(06-26-2023 08:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 07:45 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 07:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  There’s no published list; however, each school in the ACC, PAC12, and B12, already know if they have a realistic chance of being P2 (SEC & BIG) members in the foreseeable future. Schools that either or both of the P2 seriously desire, already have received the informal messaging. That’s quite evident in the ACC.

I doubt any of the ACC and PAC12 schools really want to settle into the B12. That’s a last, near forced option, to maintain some type of elite label.

Yup, no one wants to end up outside of a P2 conference. The only advantage the Big 12 has over the PAC/ACC is all of its most valuable programs have already been poached and have consequently been replaced.

The only real avenue the left-behind schools have is to band together to form a single best-of-the-rest conference in a P2+1 scenario that can remain competitive. The B1G still has a lot of weak football programs in its conference so while the theoretical +1 conference won't have the strength at the top (i.e. OSU, Michigan, USC), it may have enough depth to remain relevant.

The Big 12 is the odds-on favorite to be that +1 conference because it is centrally located and can easily accommodate both Eastern (ACC) and Western (PAC) schools. It also will have the numbers when the time comes.

This is where the number of schools which the SEC and Big 10 grow to could matter a lot. If the SEC and Big 10 grow to 24 each there is zero doubt in my mind that the Big 12 would be the clear #3 conference.

However, if the SEC and Big 10 grow to just 20 each that designation falls into some serious jeopardy. Let's say the Big 10's options are these:
1. Notre Dame, Stanford, Oregon and Washington
2. Oregon and Washington plus Virginia and Duke or Virginia and Miami
3. Notre Dame, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami
And, let's say the SEC's options are these:
1. Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
2. Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Florida State
3. Colorado, Kansas, Florida State, North Carolina
4. Arizona State, Colorado, Florida State, Kansas
5. Duke, North Carolina, Florida State, Virginia

I threw in some unexpected ones but the numbers work out the same. No matter what the SEC and Big 10 do to move to 20 each there are enough PAC 12 and ACC schools left for them to merge, possibly raid a few from the Big 12 and emerge as the #3 conference. Pro Rata in the ACC is higher than in the Big 12 by about 7 million. If a majority of the present ACC survives and adds the PAC remnant they have a good shot at #3.

If however the SEC and Big 10 move to 24 each there is no way the PAC 12 and ACC survive that growth. Then the Big 12 brings in all of value and we move on from there.

The current Pac schools can't even get $25m a year from ESPN, and they're 3k miles from the ACC footprint. I don't see how subtracting the 8 best schools from the 2 conferences combined would leave the remnants a realistic shot at making even as much as the big 12 on a per team basis. Heck, if I envision the current 24 from the Pac and ACC, then take out the top 8, leaving them with a theoretical 16 team conference spread out across the map, I think they'd be lucky to make $20m.

(06-23-2023 09:26 AM)Acres Wrote:  

(06-22-2023 09:35 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(06-22-2023 12:47 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(06-21-2023 10:41 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  The Big 12 lacks cohesiveness among schools. Most of the Big 12 schools have nothing in common with one another and no interest in being aligned with one another. Heck, TCU and Baylor are probably most alike of any two P5 schools in America, and either would stab the other in the back in a heartbeat if a better opportunity came long.

I don't know how many ACC schools will eventually bolt for the SEC/Big Ten next decade (my guess is three - FSU, Clemson and Miami, plus ND) or if the Pac will lose any schools in the next great realignment, but my sense is that either could still pick off the best of the Big 12 from the east and west and create a P4 (P2/M2).

Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford and Utah don't want to be aligned with BYU and Texas Tech.

Does Cincinnati want to share a conference with Iowa State and Houston, or VT, Pitt and Louisville?

That seems like sour grapes coming from an SMU fan. Would SMU prefer to share a conference with Or St and WSU, or TCU, Texas Tech, UH and Baylor?

I think most SMU fans would much prefer the Pac-12. We want to see our school improve its national brand and be associated with Stanford, Cal and five other flagship universities and make awesome road trips every fall (which is pretty much every Pac-12 destination other than WSU and OSU).

We can play TCU out of conference and other than them I can't think of a Big 12 school I would care to play annually. Certainly not Baylor or Tech.

My broader point was that there is a lot more institutional alignment in the ACC and Pac-12 now than there is in the Big 12. That's not going to stop someone from bolting if a SEC/Big Ten offer comes around, but if push comes to shove the ACC and Pac-12 presidents would much rather be aligned with their current membership than Baylor and BYU.

