Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
1. It's not really about markets anymore. As we shift to streaming (and make no mistake that is where we are headed) the emphasis will be on brands, not necessarily new states unless they contain a brand.

2. Within a year don't expect major boosts in income for new members. Expect relatively small bumps, but no lost revenue. The bigger bumps will be on payouts for games played between brands.

3. Make no mistake the Big 10 and SEC are the best positioned, even with cable networks, to make this transition. Why? We have the brands.

4. The 4 x 16 super conference models are a thing of the past. They were predicated on spreading the footprint out to large population centers to acquire per household commissions on potential viewers. In the world of streaming the more compelling match ups you have in a week the more you can make. Therefore the more brands you have the more you will be paid. We won't jump to this model right away but it will benefit the networks that utilize this method for pay, and the conferences that gear themselves toward that end.

5. A conference size of 20 will not be unreasonable if it provides a number of games each week that people actually want to see. Even 24 is quite doable in this new paradigm. As Slive once said the size of the conference is only limited by the ceiling on its profitability.

6. Look for the new bowl partner of the SEC to be the Big 10. It's a natural rivalry that viewers love.

7. Basketball brands and football brands will be important to the networks as well as the conferences and college baseball will find more air time than ever before. So will softball, volleyball, hockey, gymnastics and many other heretofore un-aired sports.

8. None of this happens without a defection from either the Big 12 or ACC, but once one leaves challenging the GOR the dam will burst.

9. The PAC will either gain network assistance or become part of the carnage.

10. Academics will take a big back seat to profitability and geography. Minor sports will have to be relatively cheap with regard to overhead or otherwise the margins will shrink.

11. There is no guarantee that if you are in a P5 today that you will be when this is over. Your greatest chances of survival will be if you are a Big 10 or SEC member.

12. If your school can't add to the bottom line then it isn't getting a lifeline. That's why if this happens sooner rather than later it will require the successful challenge of the GORs.

13. To make the transition from the cable model to streaming each conference with a network will have to add brands in enough quantity to have games that will be valuable beyond the cable requirements. Again only the Big 10 and SEC can do that as presently comported.

14. Expect change to be the norm for the next 20 years.

15. As we move down this path expect 3, or possibly just 2 conferences to emerge and for the new divisions to be the equal of conferences in the 70's & 80's. The new conference will be more of a league.
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2016 11:06 PM by JRsec.)
01-16-2016 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
I love the idea of adding brands. I would think as well that attracting brands has a cumulative effect of making it easier to add even more.

I've said for a while that the SEC should shoot for 24. I still believe that and one of the reasons I do is because adding little brothers and regional brands, I think, makes it easier to land the bigger brands as the landing spot becomes more attractive for all the reasons outside of purely revenue. I also think the chances for precipitous increase in revenue is made possible by consolidating as much content under one roof as possible. Not only are some left out which frees up money for the networks, but the greater leverage switchers to the producers rather than the broadcasters. JR, I know you are saying the days of big increases are over, and I'm not arguing with that, but the networks won't be able to afford to skimp on live content if they want to make money. More leverage in the hands of the schools can only be a good thing in my opinion.

I think the targets from the Big 12 should be Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Adding regional brands that make those schools more comfortable with moving to the SEC should be seriously considered.

I would say...take Oklahoma State and Baylor or Texas Tech in order to create a regional feel for the real targets as odds are they would prefer to remain in their own league in a perfect world. Duplicate that perfect world as much as possible. Then you have some space left to pick off a few from the ACC.

OR...

My favorite scenario is taking as many schools from the ACC as necessary to get the big brands.

I think you could do this...

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville and room for Notre Dame if they want in.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
Central: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisville
East: Florida State, Clemson, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke
01-17-2016 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 12:05 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I love the idea of adding brands. I would think as well that attracting brands has a cumulative effect of making it easier to add even more.

