(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

The Pac-12's moonshot in 2020 or so is going to be Texas and OU and Kansas and ???. It has to be. Whatever restrictions the LHN creates, they MUST eat them in order to survive. Their simply are NOT enough CFB fans in the Pac-12 footprint. At least UT and OU could get them central time zone games...and yes, they'd get east coast time zone games as well. Plus extra quality inventory for the P12N.

(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

If you will recall my first post here was about how college football as we know it was the subject of an ongoing hostile takeover because it was undervalued and disorganized. But it is the networks that have had the hand behind the conferences pushing the expansion.

Today the money is up because of the concentration on market penetration and the collectivization of brands. In other works product acquisition and product placement.

The whole board laughed when I posted that 5 years ago. I just don't hear that laughter anymore. I think most folks now are clued in as to what has been going on.

We are likely to have more acquisition of brands. We might even have some more culling of product.

But I think all of that is hold for now due to the FBI investigations. If the Feds find ample reason that profitable programs should be taxed (a decision for the Treasury Department) and that the organization of men's college basketball in inherently corrupt because the amateur status we could see a major paradigm shift in the actual model for men's hoops and college football.

I think the networks would actually welcome this kind of a shift because it solves a lot of problems for them ultimately.

The networks invest in college conferences mostly to acquire more rights to certain key schools. If we switch to a taxable for profit model then some of the weaker schools that have to subsidize such sports may be forced out or down.

Basketball brands will be helped because we will likely split into two departments in every university. Non profit sports would likely be under the Academic offices of a university because contributions to those sports would remain tax deductible. Amateurism could be more strictly enforced and that would be the bailiwick of the NCAA. The for profit sports (men's hoops, football and depending upon region baseball & hockey) would be handled by the Athletic Department which would lose tax exempt status.

If that happens then conferences as they are presently comported would be wholly revised. In the Big 10 you might see 7 or 8 schools who would remain for profit. In the PAC and the ACC you might have a few casualties as well. The SEC might see Vanderbilt drop out.

The networks would love this. Now there would be a lot fewer dud games and by necessity of filling a schedule many more content vs content games.

It wouldn't mean the death of football at the small college level but it would mean that true scholarship athletes playing for an education would mostly comprise their teams. They would merely become the top rung of an amateur division.

The top profit schools would no longer offer grant in aids. Instead their players would sign contracts to play for the school. They could profit from endorsements and their likenesses and names. They couldn't do so however by appearing in the schools jerseys or with school logos as that would be the commercial property of the school.

If drafted early by a professional team the school would be compensated by a buyout with early withdrawal penalty, but the player would be free to leave. And the player and athletic department would be subject to taxes. It is fair and probably the only thing that will ever help to clean up the present corruption.

I could see a for profit division of the Universities being comprised of 4 dozen or a few more schools. I would look for the basketball brands to improve their football and for the football brands to enhance their hoops.

In either event the Networks would have what they truly want. A smaller talent concentrated pool that yielded a compelling match ups every week of the season.

They could televise the non profit games on Saturday mornings and Friday nights. And put the for profit games on Saturday afternoons and prime time evenings.

So anyway what I'm suggesting is that there is a panorama of fallout to be sifted through and then exploited when the FBI gets through.

If there is no shift in the present payout model or in tax structure then look for the bidding war to be for Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma, and for one or two of their buddies to catch a break and for West Virginia to finally wind up closer to home.

Then in 2035 the ACC model will be assessed and if it has produced as claimed realignment will be over with for quite awhile. If the ACCN hasn't delivered as hoped then we could have yet another reshuffling.

(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

The landscape is always changing so the conferences change to reflect that. We had realignment fuel by the bus replacing the train, the affordability of air charter, the national TV contract, the end of the national tv contract to the conference contract, the shift from carriage fees rather than ad revenue driving contracts.

If the carriage fee economy falters as many think it is currently doing, realignment is inevitable.

Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

(10-17-2017 01:35 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

The Pac-12's moonshot in 2020 or so is going to be Texas and OU and Kansas and ???. It has to be. Whatever restrictions the LHN creates, they MUST eat them in order to survive. Their simply are NOT enough CFB fans in the Pac-12 footprint. At least UT and OU could get them central time zone games...and yes, they'd get east coast time zone games as well. Plus extra quality inventory for the P12N.

So far realignment has shown us that two conferences both with issues have not corrected their problems by a merger or partial merger (SWC / Big 8). The jury will still be out on the OBEast and the ACC. We will have a verdict there by 2035.

