(06-01-2016 08:41 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 11:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  People should consider that with the addition of either OU or UT that the Big 10 or SEC would easily be making 10 million more a year than either of them for television rights. The LHN can be absorbed easily by any 14 member conference who is adding two new schools. The 15 schools that are not Texas simply forgo 1/2 million of their bump per year for 15 years. When that comes out of an annual payout around 45 to 50 million per year they won't miss it. Then the new conference home easily matches that 7.5 million per year out of their share of the revenues and it is done.

Therefore the hidden possibility here is that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and possibly West Virginia already know where they are headed and who of their present conference mates may be going with them.

They've all known for almost 6 years that it was going to eventually come to this. I guarantee you the options for each have been on the table for some time now.

Why would they do this? The big brands would do it because of the extra money they could be earning but are missing out on by staying the course. Texas less so of course than OU & Kansas. But then the second reason would probably interest Texas. The little brother schools will all be losers if they wait until the GOR expires. Why? They lose their leverage. If Texas or any other brand wants to help land a spot for other in state public schools then the longer they wait to make a move the less likely they are to be able to help those fellow state schools. So the impetus here is for both the brands, and the lesser brands, to see the wisdom in an orderly and brokered departure now.

So this may well be a pre-rehearsed drama that is about to unfold where the only ones who don't know the outcome are those of us in the audience. We'll see.

Also the Florida A.D. made some interesting statements this afternoon. When asked about future additions he stated that the SEC was quite happy at 14 and not planning on additions. He then went on to say, but should another major conference suffer a break up of course we would be interested in any of those schools who coincided with the SEC's plans for the future. Does this mean anything? No. But it is an odd comment to come out of a Conference meeting.

I am convinced the likely outcome as we move into the post-carriage fee model that the P5 leagues need even greater leverage than they have and 16 is probably the bottom end of that and 24 to 32 is possible. Our understanding of how conferences operate is going to have to change, you might not see an overall Big 10 champion named but rather an east and a west champion with both angling for the playoff or no divisions at all, instead playing 4-6 "core" opponents every year and having a mix from the non-core schedule and the top two highest rated playing to be overall champion.

If it goes big then the real battle to come is going to be B1G and SEC trying to seal the Pac-12 off and have a hand in their future. The only way to do that is to keep OU and Texas out of the Pac-12 and extract them from the Big XII. At that point with the Pac-12 unable to gain the numerical leverage bringing 100% equity Pac-12 Network and its infrastructure to the SEC or B1G or even the ACC to create a league of 26 to 28 teams that features one cross-sectional game a week but otherwise doesn't involve cross-competition is an economic beast covering every time zone and uniting major brands.

It sounds crazy but consider the money the NFL gets. The Cowboys are one of the most popular franchises and they are in the same conference as Chicago the third largest TV market and in the 55 years or so since the Cowboys were founded, they've played the Bears 25 times and two of those were playoff games. The Saints are a short (fun) trip and they've met 28 times. They've played the 49ers 34 times and 7 of those playoff games.

It doesn't matter if USC plays only one or two games a year against fellow ACC or B1G, or SEC teams, if one entity bottles up the west coast and the midwest or the west coast and eastern seaboard, or the southeast and west coast, you've created an economic beast and if you treat that economic beast like the NHL, NBA, and MLB do, you let the members sell off some of the inventory locally.

Much simpler is a joint TV contract, much like Chip Brown suggests (without the conference shuffling). It could start with Big 12 and ACC or Big 12 and Pac 12. Eventually the SEC and B1G might see an advantage in joining the consortium. Or there could be two groups, B1G/Pac/Big and SEC/ACC. Or maybe you get the 24 team conference without actually being one conference-Pac 12 and Big 12 "merge" their conference offices and TV contract, but remain separate conferences for NCAA purposes.

I think the market will be resistant to that initially because the money behind realignment wants to winnow out weaker schools from redundant markets. So bust up the Big 12 and ACC and eliminate those who are unwilling to spend what it takes to be competitive, or those who simply don't have the demographics to drive ratings.

Once you've done that then what you suggest is highly likely. The PAC probably has 2 schools that fall under the description above. The ACC could have as many as 4 or 5. The Big 12 might have 4 but that would be 40% of the present Big 12. It would only be around 30% of the ACC, and about 16% of the PAC. The SEC could have 2 and the Big 10 probably has 2 as well.

So drive up the cost including cost of living to the athletes and you might passively week out a few. Bust up a conference, especially at the end of the GOR's and you weed out a few more whether that is the Big 12 or the ACC. Then combine your remaining product as you say and you might well wind up with 3 conferences under 1 umbrella with about 18 schools each for a total of 54. The investment levels in athletics support that number with a slight break, again at 60, again at 64, and drop off a cliff after 72. Although it could easily be argued they drop off a cliff around 36 as well. Just from investment levels the present FBS could break into 4 fairly well defined subgroups.

(06-01-2016 08:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and WV would fit very well in the SEC. Texas reunited with A&M, Kansas reunited with Missouri.

You'd have divisions something like:

West - Texas, TX A&M, OU, Arkansas, LSU, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky
East - Florida, SC, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, Miss, Miss St, Vandy, WV

Play the eight other teams in your division every year, plus one dedicated cross-over, plus one more P5.


Big Ten could respond by taking four high quality research schools: North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech.