I've said for a while that the SEC should shoot for 24. I still believe that and one of the reasons I do is because adding little brothers and regional brands, I think, makes it easier to land the bigger brands as the landing spot becomes more attractive for all the reasons outside of purely revenue. I also think the chances for precipitous increase in revenue is made possible by consolidating as much content under one roof as possible. Not only are some left out which frees up money for the networks, but the greater leverage switchers to the producers rather than the broadcasters. JR, I know you are saying the days of big increases are over, and I'm not arguing with that, but the networks won't be able to afford to skimp on live content if they want to make money. More leverage in the hands of the schools can only be a good thing in my opinion.

I think the targets from the Big 12 should be Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. Adding regional brands that make those schools more comfortable with moving to the SEC should be seriously considered.

I would say...take Oklahoma State and Baylor or Texas Tech in order to create a regional feel for the real targets as odds are they would prefer to remain in their own league in a perfect world. Duplicate that perfect world as much as possible. Then you have some space left to pick off a few from the ACC.

OR...

My favorite scenario is taking as many schools from the ACC as necessary to get the big brands.

I think you could do this...

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville and room for Notre Dame if they want in.

West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
Central: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisville
East: Florida State, Clemson, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke

That's okay as long as you remember that as each new addition adds to the value of the conference it makes it that much harder for the next to do the same. That is where the ceiling is that Slive was talking about.
01-17-2016 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #4
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
We still differ on quite a bit JR.
01-17-2016 01:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 01:44 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  We still differ on quite a bit JR.

And that's okay.
01-17-2016 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #6
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
Leave it to good business to ruin everything.
01-17-2016 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #7
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
Do we really want a P2 something like this?

SEC
East- Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia

South- Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, GT, S Car, Clemson, NC State

Central- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville, WV, TCU, Baylor

West- Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okl State, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa St, TT, Kansas State

Big 32
East- Ohio State, Michigan, Mich St, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue

NE- Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Nwestern

Central- Arizona, Arz State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska

West- UCLA, USC, California, Stanford, Oregon, Org State, Washington, Wash State
01-17-2016 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 01:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Do we really want a P2 something like this?

SEC
East- Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia

South- Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, GT, S Car, Clemson, NC State

Central- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville, WV, TCU, Baylor

West- Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okl State, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa St, TT, Kansas State

Big 32
East- Ohio State, Michigan, Mich St, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue

NE- Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Nwestern

Central- Arizona, Arz State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska

West- UCLA, USC, California, Stanford, Oregon, Org State, Washington, Wash State

We may not want it, but it might give the networks the ability to make schedules that keep the streaming juiced. It will be a trade off for the networks. They give up more leverage to the conferences when it comes to contract negotiations, but they gain a great deal of influence over the playoff structure and the scheduling.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2016 01:37 PM by JRsec.)
01-17-2016 01:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #9
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 12:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  That's okay as long as you remember that as each new addition adds to the value of the conference it makes it that much harder for the next to do the same. That is where the ceiling is that Slive was talking about.

I understand. Half of my wishes aren't realistic. A lot of my scenarios come from a desire to make things happen rather than worry about competing with other suitors.

I do think a movement to 20 with a mixture of strong brands from the East and West is a possibility and would be very profitable though.
01-17-2016 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #10
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-16-2016 11:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. It's not really about markets anymore. As we shift to streaming (and make no mistake that is where we are headed) the emphasis will be on brands, not necessarily new states unless they contain a brand.

2. Within a year don't expect major boosts in income for new members. Expect relatively small bumps, but no lost revenue. The bigger bumps will be on payouts for games played between brands.

3. Make no mistake the Big 10 and SEC are the best positioned, even with cable networks, to make this transition. Why? We have the brands.

4. The 4 x 16 super conference models are a thing of the past. They were predicated on spreading the footprint out to large population centers to acquire per household commissions on potential viewers. In the world of streaming the more compelling match ups you have in a week the more you can make. Therefore the more brands you have the more you will be paid. We won't jump to this model right away but it will benefit the networks that utilize this method for pay, and the conferences that gear themselves toward that end.

5. A conference size of 20 will not be unreasonable if it provides a number of games each week that people actually want to see. Even 24 is quite doable in this new paradigm. As Slive once said the size of the conference is only limited by the ceiling on its profitability.

