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've been lurking across several of the boards, and I just wanted to say thanks. I've caught a couple of your previous posts on the subject and this one in particular really lays it out. This kind of insight is really informative. I was under the impression that the presidents largely rallied for where they wanted to be conference wise, but it makes tons more sense that network executives set the groundwork to ensure that their product is as good as they can have it.

The circumstances and potential landing spots for the premier brands of the BIG XII are well documented by now. What is your opinion on the fate of the schools that would be left behind if the conference dissolved?

I think a pac 20 could grab both OU and Texas…i'm not really sure why the pac 12 doesn't make the move an offer 8 big 12 school's, 7 if WVU has a landing spot in the big 10, sec or acc. Thus, the big 12 conference can be dissolved and the GOR issue is DOA and the end result is a p4.

(07-01-2015 09:39 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  I've been lurking across several of the boards, and I just wanted to say thanks. I've caught a couple of your previous posts on the subject and this one in particular really lays it out. This kind of insight is really informative. I was under the impression that the presidents largely rallied for where they wanted to be conference wise, but it makes tons more sense that network executives set the groundwork to ensure that their product is as good as they can have it.

The circumstances and potential landing spots for the premier brands of the BIG XII are well documented by now. What is your opinion on the fate of the schools that would be left behind if the conference dissolved?

I think that depends on a lot of variables but there are some factors that could help everyone make a good guess. If the PAC takes Texas they essentially have that state. Therefore I believe if the PAC does get Texas they will want at least two other state markets for their footprint and Central Time Zone exposure. Iowa State meets their academic standards and might do well in the PAC but if Texas is negotiating I think they are going to want a more compact arrangement. I think they will take Texas Tech if possible because it is a natural bridge toward Utah and Arizona and Kansas State adds that extra market and solves KU's problem and Oklahoma State gives Texas another Dallas game if they want it. The SEC might have interest in Texas Tech but the travel would be tough. T.C.U. would not be needed since Dallas is delivered by the Sooners. The question is would the SEC want a second Texas school. If so Baylor makes some sense, even though I know many who would disagree. As a Baptist school they would have empathetic support across the Southeast. They give us fans spread out across Eastern Texas and have some support in Dallas to augment what Oklahoma brings. If the ACC takes West Virginia the options are limited. If on the other hand Texas takes T.C.U. to the PAC instead of Tech I think we take Tech for that second Texas school.

I stated the Big 10 might take 1 maybe 2. I don't see Iowa State going Big 10 but they are AAU. So one of the Texas privates might be on the bubble and Iowa State might be as well. Iowa is contiguous to Missouri so for another state it would be a long shot as an SEC second but who knows? So my best guess is this:
PAC: Texas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech
SEC: Oklahoma and Baylor
Big 10: Kansas (Iowa State or Connecticut)
ACC: West Virginia

Now a one time plan was for the ACC to take 4 from the Big 12 and loose 2. If Texas were to go to the ACC and take 3 it changes everything.

In that case Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma State, and West Virginia go to the ACC.
The Big 10 gets Kansas and Oklahoma.
The SEC gets Virginia Tech and N.C. State
And the PAC if they get anyone gets Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State and Iowa State. It is a scenario that places them all. It's just that nobody believes the PAC would take those 4 with no brands.

I think this is why Texas has to go West to get the number of votes to dissolve. And if Texas goes West ESPN gets something in return. This is the caveat to which I referred. When A&M joined the SEC they wore t shirts that already had the states of Virginia and North Carolina within the SEC footprint....oops! The deal had been in the works, Clay Travis leaked it to vet the concept with the SEC folks, and then it got killed somewhere within the Research Triangle. So I don't think we go there again.

I think what we have proposed now is as close as we might come to compromise and balance. And really when we get passed this move to 16 if any G5 schools are added in the future to any of these conferences they wont be objected to or seen as game changers, just niche market additions. But I don't see any G5 being added in the next 10 years, unless its UConn.

(07-01-2015 09:51 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think a pac 20 could grab both OU and Texas…i'm not really sure why the pac 12 doesn't make the move an offer 8 big 12 school's, 7 if WVU has a landing spot in the big 10, sec or acc. Thus, the big 12 conference can be dissolved and the GOR issue is DOA and the end result is a p4.

If ESPN and FOX got a good share of the PACN then an 8 team move West would be a possibility that would keep the state schools and at least 1 private intact. If that happened I would expect the ACC to be on the menu for the Big 10 and SEC to the tune of six schools each. We would be looking at a P3 and not a P4. The biggest reason however that I don't see this move happening is that in part Texas and Oklahoma want to escape the image of only playing each other. We know that Baylor and T.C.U. and Oklahoma State field extremely competitive teams that would compete well in any P5 conference, but the perception is killing them. The viewing public sees the Big 12 as the Big 2 and the 8 others. Oklahoma is more sensitive to that than Texas appears to be but it is an issue.

Why not a balanced P2?

