While the writer's opinion column ignores some of the roadblocks to his premise, the outcome does seem reasonable. Whether the "name" schools from the ACC and Big 12 decide to jump to the SEC or the Big 10, a move appears inevitable for just a few who are proactive. The income disparity will just be too great to sit on their hands and do nothing.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/fl...olumn.html

Quote:The SEC should just dispense with the formalities, move forward with its master plan of world domination and go ahead and bankrupt the Big 12 and ACC by buying FSU, Clemson, Texas and Oklahoma.

One of the most powerful men in the SEC — Florida Gators athletics director Jeremy Foley — has a philosophy that he borrowed from Henry Kissinger: "Whatever must happen eventually should happen immediately."

And what will happen eventually is that football powerhouses in the Big 12 and ACC will start to lose massive ground to their rivals in the SEC and Big Ten and will have no choice but to bail and bolt.

I am also including a poll to gauge the opinions of the board.

That writer went to the Big 12 meetings hoping that UCF had a chance. They don't. So he wrote a satire article. VA Tech fans know when he is serious and when he is writing with humor. This is one of his humor writings.

I think that the Big 12 will return to an unequal revenue sharing system. This will allow programs like OU and Texas to profit more than the Big 10 and SEC programs. If this happens then really no reason to switch conferences.

too many top tier programs in one league is harmful. What could happen right now to settle the landscape would be a pac 20

(06-05-2016 01:45 PM)bluesox Wrote:  too many top tier programs in one league is harmful. What could happen right now to settle the landscape would be a pac 20

I'm of the opinion that the PAC could do well by taking in UNLV and Hawaii if it wants to get a network moving.

Take a couple of attractive destinations and TV markets from the MWC.

MWC reloads with UTEP, Rice w/Boise & USU moving to the Pacific division so it wouldn't hurt them too much. They'd still be a peer with the AAC.

(06-05-2016 12:44 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  I think that the Big 12 will return to an unequal revenue sharing system. This will allow programs like OU and Texas to profit more than the Big 10 and SEC programs. If this happens then really no reason to switch conferences.

Also with only 5 power leagues, each will stay high on the value chain.

With 10 schools, the B12 is going to have an advantage keeping its per school $$$ up fairly high.

Kitton,

Good stadiums too, when UNLV gets to play in the LV Raiders new stadium. That'd also be sure to get the PAC CCG one year, eventually. Probably not Hawaii, but you never know.

Pac 12 adds Texoma plus Kansas'.

ND/WVU in the ACC

AAC adds ISU and another.

SEC adds TCU and Baylor. Otherwise B1G feels charitable and takes UConn and ISU.

New super division created.

Big 12 will still be at a disadvantage if they stay at 10. Lack of content, and lack of schools. SEC have them beat by getting 11 to 12 schools in a bowl game. If they added Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati and Memphis last year? They would have gotten 10 teams out of 14 in the bowls. That is where the Big 12 is losing money at is the bowl games. For them to get to an even playing field with the Big 10 and SEC, the Big 12 must go to 14. Take a risk, and if it works? You have helped grown 4 new schools to a dominate position.Look at TCU? The Big 12 took a risk on them, and they are doing great in the Big 12. Who says the 4 teams that I named could not be a power to try and make the playoffs for the Big 12? I think Texas is afraid to get their butts handed to them by these schools like BYU is doing to them lately.

(06-05-2016 06:06 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Pac 12 adds Texoma plus Kansas'.

ND/WVU in the ACC

AAC adds ISU and another.

SEC adds TCU and Baylor. Otherwise B1G feels charitable and takes UConn and ISU.

New super division created.

1) WVU is not going to the ACC, they were denied in the past.

&

2) The SEC would not add TCU and Baylor - especially now - to their conference. IF the SEC wants the DFW market, they can easily go for the Sooners.

(06-05-2016 06:29 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big 12 will still be at a disadvantage if they stay at 10. Lack of content, and lack of schools. SEC have them beat by getting 11 to 12 schools in a bowl game. If they added Boise State, BYU, Cincinnati and Memphis last year? They would have gotten 10 teams out of 14 in the bowls. That is where the Big 12 is losing money at is the bowl games. For them to get to an even playing field with the Big 10 and SEC, the Big 12 must go to 14. Take a risk, and if it works? You have helped grown 4 new schools to a dominate position.Look at TCU? The Big 12 took a risk on them, and they are doing great in the Big 12. Who says the 4 teams that I named could not be a power to try and make the playoffs for the Big 12? I think Texas is afraid to get their butts handed to them by these schools like BYU is doing to them lately.

