So what would happen to the Sugar and Orange Bowls? Who would be the opponents? Does the Bowl $ change?

(01-04-2016 10:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So what would happen to the Sugar and Orange Bowls? Who would be the opponents? Does the Bowl $ change?

Sugar bowl winds up being between the SEC & ACC, the Cotton bowl too, and possibly the Orange.

(01-04-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Through all of these scenarios none of them are perfect & they all have flaws. The SEC & B1G are going to butt heads & won't let the other have the perception of coming out ahead. Both are in strong positions so neither has to give. What are the guidelines that we need to follow to come up with an actual acceptable compromise that appeases everyone?

-The B1G & SEC have to come out even against each other. The SEC is the strongest football brand but the B1G is starting TV contract negotiations & if they aren't appeased then this wouldn't be done until after the GOR's expire. Waiting could potentially cost both conferences a lot of $.

-Oklahoma will need to move with either Texas or Oklahoma State to protect both of those rivalries. That could be a deal breaker for them.

-To help balance the conference payouts the ACC will need a network. The LHN seems to be the best alternative to make this happen. Does Texas have to be apart of the ACC to make that happen though? A solution could be for ESPN to buyout Texas & then convert the network into an ACCN, solving initial distribution problems.

-H1 makes a case to take care of UCONN. A healthy relationship between ESPN & the state could save them on taxes & such.

-Dissolving the Big 12 or the ACC. The predominant scenarios have the B12 dissolving. Texas & Oklahoma will need to be appeased. We can reasonably assume what Oklahoma wants but what does Texas want?

-The PAC may want an eastern expansion but are they needed? While I don't see them as being a strong power player in this but they could get a strong backing from Fox so they can't be ignored.

Am I on the right track? Any other factors?

In the scenario I gave above you get the best possible outcome relative to the schools moving and the most equitable outcome relative to income. If the Big 10 takes Kansas and Missouri they get a big bump, nicely formed divisions, and split their money over fewer schools.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State stay together, but the price is taking care of Baylor and West Virginia. The SEC gets more money but divides it among two more schools than the Big 10.

North Carolina really doesn't want any western schools. Connecticut with N.D. all in divides the territory of the ACC into really compact divisions and gives Clemson and Florida State the division schedule that sells the most tickets. The compromise here between ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC is that the LHN is converted into the new headquarters of the SECN (it is in Dallas). The Charlotte offices of the SECN are converted into the ACCN. So the ACC gets their network without taking Texas. Also the ACC loses no existing members.

Texas gets a division made up of old rivals and buddies.

The PAC gets 4 schools and time zone slots to expand their network coverage with and to finally put some of their games into prime time.

I think it is the best solution.

(01-04-2016 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Through all of these scenarios none of them are perfect & they all have flaws. The SEC & B1G are going to butt heads & won't let the other have the perception of coming out ahead. Both are in strong positions so neither has to give. What are the guidelines that we need to follow to come up with an actual acceptable compromise that appeases everyone?

-The B1G & SEC have to come out even against each other. The SEC is the strongest football brand but the B1G is starting TV contract negotiations & if they aren't appeased then this wouldn't be done until after the GOR's expire. Waiting could potentially cost both conferences a lot of $.

-Oklahoma will need to move with either Texas or Oklahoma State to protect both of those rivalries. That could be a deal breaker for them.

-To help balance the conference payouts the ACC will need a network. The LHN seems to be the best alternative to make this happen. Does Texas have to be apart of the ACC to make that happen though? A solution could be for ESPN to buyout Texas & then convert the network into an ACCN, solving initial distribution problems.

-H1 makes a case to take care of UCONN. A healthy relationship between ESPN & the state could save them on taxes & such.

-Dissolving the Big 12 or the ACC. The predominant scenarios have the B12 dissolving. Texas & Oklahoma will need to be appeased. We can reasonably assume what Oklahoma wants but what does Texas want?

-The PAC may want an eastern expansion but are they needed? While I don't see them as being a strong power player in this but they could get a strong backing from Fox so they can't be ignored.

Am I on the right track? Any other factors?

In the scenario I gave above you get the best possible outcome relative to the schools moving and the most equitable outcome relative to income. If the Big 10 takes Kansas and Missouri they get a big bump, nicely formed divisions, and split their money over fewer schools.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State stay together, but the price is taking care of Baylor and West Virginia. The SEC gets more money but divides it among two more schools than the Big 10.

North Carolina really doesn't want any western schools. Connecticut with N.D. all in divides the territory of the ACC into really compact divisions and gives Clemson and Florida State the division schedule that sells the most tickets. The compromise here between ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC is that the LHN is converted into the new headquarters of the SECN (it is in Dallas). The Charlotte offices of the SECN are converted into the ACCN. So the ACC gets their network without taking Texas. Also the ACC loses no existing members.

Texas gets a division made up of old rivals and buddies.

The PAC gets 4 schools and time zone slots to expand their network coverage with and to finally put some of their games into prime time.

I think it is the best solution.

Would the B1G be content with Kansas & Missouri while the SEC gets Texas & Oklahoma? Would the PAC be happy with little brothers? In the ACC I'm more concerned of what makes FSU happy than I am Chapel Hill, in this case I think they both would be happy.

Would this be more fair?

ACC gets ND all in, UCONN & trades VT for WV (if necessary) for 16.

PAC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa State & TT.

The SEC can have the combo of Texas/Kansas St or Kansas/VT(WV) The B1G would get the other. Baylor & TCU are left out. This gives us a P4 x 16. Or if necessary then those 2 would go to the ACC.

(01-04-2016 11:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Through all of these scenarios none of them are perfect & they all have flaws. The SEC & B1G are going to butt heads & won't let the other have the perception of coming out ahead. Both are in strong positions so neither has to give. What are the guidelines that we need to follow to come up with an actual acceptable compromise that appeases everyone?

