(12-27-2015 12:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm happy with any situation where Texas stays as far away as possible. They are a poison pill to any conference and always will be.

I'm with you there.

It's now January 3rd, 2016. The bowls are over. In a little over a week the National Championship will be decided. After that it is back to business as usual. And what will that business be?

[b]1. Deciding how conferences can organize themselves.

This is significant to both the Big 12 and ACC. If the Big 12 is permitted to break into two divisions of 5 with a CCG then there will be no further discussion of additions in the Big 12. The ruling will be a patch that allows them to limp on until something significant happens that would either involve one of their top brands leaving, or the raiding of another conference which might provide them with the candidates they would need for legitimate expansion to occur.

If on the other hand such rulings are not forthcoming then Big 12 will be placed in the untenable situation of having to expand with brands that don't add value in order to stage a CCG and break into divisions (as 12 member schools is the present required minimum for being able to do so) or continue to play a round robin and remain 1 game short on the SOS at the end of the season (but continue to earn a more competitive division of their total revenue), or possibly risk losing schools who know their worth elsewhere. The latter has already been alluded to by OU's president Boren.

If total deregulation is permitted then the ACC will be able to pursue whatever plan meets both their geographical issues, their hoops agenda, and their football needs. It would be a God's send for them. However the Big 10, SEC, and PAC probably won't permit it. If the requirement limiting the number of divisions is changed to permit multiple divisions that could help the ACC as well. But, it could also make further market grabs and brand grabs by the Big 10 and SEC more likely.

With Big 10 TV contract negotiations looming on the horizon the likelihood that they expand next is relatively high. If they do then the SEC will likely respond in kind.

So there is a lot riding on this decision.

2. Big 10 TV Contract Renewal

If the Big 10 expands to spur an open debate on the value of their T1 rights then how they expand could tell us a lot about what they perceive the future direction of distribution might look like.

If the Big 10 goes after more markets then rest assured that they feel very comfortable about the next 20 years of cable revenue. If the Big 10 abandons a strict AAU requirement for membership and goes after brands I think that tells us that branding (meaning content) will be required to transition to more streaming. Of course it will be difficult to tell anything if they land the ideal, brands with markets.

The only place to do that will be the ACC, but the brands would likely be hoops brands.

3. The ACCN will have to be concretized or denied.

ESPN is soon going to have to cement its desire to protect the ACC, or is going to have to admit that a network is not forthcoming. With the Big 10 potentially on the prowl and with the revenue gap nearing $20 million the Mouse is either going to have to offer firm proposals for the start up and potential revenue of an ACCN, or they are going to have to openly confirm that a bump in pay is in line for ACC product. I don't think the tactic of merely pushing the start date off into the nebulous future will continue to work for them.

If ESPN goes after Big 10 T1 rights then I look for a denial of the ACCN. If ESPN does not go after Big 10 T1 rights aggressively then I look for them to make a public statement of their monetary commitment to the ACC. This may, or may not be, in conjunction with any property movement within the ESPN family that would be designed to enhance the value of the ACC, SEC, or any other ESPN property rights (Texas).

4. The SEC will sit by and wait for the machinations of the other moves to play before they make an offer to anyone.

They will not instigate, but will participate in the discussions of any property considering a move.

5. The PAC also finds itself in a considerably impaired position relative to revenue production.

I look for them to finally make a solid offer for expansion, or to sell part of their rights to their network for both distribution and product.

The forces of time, pressure, and monetary disparity will all be present and in every president's mind in the coming year. While moves may be 1 or 2 years off, announcements of them could come by late Summer or early August. Some pundits say earlier, but I think as always they'll wait until after the basketball tournament and may make such announcements at, or shortly after their conference meetings.

So heads up! And let the speculation continue.

Great analysis JR.