6. Look for the new bowl partner of the SEC to be the Big 10. It's a natural rivalry that viewers love.

7. Basketball brands and football brands will be important to the networks as well as the conferences and college baseball will find more air time than ever before. So will softball, volleyball, hockey, gymnastics and many other heretofore un-aired sports.

8. None of this happens without a defection from either the Big 12 or ACC, but once one leaves challenging the GOR the dam will burst.

9. The PAC will either gain network assistance or become part of the carnage.

10. Academics will take a big back seat to profitability and geography. Minor sports will have to be relatively cheap with regard to overhead or otherwise the margins will shrink.

11. There is no guarantee that if you are in a P5 today that you will be when this is over. Your greatest chances of survival will be if you are a Big 10 or SEC member.

12. If your school can't add to the bottom line then it isn't getting a lifeline. That's why if this happens sooner rather than later it will require the successful challenge of the GORs.

13. To make the transition from the cable model to streaming each conference with a network will have to add brands in enough quantity to have games that will be valuable beyond the cable requirements. Again only the Big 10 and SEC can do that as presently comported.

14. Expect change to be the norm for the next 20 years.

15. As we move down this path expect 3, or possibly just 2 conferences to emerge and for the new divisions to be the equal of conferences in the 70's & 80's. The new conference will be more of a league.
After losing my St Louis Rams this week, I am so happy Mizzou left a very bad owner (Big XII) and got a new "owner" (SEC). At least I feel very secure about my school now. Perfect place at the perfect time...
01-17-2016 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #11
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-17-2016 01:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Do we really want a P2 something like this?

SEC
East- Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia

South- Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, GT, S Car, Clemson, NC State

Central- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville, WV, TCU, Baylor

West- Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okl State, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa St, TT, Kansas State

Big 32
East- Ohio State, Michigan, Mich St, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue

NE- Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Nwestern

Central- Arizona, Arz State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska

West- UCLA, USC, California, Stanford, Oregon, Org State, Washington, Wash State

We may not want it, but it might give the networks the ability to make schedules that keep the streaming juiced. It will be a trade off for the networks. They give up more leverage to the conferences when it comes to contract negotiations, but they gain a great deal of influence over the playoff structure and the scheduling.

If it could be kept more regional like Tide suggest then I could learn to stomach it. Seems to me though that scheduling would be more limiting though with 10 conference games. Sure 3 of your conference games would be different every year so that would add enough variety but having a 7 game home schedule would be far more difficult. A P2 CFP would be a lot simpler however. The 4 conference division champions meet in a conference SF & the two conference champions meet for the national championship. That's neat & simple & doesn't need a poll or a committee to select teams. The bowl season could go back to normal. I think I like a P2 over a P3, as long as rivalries are preserved.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2016 03:18 PM by Lenvillecards.)
01-17-2016 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #12
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 01:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Do we really want a P2 something like this?

SEC
East- Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia

South- Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, GT, S Car, Clemson, NC State

Central- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville, WV, TCU, Baylor

West- Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okl State, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa St, TT, Kansas State

Big 32
East- Ohio State, Michigan, Mich St, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue

NE- Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Nwestern

Central- Arizona, Arz State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska

West- UCLA, USC, California, Stanford, Oregon, Org State, Washington, Wash State

I'm not sure we'd end up with 32 each, but a P2 could provide certain benefits as you said. I do think the best way to increase content is to simply play more conference games, but more schools do add more fans to the pot of potential viewers in my opinion. I think a good strategy would be to consolidate some markets and diversify into others.

How about this...

SEC/Big 12/ACC:

West: BYU, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Missouri, Arkansas

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida State

East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia

Atlantic: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Miami

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PAC/Big Ten:

West: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

Central: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

East: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UConn


The only current P5 teams that are left out are Kansas State, TCU, and Wake Forest. BYU and UConn get in.
01-17-2016 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #13
The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 05:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-17-2016 01:22 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Do we really want a P2 something like this?

