(12-19-2015 09:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:31 PM)samandrea Wrote:  Why would it be dead? What does NCAA do that can't be replaced?

i) it's not that all the coordination/administration that the NCAA does couldn't be done by a new association created by the P5, but that would take a lot of work to set up.

ii) take out non-P5 schools from March Madness, and it's just the ACC tourny + SEC tourny + B1G tourny ....

Only those fanbases will case. No one else will, anymore.

Not only that, but the NCAA tourney does not seem to be very much larger than ideal in terms of media value, which would seem to be 64. The FBS plus Big East (and maybe A10) might be enough for a 64 team tournment, but the P5 alone would not be, especially if there is a further shake-up.

And the Tourney is the main college sports media value where the majority of the value does not lie in the hands of the schools and their conferences, as the NCAA uses it to prop up most of their system.

(12-19-2015 11:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 09:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 06:31 PM)samandrea Wrote:  Why would it be dead? What does NCAA do that can't be replaced?

i) it's not that all the coordination/administration that the NCAA does couldn't be done by a new association created by the P5, but that would take a lot of work to set up.

ii) take out non-P5 schools from March Madness, and it's just the ACC tourny + SEC tourny + B1G tourny ....

Only those fanbases will case. No one else will, anymore.

Not only that, but the NCAA tourney does not seem to be very much larger than ideal in terms of media value, which would seem to be 64. The FBS plus Big East (and maybe A10) might be enough for a 64 team tournment, but the P5 alone would not be, especially if there is a further shake-up.

And the Tourney is the main college sports media value where the majority of the value does not lie in the hands of the schools and their conferences, as the NCAA uses it to prop up most of their system.

Truthfully Bruce, there would be little difference if we went back to a field of 32. Historically there really haven't been many upsets in the first round. It is very true that the few that have happened always spur interest, but the tourney itself would not be statistically changed with regards to the Sweet 16 if we started with 32. And, 32 could easily be furnished out of the P5 & Big East.

IMO the reason we stand at 64 plus is because there is no other event where crappy match ups get the kind of add revenue they do in the first round of the tourney. That and it fills a weekend during the slow season for national sports of interest.

(12-19-2015 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 09:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 06:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 01:33 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the SEC adds two and stays at 16, with the SEC's top targets being Virginia, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, NC State and Duke. They all check the added geography and academic boxes and provide additional cannon fodder for the SEC football schools. And if the ACC breaks apart, they will get two of them.

I think Oklahoma is a tier 2 possibility because it helps bolster the SEC's presence in Texas, but if two of the others are available, I think the SEC passes.

Notre Dame may also be a possibility but an unlikely one. The lack of say status, and more importantly Notre Dame's lack of graduate level, nationally recognized STEM research programs, means the only reasons the B1G would add Notre Dame would be to restore historic rivalries or gain Notre Dame's nationwide fanbase. Those reasons might be enough to get Notre Dame a spot, but I don't think they want one.

The SEC would take Oklahoma over NC State or VT in a nano-second. No comparison among those schools, Oklahoma is a flagship and blue-chip football brand.

The B1G would take Notre Dame in one as well. Everyone would. Even academically, Notre Dame enhances any conference's profile, it doesn't harm it.

Of course -- as always is the case -- that depends on what you mean by "academics", the ever-loaded word of our message board times.

If meant by reputation rankings of "general undergraduate education" and APR, then yes absolutely Notre Dame would enhance any P5.

But if meant by research, then not necessarily.


And agree 100% that SEC would take Oklahoma. That gives them a very neat, very competitive, very lucrative group of four out in the Tex-La-Ark-A.

Yeah, so many of the discussions are conquest scenarios. The question that should frame Big 10 and SEC realignment scenarios is "Which schools complete our existing footprints?"

It could be argued that certain combinations of two would do that for either conference.

For the SEC: Oklahoma & Texas, Oklahoma & Florida State, a North Carolina and a Virginia state school.

OU and Texas would finish off two divisions with ample contenders and break down as a very solid East vs West in the SEC as Alabama and Auburn would likely shift East.

Oklahoma and Florida State would give the SEC even greater control over the Florida and Texas regions, two brands, and tremendous content value. F.S.U. and an Auburn moving East would help to re-balance the divisions. North Carolina and Virginia as states complete the gap in the footprint.

