(01-12-2016 10:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

You are correct. That's why ESPN created the zipper for the ACC. I'll admit it is not the easiest thing to deal with, but if you understand that it's short term, it's bearable. It is like having to deal with Auburn playing in the west.......go figure.
When (not if) we get to 16 a lot of scheduling problems will be resolved and a standard scheduling format will be adopted. In the mean time LSU and Arkansas would make the Big 12 one heck of a conference, zipper and all.

You're one of the few who recognize that the zipper is the best configuration for the ACC. That said, how would you compensate the SEC for the loss of LSU and Ark?

I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

There is no grand goal for realignment. There is no one in charge to set the goals, no entity powerful enough to rule over everyone else.

It's pretty much every man for himself. The SEC is going to do what's best for the SEC. Every other league is going to do the same. ESPN is going to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, some schools in the current P5 are not worth what they're making. That gives incentive to the networks to trim the fat. That means greater consolidation of brands in the future. The strongest leagues will benefit from that.

College football isn't going to go away any time soon, but the money gap between certain programs will increase. Maybe there's an official split between Power conferences and G5 conferences in the future, but I don't know. Nonetheless, there will always be a place for 2nd tier programs in the economy.

I've seen no evidence that massive, multi-party cooperation is possible when it comes to realignment. That's why I don't think any significant level of brokering will take place.

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:12 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:54 PM)XLance Wrote:  The best way to enhance the Big 12 is to add LSU and Arkansas.
Those two schools are the only schools I ever see mentioned on any Oklahoma postings.
The Big 12 has only two national brands and need more....right? Give 'em LSU and a strong regional brand in Arkansas...BOOM!

While the B12 needs more brands, the Hogs and bayou Bengals wouldn't be enough of a fix. Schools north of Oklahoma don't want a repeat of the B12 North, while schools in the south aren't interested in being separated from Texas and Oklahoma.

You are correct. That's why ESPN created the zipper for the ACC. I'll admit it is not the easiest thing to deal with, but if you understand that it's short term, it's bearable. It is like having to deal with Auburn playing in the west.......go figure.
When (not if) we get to 16 a lot of scheduling problems will be resolved and a standard scheduling format will be adopted. In the mean time LSU and Arkansas would make the Big 12 one heck of a conference, zipper and all.

You're one of the few who recognize that the zipper is the best configuration for the ACC. That said, how would you compensate the SEC for the loss of LSU and Ark?

I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

The vast majority of B.S. on this board is of your making. The best way to balance a P4 is to allow market pressures to finish what they've started. If that leads to 4, 3, or even 2 conferences so be it. IMO they could spare us all of the time, leave the NCAA altogether and set up a new governance body that would permit us to negotiate contracts with the leverage of the collective body if needed and as conferences if not.

What we can't afford to be is a forced socialized system where there are those who want, but do not produce. "If any among you will not work, let him not eat!" But our so called brightest minds in academia wouldn't know how to make a living if their sorry non productive butts had to rely upon what they could actually produce instead of C.O.L.A.S. and state paychecks and pensions.

Market forces always destroy outmoded business models, those who are unwilling to change, and those who refuse to organize in their own interests. It is as immutable of a law of human behavior as there is. Only idiots and those use to privilege think otherwise. Life is a brutal struggle in which there are tender moments and if lucky friendships that last the breadth of the battle, but it remains a battle nonetheless.

(01-12-2016 01:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

There is no grand goal for realignment. There is no one in charge to set the goals, no entity powerful enough to rule over everyone else.

It's pretty much every man for himself. The SEC is going to do what's best for the SEC. Every other league is going to do the same. ESPN is going to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, some schools in the current P5 are not worth what they're making. That gives incentive to the networks to trim the fat. That means greater consolidation of brands in the future. The strongest leagues will benefit from that.

College football isn't going to go away any time soon, but the money gap between certain programs will increase. Maybe there's an official split between Power conferences and G5 conferences in the future, but I don't know. Nonetheless, there will always be a place for 2nd tier programs in the economy.

I've seen no evidence that massive, multi-party cooperation is possible when it comes to realignment. That's why I don't think any significant level of brokering will take place.

Agreed. This has been my thought process since realignment began heating up in 2010.

There are too many competing interests for this "grand scheme" of 4x16 to neatly occur.

(01-12-2016 05:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

There is no grand goal for realignment. There is no one in charge to set the goals, no entity powerful enough to rule over everyone else.

It's pretty much every man for himself. The SEC is going to do what's best for the SEC. Every other league is going to do the same. ESPN is going to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, some schools in the current P5 are not worth what they're making. That gives incentive to the networks to trim the fat. That means greater consolidation of brands in the future. The strongest leagues will benefit from that.

College football isn't going to go away any time soon, but the money gap between certain programs will increase. Maybe there's an official split between Power conferences and G5 conferences in the future, but I don't know. Nonetheless, there will always be a place for 2nd tier programs in the economy.