It still seems to me that there are very few workable permutations of BigXII dissolution that result in four roughly balanced power conferences.

If the BigXii, ACC, and PAC were ALL dissolved with most members incorporated into either the B1G and SEC, there are a lot of permutations that would result in a roughly balanced P2.

(07-01-2015 10:12 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Why not a balanced P2?

It still seems to me that there are very few workable permutations of BigXII dissolution that result in four roughly balanced power conferences.

If the BigXii, ACC, and PAC were ALL dissolved with most members incorporated into either the B1G and SEC, there are a lot of permutations that would result in a roughly balanced P2.

One day it could go there, but I don't think anyone believes there is enough emotional stamina left for us to try that now. The toll it would take on traditions that have already been battered would hurt the love of the game for too many. It's better to deliver what seems to be a fair access to the championship which a 4 champs model give us, and to parse the only conference so wounded already that the moves would be welcomed by at least some of their fan bases. If we move to any kind of a balance with less than 4 I think it will be a P3 where what Bluesox suggests happens. Texas, Texas T., T.C.U., OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and ISU all go west. Syracuse, B.C., Virginia, UNC, Duke, and yes a trapped N.D. go Big 10.
Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, and probably Louisville go SEC. Baylor, Pitt, West Virginia, Miami, and Wake Forest get left out, or perhaps B.C. instead of one of others. The problem with this is it reduces the P5 by 5 raising the contention level for everyone. That's when the lawsuits would fly. It's better to include almost everyone presently in the P5 and even add some G5 in a decade to keep the possibility of upward mobility from making it look like a closed system.

The Texoma 4 will stick together. If that means SEC so be it. If means PAC so be it

Both conferences could use our support

(07-01-2015 10:12 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Why not a balanced P2?

It still seems to me that there are very few workable permutations of BigXII dissolution that result in four roughly balanced power conferences.

If the BigXii, ACC, and PAC were ALL dissolved with most members incorporated into either the B1G and SEC, there are a lot of permutations that would result in a roughly balanced P2.

"One called ESPN, and another called FOX"

(07-01-2015 10:24 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:12 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Why not a balanced P2?

It still seems to me that there are very few workable permutations of BigXII dissolution that result in four roughly balanced power conferences.

If the BigXii, ACC, and PAC were ALL dissolved with most members incorporated into either the B1G and SEC, there are a lot of permutations that would result in a roughly balanced P2.

"One called ESPN, and another called FOX"

There are really only two brands of college athletics now- SEC and B1G. You can line up the other 37 teams and many would clearly fit very closely with one or the other with a few toss ups and a few that are questionable fits either way (not a good position).
Top properties
B1G match: UW, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Duke
SEC match: FSU, VT, WVU, NCST, Clemson, Miami, Oklahoma State
Either: Oregon, Oklahoma, ASU, GT, UNC, UVA, ND, UT
Secondary properities
B1G match: ISU, Pitt
SEC match: Baylor, TCU, Louisville,
Either/none: WSU, OrSU, Utah, TTU, KSU, WF, BC, Syr

(07-01-2015 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:51 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think a pac 20 could grab both OU and Texas…i'm not really sure why the pac 12 doesn't make the move an offer 8 big 12 school's, 7 if WVU has a landing spot in the big 10, sec or acc. Thus, the big 12 conference can be dissolved and the GOR issue is DOA and the end result is a p4.

If ESPN and FOX got a good share of the PACN then an 8 team move West would be a possibility that would keep the state schools and at least 1 private intact. If that happened I would expect the ACC to be on the menu for the Big 10 and SEC to the tune of six schools each. We would be looking at a P3 and not a P4. The biggest reason however that I don't see this move happening is that in part Texas and Oklahoma want to escape the image of only playing each other. We know that Baylor and T.C.U. and Oklahoma State field extremely competitive teams that would compete well in any P5 conference, but the perception is killing them. The viewing public sees the Big 12 as the Big 2 and the 8 others. Oklahoma is more sensitive to that than Texas appears to be but it is an issue.

You might think that Colorado does not want to disrupt their instate rivalry game with Colorado State, and I would not rule out several MWC schools that could help out.

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,

(07-01-2015 10:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:12 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Why not a balanced P2?

It still seems to me that there are very few workable permutations of BigXII dissolution that result in four roughly balanced power conferences.

If the BigXii, ACC, and PAC were ALL dissolved with most members incorporated into either the B1G and SEC, there are a lot of permutations that would result in a roughly balanced P2.