It might better that the Big 10 considered expanding out of the PAC and the SEC out of the Big 12. But if the Big 12's key components head to the PAC look for six to make the move and not 4. They essentially will want their own 6 team division so that travel is not a major issue for minor sports. But if they go that route then the Big 10 and SEC's eyes will again be cast upon the East.

(10-17-2017 01:35 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

The Pac-12's moonshot in 2020 or so is going to be Texas and OU and Kansas and ???. It has to be. Whatever restrictions the LHN creates, they MUST eat them in order to survive. Their simply are NOT enough CFB fans in the Pac-12 footprint. At least UT and OU could get them central time zone games...and yes, they'd get east coast time zone games as well. Plus extra quality inventory for the P12N.

I know where they could find an available school within the footprint that averages 60K per football game (would be #4 in the PAC behind USC, UCLA, and UW and ahead of Oregon and everyone else, even when the team is 1-6) and 15K per basketball game (would be #1 in the PAC, just ahead of Arizona, even when the team isn't earning NCAA tournament bids). This school also has over 400K living alumni - who mostly live, work, and spend their money within the PAC 12 footprint and tend to have large families that could provide loads of future PAC 12 fans...

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

I believe the B1G and SEC would love to get strong footholds into NC and VA, but several factors weigh against that happening. As an initial matter, the only schools that either would be interested in are UVA, UNC, Duke and VT. (I really think that the SEC hoped that VT would go after the slot that ultimately went to Mizzou, but they remained loyal to the ACC.) No one is interested in NC St., or for goodness sake, ECU. Second, I don't think either conference would ever want to go beyond 16 schools, so there's a question is how to tease out two together. Both conference would like both states, but Duke and UNC aren't going anywhere without each other. The next problem is that the ACC is bound together until 2036. That's forever from now in realignment years.

As far as the moves you suggest, I don't see either WVU or Baylor to the SEC. West Virginia is just too damn small. Baylor is in Texas, but is private, and the SECN already clears Texas based on having A&M in the league.

Similarly, the BTN already clears Kansas City based on Nebraska. KU is a great basketball brand, but the B1G has no shortage of good hoops schools. As noted above, the B1G would love UVA, but how do you separate them from the ACC, UNC or VT?

Obviously the ACC would take ND for football if they were ever ready to join. UConn is a decent choice to join them.

Well, I'll make a deal with Nebraska. If they go back to the B12 and get them to expand to 12 teams including UCF, I will personally go to Scott Frost's house, pack him up, and drive the moving truck to Lincoln myself for free.

(10-17-2017 01:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 11:40 AM)orangefan Wrote:  He is correct about one thing, expansion isn't dead. It never ends. It has been a constant throughout the history of college sports. Also, the consolidation of conferences is generally consistent with what we are constantly seeing in large business - basically the number of entities in the market shrinks until a few large competitors are able to exercise dominance, generate profit margins that exceed those available in a more competitive market, but without reaching monopolistic levels.

Moving forward, I would look for the stronger/more financially stable conferences to continue to pick off schools where there is an opportunity to improve their attractiveness for television. This will continue to be successful when the targeted schools feels vulnerable.

The most likely future expansion scenario in my view is the Pac 12 targeting members of the Big 12. They have done so previously. Further, both the Big 12 and Pac 12 have an insufficient population base within their footprint to match the the B1G and SEC for success with a conference TV network. Finally, the P12 lacks inventory that can be shown in early afternoon time slots in the East.

The landscape is always changing so the conferences change to reflect that. We had realignment fuel by the bus replacing the train, the affordability of air charter, the national TV contract, the end of the national tv contract to the conference contract, the shift from carriage fees rather than ad revenue driving contracts.

If the carriage fee economy falters as many think it is currently doing, realignment is inevitable.

True, the pay model will determine the composition of conferences. But a shift in the taxable status of college sports will as well.

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

No one is taking Baylor. They're completely toxic. TCU would easily get into the PAC-12 or SEC over Baylor.

I'm honestly not sure that the PAC-12 doesn't look at UH over Texas Tech. Lubbock brings them little, and there's really no difference between the programs, and that's true with Texas Tech having all the B12 money.

