Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,834
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 07:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 06:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  It doesn't measure up. Once upon a time, Notre Dame served as the gold standard in college football. It was a national program in a regional sport.

"If you lived in this part of the country, you were interested in the SEC, period," said Roy Kramer, who retired in 2002 after 12 years as Southeastern Conference commissioner and moved to Tennessee. "The only other entity with name recognition was Notre Dame."
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...notre-dame

What we are seeing are the seeds of "new independents".
Conference networks serve as the base but can't deliver the top matchups that the networks demand for high ratings. Just look at last night as an example:
Clemson v Auburn
Notre Dame v Georgia
Oklahoma v Ohio State
all on at the same time......which did you watch/flip around to see.
Big time heavy weights going at each other, commanding a national audience. So what happens in a few weeks, when what we have to choose from is Georgia v Vanderbllt, Oklahoma v Iowa State, and Notre Dame v Wake Forest.

I think we are headed into a period where we will see multiple "partial conference memberships" where we can and will see matchups on a weekly basis like we saw last night.
Fox's time line is very aggressive but you can get the idea.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ame-051616



If you substitute the year 2036 then you have Notre Dame/ACC/LHN/SEC contracts all having expired.
I don't think we will ever get as far as FOX is proposing but we may get close. It could happen with multiple "partial" membership teams that can keep their regional flavor and still be available to play a national broadcast schedule while the conference networks can broadcast the rest.
An example would be if Penn State could play a 5 game B1G schedule to hit all of those high spot games but also play a 5 game ACC schedule to play traditional rivals like Syracuse and Pitt to satisfy the regionalism their fans are demanding.
It gives the networks what they want which is great matchups to broadcast every weekend and regionalism which is what the schools need to satisfy their fans/donors.

The rise of independents works for FBS, but those schools need someplace to put their other sports. That is the lever that conferences would use to force full membership.

I guess we will see if Texas applies for and is granted a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC. In effect Texas like Notre Dame would be a football independent, but play their other sports in the ACC.
For sports like golf or Tennis it could mean only one trip per year fr the conference championships. Baseball would probably be the most demanding (travel wise) for weekend conference series.

Is that a situation that you yourself or the ACC in general would welcome? The football situation has stabilized and Clemson and FSU have been appeased. Is the Tobacco Road group willing to cede further control of the conference just to land the Longhorns?

I'm not sure the ACC has given up any control of the conference's inner workings because of Notre Dame's partial membership. I wouldn't expect things would be any different because of Texas' inclusion.
If Texas does become a member/partial member of the ACC it will be at the behest of ESPN.
09-10-2017 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,304
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 06:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 05:51 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 07:04 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 06:57 AM)XLance Wrote:  It doesn't measure up. Once upon a time, Notre Dame served as the gold standard in college football. It was a national program in a regional sport.

"If you lived in this part of the country, you were interested in the SEC, period," said Roy Kramer, who retired in 2002 after 12 years as Southeastern Conference commissioner and moved to Tennessee. "The only other entity with name recognition was Notre Dame."
http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...notre-dame

What we are seeing are the seeds of "new independents".
Conference networks serve as the base but can't deliver the top matchups that the networks demand for high ratings. Just look at last night as an example:
Clemson v Auburn
Notre Dame v Georgia
Oklahoma v Ohio State
all on at the same time......which did you watch/flip around to see.
Big time heavy weights going at each other, commanding a national audience. So what happens in a few weeks, when what we have to choose from is Georgia v Vanderbllt, Oklahoma v Iowa State, and Notre Dame v Wake Forest.

I think we are headed into a period where we will see multiple "partial conference memberships" where we can and will see matchups on a weekly basis like we saw last night.
Fox's time line is very aggressive but you can get the idea.
http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ame-051616



If you substitute the year 2036 then you have Notre Dame/ACC/LHN/SEC contracts all having expired.
I don't think we will ever get as far as FOX is proposing but we may get close. It could happen with multiple "partial" membership teams that can keep their regional flavor and still be available to play a national broadcast schedule while the conference networks can broadcast the rest.
An example would be if Penn State could play a 5 game B1G schedule to hit all of those high spot games but also play a 5 game ACC schedule to play traditional rivals like Syracuse and Pitt to satisfy the regionalism their fans are demanding.
It gives the networks what they want which is great matchups to broadcast every weekend and regionalism which is what the schools need to satisfy their fans/donors.