-The B1G & SEC have to come out even against each other. The SEC is the strongest football brand but the B1G is starting TV contract negotiations & if they aren't appeased then this wouldn't be done until after the GOR's expire. Waiting could potentially cost both conferences a lot of $.

-Oklahoma will need to move with either Texas or Oklahoma State to protect both of those rivalries. That could be a deal breaker for them.

-To help balance the conference payouts the ACC will need a network. The LHN seems to be the best alternative to make this happen. Does Texas have to be apart of the ACC to make that happen though? A solution could be for ESPN to buyout Texas & then convert the network into an ACCN, solving initial distribution problems.

-H1 makes a case to take care of UCONN. A healthy relationship between ESPN & the state could save them on taxes & such.

-Dissolving the Big 12 or the ACC. The predominant scenarios have the B12 dissolving. Texas & Oklahoma will need to be appeased. We can reasonably assume what Oklahoma wants but what does Texas want?

-The PAC may want an eastern expansion but are they needed? While I don't see them as being a strong power player in this but they could get a strong backing from Fox so they can't be ignored.

Am I on the right track? Any other factors?

In the scenario I gave above you get the best possible outcome relative to the schools moving and the most equitable outcome relative to income. If the Big 10 takes Kansas and Missouri they get a big bump, nicely formed divisions, and split their money over fewer schools.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State stay together, but the price is taking care of Baylor and West Virginia. The SEC gets more money but divides it among two more schools than the Big 10.

North Carolina really doesn't want any western schools. Connecticut with N.D. all in divides the territory of the ACC into really compact divisions and gives Clemson and Florida State the division schedule that sells the most tickets. The compromise here between ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC is that the LHN is converted into the new headquarters of the SECN (it is in Dallas). The Charlotte offices of the SECN are converted into the ACCN. So the ACC gets their network without taking Texas. Also the ACC loses no existing members.

Texas gets a division made up of old rivals and buddies.

The PAC gets 4 schools and time zone slots to expand their network coverage with and to finally put some of their games into prime time.

I think it is the best solution.

Would the B1G be content with Kansas & Missouri while the SEC gets Texas & Oklahoma? Would the PAC be happy with little brothers? In the ACC I'm more concerned of what makes FSU happy than I am Chapel Hill, in this case I think they both would be happy.

Lenville, I enjoy playing along with the scenarios of others to see where the thinking goes. Sometimes you can spot something you haven't considered. However the elements of what I truly believe have not changed an Iota's worth.

Money and geography will be the determining factor in the moves and the Big 10 and SEC will wait until they get what they want because both are thriving in their current positions. There will be no deals for Baylor, Oklahoma State, or any non top tier ACC programs should they be raided. The gap in income is going to get wider. The SEC's biggest bump for the SECN will occur next Summer when the paychecks for the network are issued to the conference members. The bump will be between 7-9 million over this year's payout. With the Big 10 and SEC already earning far more in ticket sales and corporate endorsements and merchandise sales than either the Big 12 or ACC when you then double their TV revenue over those same schools you have all of the recipe you need for further defections.

The good news in all of this is that I really don't think either wants more than 16 schools, although they both could still find profit in 18 each. But that number maxes out the expansion threshold in my opinion. So no matter what they do, or who they take, there will be enough viable programs left with which to build another viable P conference.

So while I love these theories as a mental exercise, history and business tell me that there is absolutely no reason for the Big 10 or SEC to compromise. They will set their sights on about a half dozen targets apiece and prioritize them. Then they will wait to land the ones they want when the timing favors such moves. And that's the beginning and end of the story.

I also know simply by looking at the numbers of attendance, market saturation, alumni base, and branding that only a half dozen or so fit the bill for either conference and about 2/3rds of those on either list would overlap.

From the ACC for the Big 10 it would be North Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia Tech that would be preferred. Notre Dame may be unobtainable but they would be sought if interested. Pitt is a duplicate market and lesser brand. Syracuse is not a prime candidate but has value for market and for niche sports. Boston College is a long shot at best but does have a great Hockey program that might be coveted by the Big 10. They would certainly never be a primary target. Duke would be taken to get North Carolina and Virginia.

For the SEC the preferences would be the same, but the secondary targets would be more numerous. Florida State is a big content multiplier and for streaming that has great value. Clemson would be right behind them in that regard. Virginia Tech and N.C. State would have value as markets and that's about it.

From the Big 12 the Big 10 would take Kansas to get to either Texas or Oklahoma or both. The SEC is in the same boat. The Big 10 has no secondary targets in the Big 12. The SEC could take Oklahoma State for the state market and the DFW demographic. The Cowboys however would be in the bottom 1/4 of the SEC in attendance, have little national draw, and a relatively small alumni base compared to other SEC schools. West Virginia would be a long shot tag-along. Perhaps the SEC considers a second Texas school not named Texas but that too is a long shot.

So while this is fun. The reality hasn't changed a bit. Delany and Sankey have no reason to act until somebody they covet is available.

I would think the facility in Charlotte could house both networks. I think it is also the home of ESPNU or am I mistaken in that?

I really don't see any league, other than possibly the ACC, losing schools in this. While I appreciate that Mizzou is shoehorned a bit into the SEC, I think the same would be said for their membership in the B1G. I would prefer to keep them as they offer a lot of value in various areas.

How about this?

PAC gets Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State

ACC gets Cincinnati and UConn

B1G gets Oklahoma and Kansas

SEC gets Texas, Baylor, Iowa State, and West Virginia

ESPN can still convert the LHN into an ACC Network. Cincy helps them potentially a great deal as there are a large number of Notre Dame fans in OH. They don't really get a great football addition, but Cincy is potentially decent and they get a network out of the deal which is the most important part.

ACC Divisions:

-Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest
-Miami, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College
-North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Virginia
-Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville

The PAC gets 4 solid additions and pieces of 3 new markets.

The B1G gets their top targets.

The SEC basically conquers TX by getting a great brand in UT while taking care of a few little brothers. UT and ISU provide 2 new AAU schools. Baylor is decent content. ISU and WVU bring a couple of new markets.

