the whirlwind and it will come home to roost soon enough. Selling our most cherished traditions, ones venerated by generations of families, I thought would be the final straw to get our people to wake up and take hold of their futures and their government. No such luck! Enjoy the circus provided by the new Corporate Empire. Read their logos all over your stadium and embroidered on your uniforms, and remember that now they even invade your most cherished space, and have come up with reasons to watch you from above and listen in for the sake of security. And when you've had a belly full of it and you finally realize how it impinges your life, remember. They have taken everything once dear to Americans and all we care about is how much add revenue and corporate grants our Universities will land next year. That is our distraction from the real dilemmas of our lives. Things like underpaying jobs, long hours, limited retirement, curtailed healthcare options, and a rigorous indoctrination of your children on issues that raise your ire. Then remember these fine men and women in leadership in our schools learned how to make a symbiotic living through close association with these entities and then tell me with a straight face that they have the best of good ole State U at heart and only care about research. Please! There are a few and they are worth knowing, but their ranks are slim. Cynical? I think sometimes I've just lived too long. I hope you have the privilege and good fortune to do the same. But it sure as hell won't be a gift or byproduct of the state.

That is a beautiful rant, and I agree with everything except this part:

and a rigorous indoctrination of your children on issues that raise your ire.

because I consider the "indoctrination" simple distraction. Get the masses caterwauling about flags and gays and fetuses, and let them pretend they get a win every now and then, and they won't notice that they suddenly live in a colder, samba-less Brazil. And even if they do, they'll blame the little R and the little D, with their ire revved by Fox and MSNBC et al (which are just improved versions of Orwell's "Two Minute Hate" from 1984) . If the indoctrination raises your ire, then it's working.

You're exactly right to link the corporatization of the university (which goes way beyond sports, to things like unaccountable CEO-style governance and propriety corporate-sponsor-owned research results) to the destruction of the American middle class. Too few wish to see it.

(07-02-2015 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 01:47 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I can get to 30 each in the B1G and SEC as sort of the balancing point from absorbing most but still leaving some redundancies behind.
SEC
West: A&M, Baylor, OU, OKSU, KSU, Ark, Mizzou, LSU, Miss, MSU
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, UGA, SCar, UT, Vandy, Ky, FSU, L'Ville
East: Miami, WVU, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, VT, BC, Pitt, Syr, GT
+ND arrangement

B1G
East: UVA, Duke, PSU, OSU, UMD, RU, UM, MSU, PU, IU
Central: UI, NW, WI, UMN, Iowa, ISU, Nebraska, KU, TTU, UT
West: UW, UO, Cal, Furd, USC, UCLA, ASU, UA, UU, CU

Out: WSU, OrSU, TCU, WF,

While it's a long shot at best, I could see an eventual P2 emerging along these lines: Basically, the Big Ten and PAC 12 merge, as do the SEC and ACC. Between them, they split up the Big 12 schools. Where it gets dicey for me is how to do it so you have a semblance of competitive balance while still keeping some cultural and geographic affinity. Where I come down requires that some schools hold their nose and make some sacrifices. The school that probably makes the biggest sacrifice is the one that many consider the linchpin to the whole realignment mess - Texas.

My solution is a P2, each with four 8-team divisions. Notre Dame gets left out by choice.

Big Ten/PAC

Oregon, Stanford, USC, Washington, Oregon St, UCLA, Cal, Washington St

Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas St, Arizona St, Arizona, Utah, Kansas, Colorado

Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Iowa St, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana

Ohio St, Michigan St, Penn St, Michigan, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue


SEC/ACC

Alabama, FSU, Auburn, Miss St, Miami, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Clemson, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke, Virginia

LSU, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansa, Baylor, Texas Tech

Virginia Tech, WVU, Louisville, Syracuse, NC State, BC, Kentucky, Wake Forest

Essentially, the two big dogs split the Big 12 with five to each, and to make the numbers work, Pitt moves from the ACC to the Big Ten. The teams are listed for each 8-team division in order of their average power ratings for the past six years, with the highest rating first. Some are mildly surprising, and I wouldn't say that I expect that's how they will rank over the next six years. That's the cyclical nature of football.

Clearly, while the two P2 conferences are relatively balanced, some divisions are stronger/weaker than others. I don't see any good way to fix that while still maintaining some sort of geographic logic. Fact is, the northeast is relatively weak, and no reconfiguring of schools is going to change that. I tried to have divisions where most of the schools feel they have a legitimate chance to compete within their division, and that means some will be more stacked than others. All 8 divisions have schools that could be legitimate playoff contenders.