The rise of independents works for FBS, but those schools need someplace to put their other sports. That is the lever that conferences would use to force full membership.

I guess we will see if Texas applies for and is granted a Notre Dame type deal with the ACC. In effect Texas like Notre Dame would be a football independent, but play their other sports in the ACC.
For sports like golf or Tennis it could mean only one trip per year fr the conference championships. Baseball would probably be the most demanding (travel wise) for weekend conference series.

Is that a situation that you yourself or the ACC in general would welcome? The football situation has stabilized and Clemson and FSU have been appeased. Is the Tobacco Road group willing to cede further control of the conference just to land the Longhorns?

I'm not sure the ACC has given up any control of the conference's inner workings because of Notre Dame's partial membership. I wouldn't expect things would be any different because of Texas' inclusion.
If Texas does become a member/partial member of the ACC it will be at the behest of ESPN.

The ACC only continues to exist at the discretion of ESPN so if they want you to have Texas then you will get in line with whatever ESPN has promised them.
09-10-2017 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Western, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M


Now at a crueler leaner 60 it might look like this:

PAC:
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

B1G:
East: Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Tennessee
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia, Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

The political wrangling needed to effect this outcome would be fascinating to see. A lot of presidents would have to be convinced to give up a bunch of control over the consolidation process. Ex: convincing secular schools to accept BYU into the club. Maybe giving up the names of "Big Ten," "SEC," etc, can help soothe some hard feelings.

The angle that should be looked at is how basketball can help get the programs towards the new paradigm. At 72 it gets much easier for schools to argue for separation from the NCAA when you add the Big East, Gonzaga, Atlantic 10, etc, as allies. A school like UConn should be part of the new group.

Thus my preference for the "72" idea.
09-10-2017 10:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,304
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 10:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M


Now at a crueler leaner 60 it might look like this:

PAC:
North: Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
West: California, Cal Los Angeles, Colorado, Southern Cal, Utah
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
South: Arizona, Arizona State, Texas, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

B1G:
East: Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
South: Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Virginia
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Tennessee
East: Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia, Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

The political wrangling needed to effect this outcome would be fascinating to see. A lot of presidents would have to be convinced to give up a bunch of control over the consolidation process. Ex: convincing secular schools to accept BYU into the club. Maybe giving up the names of "Big Ten," "SEC," etc, can help soothe some hard feelings.

The angle that should be looked at is how basketball can help get the programs towards the new paradigm. At 72 it gets much easier for schools to argue for separation from the NCAA when you add the Big East, Gonzaga, Atlantic 10, etc, as allies. A school like UConn should be part of the new group.

Thus my preference for the "72" idea.

I think if you group the schools with issues away from those who hold the issues, that within a larger construct you can gain acceptance. Ideally to make 72 work we need to start by separating athletic relationships from academic ones. There would be no threat to the B1G by the additions I've suggested as theirs is the only conference where academic considerations were applied along with geography. The Big 10 has one pill to swallow here and that's not a bitter one, Cincinnati.

But if you can differentiate the two forms of associations then 72 becomes possible. B.Y.U. becomes acceptable. And tertiary schools from large states can be added for extra value. When a conference like the SEC can dip into Florida 5 potentially 5 times on a weekend for add revenue that's a big deal. In this scenario the PAC gets that benefit in Texas. And the Big 10 owns the upper Eastern Atlantic and New England. There's the value. The regional nature of the divisions allows for two crucial things to happen: minor sports play stays relatively local an inexpensive and TV networks get an entrant into each sub-region of audience within the larger region whether that is by a conference championship round, or an expanded playoff round. Either way the nation stays engaged through the semis.