Assuming the money was relatively equal, would Cincy, West Virginia and UCF prefer the current Big 12 or an ACC minus FSU, Clemson and Miami? I think ACC.

Wow, look at that, SMU hasn’t been invited but fans are already throwing snooty tooty vibes at Baylor and Tech.

SMU fans need to relax. IF, and that's a BIG IF the PAC10 invites them it will not be long until Washington, Oregon, Stanford and CAL leave.

(06-26-2023 09:09 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 08:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 07:45 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 07:18 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  There’s no published list; however, each school in the ACC, PAC12, and B12, already know if they have a realistic chance of being P2 (SEC & BIG) members in the foreseeable future. Schools that either or both of the P2 seriously desire, already have received the informal messaging. That’s quite evident in the ACC.

I doubt any of the ACC and PAC12 schools really want to settle into the B12. That’s a last, near forced option, to maintain some type of elite label.

Yup, no one wants to end up outside of a P2 conference. The only advantage the Big 12 has over the PAC/ACC is all of its most valuable programs have already been poached and have consequently been replaced.

The only real avenue the left-behind schools have is to band together to form a single best-of-the-rest conference in a P2+1 scenario that can remain competitive. The B1G still has a lot of weak football programs in its conference so while the theoretical +1 conference won't have the strength at the top (i.e. OSU, Michigan, USC), it may have enough depth to remain relevant.

The Big 12 is the odds-on favorite to be that +1 conference because it is centrally located and can easily accommodate both Eastern (ACC) and Western (PAC) schools. It also will have the numbers when the time comes.

This is where the number of schools which the SEC and Big 10 grow to could matter a lot. If the SEC and Big 10 grow to 24 each there is zero doubt in my mind that the Big 12 would be the clear #3 conference.

However, if the SEC and Big 10 grow to just 20 each that designation falls into some serious jeopardy. Let's say the Big 10's options are these:
1. Notre Dame, Stanford, Oregon and Washington
2. Oregon and Washington plus Virginia and Duke or Virginia and Miami
3. Notre Dame, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Miami
And, let's say the SEC's options are these:
1. Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia Tech
2. Duke, North Carolina, Kansas, Florida State
3. Colorado, Kansas, Florida State, North Carolina
4. Arizona State, Colorado, Florida State, Kansas
5. Duke, North Carolina, Florida State, Virginia

I threw in some unexpected ones but the numbers work out the same. No matter what the SEC and Big 10 do to move to 20 each there are enough PAC 12 and ACC schools left for them to merge, possibly raid a few from the Big 12 and emerge as the #3 conference. Pro Rata in the ACC is higher than in the Big 12 by about 7 million. If a majority of the present ACC survives and adds the PAC remnant they have a good shot at #3.

If however the SEC and Big 10 move to 24 each there is no way the PAC 12 and ACC survive that growth. Then the Big 12 brings in all of value and we move on from there.

Just my hunch, I think the BIG is most interested in Notre Dame, Virginia, perhaps Duke, Georgia Tech, and Miami. I think UNC will be SEC bound, and the SEC may make a concession to land them.

If the BIG did accept Georgia Tech, I doubt the SEC needs to be alarmed about it. GT’s fan base has its distinct parameters that are comparatively not particularly extensive; and four or so BIG fb teams visiting Atlanta each season won’t cause the SEC to suffer for it. it could be positive for regional sports.

Miami will be interesting. While FSU and Clemson look favorable for the SEC, that demographic in southern Florida could be attractive to both the BIG and the SEC. Would the SEC be adamant to have three total Florida schools in a 20-team model?

NCSU and VT may be “negotiated” factors rather than prime choices.

What Notre Dame is willing to do will have a ripple effect somewhere.

Nope, just send them to the B1G if that's what it takes. Oh, wait, you can't because the B1G won't make a concession for them? Huh.

UNC has an option b/c they're desirable by both of the P2, but, like all the others, they're firmly in the "want" rather than "need" category. ND is the only big fish left, and they're not joining any conference unless forced to do so.

(06-26-2023 02:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2023 02:36 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  

(06-23-2023 12:23 PM)AzonTheKid Wrote:  

(06-23-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2023 09:16 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  There's a serious underrating of hoops powerhouses here.

If you're talking "brands," I bet more people recognize the Duke Blue Devil or the Kansas Jayhawk than the Clemson Tiger or the Washington Husky.

If the basketball tournament is ever unlocked, those schools' value will skyrocket.

