(01-24-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote: You see what started as a simple feud with Delany has become a struggle for the complete takeover of NCAA Division I football as a product to exploit for commercial value.
In 2010 on another site (a Georgia site that no longer exists) I had a running argument (a friendly one) with their blog writer about the true motives behind the footprint model. I favored taking brands then over markets. I've stated as much in posts here on both the SEC and this board. I told folks then that it was only designed to break up the power coalitions that had held regions and conferences together and that this was the sole purpose of this model which would be switched when the goals were achieved for the networks. Those goals were to destabilize those coalitions. I stated at the time that a "saturation model" would be forthcoming. A Saturation model would pay the conferences for the actual % of viewers in a state where multiple conferences held interests.
So the carrot was to pay everyone for the whole state for one contract period (which is purposeful over payment as bait to get the fragmenting of state markets such as Texas accomplished) and then in the second contract to switch to actually paying them for just who watches which would cut out the expensive overhead of the networks and reduce value to the conferences unless they would concede other points necessary to enhance their commercial value. So extra conference games, playing all P5 schedules, and playing more brands are those concessions to keep the increased pay. That and further product placement which is what we call realignment.
ESPN had plans for the ACC. Those plans met with resistance from the old core schools who realized what was happening to them. Those plans may now have changed. But understand this. You can substitute the term "streaming" for what I once called a market saturation plan. The bait and switch is being completed.
I remember you discussing these things on Mr. SEC's site. I wish Pennington was still at it because he was well connected and unbiased. I thoroughly enjoyed reading his analysis.
The conventional wisdom has been that 4 strong conferences would emerge from all this chaos. I see the reasoning, but I'm not sure I see the path that would allow it to happen.
Several ACC properties are more valuable in other leagues. Same with the Big 12. While I could see the Big 12 surviving and being attractive to some pretty good brands in an albeit less than ideal world, I don't see most of those brands heading that way if indeed streaming takes over and content brands become more valuable to the SEC. Something would have to give there.
Many say UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT to the B1G although I'm not sure any of those schools would really be enthused about that. They also say FSU, Clemson, NC State, and VT to the SEC and I think, by contrast, most of those schools would be warm to that although I could see VT being hesitant.
But then what? UT, OU, and KU are still carrying the Big 12 at that point. The best brands they have to strengthen themselves would be Louisville, Miami, Pittsburgh, and the like. Nothing against those schools, but they don't really solve the Big 12's problems...chief among them the selfishness of UT. OU is probably still looking to leave in that scenario although I could be wrong. If OU is truly available then I have a hard time seeing both the B1G and the SEC turning them down. If content matters the most then there aren't very many that bring more content than OU. KU, OSU, ISU, WVU...there are several schools worth taking if OU is on the line.
I could see UT and company convincing the PAC to sell their network to ESPN in exchange for a promise to come on board. A PAC network with the likes of UT, OU, KU, and a few more in the Central Time zone combined with the power of ESPN would probably make the whole thing much more profitable.
Either way, we basically have 3 strong leagues left if things break in any way similar to this.