We get better quality opponents with a 12 game all P schedule, but have enough lower tier schools to make it work, but they are lower tier schools that have something to offer whether that is good attendance, or one sport at which they excel or a niche market that pays advertising dividends, particularly in large states.
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2017 11:25 PM by JRsec.)
09-10-2017 11:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,623
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there...

If ESPN's original plan was to move Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame to the ACC in exchange for a couple of properties shifting from the ACC to the SEC then I think we need to evaluate how ESPN's perspective might have shifted since that time.

1) The advent of streaming has made a difference certainly.
2) The Big Ten has continued to distance itself from ESPN
3) The Big 12 was rescued, but given an expiration date at the same time.
4) ESPN doubled down on their commitment to the ACC and gave them a network.

But at the same time, let's underscore that the decision to give the ACC a network was a little odd. For one, the market is not nearly as conducive to new linear channels as it was just a few years ago, much less what it will be by the time 2019 arrives. Secondly, the ACC screwed up ESPN's plans to consolidate content so I'm a little surprised they'd be willing to do the ACC any favors. Third, most of the ACC schools would probably be more valuable to the networks if parceled out.

Now one thing is certainly true, ACC content is important content and it emanates from some very important markets so it's no surprise ESPN would want to own it.

Is it possible, however, that the next wave of realignment that gives us "very, very large conferences" is the same one that will see a reordering of the ACC?

Here's what I mean...

If Notre Dame is ultimately a stabilizing force for the ACC and if they are tempted by more money then ESPN is going to have to get creative to preserve all of their investments and secure their own future. After all, what does ESPN gain by allowing ND to walk to the B1G after a buyout? Wouldn't they be more interested in finding a way to increase the payouts for Notre Dame so they would stay in the fold?

So anyway, that brings me back around to what I really wanted to propose...

What if the creation of the ACC Network, not coincidentally premiering around 2019, is more of a tactic than a business enterprise?

Let's look at it like this...

1) The SEC Network is a cash cow.
2) The ACC Network won't compete with that unless it adds more quality programs.
3) The B1G might very well be divesting from the BTN which leaves open a very interesting opportunity in about 6 years.

Maybe ESPN uses their might to lock down all the powers of the West in the SEC...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

The ACC adds no one this round...

Wait a minute, what are we doing with the ACC Network? Give the ACCN to the current roster and let them build upon it, sure. But then we're going to use the ACCN to lure Big Ten properties in the future...

Huh?

Once the B1G has divested ownership from the BTN then all that stands between ESPN and reclaiming some of their lost market share is making sure there's a nice safe and super prosperous home for the big boys. Would it work? Well, the thing about the B1G is that it's top heavy. The Big 12 is the top heaviest of all, but it will soon be put out of its misery. The power of the B1G as well lies in a small number of programs and markets. It's just not as pronounced a problem as what you find in the current Big 12.

1) There were rumors about Penn State not being happy and wanting more regional partners.
2) The powers of the B1G are going to die on the vine unless they get access to Southern athletes
3) The demographics of the Midwest aren't getting better anytime soon and thus the reason Delaney wants into the Mid-Atlantic.

What if ESPN offered the powers of the B1G everything they wanted? But what if they only offered it to a select few members rather than playing ball with the leaders of the conference?

What if Wake Forest is encouraged to drop football and join the Big East? Thus leaving 6 spots for B1G schools...

What about this?

North: Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin
East: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Syracuse, Boston College
South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville
Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Would the powers of the B1G be willing to transition to an Eastern conference instead of a Midwestern conference. I don't know, but the idea intrigues me.

The only true big time program that's left out is Nebraska...remember though we only bumped the SEC up to 18. So now that the B1G has been raided, use the SEC to acquire Nebraska and Kansas. Both the SEC and ACC are at 20

Thoughts?
09-10-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,304
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 11:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there...

If ESPN's original plan was to move Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame to the ACC in exchange for a couple of properties shifting from the ACC to the SEC then I think we need to evaluate how ESPN's perspective might have shifted since that time.