SEC
East- Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vandy, VT, NC, Duke, Virginia

South- Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, GT, S Car, Clemson, NC State

Central- LSU, Mississippi, Miss State, Kentucky, Louisville, WV, TCU, Baylor

West- Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Okl State, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa St, TT, Kansas State

Big 32
East- Ohio State, Michigan, Mich St, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue

NE- Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, BC, Nwestern

Central- Arizona, Arz State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska

West- UCLA, USC, California, Stanford, Oregon, Org State, Washington, Wash State

I'm not sure we'd end up with 32 each, but a P2 could provide certain benefits as you said. I do think the best way to increase content is to simply play more conference games, but more schools do add more fans to the pot of potential viewers in my opinion. I think a good strategy would be to consolidate some markets and diversify into others.

How about this...

SEC/Big 12/ACC:

West: BYU, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Missouri, Arkansas

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Florida State

East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, NC State, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia

Atlantic: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Miami

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PAC/Big Ten:

West: Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, California, UCLA, USC

Central: Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

East: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, UConn


The only current P5 teams that are left out are Kansas State, TCU, and Wake Forest. BYU and UConn get in.

There's a few ways that you could set it up. I would make a few tweaks to my divisions as well. I do like how a P2 decides a champion, all without adding any more games.
01-17-2016 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,154
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #14
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
Or how about what would probably be the most profitable partnership of them all? I would be absolutely shocked if it ever happened as I think neither side would even consider it, but if the SEC and Big Ten teamed up on a super league then the sky's the limit. The combined weight of those leagues would easily attract any remaining strong brands in the Eastern half of the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

West: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Central: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

East: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville

Plains: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern

North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State

Atlantic: Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Miami

Northeast: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, Boston College

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's 48. I added a few more than I really intended because there are so many good brands in the Midwest and East that aren't in the SEC or Big Ten.
01-17-2016 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 08:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Or how about what would probably be the most profitable partnership of them all? I would be absolutely shocked if it ever happened as I think neither side would even consider it, but if the SEC and Big Ten teamed up on a super league then the sky's the limit. The combined weight of those leagues would easily attract any remaining strong brands in the Eastern half of the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

West: Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas

South: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Central: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina

East: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Louisville

Plains: Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern

North: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State

Atlantic: Notre Dame, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Maryland, Miami

Northeast: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, Boston College

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's 48. I added a few more than I really intended because there are so many good brands in the Midwest and East that aren't in the SEC or Big Ten.

There has to be at least two. Otherwise you open up the possibility of an anti trust suit.
01-17-2016 09:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,779
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #16
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-16-2016 11:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. It's not really about markets anymore. As we shift to streaming (and make no mistake that is where we are headed) the emphasis will be on brands, not necessarily new states unless they contain a brand.

2. Within a year don't expect major boosts in income for new members. Expect relatively small bumps, but no lost revenue. The bigger bumps will be on payouts for games played between brands.

3. Make no mistake the Big 10 and SEC are the best positioned, even with cable networks, to make this transition. Why? We have the brands.

4. The 4 x 16 super conference models are a thing of the past. They were predicated on spreading the footprint out to large population centers to acquire per household commissions on potential viewers. In the world of streaming the more compelling match ups you have in a week the more you can make. Therefore the more brands you have the more you will be paid. We won't jump to this model right away but it will benefit the networks that utilize this method for pay, and the conferences that gear themselves toward that end.

5. A conference size of 20 will not be unreasonable if it provides a number of games each week that people actually want to see. Even 24 is quite doable in this new paradigm. As Slive once said the size of the conference is only limited by the ceiling on its profitability.

6. Look for the new bowl partner of the SEC to be the Big 10. It's a natural rivalry that viewers love.

7. Basketball brands and football brands will be important to the networks as well as the conferences and college baseball will find more air time than ever before. So will softball, volleyball, hockey, gymnastics and many other heretofore un-aired sports.

8. None of this happens without a defection from either the Big 12 or ACC, but once one leaves challenging the GOR the dam will burst.

9. The PAC will either gain network assistance or become part of the carnage.

10. Academics will take a big back seat to profitability and geography. Minor sports will have to be relatively cheap with regard to overhead or otherwise the margins will shrink.

11. There is no guarantee that if you are in a P5 today that you will be when this is over. Your greatest chances of survival will be if you are a Big 10 or SEC member.

12. If your school can't add to the bottom line then it isn't getting a lifeline. That's why if this happens sooner rather than later it will require the successful challenge of the GORs.