I could see the network divisions involving ESPN taking the primary role in the SEC/ACC and Fox doing the same with the B1G/PAC, while each has a secondary presence in the other league.

I have no idea where Notre Dame would want to hang its hat if this were to come to pass. But that's their problem.

The point of what you guys are doing are adding dead wights to the P2 who will not help the conferences at all, and leave out teams that could bring a watchable product.

I would leave out Baylor, Northwestern, Washington State, Oregon State, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami Florida, Colorado and Vanderbilt.
I would add Boise State, Fresno State, UNR, Houston, Northern Illinois, Cincinnati, Memphis, Toledo, Marshall, Arkansas State, Ohio U. East Carolina, Eastern Washington, UTSA, North Dakota State, UCF, USF, U. Mass., Georgia Southern, La. Tech, Colorado State and some others in G5.

So you're saying UMass is a more watchable product than Baylor?

2 X 32-team super conferences split into 4 X 8-team divisions, with a 2-game conference championship and a single national championship game... sounds a lot like the NFL to me.

(07-03-2015 09:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  2 X 32-team super conferences split into 4 X 8-team divisions, with a 2-game conference championship and a single national championship game... sounds a lot like the NFL to me.

If they were to do that type of reorganization, I like the idea of a 3X2X12. A Pac 12/Big12 merger, a B1G merger with part of ACC and an SEC merger with part of ACC. Then you've got 12 team leagues which are more like a conference than 14 or 16 team leagues and you can have intragroup play. For example 5 vs. your division, 3 vs. other division, 2 vs. your partner league.

(07-03-2015 01:23 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 10:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 07:19 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  I dispell the idea of a Master Plan, because so many so many CR posts declare "eventually there will be four 16 team conferences or four 20 team conferences", as though it's a foregone conclusion. It would, in fact, be an extaordinary coincidence. You say that "some people... made some smart moves." Well some have been smart (Missouri & aTm, Rutgers & MD), but most have been rather questionable. TCU & WV to the Big12 were panic moves. Utah and Colorado could end up eating more than they earn. As for the ACC, it was once such a beautiful conference. Then along came ESPN: BC, Syracuse, Louisville. How very sad. Now they stand by holding ND's purse while she tries-on other possibilities.
A 60 team conference is, technically, within the realm of possibility. But it really would not be a conference, more like Bourbon Street on Mardi Gras.
You say that the "price of Texas is taking three other Big XII schools". Only ACC/ESPN would agree to that. The other conferences will invite only the team/teams that they want. Texas cannot bring along the poor relatives. I subscribe to the FrankTheTank theory that when considering CR you must think like a university president. The Conference Commissioners do the legwork, produce the plans, and address the press/public. But the presidents make the decisions and sign the checks. Presidents in most conferences will not allow just any old school to belly-up to their esteemed football buffet. I will be astonished if the SEC or the B1G expand beyond 16. I think they both want to add the states of VA and NC. But they may both rest at 14 indefinitely, unless they get just the right properties.

The conferences will do what they get paid to do. The presidents long ago ceded their authority over such issues to the Mike Slives of the world. Hell they hired former TV contract lawyers to negotiate their contracts. The only problem is the lawyers never forgot who really pays the bills. There is no ninja Swofford, there is only a guy close to retirement who wanted to set up his son at the expense of his conference. They all do what pays them and nothing else. If you want to know those that pull the strings all you have to do is follow the money trail. The B.C. president told you that but those in denial will do anything to avoid facing the truth about their whole existence. The SEC will add whoever the networks will pay us the most to obtain. That's it. There is no other answer. So since we dance to the tune of the networks (see Missouri) the networks are moving the pieces to suit themselves. That's the way life works now. Get used to it.

JR, the depth of you cynicism is breathtaking. That doesn't make you wrong, but conider a few ideas:
Conferences are not made up of football teams, they are made up of universities. I asssure you that the presidents of these universities have ceded NO authority to the Mike Slives of the world. Athletic budgets are small potatoes in the overall scheme of operating a large university.
These same presidents, believe it or not, are committed to the educational mission of their universities, which, even in the SEC, is more important to them than football. The high academic standing of the two newest members of the ACC was a point of pride for those presidents.
ESPN is not the all-powerful force that you make them out to be. They make money by delivering sports content on TV, but they don't own any of that content. They buy/rent it from, in this discussion, college conferences. The conferences who understand that, and negotiate wisely with ESPN AND the competing networks will prosper. Those who believe, as you do, that ESPN is the answer to everything, will not prosper, but will find themselves (ACC) beholden to ESPN and their whims.