This has been a known fact. An example - old info, I know: Back in the old days, Houston was denied entry into the SWC by Texas. Once the Cougars were granted entry, many - especially Texas fans - thought it was going to be a cakewalk for them. Nope, the Cougars proved they could play wit the big boys by winning 3 SWC titles in their first four years.

And it has happened again in this era, Baylor (before Briles got fired) and TCU were able to outshine Texas as of late and they don't want another "TCU" coming in and beating them.

I've been a fan of this forum, especially about the Big XII possible expansion. After 5 years, I finally became a member.

I understand that Texas runs the show in the Big XII, the reason why A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska left.

But couldn't the Big XII allow Texas to leave, and invite FSU, Clemson, and ND?

At that time you have a Big XII network, FSU and ND will bring a lot of money into the mix. Plus, as we all know it, football runs realignment. ND, FSU, and Clemson are strong football teams.

(06-06-2016 08:30 AM)chero23 Wrote:  I've been a fan of this forum, especially about the Big XII possible expansion. After 5 years, I finally became a member.

I understand that Texas runs the show in the Big XII, the reason why A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska left.

But couldn't the Big XII allow Texas to leave, and invite FSU, Clemson, and ND?

At that time you have a Big XII network, FSU and ND will bring a lot of money into the mix. Plus, as we all know it, football runs realignment. ND, FSU, and Clemson are strong football teams.

They'd have to wait until 2027 for the ACC GoR to end. And why would FSU Clemson or ND move to a Big 12 without Texas? Why would they move to a Big 12 with Texas. By 2027 the ACC will have a new TV contract (unless they extend it for an ACCN) and should be the 3rd highest TV paid conference. Maybe second highest paid as the SEC contract runs until 2035.

As usual the OP and many others miss the point. The SEC and Big 10 do not stockpile cash with which to purchase top schools. They both distribute cash that they receive from the networks.

The reason that thus far the SEC and Big 10 have not scooped up the major brands of the ACC and Big 12 is because those who pay them have not been willing to concentrate that much power in two conferences, one of which (BTN) initially tried independence and production of its own product.

FOX will now try to lure ESPN properties and ESPN will resist. The Big 10 and SEC will be used as proxies in the battle over Big 12 properties.

So even if Texas and Oklahoma and Florida State and Clemson were clamoring for inclusion in either of the big 2 they wouldn't get it unless one of the two networks was willing to pay for it. Right now FOX might but ESPN would resist and 3 of those four are more under contract to ESPN until the 2026 or longer than Oklahoma is. This is why so much attention is on Oklahoma right now. Their contracts are up first (2024-5).

Right now there is a short window in which only ESPN could move unilaterally to acquire members of the Big 12. How? They are the only network in control of two conferences who could both be utilized to land 8 Big 12 schools. So why haven't they done that? Because only 3, maybe 4 of those schools, are worth the effort.

So, at least for now, realignment is stuck.

But when movement happens again it will be because the Networks are buying rights, not because the conferences are getting greedy. The conferences do nothing without the encouragement and money of the networks.

The PAC if it bankrolls enough is the only conference now that could make its own decisions and moves. But the cost of that game may have passed them by as well.

(06-06-2016 08:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  As usual the OP and many others miss the point. The SEC and Big 10 do not stockpile cash with which to purchase top schools. They both distribute cash that they receive from the networks.

The reason that thus far the SEC and Big 10 have not scooped up the major brands of the ACC and Big 12 is because those who pay them have not been willing to concentrate that much power in two conferences, one of which (BTN) initially tried independence and production of its own product.

FOX will now try to lure ESPN properties and ESPN will resist. The Big 10 and SEC will be used as proxies in the battle over Big 12 properties.

So even if Texas and Oklahoma and Florida State and Clemson were clamoring for inclusion in either of the big 2 they wouldn't get it unless one of the two networks was willing to pay for it. Right now FOX might but ESPN would resist and 3 of those four are more under contract to ESPN until the 2026 or longer than Oklahoma is. This is why so much attention is on Oklahoma right now. Their contracts are up first (2024-5).

Right now there is a short window in which only ESPN could move unilaterally to acquire members of the Big 12. How? They are the only network in control of two conferences who could both be utilized to land 8 Big 12 schools. So why haven't they done that? Because only 3, maybe 4 of those schools, are worth the effort.