For the Big 10: A Virginia and a North Carolina state school, Kansas & Oklahoma, Kansas & Missouri, Kansas & Notre Dame, or Notre Dame & Syracuse

If East Coast markets are still the desire then adding UNC & UVa to go with Maryland is their home run. Notre Dame and Syracuse would be a nice fallback if the former wasn't obtainable. If re-balancing their conference geographically is a goal then any combination of Kansas (OU, Missouri, N.D.) gets it done.

Also, while N.D. isn't likely, if there is further consolidation they will run out of options and have to pick a home. Access to the playoffs, academics and money are going to matter in that decision.

If the SEC and Big 10 don't get greedy and stick to two adds each they should be able to cooperate to some extent on their objectives. They may even be able to cooperate to some degree if they both want four.

I can't imagine the Big 10 being unhappy with Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and N.D. That's 4 national brands and superlative academics when the 4 are looked at as a whole. It solidly gives them the Northeast and the Mid Atlantic markets.

I can't imagine the SEC being unhappy with Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson and Texas. That's three national brands and the two most SEC like schools from the ACC. It clearly gives the SEC dominance within it's total footprint and adds tremendous content value. And remember that Clemson and Florida State in an expanded SEC would both be well north of the 100m club's bottom line.

What happens after the Big 10 and SEC get what they want doesn't really matter. Brand solidification will have taken place, realignment as it pertains to the most valuable properties would be over, and should the two conferences then agree to more bowl pairings and cross conference play in all sports it will only set up natural rivalries that profit both.

BTW: In 1991 the big plan (which didn't come to fruition) was to expand to 16 by adding Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Clemson & Florida State. If the SEC moved to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State it would merely be a fulfillment of aspirations that were set almost 25 years ago. Missouri and South Carolina would merely be beneficiaries of the delay.

The big unknown is how big the SEC and B1G want to get. At some point the conference gets too large and loses its identity and cohesiveness. The B1G has already given signals that it would go past 16, but I don't think the SEC has yet.

The other big unknown is how the SEC, B1G, PAC, ESPN and Fox see the future - 3 super conferences or 4. Preserving 4 means more limited expansion by the B1G and in that scenario, take your pick about which of the ACC or Big 12 gets carved up.

(12-19-2015 12:28 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 10:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 09:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 06:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 01:33 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  I think the SEC adds two and stays at 16, with the SEC's top targets being Virginia, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, NC State and Duke. They all check the added geography and academic boxes and provide additional cannon fodder for the SEC football schools. And if the ACC breaks apart, they will get two of them.

I think Oklahoma is a tier 2 possibility because it helps bolster the SEC's presence in Texas, but if two of the others are available, I think the SEC passes.

Notre Dame may also be a possibility but an unlikely one. The lack of say status, and more importantly Notre Dame's lack of graduate level, nationally recognized STEM research programs, means the only reasons the B1G would add Notre Dame would be to restore historic rivalries or gain Notre Dame's nationwide fanbase. Those reasons might be enough to get Notre Dame a spot, but I don't think they want one.

The SEC would take Oklahoma over NC State or VT in a nano-second. No comparison among those schools, Oklahoma is a flagship and blue-chip football brand.

The B1G would take Notre Dame in one as well. Everyone would. Even academically, Notre Dame enhances any conference's profile, it doesn't harm it.

Of course -- as always is the case -- that depends on what you mean by "academics", the ever-loaded word of our message board times.

If meant by reputation rankings of "general undergraduate education" and APR, then yes absolutely Notre Dame would enhance any P5.

But if meant by research, then not necessarily.


And agree 100% that SEC would take Oklahoma. That gives them a very neat, very competitive, very lucrative group of four out in the Tex-La-Ark-A.

Yeah, so many of the discussions are conquest scenarios. The question that should frame Big 10 and SEC realignment scenarios is "Which schools complete our existing footprints?"

It could be argued that certain combinations of two would do that for either conference.

For the SEC: Oklahoma & Texas, Oklahoma & Florida State, a North Carolina and a Virginia state school.

OU and Texas would finish off two divisions with ample contenders and break down as a very solid East vs West in the SEC as Alabama and Auburn would likely shift East.

Oklahoma and Florida State would give the SEC even greater control over the Florida and Texas regions, two brands, and tremendous content value. F.S.U. and an Auburn moving East would help to re-balance the divisions. North Carolina and Virginia as states complete the gap in the footprint.

For the Big 10: A Virginia and a North Carolina state school, Kansas & Oklahoma, Kansas & Missouri, Kansas & Notre Dame, or Notre Dame & Syracuse

If East Coast markets are still the desire then adding UNC & UVa to go with Maryland is their home run. Notre Dame and Syracuse would be a nice fallback if the former wasn't obtainable. If re-balancing their conference geographically is a goal then any combination of Kansas (OU, Missouri, N.D.) gets it done.