You have no context in which to make your remarks. In my first post I spoke of an undervalued product that was the subject of a hostile takeover because of the deficits in funding the universities were facing due to state and federal cuts. Those have continued. I'm the last person who believes ESPN is the answer to everything and your damned right that I'm cynical because I have 40 plus years in these systems and have sat in rooms where the bottom line and motivations for making decisions were purely about money, not academics, not honor and tradition, but money. The unwillingness to face budget cuts practically led to the any port in the storm mentality and yes the presidents have abandoned many decisions to run amok athletic departments as well as commissioners. Why? That's what motivates boosters, drives enrollment from the state's masses, and basically permits those who have lived by COLA's all their lives to get another 3% raise again this year, while the rest of the staff endures a wage freeze. I have no idea how old you are but I would guess you need to respond again to my ghost in about 15 to 20 years and tell it then what you have learned in the interim. My guess is you are late 30's to early 40's and have never experienced what things once were and how far we have fallen. I wasn't kidding when I said I hope we get this over with and at least some balance may help preserve the interest. But quietly I think the college athletic boom dies with the boomers because the 30 somethings never played in sufficient number any of the major sports and have no touchstone with them to draw their interest from. To understand my positions and my fears for my grandchildren you need some time.

When I was young I lived on the Florida coast for a while. It was three and half miles to the next beach home. Pensacola was not developed. Nobody knew about Destin. Ft.Walton Beach was the sleepiest of vacation venues and a Coke from a machine had just moved from a nickel to a dime. In the U.S. 30% of the wealth was in the middle class and privately owned business provided a great living for a large % of people. Today 97% of the wealth is in 3% of the populations hands. Those were the numbers for what we considered an oppressive regime in Mexico in my youth. Today it's the U.S.A. Think about that. In the late 50's and early 60's even an attendant at McDonald's was capable of making change while doing the simple math in his head. Literacy was taken for granted. And everyone knew the difference between then and than when using them in a sentence. Since I took the ACT and SAT the tests have been downgraded for various reasons half a dozen times. Your generation (if I've guessed correctly), half a decade to a full decade behind my children, have had so many less advantages than I had, or even my children. We have pursued the corporate agenda to its fullest even granting them the common rights of citizens. We are reaping the whirlwind and it will come home to roost soon enough. Selling our most cherished traditions, ones venerated by generations of families, I thought would be the final straw to get our people to wake up and take hold of their futures and their government. No such luck! Enjoy the circus provided by the new Corporate Empire. Read their logos all over your stadium and embroidered on your uniforms, and remember that now they even invade your most cherished space, and have come up with reasons to watch you from above and listen in for the sake of security. And when you've had a belly full of it and you finally realize how it impinges your life, remember. They have taken everything once dear to Americans and all we care about is how much add revenue and corporate grants our Universities will land next year. That is our distraction from the real dilemmas of our lives. Things like underpaying jobs, long hours, limited retirement, curtailed healthcare options, and a rigorous indoctrination of your children on issues that raise your ire. Then remember these fine men and women in leadership in our schools learned how to make a symbiotic living through close association with these entities and then tell me with a straight face that they have the best of good ole State U at heart and only care about research. Please! There are a few and they are worth knowing, but their ranks are slim. Cynical? I think sometimes I've just lived too long. I hope you have the privilege and good fortune to do the same. But it sure as hell won't be a gift or byproduct of the state.

I don't mind taking a scolding from you. I'm glad that I was able to provoke that from you. You may be surprised that I share just about every complaint that you have about the changes that time has visited upon our society. I cannot dispute any of your remarks about the intrusion, in every aspect of our lives and institutuions, by corporate opportunists and government beaurocrats.
Where we disagree, is in the much less subsantial field of CR. I think most of the "realigning" is finished, and that the remaining moves will occur at, or near, the GoR expiry dates. They will be made according to the wishes of the involved schools, despite the wishes or objections of ESPN.

I wasn't scolding, I was just being a cranky old fart who doesn't like the direction of his grandchildren's futures. And, who feels like he experienced the golden years of a nation now headed in the wrong direction and wishes it could be otherwise. I also hold out hopes to have a smidgen of influence by trying to point out the error of our ways. CR I have definite opinions about, some based on first hand and close second hand knowledge, but willingly admit there are too many variables left open to have certainty about when and where it happens again.

(07-03-2015 03:13 AM)IberianPanther Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 04:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 11:57 AM)IberianPanther Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The whole reason for the push to 16 and a P4 is to offer the American public a competitive 4 regions of college athletics, but to do so for the networks bottom line. If one conference becomes too strong that balance is lost and along with it potentially the interest of a whole region. That does not maximize advertising rates, it lowers them.