SEC divisions:

-Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa State
-LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
-Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

(01-05-2016 12:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So while I love these theories as a mental exercise, history and business tell me that there is absolutely no reason for the Big 10 or SEC to compromise. They will set their sights on about a half dozen targets apiece and prioritize them. Then they will wait to land the ones they want when the timing favors such moves. And that's the beginning and end of the story.

I also know simply by looking at the numbers of attendance, market saturation, alumni base, and branding that only a half dozen or so fit the bill for either conference and about 2/3rds of those on either list would overlap.

I have to agree with that. My only concern is that there are some within the Big 12 that are ready to move now...OU tops on the list. If that is true then the opportunity to get them comes sooner than later.

While the B1G and SEC are both in strong positions, they are competing for some of the same targets so if brokering becomes a real possibility then it might be prudent to act now rather than wait. Point being, if one league or the other doesn't act then the prize goes to the competitor.

Now perhaps the prize isn't worth taking on little brothers to make it all work, but that's for wiser men than me to decide.

(01-05-2016 12:23 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I would think the facility in Charlotte could house both networks. I think it is also the home of ESPNU or am I mistaken in that?

I really don't see any league, other than possibly the ACC, losing schools in this. While I appreciate that Mizzou is shoehorned a bit into the SEC, I think the same would be said for their membership in the B1G. I would prefer to keep them as they offer a lot of value in various areas.

How about this?

PAC gets Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, and Kansas State

ACC gets Cincinnati and UConn

B1G gets Oklahoma and Kansas

SEC gets Texas, Baylor, Iowa State, and West Virginia

ESPN can still convert the LHN into an ACC Network. Cincy helps them potentially a great deal as there are a large number of Notre Dame fans in OH. They don't really get a great football addition, but Cincy is potentially decent and they get a network out of the deal which is the most important part.

ACC Divisions:

-Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest
-Miami, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College
-North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Virginia
-Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville

The PAC gets 4 solid additions and pieces of 3 new markets.

The B1G gets their top targets.

The SEC basically conquers TX by getting a great brand in UT while taking care of a few little brothers. UT and ISU provide 2 new AAU schools. Baylor is decent content. ISU and WVU bring a couple of new markets.

SEC divisions:

-Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa State
-LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
-Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia

The longer we wait, and the more we shift to streaming, the more the target list will come into focus. If it is two years before we add I think the allure of Virginia Tech and N.C. State will have faded considerably. The allure of Florida State and Clemson will become the focus. The Big 12 will no longer be about market acquisition. Texas and Oklahoma with Kansas as a long shot for hoops will be the focus.

Slive said, and Sankey reinforced, that the SEC will strongly consider cultural fit when making future additions. To me that plainly translates as no Kansas, no Iowa State, no Cincinnati, no Kansas State, and no Pittsburgh. It would never happen but the only Northern school that could get in if it asked (outside of Ohio State which will never leave the Big 10) is Notre Dame. I think (tongue in cheek here) that we would accept them as being a cultural fit with the Bible Belt and say that their goals were in line with ours (money).

So realistically our additions will only come from these:
Big 12 primary targets: Oklahoma and Texas Possible secondary targets: Oklahoma State
ACC primary targets overall: North Carolina and Virginia.
Primary for Content as streaming grows: Florida State and Clemson
Secondary targets overall: Virginia Tech, N.C. State

I don't see us taking anyone not listed above unless everything is truly brokered out by the networks and significant pay increases are promised officially in a new contract.

Great discussion guys. Let me add my 2 cents.

First, JR, I agree with your SEC targets and the B1G targets are well known:

For the B1G:
Big 12 - only AAU members Kansas and Texas, and Oklahoma which gets a 'Nebraska pass' for being a big time program.

In truth, Oklahoma may be the biggest target. The B1G would love to restart the Oklahoma-Nebraska series on rivalry weekend. If Texas goes to the ACC and Oklahoma is not invited, I can see Oklahoma preferring the B1G to the SEC because it restarts that rivalry. I don't see the SEC taking both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, so Oklahoma will have to decide whether it wants to be an SEC team with A&M/Missouri/Arkansas as their rival or a B1G team and restarting the Oklahoma-Nebraska game, which draws national interest.

ACC - North Carolina and Virginia as primary targets, but willing to substitute VT for Virginia and add Duke to get North Carolina and Virginia/VT. If the B1G gets a geographic bridge in VA and NC, then add Georgia Tech as a target and possibly Florida State. In the scenarios being discussed, there's no real movement by ACC teams, so I doubt the B1G gets any of their targets in the ACC.

Second, why assume 16 is the magic number? I think that's the most likely number for the SEC (which doesn't need new geography or helmet schools) and PAC (which has geographic challenges), but not for the B1G and maybe not the ACC. If Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas wanted to join the B1G, they would not be turned down. Add VT and the B1G would go to 18 in a heartbeat. Likewise for the ACC if Texas and ND decided they wanted to be full members, the ACC would add more teams if either school wanted to bring friends along. Texas, ND and any two of Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati, U. Conn or WVU would take the ACC to 18.

Third, the Texas to the ACC scenario works very well. It's really the only scenario that enables ESPN to create an ACCN without starting from scratch. Texas to the SEC allows the SEC to fold the LHN into the SECN but it doesn't help ESPN create an ACCN. If Texas went B1G, it would be intriguing to discuss what percentage of the BTN each of Fox, ESPN and the B1G would own after knock down drag out negotiations, but no ACCN gets created as a result. It will still take ESPN enormous resources to expand the LHN throughout the ACC network, and coordinate all of the ACC teams having the right facilities and TV equipment available, hiring production personnel and on-air talent, but it's a cost ESPN would be willing to undertake if it kept the Texas programming and thought there was a Notre Dame pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow..