So, at least for now, realignment is stuck.

But when movement happens again it will be because the Networks are buying rights, not because the conferences are getting greedy. The conferences do nothing without the encouragement and money of the networks.

The PAC if it bankrolls enough is the only conference now that could make its own decisions and moves. But the cost of that game may have passed them by as well.

Realignment has been "stuck" since the day the ACC signed the Grant of Rights.

(06-06-2016 08:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  As usual the OP and many others miss the point. The SEC and Big 10 do not stockpile cash with which to purchase top schools. They both distribute cash that they receive from the networks.

The reason that thus far the SEC and Big 10 have not scooped up the major brands of the ACC and Big 12 is because those who pay them have not been willing to concentrate that much power in two conferences, one of which (BTN) initially tried independence and production of its own product.

FOX will now try to lure ESPN properties and ESPN will resist. The Big 10 and SEC will be used as proxies in the battle over Big 12 properties.

So even if Texas and Oklahoma and Florida State and Clemson were clamoring for inclusion in either of the big 2 they wouldn't get it unless one of the two networks was willing to pay for it. Right now FOX might but ESPN would resist and 3 of those four are more under contract to ESPN until the 2026 or longer than Oklahoma is. This is why so much attention is on Oklahoma right now. Their contracts are up first (2024-5).

Right now there is a short window in which only ESPN could move unilaterally to acquire members of the Big 12. How? They are the only network in control of two conferences who could both be utilized to land 8 Big 12 schools. So why haven't they done that? Because only 3, maybe 4 of those schools, are worth the effort.

So, at least for now, realignment is stuck.

But when movement happens again it will be because the Networks are buying rights, not because the conferences are getting greedy. The conferences do nothing without the encouragement and money of the networks.

The PAC if it bankrolls enough is the only conference now that could make its own decisions and moves. But the cost of that game may have passed them by as well.

The only way the networks will give the Pac enough money to make expansion lucrative is if the Longhorns are one of the schools joining.

(06-06-2016 12:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Life is just too good out West, to sit around on a Saturday and watch college football. Everyone has money, are into the outdoors, fitness, hiking, restaurants, etc.

The interesting question is: if the PAC could've had a CCG at 10 back then, would it still have added Colorado (and then Utah)? And would the Mountain West be a P league if it still had BYU, Utah, TCU + Colorado?

Wash/Wash St
Ore/OR St
Cal/Stan
UCLA/USC
AZ/AZ St

Utah/BYU
Colorado/CO St
TCU/New Mexico
Wyoming/Air Force
UNLV/San Diego St


UNLV and SDSt possibly both with new NFL stadiums in the coming years. Could've been an interesting competition out West.

That Mountain West lineup with the addition of Boise St and Houston would've been pretty good. However, I don't think Colorado would've left the XII if the PAC had a 10-school conference with a CCG.

I don't believe in inevitability. It's a hindsight concept.

While I think it is likely that conferences in what we now call the P5 could become a P3 or P2 with leagues of 20-28 members it isn't inevitable.

The SWC break-up wasn't inevitable they just happened to be on the market shopping TV rights at the same time every other conference was doing it and before cable channels had really turned the corner. If they had not been shopping in 1994 and instead shopping in 1997 SWC may still be here.

WAC's collapse wasn't inevitable. If SDSU and Boise don't take their flier at Big East membership the MWC expansion needs are different and even then the members could have chosen to sit still at 8 rather than go to 10 and a cushion.

Do I like the Big XII's long-term prospects today? Absolutely not but kicking the can down the road with the GOR pushes the next round of decision-making into potentially a very different TV market.

Do I like the ACC's long-term prospects today? Actually I do, some well supported schools and some great national brands, potentially a much stronger league if the TV market place changes to look more like the web marketplace. The GOR gives them time to get there.

ark,

Well said.

Except that ad revenue has never been and still isn't going to be the main driver of money in college football TV. It's still going to be carriage fees.

(06-06-2016 03:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  ark,

Well said.

Except that ad revenue has never been and still isn't going to be the main driver of money in college football TV. It's still going to be carriage fees.

I expect some sort of carriage/subscription fee is going to be the model for the P5 and pro sports.

What may change is how it is collected. Granny watching Game Show Network and Lifetime may not be paying for ESPN and FS1 in the future.