'Strong' in terms of what? The SEC and Big 10 are WAY ahead here in terms of FB 'kings' and 'barons', athletic budgets, TV revenue, etc. If the powers at be want to maintain the 'status quo', then having OU goto the SEC or Big 10 with Texas to the other (Big 10 or SEC) further solidifies all of that. How does that help interest in college FB in the the West Coast and 'Mid-Atlantic'/Northeast?

That's not what I wrote. I was placing the top brand in either the PAC or ACC. I specifically said that they simply couldn't go together to the SEC or Big 10 and that it would be best for Texas to wind up with either the PAC or ACC. Such a move would bring more balance.

Yes...sorry about that (Texas to PAC or ACC). But later on it seems that you suggest that OU to the SEC and I don't see how that keeps the balance with 4 competitive regions of college athletics. For that to happen, you really significantly improve FB and TV deals for the ACC and PAC.

Just geography. Oklahoma by themselves to the ACC doesn't make any sense. I'd swap them with Kansas and put the Jayhawks in the SEC and Oklahoma in the Big 10 but how does that culturally fit? It was just a much more likely scenario that OU would play Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas A&M all which border them and L.S.U. as a major annual match up. Texas is the balance tilter and Texas with OU totally places the Big 10 or SEC at a distinct advantage. So put Texas in the ACC or PAC and you bring some balance. The long shot approach to balance might be to send OU to the PAC, Kansas to the Big 10, Texas to the ACC, and West Virginia to the SEC. But geography has to play a role.

(07-03-2015 09:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  2 X 32-team super conferences split into 4 X 8-team divisions, with a 2-game conference championship and a single national championship game... sounds a lot like the NFL to me.

NCAA West
UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado, Colorado State, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Texas, Baylor, TCU, TAMU, Houston


NCAA East



Andddddddd I stopped here. The problem with this is the density of teams on the east coast is WAYYYYYYYYY higher than the west coast.

So my attempt at a NFL type layout ..... based around two conferences of 40 teams split into divisions of 20 teams with five team pods. This allows for four pods of 5, which also makes for easy scheduling and byes (odd numbered pods lead to easy bye scheduling, with the ability to cross pod schedule if a bye is not needed). The other ideal number is 9, and 18 team conferences with two divisions of 9 work as well as 36 team conferences with four 9 team divisions.

NCAA Conference 1
Atlantic:
UF, FSU, Miami, UCF, USF
GT, (THW)Georgia, Clemson, USC-E, TN
NC State, Duke, ECU, WF, UNC
UVA, VT, UK, UofL, Vandy

Southern:
Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU
Arkiesaw, TAMU, Texas, Baylor, TCU
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, SMU, Houston, Texas Tech
Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa State



NCAA Conference 2
Western:
California, UCLA, USC, Stanford, San Diego State
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Boise State
Arizona, Arizona State, UNLV, Nevada, Utah State
BYU, Utah, Colorado, Air Force, Colorado State

Damned Yankee:
BC, Cuse, UCONN, Navy, Rutgers
Temple, Penn State, Pitt, UMD, Notre Dame
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois

(07-03-2015 03:31 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  So my attempt at a NFL type layout ..... based around two conferences of 40 teams split into divisions of 20 teams with five team pods. This allows for four pods of 5, which also makes for easy scheduling and byes (odd numbered pods lead to easy bye scheduling, with the ability to cross pod schedule if a bye is not needed). The other ideal number is 9, and 18 team conferences with two divisions of 9 work as well as 36 team conferences with four 9 team divisions.

NCAA Conference 1
Atlantic:
UF, FSU, Miami, UCF, USF
GT, (THW)Georgia, Clemson, USC-E, TN
NC State, Duke, ECU, WF, UNC
UVA, VT, UK, UofL, Vandy

Southern:
Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU
Arkiesaw, TAMU, Texas, Baylor, TCU
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, SMU, Houston, Texas Tech
Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, Nebraska, Iowa State



NCAA Conference 2
Western:
California, UCLA, USC, Stanford, San Diego State
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Boise State
Arizona, Arizona State, UNLV, Nevada, Utah State
BYU, Utah, Colorado, Air Force, Colorado State

Damned Yankee:
BC, Cuse, UCONN, Navy, Rutgers
Temple, Penn State, Pitt, UMD, Notre Dame
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois

Not really an NFL type layout. You would split the states two ways if it was NFL style.