It also works out well for Texas, and that's probably all that Texas really cares about. Texas gets the gravitas of being important enough to be 'independent' and gives them a conference for their non-football sports. It also let's them avoid creating or defending 'spread' Big 12 offenses and play a more traditional pro-style offense. Texas will get to bring a friend or two to the ACC, and politically speaking that means Tech, Baylor or TCU, not Oklahoma.

The only problem is the fact that Texas and ND need a path to the CFB playoffs and they don't really have one as an independent. If we're really going to a true P4 setup, I can't see the conferences voting to expand the playoffs to 6 just to give ND and Texas a path. They will want to put pressure on ND and Texas to join a conference. If there are anti-trust concerns, then maybe the rule is an auto bid for the 4 conference champs unless the champ from another conference, or an independent school, is ranked higher by the CFP committee. But make no mistake about it, the rest of the college football world will will push ND and Texas to join a conference.

Fourth, while I like H1's scenario, it's hard to see the SEC settling for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I think either Baylor or TCU might be more attractive than WVU because they help cement the SEC brand in Texas. That means WVU either goes to the ACC - where it would more naturally fit with Pitt, or gets left out.

So in sum, I like Kansas and Oklahoma to the B1G, assuming no other target schools want to join. I think the SEC takes Oklahoma State and Baylor. Texas gets an ND type deal with the ACC and TCU and WVU join join the ACC. I think WVU rather than U Conn gets the nod because ND's buddy school, Boston College, does not want the U Conn competition in New England and ND will support them. The PAC gets to choose whether to expand with Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State and a fourth school of their choice or stand pat, and I think they expand. U Conn gets left out again.

(01-04-2016 11:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 10:07 PM)Dasville Wrote:  So what would happen to the Sugar and Orange Bowls? Who would be the opponents? Does the Bowl $ change?

Sugar bowl winds up being between the SEC & ACC, the Cotton bowl too, and possibly the Orange.

Sometimes you go too far JR, really. It would most likely go Sugar between SEC and ACC. Orange would be ACC vs Big Ten. Fiesta would like want to be PAC vs Big Ten/SEC/ACC/At Large. The Cotton will be an At Large after all the Texas programs go in three directions.

Sometimes, you have to fight the urge to say that The SEC is going to get everything. They aren't.

(01-04-2016 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Through all of these scenarios none of them are perfect & they all have flaws. The SEC & B1G are going to butt heads & won't let the other have the perception of coming out ahead. Both are in strong positions so neither has to give. What are the guidelines that we need to follow to come up with an actual acceptable compromise that appeases everyone?

-The B1G & SEC have to come out even against each other. The SEC is the strongest football brand but the B1G is starting TV contract negotiations & if they aren't appeased then this wouldn't be done until after the GOR's expire. Waiting could potentially cost both conferences a lot of $.

-Oklahoma will need to move with either Texas or Oklahoma State to protect both of those rivalries. That could be a deal breaker for them.

-To help balance the conference payouts the ACC will need a network. The LHN seems to be the best alternative to make this happen. Does Texas have to be apart of the ACC to make that happen though? A solution could be for ESPN to buyout Texas & then convert the network into an ACCN, solving initial distribution problems.

-H1 makes a case to take care of UCONN. A healthy relationship between ESPN & the state could save them on taxes & such.

-Dissolving the Big 12 or the ACC. The predominant scenarios have the B12 dissolving. Texas & Oklahoma will need to be appeased. We can reasonably assume what Oklahoma wants but what does Texas want?

-The PAC may want an eastern expansion but are they needed? While I don't see them as being a strong power player in this but they could get a strong backing from Fox so they can't be ignored.

Am I on the right track? Any other factors?

In the scenario I gave above you get the best possible outcome relative to the schools moving and the most equitable outcome relative to income. If the Big 10 takes Kansas and Missouri they get a big bump, nicely formed divisions, and split their money over fewer schools.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State stay together, but the price is taking care of Baylor and West Virginia. The SEC gets more money but divides it among two more schools than the Big 10.

North Carolina really doesn't want any western schools. Connecticut with N.D. all in divides the territory of the ACC into really compact divisions and gives Clemson and Florida State the division schedule that sells the most tickets. The compromise here between ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC is that the LHN is converted into the new headquarters of the SECN (it is in Dallas). The Charlotte offices of the SECN are converted into the ACCN. So the ACC gets their network without taking Texas. Also the ACC loses no existing members.

Texas gets a division made up of old rivals and buddies.

The PAC gets 4 schools and time zone slots to expand their network coverage with and to finally put some of their games into prime time.

I think it is the best solution.

Once again, I don't say how you say this has the best possible outcome and then right away say that Big Ten gets Kansas and Missouri for a big bump. There is some kind of disconnect going on for you. You aren't understanding the bigger picture. Whether it is happening consciously or unconsciously, you want to see The Big Ten get the least. It's not the best solution.

(01-05-2016 02:34 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Great discussion guys. Let me add my 2 cents.

First, JR, I agree with your SEC targets and the B1G targets are well known:

For the B1G:
Big 12 - only AAU members Kansas and Texas, and Oklahoma which gets a 'Nebraska pass' for being a big time program.

In truth, Oklahoma may be the biggest target. The B1G would love to restart the Oklahoma-Nebraska series on rivalry weekend. If Texas goes to the ACC and Oklahoma is not invited, I can see Oklahoma preferring the B1G to the SEC because it restarts that rivalry. I don't see the SEC taking both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, so Oklahoma will have to decide whether it wants to be an SEC team with A&M/Missouri/Arkansas as their rival or a B1G team and restarting the Oklahoma-Nebraska game, which draws national interest.

ACC - North Carolina and Virginia as primary targets, but willing to substitute VT for Virginia and add Duke to get North Carolina and Virginia/VT. If the B1G gets a geographic bridge in VA and NC, then add Georgia Tech as a target and possibly Florida State. In the scenarios being discussed, there's no real movement by ACC teams, so I doubt the B1G gets any of their targets in the ACC.