Also, while N.D. isn't likely, if there is further consolidation they will run out of options and have to pick a home. Access to the playoffs, academics and money are going to matter in that decision.

If the SEC and Big 10 don't get greedy and stick to two adds each they should be able to cooperate to some extent on their objectives. They may even be able to cooperate to some degree if they both want four.

I can't imagine the Big 10 being unhappy with Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and N.D. That's 4 national brands and superlative academics when the 4 are looked at as a whole. It solidly gives them the Northeast and the Mid Atlantic markets.

I can't imagine the SEC being unhappy with Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson and Texas. That's three national brands and the two most SEC like schools from the ACC. It clearly gives the SEC dominance within it's total footprint and adds tremendous content value. And remember that Clemson and Florida State in an expanded SEC would both be well north of the 100m club's bottom line.

What happens after the Big 10 and SEC get what they want doesn't really matter. Brand solidification will have taken place, realignment as it pertains to the most valuable properties would be over, and should the two conferences then agree to more bowl pairings and cross conference play in all sports it will only set up natural rivalries that profit both.

BTW: In 1991 the big plan (which didn't come to fruition) was to expand to 16 by adding Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Clemson & Florida State. If the SEC moved to 18 with Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State it would merely be a fulfillment of aspirations that were set almost 25 years ago. Missouri and South Carolina would merely be beneficiaries of the delay.

The big unknown is how big the SEC and B1G want to get. At some point the conference gets too large and loses its identity and cohesiveness. The B1G has already given signals that it would go past 16, but I don't think the SEC has yet.

The other big unknown is how the SEC, B1G, PAC, ESPN and Fox see the future - 3 super conferences or 4. Preserving 4 means more limited expansion by the B1G and in that scenario, take your pick about which of the ACC or Big 12 gets carved up.

Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

(12-19-2015 11:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Not only that, but the NCAA tourney does not seem to be very much larger than ideal in terms of media value, which would seem to be 64. The FBS plus Big East (and maybe A10) might be enough for a 64 team tournment, but the P5 alone would not be, especially if there is a further shake-up.

And the Tourney is the main college sports media value where the majority of the value does not lie in the hands of the schools and their conferences, as the NCAA uses it to prop up most of their system.

If there was a breakaway from the NCAA, it would just mean a new March Madness, not the end of it.

First, the breakaway might be started by P5 conferences, but they would allow other schools and conferences to join.

What the "new association" would do for its tournaments is start with autobids for each member of "new association" and then issue at large invitations to the best teams in "new association" and the best teams that remained in the NCAA Division I. If the NCAA wants to bar its remaining members from participating in "new March Madness", let 'em try. Either the NCAA would give in and let them participate, or the end result would be a larger exodus from the NCAA.

(12-19-2015 01:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 11:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Not only that, but the NCAA tourney does not seem to be very much larger than ideal in terms of media value, which would seem to be 64. The FBS plus Big East (and maybe A10) might be enough for a 64 team tournment, but the P5 alone would not be, especially if there is a further shake-up.

And the Tourney is the main college sports media value where the majority of the value does not lie in the hands of the schools and their conferences, as the NCAA uses it to prop up most of their system.

If there was a breakaway from the NCAA, it would just mean a new March Madness, not the end of it.

First, the breakaway might be started by P5 conferences, but they would allow other schools and conferences to join.

What the "new association" would do for its tournaments is start with autobids for each member of "new association" and then issue at large invitations to the best teams in "new association" and the best teams that remained in the NCAA Division I. If the NCAA wants to bar its remaining members from participating in "new March Madness", let 'em try. Either the NCAA would give in and let them participate, or the end result would be a larger exodus from the NCAA.

And the schools and conferences would actually keep much more of that money that the NCAA has rat holed into nearly 1 Billion in endowments.

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

(12-19-2015 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

Kansas would be attractive as a consolation prize to Nebraska and Iowa if the B1G did not get Oklahoma. Kansas bball provides top content for the BTN.

Georgia Tech fits like a glove with the B1G engineering programs (#4 in the country) and gives the B1G a presence in a great recruiting area full of B1G alumni. G Tech may be more valuable in the long run to the B1G than any other ACC school.

(12-19-2015 07:35 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

Kansas would be attractive as a consolation prize to Nebraska and Iowa if the B1G did not get Oklahoma. Kansas bball provides top content for the BTN.

