Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Only question is could 8 conference games work or would 9 be optimal to allow two permanent rivals?

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

Not bad. I'm not sure about the affiliate member idea as many of those schools only have any real value to add in football.

What about this?

SEC takes Oklahoma, Florida State, Clemson, and Virginia Tech = 18

B1G takes Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke = 18

PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston = 16

New league forms...I'll call it the Big Continental

West: BYU, Colorado State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Baylor
North: Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn, Boston College
East: Miami, Georgia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Temple

Notre Dame affiliates with this league.

The 4th league is obviously not quite so powerful, but should get decent money for a good balance between football and basketball. Everyone in the current P5 is included plus a few that are currently on the outside looking in.

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

(01-27-2016 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

That exit fee is out of ESPN's control. It's a matter of the courts and SOMEBODY will have to pay. It might be ESPN, or the SEC and the B1G but there will be cash involved, and that is even after the GOR expires. Without the ACC voluntarily disbanding somebody will pay.

(01-27-2016 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

That exit fee is out of ESPN's control. It's a matter of the courts and SOMEBODY will have to pay. It might be ESPN, or the SEC and the B1G but there will be cash involved, and that is even after the GOR expires. Without the ACC voluntarily disbanding somebody will pay.

Maybe 32 million again, 50 if you're lucky. The exit fee now exceeds by leaps and bounds anything that has ever been considered to be reasonable. There's a good chance the formula is set so high that it is unenforceable.

(01-27-2016 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

That exit fee is out of ESPN's control. It's a matter of the courts and SOMEBODY will have to pay. It might be ESPN, or the SEC and the B1G but there will be cash involved, and that is even after the GOR expires. Without the ACC voluntarily disbanding somebody will pay.

Maybe 32 million again, 50 if you're lucky. The exit fee now exceeds by leaps and bounds anything that has ever been considered to be reasonable. There's a good chance the formula is set so high that it is unenforceable.

We got everything we needed in the Maryland situation:
1) that the ACC was a NC based corporation and under the jurisdiction of NC State courts
2)The exit fee was enforceable

(01-27-2016 05:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 04:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

That exit fee is out of ESPN's control. It's a matter of the courts and SOMEBODY will have to pay. It might be ESPN, or the SEC and the B1G but there will be cash involved, and that is even after the GOR expires. Without the ACC voluntarily disbanding somebody will pay.

Maybe 32 million again, 50 if you're lucky. The exit fee now exceeds by leaps and bounds anything that has ever been considered to be reasonable. There's a good chance the formula is set so high that it is unenforceable.

We got everything we needed in the Maryland situation:
1) that the ACC was a NC based corporation and under the jurisdiction of NC State courts
2)The exit fee was enforceable

Duh! That's only because it wasn't contested. Neither North Carolina nor Maryland wanted that kind of scrutiny or publicity. Too much would have come out for the ACC if Maryland had taken the stand. The Federal Courts might have to eventually make a ruling and that would hardly be covered by your law grads posing as judges. Besides there is a natural aversion that schools have and conferences when it comes to opening the books and agreements up to a Federal Judge.

One argument that Maryland had going for them is that they did vote no to exit fee & then soon after announced their departure. By the ACC bylaws, to my understanding, the increased exit fee shouldn't have been in effect yet. Any future departures will not be able to use this argument. Comparing Maryland to another departure today wouldn't exactly be apples to apples. Would the full exit penalty be upheld, I don't know but I would think that $32 million now would be conservative.

Help me out. Who did you leave out? Also, why 4x16 and not 8x8?

(01-27-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Help me out. Who did you leave out? Also, why 4x16 and not 8x8?

Because the conferences already have 14 for the most part and aren't going to shrink to satisfy fan speculation. They are under contract. Also we will have more consolidation for the leverage and to increase content. It's the best defense against the coming model.

Who was left out was in the post. T.C.U., Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State. But they were included in the model for 72, a 4 x 18.

(01-27-2016 01:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 01:00 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Big 10:

Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia Tech

Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue

Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska


SEC:

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kentucky, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Tennessee

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Rice

ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest

Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State

Baylor, Iowa State, T.C.U., & Kansas State become independents that can attach to other P4 conferences.

Iowa State attaches to the Big 10.
Baylor attaches to the ACC.
T.C.U. attaches to the SEC.
Kansas State attaches to the PAC.

They schedule 4 to 6 conference games, and play all of their sports in their respective conferences except football. It might even be possible to do that for 4 others.

B.Y.U. with the PAC.
Temple with the ACC.
East Carolina with the SEC.
Buffalo with the Big 10.

That will be cash please!
Since it's doubtful that the ACC will vote to dissolve and IF you wanted to challenge the GOR in court and were successful there is still the matter of the exit fee (3 times operating budget which is now about 25M). And since the fee has already been upheld in court....... that will be around $150 Million please..........no checks!