Second, why assume 16 is the magic number? I think that's the most likely number for the SEC (which doesn't need new geography or helmet schools) and PAC (which has geographic challenges), but not for the B1G and maybe not the ACC. If Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas wanted to join the B1G, they would not be turned down. Add VT and the B1G would go to 18 in a heartbeat. Likewise for the ACC if Texas and ND decided they wanted to be full members, the ACC would add more teams if either school wanted to bring friends along. Texas, ND and any two of Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati, U. Conn or WVU would take the ACC to 18.

Third, the Texas to the ACC scenario works very well. It's really the only scenario that enables ESPN to create an ACCN without starting from scratch. Texas to the SEC allows the SEC to fold the LHN into the SECN but it doesn't help ESPN create an ACCN. If Texas went B1G, it would be intriguing to discuss what percentage of the BTN each of Fox, ESPN and the B1G would own after knock down drag out negotiations, but no ACCN gets created as a result. It will still take ESPN enormous resources to expand the LHN throughout the ACC network, and coordinate all of the ACC teams having the right facilities and TV equipment available, hiring production personnel and on-air talent, but it's a cost ESPN would be willing to undertake if it kept the Texas programming and thought there was a Notre Dame pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow..

It also works out well for Texas, and that's probably all that Texas really cares about. Texas gets the gravitas of being important enough to be 'independent' and gives them a conference for their non-football sports. It also let's them avoid creating or defending 'spread' Big 12 offenses and play a more traditional pro-style offense. Texas will get to bring a friend or two to the ACC, and politically speaking that means Tech, Baylor or TCU, not Oklahoma.

The only problem is the fact that Texas and ND need a path to the CFB playoffs and they don't really have one as an independent. If we're really going to a true P4 setup, I can't see the conferences voting to expand the playoffs to 6 just to give ND and Texas a path. They will want to put pressure on ND and Texas to join a conference. If there are anti-trust concerns, then maybe the rule is an auto bid for the 4 conference champs unless the champ from another conference, or an independent school, is ranked higher by the CFP committee. But make no mistake about it, the rest of the college football world will will push ND and Texas to join a conference.

Fourth, while I like H1's scenario, it's hard to see the SEC settling for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I think either Baylor or TCU might be more attractive than WVU because they help cement the SEC brand in Texas. That means WVU either goes to the ACC - where it would more naturally fit with Pitt, or gets left out.

So in sum, I like Kansas and Oklahoma to the B1G, assuming no other target schools want to join. I think the SEC takes Oklahoma State and Baylor. Texas gets an ND type deal with the ACC and TCU and WVU join join the ACC. I think WVU rather than U Conn gets the nod because ND's buddy school, Boston College, does not want the U Conn competition in New England and ND will support them. The PAC gets to choose whether to expand with Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State and a fourth school of their choice or stand pat, and I think they expand. U Conn gets left out again.

The SEC isn't "settling" for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. As I said, they are perfect complements for schools within the conference that have been either grumpy about their lot within the conference or are a major brand that has been continually snuffed out by the 2 division system within the SEC. Those two brands are LSU and Tennessee. OSU helps complement LSU's new division that they are the perceived king of and West Virginia helps complement Tennessee's new division that they will be perceived King of. West Virginia will be a close regional rival that doesn't have a major geographical advantage for recruiting.

These are complimentary schools. That is something that The SEC failed at in the last round of expansion. Both Texas A&M and Missouri came in and bloodied up The SEC. As much as you guys want to think your conference is all about the challenge and loves that kind of an outcome, they don't...no one does. Oklahoma State and West Virginia are not long term threats.

I'm not sure that I can add anything, but I will give one more out of the box scenario:

B1G adds: Iowa State and Missouri

SEC adds: Oklahoma State, Baylor and Texas Tech

ACC adds: West Virginia and since we have to per the experts, UConn

PAC adds: Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and TCU.

Notre Dame remains a partial to the ACC, BUT Texas joins the PAC as a partial (6/7 games with annual games with Oklahoma, Kansas and TCU).

While not perfect (as none of them are) it does give an alternative to H1's excellent scenario, that is balanced and leaves all four conferences contiguous.

The back & forth between JR & H1 I'm sure is only the tip of the iceberg as to what is actually going on between the SEC & the B1G. Compromise is the only way to solve disputes. The SEC, B1G & the networks will need to find common ground to make this work now to start capitalizing on the profits. You can have a sure thing now or risk everything when the GOR expires. A stalemate is counterproductive. One big key missing in all of this is what are the networks are telling the conferences?

Would this be more fair?

ACC gets ND all in, UCONN & trades VT for WV (if necessary) for 16 & of course a network.

PAC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa State & TT.

The SEC can have the combo of either Texas/Kansas St or Kansas/VT(WV) The B1G would get the other. Baylor & TCU are left out. This gives us a P4 x 16. Or if necessary then those 2 could go to the ACC. Switch NC St for VT? Or a tweak, ACC takes Kansas & WV & VT/NC St becomes a package?

(01-04-2016 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Naturally I disagree. The way to solve this is to find a solution that appeases North Carolina, appeases Texas, gives Oklahoma access to their two most important rivals, and gives Notre Dame an offer they can't refuse.

No Texas pleases North Carolina. In fact no western schools pleases them even more. Their issue has been football first schools. Closing the monetary gap and providing a network would go a long way to salving those ill feelings by football first schools in the ACC. Not disrupting the status quo will go a long way to satisfying Chapel Hill. Therefore add UConn with the stipulation that it is indeed the only way you get a network. Use the network to leverage in Notre Dame. How? Give the Irish their pick of a game in a home & home series with the SEC which would now include Oklahoma & Texas to go along with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Keeping old friends around them pleases Texas. If they get to keep Oklahoma, regain Arkansas, regain A&M, and remain the queen bee of their own division with Baylor and L.S.U. there to fill out their division I think that is as good as it could be for their fans. Make their fans happy and fill their stadium and keep their buddies and they are more likely to accept.

Oklahoma just wants to keep OSU and Texas on the annual schedule.