One day it could go there, but I don't think anyone believes there is enough emotional stamina left for us to try that now. The toll it would take on traditions that have already been battered would hurt the love of the game for too many. It's better to deliver what seems to be a fair access to the championship which a 4 champs model give us, and to parse the only conference so wounded already that the moves would be welcomed by at least some of their fan bases. If we move to any kind of a balance with less than 4 I think it will be a P3 where what Bluesox suggests happens. Texas, Texas T., T.C.U., OU, OSU, KU, KSU, and ISU all go west. Syracuse, B.C., Virginia, UNC, Duke, and yes a trapped N.D. go Big 10.
Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, and probably Louisville go SEC. Baylor, Pitt, West Virginia, Miami, and Wake Forest get left out, or perhaps B.C. instead of one of others. The problem with this is it reduces the P5 by 5 raising the contention level for everyone. That's when the lawsuits would fly. It's better to include almost everyone presently in the P5 and even add some G5 in a decade to keep the possibility of upward mobility from making it look like a closed system.

Write in paragraph format. I think you will get more readers.

(07-01-2015 09:51 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think a pac 20 could grab both OU and Texas…i'm not really sure why the pac 12 doesn't make the move an offer 8 big 12 school's, 7 if WVU has a landing spot in the big 10, sec or acc. Thus, the big 12 conference can be dissolved and the GOR issue is DOA and the end result is a p4.

If the PAC wants to expand beyond its 12 school membership and excludes current G5 schools from consideration, then it has no choice but to raid the Big 12. Only PAC alone could cause the Big 12 to disband. Of course PAC would have to invite 8 schools to accomplish this. I'm not sure PAC wants to double up on schools in Oklahoma and Kansas though, plus invite Texas private schools.

(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 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.

(07-02-2015 01:20 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:51 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I think a pac 20 could grab both OU and Texas…i'm not really sure why the pac 12 doesn't make the move an offer 8 big 12 school's, 7 if WVU has a landing spot in the big 10, sec or acc. Thus, the big 12 conference can be dissolved and the GOR issue is DOA and the end result is a p4.

If ESPN and FOX got a good share of the PACN then an 8 team move West would be a possibility that would keep the state schools and at least 1 private intact. If that happened I would expect the ACC to be on the menu for the Big 10 and SEC to the tune of six schools each. We would be looking at a P3 and not a P4. The biggest reason however that I don't see this move happening is that in part Texas and Oklahoma want to escape the image of only playing each other. We know that Baylor and T.C.U. and Oklahoma State field extremely competitive teams that would compete well in any P5 conference, but the perception is killing them. The viewing public sees the Big 12 as the Big 2 and the 8 others. Oklahoma is more sensitive to that than Texas appears to be but it is an issue.

You might think that Colorado does not want to disrupt their instate rivalry game with Colorado State, and I would not rule out several MWC schools that could help out.

1) Colorado does not view Colorado State as a "rivalry" and has no special affection for this game...
2) CU has already suspended and tried to kill off this series several times over the years, so it's hardly a game that CU has circled as the "We must play this game at all costs..."

Just sayin'. There are political reasons why this game gets played, but it's hardly the "irresistible force" nor the "immovable object" you seem to think it is.

If you believe Cougar message board posters (red and blue) know what they are talking about (yes, I know-a big stretch that ANY message board poster really knows what they are talking about), there is an outline for a different type of collusion. BYU's admin supposedly believes they will end up in the Pac. UH is being talked to by Pac, Big 10 and Big 12. Big 12 is looking east and not towards BYU for various reasons, thinking about red cougars and bearcats. Could the reason be cooperation? BYU + 1 (UNLV if you go by finances) to Pac. UH + Cincinnati to Big 12. Then you've got 4X14 + 1X12. And the finish of this is when ND finally decides they want to join the ACC and the ACC has to farm out Louisville to the Big 12.

And if you want to throw in Fox and ESPN, both have basically the same stake in the Big 12 and Pac 12, splitting the Tier I & II equally.

(07-01-2015 08:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  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.

I'd like to see the fine print on that, namely, what the price of the buyback is.

Slive did sign what turned out to be a terrible deal in 2008, it was a colossal blunder, especially in contrast with Delany's wise move to start the BTN. ESPN isn't run by dummies either, and they had little incentive to give the SEC back much of the whopping extra value they acquired in that 2008 deal.

Until I see numbers to the contrary, I will continue to think that the SECN, even if it produces $40m a year per school, still just makes the best of a bad situation for the SEC.

(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.

Maybe everybody should jump to 18. Format 5-2-2 with a 2 game playoff of pod winners. ND/navy can share some games. For other sports, the leagues break off into 9 team divisions that each hold tournaments.



ACC

UVA, V tech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake

Cincy, Lville, Clemson, Gtech, FSU, Miami

BC, Uconn, ND, Cuse, Pitt, WVU

SEC

Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss State, LSU, Arkansas

Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, OU, Okla State

Kentucky, Tenn, Vandy, UGA, Scar, UF



Big 10

Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, IU, Purdue

Michigan, MSU, NW, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota

Iowa, Io State, Kansas, Kan State, Nebraska, Missouri

pac 18

Wash, Wash State, Oreg, Oreg State, SD state, UNLV

Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Ariz, Ariz State

Utah, Byu, Colorado, New Mexico, Boise, TCU