13. To make the transition from the cable model to streaming each conference with a network will have to add brands in enough quantity to have games that will be valuable beyond the cable requirements. Again only the Big 10 and SEC can do that as presently comported.

14. Expect change to be the norm for the next 20 years.

15. As we move down this path expect 3, or possibly just 2 conferences to emerge and for the new divisions to be the equal of conferences in the 70's & 80's. The new conference will be more of a league.

I have to go point-by-point here. This was a LOT to chew on.

1. OK. I can buy this. I would be careful with the word "brand", since those can fade and grow over an extended period of time. I agree that "new states" is a dumb reason to expand. I think Clemson/FSU are worth more to the SEC than anyone else from a "brands" perspective. Those two are VERY compatible with what you have already.

2. You are already nearly out of programs that can carry 25m+ on a TV deal. That's why the TV model of expansion is running out of ideas.

3. The PAC 12 has something to say about this. They have unique brands in highly-populated states. UCLA is more attractive than half the SEC - and it's not really that close.

4. I didn't think they were something serious as-is. Too many round pegs in square holes.

5. That size of conference will anger the traditional CFB fan that is tired of going YEARS between playing local rivals. It will also exhaust programs in the bottom half of each conference.

6. Agreed.

7. Baseball??? Frick yeah, Tulane is in business. So is Rice, for that matter.

Jokes aside, that won't be the reason they pay conferences. It will make for decent filler material.

8. You might get that if OU continues to have cold feet. The Big XII is about to get dicey. The TV networks might lose too much viewership waiting, though - and that would put this entire scenario of yours on ice.

9. The PAC is going to be fine. They're the third megaconference.

10. This is the tragedy of the whole operation. Schools will continue to bend rules even worse than before in order to maintain their marketable "brand" and jockey for position in a power conference.

11. I have a sinking feeling that Tulane, Rice, and Wake Forest are going to be in the same conference soon.

12. This will be more schools than you think it will be. It will be a very sad day when these programs are deconstructed down to fragments of themselves.

13. ANYONE can transfer their product. There may not be a lot of profit in it, but even a conference such as the MW or American could transfer their product into the "streaming era".

14. You're right, and I don't like it.

15. ...and then your entire paradigm will change again as fans and schools get tired of the new way of doing things.

Want to know the bigger problems?

A. Collegiate communities are tuning out CFB. Some do not care about sports/loyalty like they used to, others do not like the "greedy" system that leaves out their school in some way or another. I don't think the future is as happy as the big dogs are saying. Stadia are starting to get really empty out there. Brands are dying - and fast.

B. The ENTIRE FBS is on the verge of being messed around with by the Feds. They are waiting to tax these programs, and you know it. Right now, the NCAA provides a level of cover - but as the REAL "objectives" come to light, this cover won't be enough.

C. Realignment is creating a long series of toxic relationships between universities when they are often not necessary. Presidents and ADs are going to have to choose between getting rich (in athletics) or keeping their friends. I don't consider this new environment to be very healthy at all.

D. The people behind the sport are too cocky. They are ignoring the demographic timebomb noted in A, and are going to drive this into a "burst" instead of a "reform". Heavy movement isn't always a good decision when your fans are getting nervous about the product.
01-17-2016 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 09:35 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(01-16-2016 11:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. It's not really about markets anymore. As we shift to streaming (and make no mistake that is where we are headed) the emphasis will be on brands, not necessarily new states unless they contain a brand.

2. Within a year don't expect major boosts in income for new members. Expect relatively small bumps, but no lost revenue. The bigger bumps will be on payouts for games played between brands.

3. Make no mistake the Big 10 and SEC are the best positioned, even with cable networks, to make this transition. Why? We have the brands.

4. The 4 x 16 super conference models are a thing of the past. They were predicated on spreading the footprint out to large population centers to acquire per household commissions on potential viewers. In the world of streaming the more compelling match ups you have in a week the more you can make. Therefore the more brands you have the more you will be paid. We won't jump to this model right away but it will benefit the networks that utilize this method for pay, and the conferences that gear themselves toward that end.