If it ever happens XLance there won't be any cash involved. ESPN will have made the decision and either will have decided to parse out the ACC, or will find a much better way to compensate the ACC. Adding Connecticut, West Virginia and Cincinnati yield even more market wise and might justify a network. And like in 2010 such a move would not cost the ACC any markets.

ESPN would just be making the best hoops conference stronger and the best football conference stronger.

That exit fee is out of ESPN's control. It's a matter of the courts and SOMEBODY will have to pay. It might be ESPN, or the SEC and the B1G but there will be cash involved, and that is even after the GOR expires. Without the ACC voluntarily disbanding somebody will pay.

Sounds like the league will disband then. Too many schools will have options elsewhere.

(01-27-2016 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Help me out. Who did you leave out? Also, why 4x16 and not 8x8?

Because the conferences already have 14 for the most part and aren't going to shrink to satisfy fan speculation. They are under contract. Also we will have more consolidation for the leverage and to increase content. It's the best defense against the coming model.

Who was left out was in the post. T.C.U., Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State. But they were included in the model for 72, a 4 x 18.

Why not break in two and have a scheduling alliance/media rights alliance? You call it fan speculation. I call it adding extra championship games, tourney guarantees (this won't matter 9.5/10 times), extra tourney championship games, extra votes (for everything that is decided on a conference vote level), and making it possible to have more than one undefeated team.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can design a system that captures your upside, WHILE creating extra value. They can't do it now because there are only 14 teams in the conference, and for whatever reason (i.e. ESPN or otherwise) the SEC seems unable to add 2 extra teams, so it can't split into 2 conferences because the NCAA has a rule that requires 8 teams in a conference. But, assuming that the SEC can get 2 worthy teams, why not take the option that maximizes power and money? Do you see a downside that I'm missing?

EDIT: Also, you say "coming model," but I don't think that the model that you're describing as coming has ever not been the case - at least not since deregulation. Unless, you mean media will be more important moving forward. If so, then I'm on the fence as to whether you're right or wrong. The number of media options (i.e. competition) increases daily. I can very well envision a world where we are at the high point of NCAA media importance.

(01-29-2016 10:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Help me out. Who did you leave out? Also, why 4x16 and not 8x8?

Because the conferences already have 14 for the most part and aren't going to shrink to satisfy fan speculation. They are under contract. Also we will have more consolidation for the leverage and to increase content. It's the best defense against the coming model.

Who was left out was in the post. T.C.U., Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State. But they were included in the model for 72, a 4 x 18.

Why not break in two and have a scheduling alliance/media rights alliance? You call it fan speculation. I call it adding extra championship games, tourney guarantees (this won't matter 9.5/10 times), extra tourney championship games, extra votes (for everything that is decided on a conference vote level), and making it possible to have more than one undefeated team.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can design a system that captures your upside, WHILE creating extra value. They can't do it now because there are only 14 teams in the conference, and for whatever reason (i.e. ESPN or otherwise) the SEC seems unable to add 2 extra teams, so it can't split into 2 conferences because the NCAA has a rule that requires 8 teams in a conference. But, assuming that the SEC can get 2 worthy teams, why not take the option that maximizes power and money? Do you see a downside that I'm missing?

EDIT: Also, you say "coming model," but I don't think that the model that you're describing as coming has ever not been the case - at least not since deregulation. Unless, you mean media will be more important moving forward. If so, then I'm on the fence as to whether you're right or wrong. The number of media options (i.e. competition) increases daily. I can very well envision a world where we are at the high point of NCAA media importance.

The downside of having 8 conferences rather than 4 is that consolidation produces additional leverage. Additional leverage produces more revenue. It's more valuable to have 16 schools under the same roof than it is to have 8.

All the small conferences have disintegrated or merged with other leagues for a reason. There are more benefits to larger leagues than smaller leagues.

The downside of going to P2 or P3 is that the other conferences like the CUSA, American & the MAC will out voting the power conferences & making the rules. Sure the power conferences can threaten to leave the NCAA but then the chances of the Feds getting involved becomes a real possibility & then the powers will lose their tax exemption. The G5 would certainly call that bluff. For voting purposes we are better off with a P4.

A move to a P2 is possible but, for instance, the B1G would need to keep the PAC name for its western schools & the SEC would need keep the ACC or B12 name for half of their teams.

(01-30-2016 09:50 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  The downside of going to P2 or P3 is that the other conferences like the CUSA, American & the MAC will out voting the power conferences & making the rules. Sure the power conferences can threaten to leave the NCAA but then the chances of the Feds getting involved becomes a real possibility & then the powers will lose their tax exemption. The G5 would certainly call that bluff. For voting purposes we are better off with a P4.