1) The advent of streaming has made a difference certainly.
2) The Big Ten has continued to distance itself from ESPN
3) The Big 12 was rescued, but given an expiration date at the same time.
4) ESPN doubled down on their commitment to the ACC and gave them a network.

But at the same time, let's underscore that the decision to give the ACC a network was a little odd. For one, the market is not nearly as conducive to new linear channels as it was just a few years ago, much less what it will be by the time 2019 arrives. Secondly, the ACC screwed up ESPN's plans to consolidate content so I'm a little surprised they'd be willing to do the ACC any favors. Third, most of the ACC schools would probably be more valuable to the networks if parceled out.

Now one thing is certainly true, ACC content is important content and it emanates from some very important markets so it's no surprise ESPN would want to own it.

Is it possible, however, that the next wave of realignment that gives us "very, very large conferences" is the same one that will see a reordering of the ACC?

Here's what I mean...

If Notre Dame is ultimately a stabilizing force for the ACC and if they are tempted by more money then ESPN is going to have to get creative to preserve all of their investments and secure their own future. After all, what does ESPN gain by allowing ND to walk to the B1G after a buyout? Wouldn't they be more interested in finding a way to increase the payouts for Notre Dame so they would stay in the fold?

So anyway, that brings me back around to what I really wanted to propose...

What if the creation of the ACC Network, not coincidentally premiering around 2019, is more of a tactic than a business enterprise?

Let's look at it like this...

1) The SEC Network is a cash cow.
2) The ACC Network won't compete with that unless it adds more quality programs.
3) The B1G might very well be divesting from the BTN which leaves open a very interesting opportunity in about 6 years.

Maybe ESPN uses their might to lock down all the powers of the West in the SEC...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

The ACC adds no one this round...

Wait a minute, what are we doing with the ACC Network? Give the ACCN to the current roster and let them build upon it, sure. But then we're going to use the ACCN to lure Big Ten properties in the future...

Huh?

Once the B1G has divested ownership from the BTN then all that stands between ESPN and reclaiming some of their lost market share is making sure there's a nice safe and super prosperous home for the big boys. Would it work? Well, the thing about the B1G is that it's top heavy. The Big 12 is the top heaviest of all, but it will soon be put out of its misery. The power of the B1G as well lies in a small number of programs and markets. It's just not as pronounced a problem as what you find in the current Big 12.

1) There were rumors about Penn State not being happy and wanting more regional partners.
2) The powers of the B1G are going to die on the vine unless they get access to Southern athletes
3) The demographics of the Midwest aren't getting better anytime soon and thus the reason Delaney wants into the Mid-Atlantic.

What if ESPN offered the powers of the B1G everything they wanted? But what if they only offered it to a select few members rather than playing ball with the leaders of the conference?

What if Wake Forest is encouraged to drop football and join the Big East? Thus leaving 6 spots for B1G schools...

What about this?

North: Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin
East: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Syracuse, Boston College
South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville
Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Would the powers of the B1G be willing to transition to an Eastern conference instead of a Midwestern conference. I don't know, but the idea intrigues me.

The only true big time program that's left out is Nebraska...remember though we only bumped the SEC up to 18. So now that the B1G has been raided, use the SEC to acquire Nebraska and Kansas. Both the SEC and ACC are at 20

Thoughts?

If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.
09-10-2017 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Just for the heck of it, I've made maps out of the groupings you made. I didn't differentiate based on division but just a general layout of markings:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000002&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000003&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...999997&z=6


I get that you intended to have concentrations in the states of Florida, California and Texas. What I like about the "B1G" group is that you add up the teams East of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border plus Cincinnati you come up with 12 programs. A lot of games in relative close distance compared with the current Big Ten. Having Wake Forest is a small price to pay for having this set up and I'd like playing Wake Forest in other sports as well. Winston-Salem would be a nice trip during the late fall months. Some of the Carolina folks would be very uncomfortable with being in a Yankee association but their focus on basketball forces them to make a presence in the New York City area since at least the 1940s and the ACC already is playing games in Brooklyn and Yankee Stadium in the two main sports, anyway.
09-11-2017 01:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,623
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 11:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If it were just about network strategies then that could work. But Michigan likes playing Minnesota and Illinois. Ohio State likes playing Indiana. And for the oodles of Big 10 alums that is what they want. They've had a history together for over 100 years for the most part. The same is true for the core of the SEC, which of course has ties to many of the core ACC schools through our shared Southern Conference roots.