5. A conference size of 20 will not be unreasonable if it provides a number of games each week that people actually want to see. Even 24 is quite doable in this new paradigm. As Slive once said the size of the conference is only limited by the ceiling on its profitability.

6. Look for the new bowl partner of the SEC to be the Big 10. It's a natural rivalry that viewers love.

7. Basketball brands and football brands will be important to the networks as well as the conferences and college baseball will find more air time than ever before. So will softball, volleyball, hockey, gymnastics and many other heretofore un-aired sports.

8. None of this happens without a defection from either the Big 12 or ACC, but once one leaves challenging the GOR the dam will burst.

9. The PAC will either gain network assistance or become part of the carnage.

10. Academics will take a big back seat to profitability and geography. Minor sports will have to be relatively cheap with regard to overhead or otherwise the margins will shrink.

11. There is no guarantee that if you are in a P5 today that you will be when this is over. Your greatest chances of survival will be if you are a Big 10 or SEC member.

12. If your school can't add to the bottom line then it isn't getting a lifeline. That's why if this happens sooner rather than later it will require the successful challenge of the GORs.

13. To make the transition from the cable model to streaming each conference with a network will have to add brands in enough quantity to have games that will be valuable beyond the cable requirements. Again only the Big 10 and SEC can do that as presently comported.

14. Expect change to be the norm for the next 20 years.

15. As we move down this path expect 3, or possibly just 2 conferences to emerge and for the new divisions to be the equal of conferences in the 70's & 80's. The new conference will be more of a league.

I have to go point-by-point here. This was a LOT to chew on.

1. OK. I can buy this. I would be careful with the word "brand", since those can fade and grow over an extended period of time. I agree that "new states" is a dumb reason to expand. I think Clemson/FSU are worth more to the SEC than anyone else from a "brands" perspective. Those two are VERY compatible with what you have already.

2. You are already nearly out of programs that can carry 25m+ on a TV deal. That's why the TV model of expansion is running out of ideas.

Fine but remember the model has changed and the new valuation will be based upon the number of schools they play that would be considered must see TV in their new conference home.

3. The PAC 12 has something to say about this. They have unique brands in highly-populated states. UCLA is more attractive than half the SEC - and it's not really that close.

That's true, but they still need to expose their brands during the daytime hours of the central time zone if they are going to gain a following outside of the West Coast.

4. I didn't think they were something serious as-is. Too many round pegs in square holes.

5. That size of conference will anger the traditional CFB fan that is tired of going YEARS between playing local rivals. It will also exhaust programs in the bottom half of each conference.

The whole process has angered traditional CFB fans. Remember my point in following it has been to see how far the citizens can be pushed by the takeover of every institution they love by corporate America looking to monetize it for their advantage and not our pleasure or love.

6. Agreed.

7. Baseball??? Frick yeah, Tulane is in business. So is Rice, for that matter.

Jokes aside, that won't be the reason they pay conferences. It will make for decent filler material.

It's a good TV sport and as football suffers further in two decades from now it will be a relatively injury free sport to promote and cheap to produce for a much lower price to the audience than football. This will be important because the bottom 97% of the nation get poorer with fewer opportunities every year.



8. You might get that if OU continues to have cold feet. The Big XII is about to get dicey. The TV networks might lose too much viewership waiting, though - and that would put this entire scenario of yours on ice.

It only takes 1. I think it happens and relatively soon. Greed and panic take over from there.

9. The PAC is going to be fine. They're the third megaconference.

Yes, they are too remote to be of interest to the SEC and Big 10 and their culture is totally unique. They will fall way behind economically, but it just won't matter as much out there as it will in the Big 12 and ACC.


10. This is the tragedy of the whole operation. Schools will continue to bend rules even worse than before in order to maintain their marketable "brand" and jockey for position in a power conference.

Yes, but in some ways they at least won't be so hypocritical about it.

11. I have a sinking feeling that Tulane, Rice, and Wake Forest are going to be in the same conference soon.

Maybe. Or maybe we will come to our senses and utilize different conferences for different sports and leave football to its own devices.

12. This will be more schools than you think it will be. It will be a very sad day when these programs are deconstructed down to fragments of themselves.