80% of the TV value is football. So no, the hoops brands are not underrated.
The power conferences do get the biggest share of the tourney already. Not nearly what they contribute or what they get out of the CFP, but not enough to overcome that 80/20 TV value.

As for UNC, it is simply not a football school. It would be a drag on the SEC and Big 10 TV contracts. They probably still want them because of the demographics and athlete and student recruitment, but not because of direct TV dollars.

The schools don't get most of the tournament revenue. The NCAA completely funds themselves and all subsidiary sports from the NCAA tournament revenue.

The tournament itself isn't being monetized effectively and is only taking in half the value that it could.

It's also a matter of when and not if the tournament gets back into the hands of the conferences. The current contact ends in 2032. That's when people should mark their calendar for.

+1:clap:

Pay for play and abandoning the failed NCAA with a breakaway could make that date obsolete.

What is the thinking? Will it be hoops’ or fb, or both in tandem, that becomes the prime catalyst that erodes NCAA oversight beyond relevancy? Will it be the “have-nots” that will mostly cling to the NCAA, and the more powerful and affluent “haves” that are fast-tracking to abandoning, at least in part, the NCAA?

Doubt there will be a NCAA dissolution; rather a split-off for high revenue sports. Whatever, changes will be monumental.

(06-23-2023 12:23 PM)AzonTheKid Wrote:  

(06-23-2023 10:21 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-23-2023 09:16 AM)Jhawkinva Wrote:  There's a serious underrating of hoops powerhouses here.

If you're talking "brands," I bet more people recognize the Duke Blue Devil or the Kansas Jayhawk than the Clemson Tiger or the Washington Husky.

If the basketball tournament is ever unlocked, those schools' value will skyrocket.

80% of the TV value is football. So no, the hoops brands are not underrated.
The power conferences do get the biggest share of the tourney already. Not nearly what they contribute or what they get out of the CFP, but not enough to overcome that 80/20 TV value.

As for UNC, it is simply not a football school. It would be a drag on the SEC and Big 10 TV contracts. They probably still want them because of the demographics and athlete and student recruitment, but not because of direct TV dollars.

The schools don't get most of the tournament revenue. The NCAA completely funds themselves and all subsidiary sports from the NCAA tournament revenue.

The tournament itself isn't being monetized effectively and is only taking in half the value that it could.

It's also a matter of when and not if the tournament gets back into the hands of the conferences. The current contact ends in 2032. That's when people should mark their calendar for.

And the Big 12 therefore signed through 2031.

If all of these "brands" are so great, then why is everyone fighting to get in to the B1G and SEC ?

And talk about a "brand"...if the tournament to goes in control of the conferences, what will everyone still say happens in March? The "NCAA tournament".

So continue arguing among yourselves which of the individual schools is the greatest. The establishment is still in control.

External to the distributions to conferences/schools pertaining to the NCAA Basketball Tournaments, a huge chuck is retained by tournament organizers/NCAA. Sure there are costs for renting venues and facilities, contracted services, operational personnel, and other overhead expenditures.

I wonder how much in salaries and bonuses go to the executives? That would be interesting to know if an alternative set-up is to be explored by the elite conferences.

(06-28-2023 02:02 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  External to the distributions to conferences/schools pertaining to the NCAA Basketball Tournaments, a huge chuck is retained by tournament organizers/NCAA. Sure there are costs for renting venues and facilities, contracted services, operational personnel, and other overhead expenditures.

I wonder how much in salaries and bonuses go to the executives? That would be interesting to know if an alternative set-up is to be explored by the elite conferences.

They have 2 endowments set aside for administration. Each year they siphon 70 million in proceeds from the tournament to place in one or both of those accounts.

The last full tournament prior to COVID took in 1.1 billion in revenues. The 69 teams were paid 2,500,000 each for making each round but the finals. That's 172.5 million each. 1.1 billion all subsequent rounds total payout another 150 million so 333.5 million goes to the schools. Those schools have those shares divided by 5 for the number of years it takes to payout the full amount. So, the NCAA pays out 66.7 million for year 1 and each subsequent year until all credits have been paid in full. In the meantime they draw the interest on the unpaid shares potions.

Now somebody is going to have to explain to me whey they have nearly 2 billion in endowments drawing prime, have an additional payout of 66.7 million a year (they endow slightly more than that every year), and how nearly 600 million dollars left after the payouts and overhead and previous years of credit obligations, is spent annually on all of the schools in the NCAA below FBS level. And that doesn't include nearly 100 million a year in interest on their endowments.

It is and has been a bloated bureaucracy which sucks the life out of everything but the one sport free of its clutches, FBS football.