I think it is far more likely that ESPN regains a larger portion of the Big 10 contract and a increases its successful holdings in the SEC by utilizing the ACC, than it is that the B1G would be parsed out. Geography and money married to the better brands (SEC & B1G) would be would be a much more likely enticement for those grafted into the ACC for less than 20 years than it would be to break apart a solid family with a shared history a century old.

Odds are that the SEC takes a Texa-homa type deal and moves to 18 and that N.D. goes all in and Cincinnati, Connecticut, West Virginia round them out to 18. That way ESPN gets all they really could want of the remaining brands, the ACC gets the added markets and for the price of 36 P schools ESPN holds the majority stake in the 75% of the national brands and the champions of the three major sports.

If that happens then maybe the PAC and B1G find ways to do the same or something similar.

As long as we get some version of Texahoma then I'm ok. And I wouldn't mind it if we end up at 20 with schools like Kansas or West Virginia.

Earlier, y'all were proposing an interesting idea...limiting the number of conference games so schools could create big match-ups. I think it's interesting because if you're going to make room for plenty of big games in non-conference then it almost doesn't matter how large your conference gets.

Theoretically you could go to 4 divisions and create semi-finals for the division winners. You could also go old schools and allow schools to decide which other non-division games they play within conference. You could preserve a lot of rivalries that way and just not count the results towards the division race.

If you had 4 divisions of 5 providing 4 games then keep 4 games for playing non-division foes. That leaves 4 games for playing quality non-conference games.

I don't know, but it's an interesting thought.
09-11-2017 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,304
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 662
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-11-2017 01:34 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't happen that way. They will use divisions to geographically group schools and rivals where possible. The remaining very large conferences will represent regions of the country. Overhead will be reduced by eliminating duplicated conference governmental layers.

It could happen if the PAC was absorbed along with the Big 12, or if the ACC was absorbed along with the Big 12. Either way a regional P3 of between 20-24 schools would work quite nicely.

The 72 would be the 65 we currently have plus: Connecticut, Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, San Diego State, and South Florida. That's the three most deserving: Connecticut, Cincinnati, and Brigham Young plus the best earners from Texas, California, and Florida.

PAC:
North: Brigham Young, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
West: Arizona, Arizona State, California, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
South: Baylor, Colorado, Houston, San Diego State, Texas, Texas Tech
East: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Christian

B1G:
East: Boston College, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
South: Duke, Maryland, Pittsburgh, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
North: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:
North: Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
East: Central Florida, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
South: Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, Mississippi State, South Florida, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M

Just for the heck of it, I've made maps out of the groupings you made. I didn't differentiate based on division but just a general layout of markings:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000002&z=5

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...000003&z=6

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...999997&z=6


I get that you intended to have concentrations in the states of Florida, California and Texas. What I like about the "B1G" group is that you add up the teams East of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border plus Cincinnati you come up with 12 programs. A lot of games in relative close distance compared with the current Big Ten. Having Wake Forest is a small price to pay for having this set up and I'd like playing Wake Forest in other sports as well. Winston-Salem would be a nice trip during the late fall months. Some of the Carolina folks would be very uncomfortable with being in a Yankee association but their focus on basketball forces them to make a presence in the New York City area since at least the 1940s and the ACC already is playing games in Brooklyn and Yankee Stadium in the two main sports, anyway.

I think grouping for distance of travel for minor sports is a undervalued means of cutting overhead. Besides, most of our rivals are within relative close proximity. Allowances can certainly be made if you are playing 5 divisional games your could easily have 3 permanent rivals and rotate 2 more cross divisional games and still play 1 OOC against each of the other conferences.