Georgia Tech fits like a glove with the B1G engineering programs (#4 in the country) and gives the B1G a presence in a great recruiting area full of B1G alumni. G Tech may be more valuable in the long run to the B1G than any other ACC school.

I totally agree with your reasoning as to why the two schools fit. My point is do they add 40 plus million in value to a Big 10 that would already have Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame? Now either one of them could theoretically take a recalcitrant N.D.'s place, but the point is that a Big 10 with those 4 additions would be worth closer to 50 million per school without Kansas and Georgia Tech. So adding them means they have to add enough value to the conference to pay for their way to an invitation. I don't think either one of them can do that. It's a business, not a fraternity. It doesn't matter how much the members like them. What matters is whether or not they add to the bottom line, or detract from it.

(12-19-2015 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 07:35 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

Kansas would be attractive as a consolation prize to Nebraska and Iowa if the B1G did not get Oklahoma. Kansas bball provides top content for the BTN.

Georgia Tech fits like a glove with the B1G engineering programs (#4 in the country) and gives the B1G a presence in a great recruiting area full of B1G alumni. G Tech may be more valuable in the long run to the B1G than any other ACC school.

I totally agree with your reasoning as to why the two schools fit. My point is do they add 40 plus million in value to a Big 10 that would already have Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Notre Dame? Now either one of them could theoretically take a recalcitrant N.D.'s place, but the point is that a Big 10 with those 4 additions would be worth closer to 50 million per school without Kansas and Georgia Tech. So adding them means they have to add enough value to the conference to pay for their way to an invitation. I don't think either one of them can do that. It's a business, not a fraternity. It doesn't matter how much the members like them. What matters is whether or not they add to the bottom line, or detract from it.

Kansas brings a significant amount of the Missouri market with it. Georgia Tech brings Atlanta, which has lots of B1G alumni in it. I think they will bring the right amount of revenue and, at least in Georgia Tech's case, the fertile recruiting ground would be worth it even if the revenue is not there.

(12-19-2015 11:44 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Truthfully Bruce, there would be little difference if we went back to a field of 32. Historically there really haven't been many upsets in the first round. It is very true that the few that have happened always spur interest, but the tourney itself would not be statistically changed with regards to the Sweet 16 if we started with 32. And, 32 could easily be furnished out of the P5 & Big East.

IMO the reason we stand at 64 plus is because there is no other event where crappy match ups get the kind of add revenue they do in the first round of the tourney. That and it fills a weekend during the slow season for national sports of interest.

I was only discussed media value, since I was discussion what substantial existing media value is locked away, out of the reach of the big schools in the big conferences.

I was not discussing its value in terms of setting up interesting games. People watch the first round because their team is in it, or their pick in the office bracket pool is in it, or because there's nothing else on ... but people watch the first round, which is what CBS etc. cares about.

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

How could the PAC (rather any other conference) compete with that? I don't see what they could do to match. It would basically be a Big Two and everyone else scenario. Maybe the "everyone else" would break off and start their own organization. Even if they take in a Kansas or a BYU (as unlikely as that looks now) I doubt they come close in financial power. Would a Texas Tech/Houston combo bring enough value to make it worthwhile to the PAC?

(12-20-2015 01:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

How could the PAC (rather any other conference) compete with that? I don't see what they could do to match. It would basically be a Big Two and everyone else scenario. Maybe the "everyone else" would break off and start their own organization. Even if they take in a Kansas or a BYU (as unlikely as that looks now) I doubt they come close in financial power. Would a Texas Tech/Houston combo bring enough value to make it worthwhile to the PAC?

The PAC is so limited by geography that I'm not sure there is much they can do.

Theoretically, the PAC could make out quite well by adding OU, UT, and a couple of others from the Big 12, but odds are those schools would be making less money in an expanded PAC than they could in the B1G or the SEC.

(12-19-2015 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

The only issue I see here is that I think the SEC could profit additionally by moves into NC and VA...Virginia Tech and NC State. The brand power isn't as strong, understandably, but the markets are very strong and continuing to grow. VT has pretty much already passed UVA as the most popular program in its state. I think that trend will continue if 1) the football team rises back to national relevance and 2) if VT maintains its current status as the "big state school." Their enrollment is much higher than UVA and eventually the alumni numbers will catch up.

Not so sure about the B1G at that point as their options would be much more limited, but KU is in the $100M club so I don't see them getting left out of the networks' plans.

Perhaps...