Remaining Big 12 - Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, TX Tech, Baylor, TCU --- join PAC 12 ??


ACC remaining - BC, Cuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Louisville, Clemson, FL St, Miami, GT, NC St, WF

Add from Cincy, UConn, Temple, Houston, Memphis, etc.

First off UNC and Duke are very long term ACC Members in a very strong Basketball crazy state. They are in the top rated Basketball conference and work well together. Football is getting much more competitive there. They are Not going anywhere if the ACC is still together. Notre Dame isn't going to join a reduced ACC with those 4 quality schools gone. BTW You have GT both in the ACC & B1G at same time.

That was supposed to say VT in the ACC. Whoops! Thanks.

Yes, UNC, Duke, Virginia are absolutely core ACC schools. It would take a monumental shift for them to consider abandoning the ACC. Maybe Texas, OU, KU, WV to the SEC wouldn't be big enough.

Perhaps the Big Ten would take: VT, NC St, GT and one more. Pitt would make the most sense in terms of research. But obviously an overlapping market. UConn might be a stretch. Florida St not impossible. They're decent at research. About UConn/Iowa St level.

I know the conventional wisdom is that the Big 12 is dysfunctional, but I am sensing the opposite. They are sitting down, looking at the data, discussing and processing the data. It is a pretty measured approach, I'd say. Sure there is some instability, but that is because the league is in a tough spot, not because they are dysfunctional, IMO. It's should be expected that there will be different biases and needs from different schools. I'm actually liking what I'm hearing. Expand or not expand, I feel like they are doing their due diligence, and honestly that is all you can expect in a situation with no easy answers.

Frog,

So how would you feel about TCU being in the Big 12 that lost TX, OU, KU and WV - and let's say that remainder league retained the same level of pay-out and access in the CFP as the ACC?

(06-01-2016 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frog,

So how would you feel about TCU being in the Big 12 that lost TX, OU, KU and WV - and let's say that remainder league retained the same level of pay-out and access in the CFP as the ACC?

Would that not be an improvement for The Big 12?

The Big 12 is yet to win a game in the CFP after being left out in Year 1 and losing in the 1st round last year....

(06-01-2016 11:18 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Frog,

So how would you feel about TCU being in the Big 12 that lost TX, OU, KU and WV - and let's say that remainder league retained the same level of pay-out and access in the CFP as the ACC?

Well, for me as a fan with no control, I'm fine with whatever happens. One thing I don't like about this board is the middle school, "popular crowd" mentality here. I'm not into that. I've honestly enjoyed all of the conferences and configurations we've been in.

CJ,

The Big 12 and the ACC get the same payout from the CFP. All of the P5 conferences get the same payout.

West Virginia is the ugly red head that nobody wants. They are lucky to get a Big 12 invite. ACC, Big 10, SEC and PAC 12 do not want them. It is important for them to vote yes to expand to keep the Big 12 stabilized.

(05-31-2016 08:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 07:39 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 06:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 03:43 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Wait a minute. What about all that stuff TripleA was saying about Memphis already being invited????

Andy has been here for a long time. He does not deserve this. Andy has many contacts with his years running his website. I for one appreciate the information he shares.
CJ

Doesn't deserve what??? Did I flame him? Did I use derogatory language? Did I insult his family?

He was very clear and matter of fact that he was "in the know" that Memphis had already received their B12 invite. All I asked was for hm to comment on this new information, so lighten up Francis.

Nah, you just made fun of my posts. That's okay. We'll see who is right in a few weeks.

But I did not say Memphis already had an invite, so if you're going to make fun of me, at least get the quotes right, which you haven't done correctly once yet.

I said the Big 12 had decided on 11 and 12, assuming what they told Memphis is accurate. I did not say they had issued an invite to anybody. They haven't voted yet. Chit happens sometimes. Nothing is ever certain until the presser. I said that half a dozen times already.

But if I were you, I would beware of premature celebration.

Looks like you're the one guilty of "premature celebration", because you keep saying we'll see who's right in a couple of weeks. You think the invite's in the bag, so just admit it already.

(06-01-2016 08:47 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 08:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 07:39 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 06:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 03:43 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  Wait a minute. What about all that stuff TripleA was saying about Memphis already being invited????

Andy has been here for a long time. He does not deserve this. Andy has many contacts with his years running his website. I for one appreciate the information he shares.
CJ

Doesn't deserve what??? Did I flame him? Did I use derogatory language? Did I insult his family?

He was very clear and matter of fact that he was "in the know" that Memphis had already received their B12 invite. All I asked was for hm to comment on this new information, so lighten up Francis.

Nah, you just made fun of my posts. That's okay. We'll see who is right in a few weeks.

But I did not say Memphis already had an invite, so if you're going to make fun of me, at least get the quotes right, which you haven't done correctly once yet.

I said the Big 12 had decided on 11 and 12, assuming what they told Memphis is accurate. I did not say they had issued an invite to anybody. They haven't voted yet. Chit happens sometimes. Nothing is ever certain until the presser. I said that half a dozen times already.

But if I were you, I would beware of premature celebration.

Looks like you're the one guilty of "premature celebration", because you keep saying we'll see who's right in a couple of weeks. You think the invite's in the bag, so just admit it already.

the Hartford paper indicates there is still a lot of disagreement:

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...story.html