There's oodles of flexibility there for keeping familiar schedules, maintaining rivalries, and still giving the networks cross conference content.

And since each conference generally keeps what amounts to 1 full share for conference expenses then these 72 schools essentially save 2 full members shares to split by just paying 3 conference sets of overhead as opposed to 5. And the sales of the old conference properties can add to the bottom line as well.
09-11-2017 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,834
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 150
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Another Realignment Thread: Why? Just Because
(09-10-2017 11:27 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there...

If ESPN's original plan was to move Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Notre Dame to the ACC in exchange for a couple of properties shifting from the ACC to the SEC then I think we need to evaluate how ESPN's perspective might have shifted since that time.

1) The advent of streaming has made a difference certainly.
2) The Big Ten has continued to distance itself from ESPN
3) The Big 12 was rescued, but given an expiration date at the same time.
4) ESPN doubled down on their commitment to the ACC and gave them a network.

But at the same time, let's underscore that the decision to give the ACC a network was a little odd. For one, the market is not nearly as conducive to new linear channels as it was just a few years ago, much less what it will be by the time 2019 arrives. Secondly, the ACC screwed up ESPN's plans to consolidate content so I'm a little surprised they'd be willing to do the ACC any favors. Third, most of the ACC schools would probably be more valuable to the networks if parceled out.

Now one thing is certainly true, ACC content is important content and it emanates from some very important markets so it's no surprise ESPN would want to own it.

Is it possible, however, that the next wave of realignment that gives us "very, very large conferences" is the same one that will see a reordering of the ACC?

Here's what I mean...

If Notre Dame is ultimately a stabilizing force for the ACC and if they are tempted by more money then ESPN is going to have to get creative to preserve all of their investments and secure their own future. After all, what does ESPN gain by allowing ND to walk to the B1G after a buyout? Wouldn't they be more interested in finding a way to increase the payouts for Notre Dame so they would stay in the fold?

So anyway, that brings me back around to what I really wanted to propose...

What if the creation of the ACC Network, not coincidentally premiering around 2019, is more of a tactic than a business enterprise?

Let's look at it like this...

1) The SEC Network is a cash cow.
2) The ACC Network won't compete with that unless it adds more quality programs.
3) The B1G might very well be divesting from the BTN which leaves open a very interesting opportunity in about 6 years.

Maybe ESPN uses their might to lock down all the powers of the West in the SEC...

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, Missouri
Central: Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

The ACC adds no one this round...

Wait a minute, what are we doing with the ACC Network? Give the ACCN to the current roster and let them build upon it, sure. But then we're going to use the ACCN to lure Big Ten properties in the future...

Huh?

Once the B1G has divested ownership from the BTN then all that stands between ESPN and reclaiming some of their lost market share is making sure there's a nice safe and super prosperous home for the big boys. Would it work? Well, the thing about the B1G is that it's top heavy. The Big 12 is the top heaviest of all, but it will soon be put out of its misery. The power of the B1G as well lies in a small number of programs and markets. It's just not as pronounced a problem as what you find in the current Big 12.

1) There were rumors about Penn State not being happy and wanting more regional partners.
2) The powers of the B1G are going to die on the vine unless they get access to Southern athletes
3) The demographics of the Midwest aren't getting better anytime soon and thus the reason Delaney wants into the Mid-Atlantic.

What if ESPN offered the powers of the B1G everything they wanted? But what if they only offered it to a select few members rather than playing ball with the leaders of the conference?

What if Wake Forest is encouraged to drop football and join the Big East? Thus leaving 6 spots for B1G schools...

What about this?

North: Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin
East: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Syracuse, Boston College
South: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville
Central: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Would the powers of the B1G be willing to transition to an Eastern conference instead of a Midwestern conference. I don't know, but the idea intrigues me.

The only true big time program that's left out is Nebraska...remember though we only bumped the SEC up to 18. So now that the B1G has been raided, use the SEC to acquire Nebraska and Kansas. Both the SEC and ACC are at 20

Thoughts?

Duke put the kibosh on Oklahoma.
09-11-2017 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.