(10-17-2017 02:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

I believe the B1G and SEC would love to get strong footholds into NC and VA, but several factors weigh against that happening. As an initial matter, the only schools that eithery would be interested in are UVA, UNC, Duke and VT. (I really think that the SEC hoped that VT would go after the slot that ultimately went to Mizzou, but they remained loyal to the ACC.) No one is interested in NC St., or for goodness sake, ECU. Second, I don't think either conference would ever want to go beyond 16 schools, so there's a question is how to tease out two together. Both conference would like both states, but Duke and UNC aren't going anywhere without each other. The next problem is that the ACC is bound together until 2036. That's forever from now in realignment years.

As far as the moves you suggest, I don't see either WVU or Baylor to the SEC. West Virginia is just too damn small. Baylor is in Texas, but is private, and the SECN already clears Texas based on having A&M in the league.

Similarly, the BTN already clears Kansas City based on Nebraska. KU is a great basketball brand, but the B1G has no shortage of good hoops schools. As noted above, the B1G would love UVA, but how do you separate them from the ACC, UNC or VT?

Obviously the ACC would take ND for football if they were ever ready to join. UConn is a decent choice to join them.

The deal that led to the SEC meeting with Virginia Tech at the Greenbriar in West Virginia to discuss an invitation ended prior to Missouri being a consideration. And the SEC and Virginia Tech had little to do with the dropping of that deal which was larger and more comprehensive and of which Virginia Tech was only a part.

But a whole lot of internet trash from Dude came out of the flight tracking of the SEC jet to West Virginia, and all of it was hooey.

No doubt at the time (market model) both Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have held a lot of interest for the SEC. With the defection of Maryland Cunningham checked with Birmingham in case the worst happened and the ACC suffered further defections (Virginia was rumored to be a target of the Big 10 as was Georgia Tech). He primarily wanted to know if North Carolina could move with Duke and supposedly we agreed. But all of it was couched as a total fallback position to keeping the ACC viable.

But if the ACCN were not to be a difference maker, and in 2034 when the GOR renewal comes up as a matter for the ACC, you might well find schools who were interested in moving for more revenue. I doubt they would be the Tobacco Road core, but if enough peripheral schools decided they wanted the exposure and revenue, that the Big 10 or SEC could offer, then wholesale movement becomes possible.

I sincerely doubt if that were to become the case that either the Big 10 or SEC would be standing pat at 16. There's just too much on the table at that point to pass. And then there are issues that I know the SEC presidents considered back in '92 that might also come into play.

As Jackie Sherrill once stated, we had a defensive plan in place if the Big 10 tried to make a move down the East Coast. The SEC saw the need to protect its roots and the integrity of the Southeast. So there was a bolder defensive plan in place that would have gone after Florida State, Miami (who was then in the Big East), Georgia Tech and the North Carolina schools.

In 1992 the SEC could have taken Virginia Tech easily and Tech encouraged us to consider them. West Virginia actually applied. There were various reasons that each were not considered but both were deemed to be a bridge too far. Kentucky is an SEC native. But at that time looking above Tennessee and North Carolina just wasn't viewed as practical.

The school that Missouri replaced in realignment plans for the SEC was Oklahoma who withdrew interest as a joining partner with A&M. Oklahoma State was an issue and the Sooners had insisted they come too. Texas was also tying up the Sooners with PAC possibilities at the time that supposedly would include O.S.U.. ESPN suggested Missouri and Machen at Florida handled the matters through Deaton at Missouri. They were old friends. The A&M president handled some details for them as well.

So there were three tightly packed deals going on within a span of about 18 months.
1. The N.C. State & Virginia Tech deal to make room for Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and what would have been a full member Notre Dame to the ACC which would have built branding and concluded with a launching of the ACCN a year after the SECN launch. Texas A&M and another (where Missouri was first thought of) to the SEC to complete us at 16.

The Deal Failed.

2. Texas A&M and Oklahoma to the SEC for 14.

Oklahoma wanted to wait and weigh options that might include Oklahoma St.

3. Texas A&M and Missouri

Deal finalized.

Think of it as a progression of prioritized options. In which when the first option failed resulting in Maryland's departure, the ramping up of dissatisfaction in the Big 12 due to the failure, ESPN's angst, FOX getting a wake up call, near Panic in the ACC when for about a 3 day period it was thought that F.S.U. and Clemson would head to the SEC (indeed it was announced on an ESPN crawler), and the SEC was ticked off that a couple of years of efforts to prepare the conference for a move had gone down the tubes.

So Texas A&M & OU was an attempt to pacify the SEC. Texa-homa to the PAC resulted in the LHN to hold Bevo in place. Notre Dame takes a partial which helps to squash rumors about F.S.U. & Clemson. Louisville is added to fill a hole. And eventually Missouri and the promise of complete carriage for the SECN helped to pacify the SEC.