I agree.

13. ANYONE can transfer their product. There may not be a lot of profit in it, but even a conference such as the MW or American could transfer their product into the "streaming era".

True, but people have to want to see them.

14. You're right, and I don't like it.

15. ...and then your entire paradigm will change again as fans and schools get tired of the new way of doing things.

Quite possibly. Or they could be so hard pressed to make ends meet that they don't give a crap about college athletics anymore at all. This could happen in 1 generation if a college education no longer guarantees better wages (which it really hasn't done for 20 years now). More and more may go for needed trade skills to become economically productive with less overhead. I have 1 grandson choosing that option now and he's quite bright with great grades.

Want to know the bigger problems?

A. Collegiate communities are tuning out CFB. Some do not care about sports/loyalty like they used to, others do not like the "greedy" system that leaves out their school in some way or another. I don't think the future is as happy as the big dogs are saying. Stadia are starting to get really empty out there. Brands are dying - and fast.


That happens with any sports that kids don't grow up playing. I guess varsity X-box is around the corner. You don't watch what you don't understand and you don't understand what you didn't learn to play.

B. The ENTIRE FBS is on the verge of being messed around with by the Feds. They are waiting to tax these programs, and you know it. Right now, the NCAA provides a level of cover - but as the REAL "objectives" come to light, this cover won't be enough.

Uncle Sam and most of the rest of the World are broke! But don't tell anyone or things might stop working.

C. Realignment is creating a long series of toxic relationships between universities when they are often not necessary. Presidents and ADs are going to have to choose between getting rich (in athletics) or keeping their friends. I don't consider this new environment to be very healthy at all.

The lack of social skills and electronic interactions don't help here either.

D. The people behind the sport are too cocky. They are ignoring the demographic timebomb noted in A, and are going to drive this into a "burst" instead of a "reform". Heavy movement isn't always a good decision when your fans are getting nervous about the product.

They aren't cocky as much as they just don't care about anything but what they do. And that means they don't give a hoot about the schools.

Thanks for the reply.
(This post was last modified: 01-17-2016 10:30 PM by JRsec.)
01-17-2016 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oliveandblue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,779
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #18
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
Isn't college football supposed to be a distraction - albeit a more "raw and realistic" one when compared to the NFL?

Doesn't cutting traditional schools out of the money only weaken this distraction, and make them turn their heads to real problems that could be facing them? Most alumni are going to be in decent shape (not good, but decent). A lot of T-shirt fans in SEC country really lean on these teams for something to be happy about in an existence that offers them little self-actualization or resources.

I'm not thinking on the plane of TV money - which is chicken chit compared to the "real".

I mentioned the fact that our government is money-hungry to remind those in discourse about this topic that these events do not happen in a vacuum. I predict that the government's stance towards these programs is going to change at some point. It all depends on who is in office for the next 10 years. The US Congress can override any plans by the schools to realign or separate.
01-17-2016 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,911
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #19
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-17-2016 10:40 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Isn't college football supposed to be a distraction - albeit a more "raw and realistic" one when compared to the NFL?

Doesn't cutting traditional schools out of the money only weaken this distraction, and make them turn their heads to real problems that could be facing them? Most alumni are going to be in decent shape (not good, but decent). A lot of T-shirt fans in SEC country really lean on these teams for something to be happy about in an existence that offers them little self-actualization or resources.

I'm not thinking on the plane of TV money - which is chicken chit compared to the "real".

I mentioned the fact that our government is money-hungry to remind those in discourse about this topic that these events do not happen in a vacuum. I predict that the government's stance towards these programs is going to change at some point. It all depends on who is in office for the next 10 years. The US Congress can override any plans by the schools to realign or separate.

The government will do nothing. Trade laws have permitted the rape of the states tax base. The football and other sports revenue generated by the colleges will be overlooked as a kind of payback perk for going along with the corporate takeover of America. And remember the sleaze you feel is because the corporations have, as I said 4 years ago, taken over an undervalued industry which now they direct. That is why the alumni are hurt, the fans a pissed, and we are losing the love of those who cherished the traditions. The presidents are pursuing needed revenue. If the fans and citizens want to have an object for their ire they need look no further than Rupert Murdock and Disney.
01-17-2016 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
5thTiger Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 175
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Missouri
Location:
Post: #20
RE: The New Rules of Realignment 2016:
(01-16-2016 11:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. It's not really about markets anymore. As we shift to streaming (and make no mistake that is where we are headed) the emphasis will be on brands, not necessarily new states unless they contain a brand.