L.S.U. would love to be out from under Bama in a division.

The ACC loses nobody that keeps them happy.
Connecticut gets a home which helps ESPN.
If Notre Dame has no other option they at least have a goodly number of schools in the ACC with whom they desire to keep company. Give them their choice of PAC & SEC schools to fill out their scheduling agenda and they essentially have what they want. Will the be totally happy, not even close. Is it better than all other alternatives, probably.

With Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina appeased, ESPN taken care of, the SEC rewarded, and the Big 10 landing two AAU schools that help to balance their divisions what else could you want? And with all 10 Big 12 schools being placed it's imminently doable. Especially since 6 of them would be earning a lot more, and the other four safely in a P4 making slightly more as well.

UNC has delusions of gander if they believe they have the same hold over the ACC after admitting Louisville. That move was indicative of the empowerment of Clemson and FSU. While the Tarheels might not like western additions, they would probably loathe playing in the B1G even more. With the price for intransigence the loss of their kingdom, I think Carolina would be amenable to Texas and Baylor and even UCONN. Especially if getting a conference network is the reward for compliance.

I have no idea what Texas actually wants as they are pulled in so many different directions. But getting a ND type deal I think is the best way to play a couple of Texas teams, a couple of ACC schools on interest as well as achieving the national platform the Longhorn think they deserve.

As for the PAC, SEC and B1G, the priority IMO is to dissolve the B12 with equitable pain for all. None of the remaining P3 NEED any of the remaining schools, the PAC's time zone consideration not withstanding. From an SEC perspective, I only want schools that WANT to be in the SEC. OU doesn't want to be in the SEC and I'm not interested in convincing them otherwise. While OKST and WVU don't add a thing to the conference, I know they'd welcome membership and would consider it their 100 year decision.

The only way for the SEC to get better picks would be if the ACC was breaking up rather than the B12. Now I would prefer over VT to WVU, but I think that request would probably blow up the entire deal.

(01-05-2016 07:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The SEC isn't "settling" for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. As I said, they are perfect complements for schools within the conference that have been either grumpy about their lot within the conference or are a major brand that has been continually snuffed out by the 2 division system within the SEC. Those two brands are LSU and Tennessee. OSU helps complement LSU's new division that they are the perceived king of and West Virginia helps complement Tennessee's new division that they will be perceived King of. West Virginia will be a close regional rival that doesn't have a major geographical advantage for recruiting.

These are complimentary schools. That is something that The SEC failed at in the last round of expansion. Both Texas A&M and Missouri came in and bloodied up The SEC. As much as you guys want to think your conference is all about the challenge and loves that kind of an outcome, they don't...no one does. Oklahoma State and West Virginia are not long term threats.

I understand your reasoning, but the primary thing any league wants is value. While OSU and WVU offer some benefits in certain areas, that arrangement places the option on the table that it's simply better not to make any moves at all. Perhaps the SEC thinks, "well, if that's the best we can get out of this then we'll simply let someone else worry about making the deal." It's the same reason I say that the B1G will never take KU and ISU...because cooperating to take lesser brands while the greatest value heads elsewhere doesn't really make the deal worthwhile.

Value and content rule the day. You may be right in that the league doesn't necessarily want another superpower to come in and monkey with the win-loss records of the established powers, but the league also doesn't want another Mississippi State. Nothing against MSU, of course, but their value is limited. What any league wants is more money for their trouble.

(01-05-2016 02:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-05-2016 07:59 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The SEC isn't "settling" for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. As I said, they are perfect complements for schools within the conference that have been either grumpy about their lot within the conference or are a major brand that has been continually snuffed out by the 2 division system within the SEC. Those two brands are LSU and Tennessee. OSU helps complement LSU's new division that they are the perceived king of and West Virginia helps complement Tennessee's new division that they will be perceived King of. West Virginia will be a close regional rival that doesn't have a major geographical advantage for recruiting.

These are complimentary schools. That is something that The SEC failed at in the last round of expansion. Both Texas A&M and Missouri came in and bloodied up The SEC. As much as you guys want to think your conference is all about the challenge and loves that kind of an outcome, they don't...no one does. Oklahoma State and West Virginia are not long term threats.

I understand your reasoning, but the primary thing any league wants is value. While OSU and WVU offer some benefits in certain areas, that arrangement places the option on the table that it's simply better not to make any moves at all. Perhaps the SEC thinks, "well, if that's the best we can get out of this then we'll simply let someone else worry about making the deal." It's the same reason I say that the B1G will never take KU and ISU...because cooperating to take lesser brands while the greatest value heads elsewhere doesn't really make the deal worthwhile.

Value and content rule the day. You may be right in that the league doesn't necessarily want another superpower to come in and monkey with the win-loss records of the established powers, but the league also doesn't want another Mississippi State. Nothing against MSU, of course, but their value is limited. What any league wants is more money for their trouble.

IF this whole thing is indeed brokered as Jr and H1 have been saying for years, then what you will see is an leveling out of "talent" so that all four conferences will be more competitive and thus will make better TV. When the talent levels out the money will too because that leads to stability which makes better TV. Better TV means more viewers which leads to more revenue for the networks so that they (the networks) can make more money and pay the conferences more.
What you won't see is the stockpiling of "content" in any one place because that won't sell advertisement in all markets (and networks want to sell ads and make money in all markets, not just one of two).
The conferences will be told who the networks want them to have, because the networks have done all of their research and know which combinations will make the best TV.
And if your league won't play ball with the networks, they just stop promoting your league and make another sound better than sliced bread until that league becomes the new "golden boy". Then you will become another NHL.

(01-05-2016 10:02 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Naturally I disagree. The way to solve this is to find a solution that appeases North Carolina, appeases Texas, gives Oklahoma access to their two most important rivals, and gives Notre Dame an offer they can't refuse.