A move to a P2 is possible but, for instance, the B1G would need to keep the PAC name for its western schools & the SEC would need keep the ACC or B12 name for half of their teams.

Lenville the final consolidation almost assuredly will have the NCAA granting the P conferences their own divisional status, or would involve a breakaway. I feel that the groundwork has already been laid for the latter and that the motivation would not be erratic enforcement and incompetent oversight, but rather the desire to monetize basketball the way the P group saw fit.

(01-29-2016 11:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 07:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Help me out. Who did you leave out? Also, why 4x16 and not 8x8?

Because the conferences already have 14 for the most part and aren't going to shrink to satisfy fan speculation. They are under contract. Also we will have more consolidation for the leverage and to increase content. It's the best defense against the coming model.

Who was left out was in the post. T.C.U., Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State. But they were included in the model for 72, a 4 x 18.

Why not break in two and have a scheduling alliance/media rights alliance? You call it fan speculation. I call it adding extra championship games, tourney guarantees (this won't matter 9.5/10 times), extra tourney championship games, extra votes (for everything that is decided on a conference vote level), and making it possible to have more than one undefeated team.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can design a system that captures your upside, WHILE creating extra value. They can't do it now because there are only 14 teams in the conference, and for whatever reason (i.e. ESPN or otherwise) the SEC seems unable to add 2 extra teams, so it can't split into 2 conferences because the NCAA has a rule that requires 8 teams in a conference. But, assuming that the SEC can get 2 worthy teams, why not take the option that maximizes power and money? Do you see a downside that I'm missing?

EDIT: Also, you say "coming model," but I don't think that the model that you're describing as coming has ever not been the case - at least not since deregulation. Unless, you mean media will be more important moving forward. If so, then I'm on the fence as to whether you're right or wrong. The number of media options (i.e. competition) increases daily. I can very well envision a world where we are at the high point of NCAA media importance.

The downside of having 8 conferences rather than 4 is that consolidation produces additional leverage. Additional leverage produces more revenue. It's more valuable to have 16 schools under the same roof than it is to have 8.

All the small conferences have disintegrated or merged with other leagues for a reason. There are more benefits to larger leagues than smaller leagues.

Yeah, that reason was a CCG and/or opportunistic adds. However, deregulation made the CCG a moot point, and I don't think that the SEC can find/attract more than 2 adds that would be accretive.

Your leverage argument only holds if they can't pool rights. That isn't the case. Smaller conferences would actually have more leverage - especially in light of deregulation. One organization would represent all the current inventory (only possibly more valuable because of the possibility of 2 undefeated teams), AND an extra set of CCG's/tourneys. A 16 school conference actually loses leverage by staying together.

(01-30-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 11:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why not break in two and have a scheduling alliance/media rights alliance? You call it fan speculation. I call it adding extra championship games, tourney guarantees (this won't matter 9.5/10 times), extra tourney championship games, extra votes (for everything that is decided on a conference vote level), and making it possible to have more than one undefeated team.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can design a system that captures your upside, WHILE creating extra value. They can't do it now because there are only 14 teams in the conference, and for whatever reason (i.e. ESPN or otherwise) the SEC seems unable to add 2 extra teams, so it can't split into 2 conferences because the NCAA has a rule that requires 8 teams in a conference. But, assuming that the SEC can get 2 worthy teams, why not take the option that maximizes power and money? Do you see a downside that I'm missing?

EDIT: Also, you say "coming model," but I don't think that the model that you're describing as coming has ever not been the case - at least not since deregulation. Unless, you mean media will be more important moving forward. If so, then I'm on the fence as to whether you're right or wrong. The number of media options (i.e. competition) increases daily. I can very well envision a world where we are at the high point of NCAA media importance.

The downside of having 8 conferences rather than 4 is that consolidation produces additional leverage. Additional leverage produces more revenue. It's more valuable to have 16 schools under the same roof than it is to have 8.

All the small conferences have disintegrated or merged with other leagues for a reason. There are more benefits to larger leagues than smaller leagues.

Yeah, that reason was a CCG and/or opportunistic adds. However, deregulation made the CCG a moot point, and I don't think that the SEC can find/attract more than 2 adds that would be accretive.

Your leverage argument only holds if they can't pool rights. That isn't the case. Smaller conferences would actually have more leverage - especially in light of deregulation. One organization would represent all the current inventory (only possibly more valuable because of the possibility of 2 undefeated teams), AND an extra set of CCG's/tourneys. A 16 school conference actually loses leverage by staying together.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. The reason the conferences originally expanded was not to create championship games. Yes, they did that and it helped add money. The income of any given CCG would not pay the bills for an additional member. The primary reason they expanded, however, is the same reason a company like Walgreens would buy up another company like Rite Aid.