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Texas to the SEC...

Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Syracuse to the B1G...

The B1G would be the undeniable basketball powerhouse and that would help maximize KU and SU's value to a national audience.

The SEC would be the undeniable football powerhouse and a school like VT could probably find relevance again. NC State is decent football school and being the only SEC school in a state with good talent should up their program's profile as well.

(12-20-2015 01:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

How could the PAC (rather any other conference) compete with that? I don't see what they could do to match. It would basically be a Big Two and everyone else scenario. Maybe the "everyone else" would break off and start their own organization. Even if they take in a Kansas or a BYU (as unlikely as that looks now) I doubt they come close in financial power. Would a Texas Tech/Houston combo bring enough value to make it worthwhile to the PAC?

Bigger is not always better. These conferences take a big risk to their cohesiveness and rivalries if they go beyond 14 and really become separate conferences if they go to 18 or 20.

(12-20-2015 05:49 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 06:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 05:54 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

Your scenario is 3 super conferences and that might force ND to join the B1G. If it comes to pass as you speculate, i think the B1G goes to 20 and adds Kansas and Georgia Tech.

I don't think so. Neither Kansas nor Georgia Tech raises the pay of the Big 10 at that point and the existing schools will not vote themselves less money. Remember we are speaking after GOR's so there is no need to move enough to vote for any kind of dissolution. It's simply a grab of the schools that can earn you more money. Tech doesn't deliver but a fraction of their home state and the Big 10 already has carriage in the larger cities of Kansas. There simply isn't going to be the incentive for them to be added.

Kansas however might have legs to the PAC.

The only issue I see here is that I think the SEC could profit additionally by moves into NC and VA...Virginia Tech and NC State. The brand power isn't as strong, understandably, but the markets are very strong and continuing to grow. VT has pretty much already passed UVA as the most popular program in its state. I think that trend will continue if 1) the football team rises back to national relevance and 2) if VT maintains its current status as the "big state school." Their enrollment is much higher than UVA and eventually the alumni numbers will catch up.

Not so sure about the B1G at that point as their options would be much more limited, but KU is in the $100M club so I don't see them getting left out of the networks' plans.

Perhaps...

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Texas to the SEC...

Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Syracuse to the B1G...

The B1G would be the undeniable basketball powerhouse and that would help maximize KU and SU's value to a national audience.

The SEC would be the undeniable football powerhouse and a school like VT could probably find relevance again. NC State is decent football school and being the only SEC school in a state with good talent should up their program's profile as well.

The B1G would take Georgia Tech instead of Syracuse.

I think it would makes sense for the SEC and ESPN to shift 10 ACC school's into a 24 team SEC. For football, have 4 pods of 6 and a 2 game playoff. For basketball/other sports have 3 pods of 8 each having their own tourney. The big 10 could raid the pac 12 for 10 school's and copy the same format.

(12-20-2015 01:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

How could the PAC (rather any other conference) compete with that? I don't see what they could do to match. It would basically be a Big Two and everyone else scenario. Maybe the "everyone else" would break off and start their own organization. Even if they take in a Kansas or a BYU (as unlikely as that looks now) I doubt they come close in financial power. Would a Texas Tech/Houston combo bring enough value to make it worthwhile to the PAC?

For the PAC to move into Texas without UT & A&M they would need Texas Tech as a bridge geographically, T.C.U. (which is now secular outside of the seminary) to claim DFW, and Houston to claim the Gulf side of Texas. So I would say 3 puts them in that state significantly.

(12-20-2015 10:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 01:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(12-19-2015 12:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Identity is kind of the point I was trying to make with either just two, or possibly 4. In each case the 4 listed actually solidifies the new conference boundaries and blends well enough culturally not to alter either the Big 10 or SEC.

Big 10 East:
Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia

Big 10 Central:
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers

Big 10 West:
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC East:
Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

SEC Central:
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

SEC West:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas

How could the PAC (rather any other conference) compete with that? I don't see what they could do to match. It would basically be a Big Two and everyone else scenario. Maybe the "everyone else" would break off and start their own organization. Even if they take in a Kansas or a BYU (as unlikely as that looks now) I doubt they come close in financial power. Would a Texas Tech/Houston combo bring enough value to make it worthwhile to the PAC?

Bigger is not always better. These conferences take a big risk to their cohesiveness and rivalries if they go beyond 14 and really become separate conferences if they go to 18 or 20.

Not really. What they become is a scheduling alliance between to confederated conferences. It is simply more formal and profitable than what we have now.