No Texas pleases North Carolina. In fact no western schools pleases them even more. Their issue has been football first schools. Closing the monetary gap and providing a network would go a long way to salving those ill feelings by football first schools in the ACC. Not disrupting the status quo will go a long way to satisfying Chapel Hill. Therefore add UConn with the stipulation that it is indeed the only way you get a network. Use the network to leverage in Notre Dame. How? Give the Irish their pick of a game in a home & home series with the SEC which would now include Oklahoma & Texas to go along with Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Keeping old friends around them pleases Texas. If they get to keep Oklahoma, regain Arkansas, regain A&M, and remain the queen bee of their own division with Baylor and L.S.U. there to fill out their division I think that is as good as it could be for their fans. Make their fans happy and fill their stadium and keep their buddies and they are more likely to accept.

Oklahoma just wants to keep OSU and Texas on the annual schedule.

L.S.U. would love to be out from under Bama in a division.

The ACC loses nobody that keeps them happy.
Connecticut gets a home which helps ESPN.
If Notre Dame has no other option they at least have a goodly number of schools in the ACC with whom they desire to keep company. Give them their choice of PAC & SEC schools to fill out their scheduling agenda and they essentially have what they want. Will the be totally happy, not even close. Is it better than all other alternatives, probably.

With Texas, Oklahoma and North Carolina appeased, ESPN taken care of, the SEC rewarded, and the Big 10 landing two AAU schools that help to balance their divisions what else could you want? And with all 10 Big 12 schools being placed it's imminently doable. Especially since 6 of them would be earning a lot more, and the other four safely in a P4 making slightly more as well.

UNC has delusions of gander if they believe they have the same hold over the ACC after admitting Louisville. That move was indicative of the empowerment of Clemson and FSU. While the Tarheels might not like western additions, they would probably loathe playing in the B1G even more. With the price for intransigence the loss of their kingdom, I think Carolina would be amenable to Texas and Baylor and even UCONN. Especially if getting a conference network is the reward for compliance.

I have no idea what Texas actually wants as they are pulled in so many different directions. But getting a ND type deal I think is the best way to play a couple of Texas teams, a couple of ACC schools on interest as well as achieving the national platform the Longhorn think they deserve.

As for the PAC, SEC and B1G, the priority IMO is to dissolve the B12 with equitable pain for all. None of the remaining P3 NEED any of the remaining schools, the PAC's time zone consideration not withstanding. From an SEC perspective, I only want schools that WANT to be in the SEC. OU doesn't want to be in the SEC and I'm not interested in convincing them otherwise. While OKST and WVU don't add a thing to the conference, I know they'd welcome membership and would consider it their 100 year decision.

The only way for the SEC to get better picks would be if the ACC was breaking up rather than the B12. Now I would prefer over VT to WVU, but I think that request would probably blow up the entire deal.

Vandiver, I didn't think I would ever say this to you but that is delusional. The SEC earns the most money. The SEC has the most brands. The SEC has the highest degree of market penetration. Why in the hell would we "settle" for anything. We won't and Slive made that pretty clear and Sankey has backed it up.

If we move to streaming I'd say F.S.U. and Oklahoma would be the best two additions for future revenues.

So nothing is set in stone but this, we aren't taking any welfare cases in the SEC unless they are the baggage for a huge money maker. There are three of those potentially: Texas, Oklahoma, and trailing a distant third Florida State with Clemson nipping at their heels.

The North Carolina and Virginia schools are academic and market considerations.

So that's about it.

Now for H1, you always put the SEC at the disadvantage and put the best in the Big 10 so what's the difference. Neither conference is settling for a door prize. That's why the more likely scenario is that both the ACC and Big 12 get raided again and the SEC and Big 10 move to 16 or 18 apiece with what they want and those will be the schools divided out. The remainder will form a new conference on par with the PAC and truly unless the networks want to gift the PAC and ACC schools $20 million more each to help them keep pace it isn't going to happen any other way.

Somehow I don't think that FOX & ESPN will dole out 580 million more just to give the PAC and ACC the equivalent of college football welfare.

(01-04-2016 11:42 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 11:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-04-2016 08:51 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Through all of these scenarios none of them are perfect & they all have flaws. The SEC & B1G are going to butt heads & won't let the other have the perception of coming out ahead. Both are in strong positions so neither has to give. What are the guidelines that we need to follow to come up with an actual acceptable compromise that appeases everyone?

-The B1G & SEC have to come out even against each other. The SEC is the strongest football brand but the B1G is starting TV contract negotiations & if they aren't appeased then this wouldn't be done until after the GOR's expire. Waiting could potentially cost both conferences a lot of $.

-Oklahoma will need to move with either Texas or Oklahoma State to protect both of those rivalries. That could be a deal breaker for them.

-To help balance the conference payouts the ACC will need a network. The LHN seems to be the best alternative to make this happen. Does Texas have to be apart of the ACC to make that happen though? A solution could be for ESPN to buyout Texas & then convert the network into an ACCN, solving initial distribution problems.

-H1 makes a case to take care of UCONN. A healthy relationship between ESPN & the state could save them on taxes & such.

-Dissolving the Big 12 or the ACC. The predominant scenarios have the B12 dissolving. Texas & Oklahoma will need to be appeased. We can reasonably assume what Oklahoma wants but what does Texas want?

-The PAC may want an eastern expansion but are they needed? While I don't see them as being a strong power player in this but they could get a strong backing from Fox so they can't be ignored.

Am I on the right track? Any other factors?

In the scenario I gave above you get the best possible outcome relative to the schools moving and the most equitable outcome relative to income. If the Big 10 takes Kansas and Missouri they get a big bump, nicely formed divisions, and split their money over fewer schools.

Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State stay together, but the price is taking care of Baylor and West Virginia. The SEC gets more money but divides it among two more schools than the Big 10.

North Carolina really doesn't want any western schools. Connecticut with N.D. all in divides the territory of the ACC into really compact divisions and gives Clemson and Florida State the division schedule that sells the most tickets. The compromise here between ESPN, the SEC, and the ACC is that the LHN is converted into the new headquarters of the SECN (it is in Dallas). The Charlotte offices of the SECN are converted into the ACCN. So the ACC gets their network without taking Texas. Also the ACC loses no existing members.