They expand their territory and bring their product to more customers. In the process, they cut overhead and eliminate competition. That increases profits as long as the purchase is a smart one...not all purchases would be created equal.

Profits are further increased due to market dynamics. When you have 8 companies vying for the same customer then the competition between the companies is fierce. Prices get lowered to please the potential customer that has so many other options. If you're dealing with 2 or 3 companies, however, then the leverage is very different. The motivation to cut prices is less pressing assuming it even exists. At this point, you're dealing with product scarcity. The fewer hands the product is in on the producer's side(or retail in this analogy) the greater the leverage the producer has to influence the consumption of said product. Artificial scarcity drives up prices. This is why monopolies are illegal in a capitalist economy. The fewer producers you have the closer you come to a monopoly because competition is reduced.

So, technically, you are correct that these smaller conferences could pool their rights together, but what if one league is stronger than another? What if one league's quality of product changes over time? What is the motivation to pool rights when there is no possible way so many leagues(competitors) could be equal and bring the same amount of value to the table during the pooling process?

The easiest and most reliable way to increase profits is to make sure everyone is under the same roof. That cuts costs, eliminates competition, and increases leverage in the marketplace by putting the control of the production of content in fewer hands.

(01-31-2016 12:40 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-30-2016 05:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 11:18 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why not break in two and have a scheduling alliance/media rights alliance? You call it fan speculation. I call it adding extra championship games, tourney guarantees (this won't matter 9.5/10 times), extra tourney championship games, extra votes (for everything that is decided on a conference vote level), and making it possible to have more than one undefeated team.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can design a system that captures your upside, WHILE creating extra value. They can't do it now because there are only 14 teams in the conference, and for whatever reason (i.e. ESPN or otherwise) the SEC seems unable to add 2 extra teams, so it can't split into 2 conferences because the NCAA has a rule that requires 8 teams in a conference. But, assuming that the SEC can get 2 worthy teams, why not take the option that maximizes power and money? Do you see a downside that I'm missing?

EDIT: Also, you say "coming model," but I don't think that the model that you're describing as coming has ever not been the case - at least not since deregulation. Unless, you mean media will be more important moving forward. If so, then I'm on the fence as to whether you're right or wrong. The number of media options (i.e. competition) increases daily. I can very well envision a world where we are at the high point of NCAA media importance.

The downside of having 8 conferences rather than 4 is that consolidation produces additional leverage. Additional leverage produces more revenue. It's more valuable to have 16 schools under the same roof than it is to have 8.

All the small conferences have disintegrated or merged with other leagues for a reason. There are more benefits to larger leagues than smaller leagues.

Yeah, that reason was a CCG and/or opportunistic adds. However, deregulation made the CCG a moot point, and I don't think that the SEC can find/attract more than 2 adds that would be accretive.

Your leverage argument only holds if they can't pool rights. That isn't the case. Smaller conferences would actually have more leverage - especially in light of deregulation. One organization would represent all the current inventory (only possibly more valuable because of the possibility of 2 undefeated teams), AND an extra set of CCG's/tourneys. A 16 school conference actually loses leverage by staying together.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. The reason the conferences originally expanded was not to create championship games. Yes, they did that and it helped add money. The income of any given CCG would not pay the bills for an additional member. The primary reason they expanded, however, is the same reason a company like Walgreens would buy up another company like Rite Aid.

They expand their territory and bring their product to more customers. In the process, they cut overhead and eliminate competition. That increases profits as long as the purchase is a smart one...not all purchases would be created equal.

Profits are further increased due to market dynamics. When you have 8 companies vying for the same customer then the competition between the companies is fierce. Prices get lowered to please the potential customer that has so many other options. If you're dealing with 2 or 3 companies, however, then the leverage is very different. The motivation to cut prices is less pressing assuming it even exists. At this point, you're dealing with product scarcity. The fewer hands the product is in on the producer's side(or retail in this analogy) the greater the leverage the producer has to influence the consumption of said product. Artificial scarcity drives up prices. This is why monopolies are illegal in a capitalist economy. The fewer producers you have the closer you come to a monopoly because competition is reduced.

So, technically, you are correct that these smaller conferences could pool their rights together, but what if one league is stronger than another? What if one league's quality of product changes over time? What is the motivation to pool rights when there is no possible way so many leagues(competitors) could be equal and bring the same amount of value to the table during the pooling process?

The easiest and most reliable way to increase profits is to make sure everyone is under the same roof. That cuts costs, eliminates competition, and increases leverage in the marketplace by putting the control of the production of content in fewer hands.

Yep! And almost always the product and the corporate culture is diluted or modified. It may be bigger and more profitable, but it will not be an improvement over the original.
That is why you often see businesses eliminate divisions that don't "fit" and return to their core focus.
Think about it: which of South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas A&M has truly improved the SEC's core product? Don't think too hard and long because the answer is none!