2. Within a year don't expect major boosts in income for new members. Expect relatively small bumps, but no lost revenue. The bigger bumps will be on payouts for games played between brands.

3. Make no mistake the Big 10 and SEC are the best positioned, even with cable networks, to make this transition. Why? We have the brands.

4. The 4 x 16 super conference models are a thing of the past. They were predicated on spreading the footprint out to large population centers to acquire per household commissions on potential viewers. In the world of streaming the more compelling match ups you have in a week the more you can make. Therefore the more brands you have the more you will be paid. We won't jump to this model right away but it will benefit the networks that utilize this method for pay, and the conferences that gear themselves toward that end.

5. A conference size of 20 will not be unreasonable if it provides a number of games each week that people actually want to see. Even 24 is quite doable in this new paradigm. As Slive once said the size of the conference is only limited by the ceiling on its profitability.

6. Look for the new bowl partner of the SEC to be the Big 10. It's a natural rivalry that viewers love.

7. Basketball brands and football brands will be important to the networks as well as the conferences and college baseball will find more air time than ever before. So will softball, volleyball, hockey, gymnastics and many other heretofore un-aired sports.

8. None of this happens without a defection from either the Big 12 or ACC, but once one leaves challenging the GOR the dam will burst.

9. The PAC will either gain network assistance or become part of the carnage.

10. Academics will take a big back seat to profitability and geography. Minor sports will have to be relatively cheap with regard to overhead or otherwise the margins will shrink.

11. There is no guarantee that if you are in a P5 today that you will be when this is over. Your greatest chances of survival will be if you are a Big 10 or SEC member.

12. If your school can't add to the bottom line then it isn't getting a lifeline. That's why if this happens sooner rather than later it will require the successful challenge of the GORs.

13. To make the transition from the cable model to streaming each conference with a network will have to add brands in enough quantity to have games that will be valuable beyond the cable requirements. Again only the Big 10 and SEC can do that as presently comported.

14. Expect change to be the norm for the next 20 years.

15. As we move down this path expect 3, or possibly just 2 conferences to emerge and for the new divisions to be the equal of conferences in the 70's & 80's. The new conference will be more of a league.

1. "Last round was about markets, the next round will be about content". Rivalries, Brands, etc. B1G needed more eyeballs, now they don't have to worry about that. SEC got into Texas, which barring NC and VA, is the best possible scenario.

2. Not exactly sure what you are saying but both the B1G and the SEC have equal revenue sharing. Don't expect that to change.

3. Duh

4/5. 16 is the most reasonable ceiling. 20 is absolute max, and that is getting crazy. Any more than that and you can't even play your division every year. Forget pods, those aren't even close to being on the radar. They are a message board fantasy.

6. I doubt it. They aren't going to create any new bowls after what happened this year with 5-7 teams.

7. No one outside the SEC cares about college baseball. It is a flawed product. Other sports generate interest because they get the best players out of HS, and is the highest level for alot of the athletes. Only the SEC cares about baseball. That won't change.

8. Not so much. They will just become more ironclad, and people have to have places to go before they will challenge them.

9. PAC will be fine. They are remote. They don't compete, and considering they have a unique time slot that they can fill, they will be fine.

10. Couple different points in there, but I think you drastically underestimate academics and how they view themselves. That really only applies to the B1G and the PAC, but they do take academics incredibly seriously.

11/12. If you are in the B1G, SEC, or PAC, rest easy, you will be fine. To my knowledge, no school has ever been kicked out of a major conference. If you are anyone else (besides major brands), you can panic. The battle for survival will be between the Big 12 and ACC. I'm putting money on the ACC.

13/14/15. Once the next round settles, I think we will have minimal changes after that. The next round will be massive though.
01-18-2016 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.