Texas gets a division made up of old rivals and buddies.

The PAC gets 4 schools and time zone slots to expand their network coverage with and to finally put some of their games into prime time.

I think it is the best solution.

Would the B1G be content with Kansas & Missouri while the SEC gets Texas & Oklahoma? Would the PAC be happy with little brothers? In the ACC I'm more concerned of what makes FSU happy than I am Chapel Hill, in this case I think they both would be happy.

Would this be more fair?

ACC gets ND all in, UCONN & trades VT for WV (if necessary) for 16.

PAC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa State & TT.

The SEC can have the combo of Texas/Kansas St or Kansas/VT(WV) The B1G would get the other. Baylor & TCU are left out. This gives us a P4 x 16. Or if necessary then those 2 would go to the ACC.

(01-05-2016 02:34 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  Great discussion guys. Let me add my 2 cents.

First, JR, I agree with your SEC targets and the B1G targets are well known:

For the B1G:
Big 12 - only AAU members Kansas and Texas, and Oklahoma which gets a 'Nebraska pass' for being a big time program.

In truth, Oklahoma may be the biggest target. The B1G would love to restart the Oklahoma-Nebraska series on rivalry weekend. If Texas goes to the ACC and Oklahoma is not invited, I can see Oklahoma preferring the B1G to the SEC because it restarts that rivalry. I don't see the SEC taking both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, so Oklahoma will have to decide whether it wants to be an SEC team with A&M/Missouri/Arkansas as their rival or a B1G team and restarting the Oklahoma-Nebraska game, which draws national interest.

ACC - North Carolina and Virginia as primary targets, but willing to substitute VT for Virginia and add Duke to get North Carolina and Virginia/VT. If the B1G gets a geographic bridge in VA and NC, then add Georgia Tech as a target and possibly Florida State. In the scenarios being discussed, there's no real movement by ACC teams, so I doubt the B1G gets any of their targets in the ACC.

Second, why assume 16 is the magic number? I think that's the most likely number for the SEC (which doesn't need new geography or helmet schools) and PAC (which has geographic challenges), but not for the B1G and maybe not the ACC. If Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas wanted to join the B1G, they would not be turned down. Add VT and the B1G would go to 18 in a heartbeat. Likewise for the ACC if Texas and ND decided they wanted to be full members, the ACC would add more teams if either school wanted to bring friends along. Texas, ND and any two of Baylor, TCU, Cincinnati, U. Conn or WVU would take the ACC to 18.

Third, the Texas to the ACC scenario works very well. It's really the only scenario that enables ESPN to create an ACCN without starting from scratch. Texas to the SEC allows the SEC to fold the LHN into the SECN but it doesn't help ESPN create an ACCN. If Texas went B1G, it would be intriguing to discuss what percentage of the BTN each of Fox, ESPN and the B1G would own after knock down drag out negotiations, but no ACCN gets created as a result. It will still take ESPN enormous resources to expand the LHN throughout the ACC network, and coordinate all of the ACC teams having the right facilities and TV equipment available, hiring production personnel and on-air talent, but it's a cost ESPN would be willing to undertake if it kept the Texas programming and thought there was a Notre Dame pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow..

It also works out well for Texas, and that's probably all that Texas really cares about. Texas gets the gravitas of being important enough to be 'independent' and gives them a conference for their non-football sports. It also let's them avoid creating or defending 'spread' Big 12 offenses and play a more traditional pro-style offense. Texas will get to bring a friend or two to the ACC, and politically speaking that means Tech, Baylor or TCU, not Oklahoma.

The only problem is the fact that Texas and ND need a path to the CFB playoffs and they don't really have one as an independent. If we're really going to a true P4 setup, I can't see the conferences voting to expand the playoffs to 6 just to give ND and Texas a path. They will want to put pressure on ND and Texas to join a conference. If there are anti-trust concerns, then maybe the rule is an auto bid for the 4 conference champs unless the champ from another conference, or an independent school, is ranked higher by the CFP committee. But make no mistake about it, the rest of the college football world will will push ND and Texas to join a conference.

Fourth, while I like H1's scenario, it's hard to see the SEC settling for Oklahoma State and West Virginia. I think either Baylor or TCU might be more attractive than WVU because they help cement the SEC brand in Texas. That means WVU either goes to the ACC - where it would more naturally fit with Pitt, or gets left out.

So in sum, I like Kansas and Oklahoma to the B1G, assuming no other target schools want to join. I think the SEC takes Oklahoma State and Baylor. Texas gets an ND type deal with the ACC and TCU and WVU join join the ACC. I think WVU rather than U Conn gets the nod because ND's buddy school, Boston College, does not want the U Conn competition in New England and ND will support them. The PAC gets to choose whether to expand with Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State and a fourth school of their choice or stand pat, and I think they expand. U Conn gets left out again.

ND does not care all that much about Boston College.

(01-05-2016 09:48 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The back & forth between JR & H1 I'm sure is only the tip of the iceberg as to what is actually going on between the SEC & the B1G. Compromise is the only way to solve disputes. The SEC, B1G & the networks will need to find common ground to make this work now to start capitalizing on the profits. You can have a sure thing now or risk everything when the GOR expires. A stalemate is counterproductive. One big key missing in all of this is what are the networks are telling the conferences?

Would this be more fair?

ACC gets ND all in, UCONN & trades VT for WV (if necessary) for 16 & of course a network.

PAC gets Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa State & TT.

The SEC can have the combo of either Texas/Kansas St or Kansas/VT(WV) The B1G would get the other. Baylor & TCU are left out. This gives us a P4 x 16. Or if necessary then those 2 could go to the ACC. Switch NC St for VT? Or a tweak, ACC takes Kansas & WV & VT/NC St becomes a package?

To paraphrase Chris Rock "Fair to whom?" :)