The reason the ACCN did not materialize was because the branding that was hoped to be a major contributor to selling it evaporated with the deal.

And all of that was under the market model.

Now that we have streaming as an option content has been re-emphasized.

The question moving forward will be to what extent markets take a back seat to content.

Throw in the a change in tax status and everything could be up in the air again.

So no I don't see realignment ending, but I do think it is on hold until current issues with paying players stipends, NCAA enforcement impotence, and the extent and repercussions of the FBI investigations are known.

But if the ACC ever is breached I would think that both the Big 10 and SEC would seriously consider 18, and possibly even 20. And the reason for both would be to consolidate their hold over a region and to preserve exclusive branding within that region.

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

Baylor is toxic.

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

The SEC wouldn't take Baylor - ever. and probably isn't taking WVU - ever. If its about eyeballs and intensity. The SEC would not add anyone from the Big XII-II if OU and UT aren't on the table. Only way OSU gets a look from the SEC is if they bring OU with them.

The only problem for the SEC is that TAMU can block. And they WILL block UT. The question is what OU does. OU wants to keep playing UT but they don't want to go west. Remember, UT could go independent.

If the Big XII-II implodes, who wants Baylor? No one. Who wants Tech or TCU? Maybe the Pac12, but maybe not. Iowa State? Nobody. Kansas? If the B1G isn't interested in UConn (with better football and basketball and in a bigger market) why would they take KU?. K-State? I don't see them going anywhere. Same goes for WVU.

What I think is most likely is that the Big XII-II loses 2 to 6 teams then they try to put something together with what's left.

The left behinds will definitely include Baylor, Iowa State, West Virginia, and Kansas State. TCU and Tech might be left too if the Pac12 decides to not try to move to the East. Kansas is probably left unless the B1G wants to dilute their football product further. Oklahoma State probably will get taken, but there's no guarantee.

(10-17-2017 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No doubt at the time (market model) both Virginia Tech and North Carolina would have held a lot of interest for the SEC. With the defection of Maryland Cunningham checked with Birmingham in case the worst happened and the ACC suffered further defections (Virginia was rumored to be a target of the Big 10 as was Georgia Tech). He primarily wanted to know if North Carolina could move with Duke and supposedly we agreed. But all of it was couched as a total fallback position to keeping the ACC viable.

At that time Bubba couldn't go to the bathroom without permission.
Even now he is still under the watchful eye of the Big Hitters.

(10-17-2017 09:36 AM)f1do Wrote:  I like a good book every now and then--even though I know what I'm reading is fiction. In that vein, here is the latest that MHver3 threw out there starting yesterday in a burst of tweets after being silent for much of the past year. Arranged top-down for your reading ease:

Quote: It is time to return to share with you the rumblings of the college football world.

Expansion isn't dead. It's just been in hibernation.

Sorry, but this is as far as I got...

(10-17-2017 12:15 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

Quote: Power conferences will become power conglomerates. They Amy cannibalize each other and combine. It will be a new day

Who's Amy?

She is Illuminati

Now you have done it!

(10-17-2017 02:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

I believe the B1G and SEC would love to get strong footholds into NC and VA, but several factors weigh against that happening. As an initial matter, the only schools that either would be interested in are UVA, UNC, Duke and VT. (I really think that the SEC hoped that VT would go after the slot that ultimately went to Mizzou, but they remained loyal to the ACC.) No one is interested in NC St., or for goodness sake, ECU. Second, I don't think either conference would ever want to go beyond 16 schools, so there's a question is how to tease out two together. Both conference would like both states, but Duke and UNC aren't going anywhere without each other. The next problem is that the ACC is bound together until 2036. That's forever from now in realignment years.

As far as the moves you suggest, I don't see either WVU or Baylor to the SEC. West Virginia is just too damn small. Baylor is in Texas, but is private, and the SECN already clears Texas based on having A&M in the league.

Similarly, the BTN already clears Kansas City based on Nebraska. KU is a great basketball brand, but the B1G has no shortage of good hoops schools. As noted above, the B1G would love UVA, but how do you separate them from the ACC, UNC or VT?

Obviously the ACC would take ND for football if they were ever ready to join. UConn is a decent choice to join them.