I've seen no evidence that massive, multi-party cooperation is possible when it comes to realignment. That's why I don't think any significant level of brokering will take place.

Agreed. This has been my thought process since realignment began heating up in 2010.

There are too many competing interests for this "grand scheme" of 4x16 to neatly occur.

This is why a new conference scenario makes sense to me, it would be the coming together of common interests. It would be in the common interests for a number of brands to break from their current vulnerable conferences & form a strong & stable conference that can preserve their rivalries & compete financially. As JR has stated, ESPN has already told the SEC that they wouldn't pay for them to take FSU & Clemson, why is that? Evidently they want an ACC type conference to protect their interests. If they could do that while taking valuable properties away from Fox, build an SECesq conference that also protects the SEC while locking the B1G out of their territory then why wouldn't they? Not built to challenge the SEC but to coexist with it. Forming a P3 strengthens the SEC for sure but it also strengthens the B1G, PAC & Fox. Brokering is probably a bad word for this as it would realistically be the coming together of a group of 5 or so schools that would then compete with the other 3 conferences for the remnants of the B12 & ACC.

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  I wouldn't compensate the SEC at all.
The point is that there are more ways to approach realignment than just to put all of the top brands into one basket. None of the professional models do that. The point for them is to level the playing field for better competition and more fan interest so that everybody makes money. The Yankees and other large market teams send hundreds of millions back into MLB to be distributed to the small market teams like Kansas City. The Yankees still make more than anyone even with paying the large market tax. Why do you think the worst teams get the first picks in the drafts? To help even out the talent across all teams, that's why.
Look IF the goal of realignment is to end up with 4 conferences of 16 (with Notre Dame attached to one of the 4), then there must be a leveling out of the market to keep ALL FANS engaged and the market for college football growing. If you look at realignment as a "money grab", then a few teams will make a majority of the money and the market will dry up and college football will eventually cease to exist as we know it now.
You can either believe all of the speculative BS that keeps getting repeated on this board or you can try to find ways that would make a P4 a viable option for college football.

There is no grand goal for realignment. There is no one in charge to set the goals, no entity powerful enough to rule over everyone else.

It's pretty much every man for himself. The SEC is going to do what's best for the SEC. Every other league is going to do the same. ESPN is going to do the same.

Fact of the matter is, some schools in the current P5 are not worth what they're making. That gives incentive to the networks to trim the fat. That means greater consolidation of brands in the future. The strongest leagues will benefit from that.

College football isn't going to go away any time soon, but the money gap between certain programs will increase. Maybe there's an official split between Power conferences and G5 conferences in the future, but I don't know. Nonetheless, there will always be a place for 2nd tier programs in the economy.

I've seen no evidence that massive, multi-party cooperation is possible when it comes to realignment. That's why I don't think any significant level of brokering will take place.

Agreed. This has been my thought process since realignment began heating up in 2010.

There are too many competing interests for this "grand scheme" of 4x16 to neatly occur.

This is why a new conference scenario makes sense to me, it would be the coming together of common interests. It would be in the common interests for a number of brands to break from their current vulnerable conferences & form a strong & stable conference that can preserve their rivalries & compete financially. As JR has stated, ESPN has already told the SEC that they wouldn't pay for them to take FSU & Clemson, why is that? Evidently they want an ACC type conference to protect their interests. If they could do that while taking valuable properties away from Fox, build an SECesq conference that also protects the SEC while locking the B1G out of their territory then why wouldn't they? Not built to challenge the SEC but to coexist with it. Forming a P3 strengthens the SEC for sure but it also strengthens the B1G, PAC & Fox. Brokering is probably a bad word for this as it would realistically be the coming together of a group of 5 or so schools that would then compete with the other 3 conferences for the remnants of the B12 & ACC.

Lenville remember that what ESPN said in 2010 is subject to change with the times, the delivery models, and their own economic circumstances. If content becomes the main method of valuation then basketball brands in the Big 10 and football brands in the SEC accomplish things without having to save the ACC. It could be a way to get what they want out of the Big 10, the SEC, and with which to rebuild the Big 12.

(01-12-2016 08:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Agreed. This has been my thought process since realignment began heating up in 2010.

There are too many competing interests for this "grand scheme" of 4x16 to neatly occur.

This is why a new conference scenario makes sense to me, it would be the coming together of common interests. It would be in the common interests for a number of brands to break from their current vulnerable conferences & form a strong & stable conference that can preserve their rivalries & compete financially. As JR has stated, ESPN has already told the SEC that they wouldn't pay for them to take FSU & Clemson, why is that? Evidently they want an ACC type conference to protect their interests. If they could do that while taking valuable properties away from Fox, build an SECesq conference that also protects the SEC while locking the B1G out of their territory then why wouldn't they? Not built to challenge the SEC but to coexist with it. Forming a P3 strengthens the SEC for sure but it also strengthens the B1G, PAC & Fox. Brokering is probably a bad word for this as it would realistically be the coming together of a group of 5 or so schools that would then compete with the other 3 conferences for the remnants of the B12 & ACC.

Lenville remember that what ESPN said in 2010 is subject to change with the times, the delivery models, and their own economic circumstances. If content becomes the main method of valuation then basketball brands in the Big 10 and football brands in the SEC accomplish things without having to save the ACC. It could be a way to get what they want out of the Big 10, the SEC, and with which to rebuild the Big 12.

I go back to something you said a while back JR, that it would be easier to build a power league around Texas and Oklahoma than around the lack of football prowess in the ACC.

I don't completely agree with Lenville, but I wonder when the ceiling comes for the value that ESPN can squeeze out of the B1G and SEC that the Mouse will try to gain as much value as it can out of a rebuilt Big 12.

UT and OU would surely maximize content in the SEC, but would ESPN be more interested in saving as many properties out of the ACC as they could? Let's say the threshold of 18 is the top number for profitability. ESPN could do as we've talked about and move UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT to the B1G then move FSU, Clemson, NC State, and VT to the SEC. If there's not much room for value beyond that then ESPN might stand to prosper more by improving and saving the Big 12.

Here's how I look at the value of the current Big 12 brands...

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Kansas
4. Oklahoma State
5. Baylor

Everyone else has marginal value and revenue. If you add Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn, and BYU then you have a strong base for a network especially if Notre Dame is willing to affiliate with it. I don't see them dropping independence so I threw them in. The football quality is better than the current ACC while the basketball quality is probably equal.

That's not exactly the idea scenario for the likes of OU and UT, but it could be more profitable than the current setup for ESPN.

(01-12-2016 11:54 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:44 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Agreed. This has been my thought process since realignment began heating up in 2010.

There are too many competing interests for this "grand scheme" of 4x16 to neatly occur.

This is why a new conference scenario makes sense to me, it would be the coming together of common interests. It would be in the common interests for a number of brands to break from their current vulnerable conferences & form a strong & stable conference that can preserve their rivalries & compete financially. As JR has stated, ESPN has already told the SEC that they wouldn't pay for them to take FSU & Clemson, why is that? Evidently they want an ACC type conference to protect their interests. If they could do that while taking valuable properties away from Fox, build an SECesq conference that also protects the SEC while locking the B1G out of their territory then why wouldn't they? Not built to challenge the SEC but to coexist with it. Forming a P3 strengthens the SEC for sure but it also strengthens the B1G, PAC & Fox. Brokering is probably a bad word for this as it would realistically be the coming together of a group of 5 or so schools that would then compete with the other 3 conferences for the remnants of the B12 & ACC.

Lenville remember that what ESPN said in 2010 is subject to change with the times, the delivery models, and their own economic circumstances. If content becomes the main method of valuation then basketball brands in the Big 10 and football brands in the SEC accomplish things without having to save the ACC. It could be a way to get what they want out of the Big 10, the SEC, and with which to rebuild the Big 12.

I go back to something you said a while back JR, that it would be easier to build a power league around Texas and Oklahoma than around the lack of football prowess in the ACC.

I don't completely agree with Lenville, but I wonder when the ceiling comes for the value that ESPN can squeeze out of the B1G and SEC that the Mouse will try to gain as much value as it can out of a rebuilt Big 12.

UT and OU would surely maximize content in the SEC, but would ESPN be more interested in saving as many properties out of the ACC as they could? Let's say the threshold of 18 is the top number for profitability. ESPN could do as we've talked about and move UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT to the B1G then move FSU, Clemson, NC State, and VT to the SEC. If there's not much room for value beyond that then ESPN might stand to prosper more by improving and saving the Big 12.

Here's how I look at the value of the current Big 12 brands...

1. Texas
2. Oklahoma
3. Kansas
4. Oklahoma State
5. Baylor

Everyone else has marginal value and revenue. If you add Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn, and BYU then you have a strong base for a network especially if Notre Dame is willing to affiliate with it. I don't see them dropping independence so I threw them in. The football quality is better than the current ACC while the basketball quality is probably equal.

That's not exactly the idea scenario for the likes of OU and UT, but it could be more profitable than the current setup for ESPN.

True. Check out the idea for a 4 conference model I posted as a thread. In that one the Big 10 and SEC take different schools and the conference that is built from the leftovers is quite interesting I think. I just did it to give us something to speculate about while we wait on news.

(01-13-2016 12:05 AM)JRsec Wrote:  True. Check out the idea for a 4 conference model I posted as a thread. In that one the Big 10 and SEC take different schools and the conference that is built from the leftovers is quite interesting I think. I just did it to give us something to speculate about while we wait on news.

My favorite brand of conversation.