What if the SEC took USF... Attendence at RayJay goes way up to the B.E. days (60-65k) USF agrees to give excess above 35k back to SEC and takes a reduced membership fee. Lots of SEC fans living in the 10th largest media market in the country. SEC gets $6mill a year from USF ticket sales increase and pays them 6mill year one and 2. (Net zero cost or close) Years 3-5 is a merit based increase based on USF conf standing. Year 6+ is full member status.

(10-17-2017 05:39 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 02:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-17-2017 01:37 PM)micahandme Wrote:  Pac-12 plus OU, UT, TTech, and OkSt.
Big Ten plus KU and UVA.
ACC plus ND and UConn.
SEC plus WVU and Baylor.

Call it a day.

I believe the B1G and SEC would love to get strong footholds into NC and VA, but several factors weigh against that happening. As an initial matter, the only schools that either would be interested in are UVA, UNC, Duke and VT. (I really think that the SEC hoped that VT would go after the slot that ultimately went to Mizzou, but they remained loyal to the ACC.) No one is interested in NC St., or for goodness sake, ECU. Second, I don't think either conference would ever want to go beyond 16 schools, so there's a question is how to tease out two together. Both conference would like both states, but Duke and UNC aren't going anywhere without each other. The next problem is that the ACC is bound together until 2036. That's forever from now in realignment years.

As far as the moves you suggest, I don't see either WVU or Baylor to the SEC. West Virginia is just too damn small. Baylor is in Texas, but is private, and the SECN already clears Texas based on having A&M in the league.

Similarly, the BTN already clears Kansas City based on Nebraska. KU is a great basketball brand, but the B1G has no shortage of good hoops schools. As noted above, the B1G would love UVA, but how do you separate them from the ACC, UNC or VT?

Obviously the ACC would take ND for football if they were ever ready to join. UConn is a decent choice to join them.

What if the SEC took USF... Attendence at RayJay goes way up to the B.E. days (60-65k) USF agrees to give excess above 35k back to SEC and takes a reduced membership fee. Lots of SEC fans living in the 10th largest media market in the country. SEC gets $6mill a year from USF ticket sales increase and pays them 6mill year one and 2. (Net zero cost or close) Years 3-5 is a merit based increase based on USF conf standing. Year 6+ is full member status.

That would be an interesting offer but the SEC is an equal share conference. Only bowl revenue is less than equal. If you go to a bowl you keep 2/16th's (1/8th) of your bowl revenue. Everyone else including the conference shares 1/16th's of that revenue. If you are on probation you earn no shares of bowl revenue.

I'm an exception in the SEC when it comes to South Florida. I think we should add you in our next expansion simply because of what your value will be in 15 years. If you were added however you would need to have the stadium expanded to 80,000. Last year the SEC averaged 77,500 in attendance. And it would have been more but Missouri's attendance dropped by 24% year over year. In other words if Missouri had not been figured in we would have been the only P5 to show an increase for attendance in 2016-7.

If the SEC expands with more Big 12 schools and the ACC is made secure by the ACCN having a presence in Central Florida on the Gulf side should be a priority for the SEC. It bridges easily to the Gulf side of Texas and to Louisiana, Mobile, and Biloxi and hits a region and side of Florida that UF doesn't cover as well as it once did.

Your research involvement is coming along and the geography I mentioned serves our needs better than UCF. IMO the ACC would be wise to pick up UCF. Demographics alone bear this out.

But, I would be in the vast minority because Boomers (of which I'm one) make most of the decisions these days and most cannot think beyond a world without them. But in 15 years Boomers start dying out in big numbers. When that happens existing alumni bases will be put on even footing and then South Florida and Central Florida suddenly leap right up there in the total of living alumni with Florida State and Florida.

That's what I call a hello moment in business!

The only threat to the Pac 12 is its greatest ally, the Big 10:

Arizona
California
Stanford
Southern Cal
UCLA

Colorado
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State

Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

For that to happen, we are probably headed to the "two conferences - one called ESPN and one called Fox" model. The ACC GOR would probably need to be up as well so the SEC can go to 20, 24, or 28 as well.

(10-17-2017 07:00 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The only threat to the Pac 12 is its greatest ally, the Big 10:

Arizona
California
Stanford
Southern Cal
UCLA

Colorado
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State

Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

For that to happen, we are probably headed to the "two conferences - one called ESPN and one called Fox" model. The ACC GOR would probably need to be up as well so the SEC can go to 20, 24, or 28 as well.

Don't think Az will go anywhere without ASU. Also, Oregon and UW are major powers, more so than Cal. WAzzu and the Bears are expendable.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk