CSNbbs

Full Version: Frank the Tank Realignment take on the "Junior Partners" of the P5/ACC/Big XII
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(3) ACC (plus Notre Dame) – At the same time, the ACC is likely going to spend the next decade in the same mode that the Big Ten was during the 1990s: reserving a spot for Notre Dame. Now, that doesn’t mean that Notre Dame has any intention of joining the ACC as a full football member. Quite to the contrary, I believe that Notre Dame’s ability to stay independent is stronger today than it was 10 years ago when the ACC began its multiple raids of the Big East. Notre Dame has secured an long-term extension of its NBC deal, isn’t subject to any conference championship requirement to have access to the new College Football Playoff, will have access to the Orange Bowl and all secondary ACC bowl tie-ins, and will be in a great power league for basketball and non-revenue sports. There’s less logic in Notre Dame giving up independence today than when it appeared that the Big East was going to collapse without a home for non-football Irish sports in 2003. However, never underestimate how much university administrators delude themselves into thinking that they’re going to be the ones that change the hearts and minds in South Bend. Jim Delany, Deloss Dodds and John Swofford, who I consider to be smart men (whether or not you agree with their actions), have all been fooled on this front. With a grant of rights in place, the ACC doesn’t need to proactively grow at this point and can use the “We’ll wait for Notre Dame to come around” retort to further expansion for awhile (even though anyone that has any clue about how single-mindedly focused the Notre Dame alumni base will fight any hint of giving up football independence knows that they’ll never come around). There’s really no need for the ACC to act unless (until?) it gets poached again by another power conference.

(5) Big 12 – As a result, any realistic chance for further power conference expansion in the near future rests with the Big 12. When Jim Delany, Mike Slive, John Swofford and Larry Scott tell reporters that their respective conferences are happy with their current membership levels, I believe them. All 4 of those conferences are at natural stopping points. In contrast, the Bob Bowlsby and the Big 12 seem to have unfinished business – being at 10 members in this environment of larger conferences is much more tenuous than it was 3 years ago, so there’s going to be a lingering feeling of instability with the Big 12 until it gets back up to at least 12 schools in the same way that no one could rest easy when the Big Ten sat at 11 members. While the Big 12 doesn’t have any truly obvious expansion options, they have a bit more leeway compared to the Pac-12 geographically, academically and culturally. For instance, what bothers the Pac-12 about BYU isn’t going to fluster a conference that has a member that didn’t allow any dancing on campus until the Tupac/Biggie feud was at its zenith. The Big 12 could also conceivably expand in virtually any direction within the continental United States, so it’s not implausible that the conference could consider any of UConn, Cincinnati, Colorado State,New Mexico and/or UNLV.

The problem, though, is that the Big 12 is boxed in financially. Unlike the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC (and maybe eventually the ACC), the Big 12 doesn’t have a conference network that can leverage additional households in expansion and is entirely dependent on its national ESPN/Fox deal for conference TV revenue. Now, schools such as Texas and Oklahoma enjoy lucrative third tier rights deals within the Big 12, yet that doesn’t do anything to support overall conference expansion. Plus, the expansion candidates are still largely flawed, as the best football schools like Boise State don’t bring any solid TV markets or recruiting grounds while the schools with the best demographics (e.g. UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado State) have some of the worst FBS football programs anywhere. BYU plus Cincinnati or UConn would seem to be the best shot for the Big 12 to maximize financial value in expansion out of what’s realistically available, yet that combo may not be enough. Unfortunately for the Big 12, the conference’s leaders (or maybe just Texas AD Deloss Dodds specifically) got sidetracked for awhile by chasing the expansion lottery dreams of Notre Dame and Florida State while passing on what could have been lucrative and stability-producing additions with Louisville (which would have given a nearish geographic partner for isolated West Virginia) and BYU. The ACC grabbed Louisville to backfill for Maryland, though, and that ended taking a lot of solid expansion combos for the Big 12 off the table (as any desirable expansion for the Big 12 that didn’t include the pipe dreams of Notre Dame and/or Florida State involved Louisville on some level).

To be sure, the Big 12 (a) probably will always be a pretty good conference in terms of football on-the-field by virtue of being the most prominent conference in the recruiting rich state of Texas and (b) will unequivocally be a power conference with high national TV revenue numbers and bowl appeal as long as Texas and Oklahoma are members. However, that’s also a blessing and a curse, as the conference’s over-reliance on the state of Texas and a couple of marquee brand names exposes some of the same weaknesses in the Big 12 that eventually caused the old Southwest Conference to collapse. The demographic growth prospects of the state of Texas specifically are fantastic, but that masks the fact that the Big 12′s demographics outside of Texas are the worst out of all of the 5 power conferences by a wide margin. (This is a large reason why I never bought what was seemingly a widespread belief that ACC schools would defect to the Big 12 no matter what financial arguments some observers attempted to make.) Long-term, the Big 12 is at risk because there isn’t a ready reservoir of brand names that it can expand or merge with in the way that the old Big 8 took Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor from the SWC. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the Big 12 is at risk of completely breaking up like it did back in 2010-11 since I firmly believe that Texas desires the ability to control (or have perceived control over) a conference more than even making the most TV money, but it’s still the power conference that is bound almost entirely by the strength of its current TV contract (which will eventually expire) as opposed to the strength of its bonds beyond that (unlike the academic bonds of the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 or the geographic institutional football focus of the SEC). So, the Big 12 is still be the power conference that will be most susceptible to raids in the future, just as it was 3 1/2 years ago when Jim Delany first announced that the Big Ten was looking to expand. We may just have to wait another 10 years before power conference chaos happens once again. Until then, we’ll need to pay attention to the non-power conferences and basketball leagues (Oakland moving to the Horizon League was announced today and Davidson appears to be heading to the Atlantic 10 as rumored) for our conference realignment fixes.




http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/tag/co...alignment/
Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.
(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address. 07-coffee3
(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address. 07-coffee3

I have always believed that the Big 12 was the most unstable of the power conferences. And Frank has always said that the ACC bonds were much tighter than folks imagined. All of this is even more true today.
(05-10-2013 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address. 07-coffee3

I have always believed that the Big 12 was the most unstable of the power conferences. And Frank has always said that the ACC bonds were much tighter than folks imagined. All of this is even more true today.

The Big XII will be fine because I just don't see Texas or Oklahoma giving up what they currently have. But in the end they will need to expand and broaden the LHN/Sooner Networks just to keep up.

Right now it looking a lot like the old SWC plus WVU out yonder...that is really not a good thing.
(05-10-2013 07:33 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 07:28 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address. 07-coffee3

I have always believed that the Big 12 was the most unstable of the power conferences. And Frank has always said that the ACC bonds were much tighter than folks imagined. All of this is even more true today.

The Big XII will be fine because I just don't see Texas or Oklahoma giving up what they currently have. But in the end they will need to expand and broaden the LHN/Sooner Networks just to keep up.

Right now it looking a lot like the old SWC plus WVU out yonder...that is really not a good thing.

I guess we will all have to wait about ten years to see if FRank's original projection (Texas to the B1G) will ever come true.07-coffee3
Texas and OU to the SEC seems more likely to me.

A&M and Johnny Football might speed things up.
(05-10-2013 07:00 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 06:57 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville has had a helluva run over the last year. But sometimes I think the best thing that ever happened to us was that Texas thought we weren't good enough for the Big 12.

Exactly...we didn't realize it back in October 2011...But longterm the Big XII has some issues to address. 07-coffee3

Spot on gentlemen! 04-rock
(05-10-2013 07:50 AM)USM@FTL Wrote: [ -> ]Texas and OU to the SEC seems more likely to me.

A&M and Johnny Football might speed things up.

I'll take "never gonna happen" for $1000 Alex!

The idea that those 2 could just pick up the phone and call the SEC ignores several realities:

1) Both of them and especially UT have Tier 3 deals they cant just cancel and join SECN which makes their inclusion (especially UT's) of no value to the SEC.

2) The votes aren't there. A&M, MU & Ark have all dealt with UT in the past and will not vote them into the SEC. How is letting those 2 in an advantage for Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss or LSU as well? The SEC West is not gonna vote to make itself damn near unwinnable most years.

3) Both are now the only thing standing between their little brothers and a non-power league. As parents who got the kids after the divorce, they cant just up and leave them to go live the fun single life too. Anything they do HAS to make provisions for OSU/TTU/BU/TCU or they simply wont happen and there is no way the SEC expands to take all that financial deadweight just to get the big brothers.

Take your pick, any of those reasons alone are enough to end any UT/OU to the SEC speculation.
(05-10-2013 05:34 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ][i](5) Big 12 – As a result, any realistic chance for further power conference expansion in the near future rests with the Big 12. When Jim Delany, Mike Slive, John Swofford and Larry Scott tell reporters that their respective conferences are happy with their current membership levels, I believe them. All 4 of those conferences are at natural stopping points. In contrast, the Bob Bowlsby and the Big 12 seem to have unfinished business – being at 10 members in this environment of larger conferences is much more tenuous than it was 3 years ago, so there’s going to be a lingering feeling of instability with the Big 12 until it gets back up to at least 12 schools in the same way that no one could rest easy when the Big Ten sat at 11 members.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/tag/co...alignment/


Not sure I agree with this point. There is nothing inherently unstable about 10 members. To the contrary, it has some unique stabilizing features- it is the only model that allows for a full round robin (allowing for even in conference SOS and for all teams to have yearly marque matchups and rivalries) and home and home with all teams in basketball. There are no issues with divisions that some conferences are still grappling with. And I don't buy the idea that it has less access to the playoff. Sure there may be years a borderline final 4 team could use a championship game, but there will also be years where a final 4 team doesn't get upset in a championship game, so those will come out in the wash. And I really don't think anyone (i.e the BCS) is going to "make" the Big 12 go to 12. Everyone wants stability at this point, and some sort of rule or committee guideline that encourages Big 12 expansion is going to be frowned on.

The Big 12 has found a model that works for it. Just because it is the only one using it currently, doesn't mean it is somehow unstable. In fact, there is a much longer track record of the success with 10 team conferences than 14 or more. The biggest virtue I see for a 12+ team model is if the league gets raided again, having a larger "base" to rebuild from. But if Texas and OU decide the Big 12 model isn't working for them- be it a 10 team or a 12+ team model- the Big 12 will fail. Adding 2 or more teams isn't going to change that variable.
The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.
(05-10-2013 09:17 AM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.

Why do you think it be a handicap in the playoff system? Why is 10 teams a disadvantage in terms of the playoffs?
(05-10-2013 08:58 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-10-2013 05:34 AM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ][i](5) Big 12 – As a result, any realistic chance for further power conference expansion in the near future rests with the Big 12. When Jim Delany, Mike Slive, John Swofford and Larry Scott tell reporters that their respective conferences are happy with their current membership levels, I believe them. All 4 of those conferences are at natural stopping points. In contrast, the Bob Bowlsby and the Big 12 seem to have unfinished business – being at 10 members in this environment of larger conferences is much more tenuous than it was 3 years ago, so there’s going to be a lingering feeling of instability with the Big 12 until it gets back up to at least 12 schools in the same way that no one could rest easy when the Big Ten sat at 11 members.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/tag/co...alignment/


Not sure I agree with this point. There is nothing inherently unstable about 10 members. To the contrary, it has some unique stabilizing features- it is the only model that allows for a full round robin (allowing for even in conference SOS and for all teams to have yearly marque matchups and rivalries) and home and home with all teams in basketball. There are no issues with divisions that some conferences are still grappling with. And I don't buy the idea that it has less access to the playoff. Sure there may be years a borderline final 4 team could use a championship game, but there will also be years where a final 4 team doesn't get upset in a championship game, so those will come out in the wash. And I really don't think anyone (i.e the BCS) is going to "make" the Big 12 go to 12. Everyone wants stability at this point, and some sort of rule or committee guideline that encourages Big 12 expansion is going to be frowned on.

The Big 12 has found a model that works for it. Just because it is the only one using it currently, doesn't mean it is somehow unstable. In fact, there is a much longer track record of the success with 10 team conferences than 14 or more. The biggest virtue I see for a 12+ team model is if the league gets raided again, having a larger "base" to rebuild from. But if Texas and OU decide the Big 12 model isn't working for them- be it a 10 team or a 12+ team model- the Big 12 will fail. Adding 2 or more teams isn't going to change that variable.

I too prefer a 10 team league for all the reasons you mentioned.

But the 10 team league will last only as long as the TV contract supports it. There were a unique set of circumstances that came together to create the Big XII network support a couple of years ago. The key question is whether the networks will continue to give the conference the same revenue in the future when those factors no longer exist.

The conference can hope that they can continue to generate the same revenue down the road. On this point I think that Frank is right about their demographics. They simply don't have the markets to keep this thing going. It's the same problem that the Pac Ten had that forced them to go from 10 to 12 and to contemplate going to 16.

This is the dilemma that the Big XII is going to have to struggle with. Do they sit there and hope for the best? Or do they become proactive and take control of the situation somewhere in the next 3-5 years when there is likely to still be a lull in realignment activity.

The good news in going to 12 is that the CCG game will bring in $10-15 million by itself so this is the one point in expansion when the new additions don't have to be quite as strong in generating new revenue as they do at other expansion numbers like going to 14.

Ultimately I think that this issue will be determined primarily by ESPN with some input from Fox. If their revenue is not supporting what they have to pay out to the conference, they will put pressure on them to do something to address the revenue issue.
I think Frank is right but with a few minor tweaks to be made.
1. If the Big 12 is serious about expansion they might well look to South Florida or Central Florida for a recruiting presence if nothing else.

2. 10 years is not the set in stone limit on whether further expansion for the other power conferences could occur by the absorption of the Big 12. Eight teams placed successfully (meaning a lot more money) in the other 4 conferences is all it takes.

That is why expansion is so important for members of the Big 12 not named Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and West Virginia. If they move to 12 schools it will take 9 votes to dissolve. If they move to 14 it would take 10. In those numbers are the solid intentions of Oklahoma and Texas to remain the anchors of the Big 12.

Considering the PAC could take 4, the Big 10 might have interest in at least 1 if not 2, and that the SEC could easily take two to say that 8 is an impossible number to reach for dissolution is just not realistic. Even the ACC would have incentive to look at prospects from the Big 12 since if they were to be dissolved the ACC would profit from their demise.

Right now I would say that if the Big 12 stays at 10 it is a passive announcement of Texas's indecision about its own future. If the Big 12 expands then power conference realignment is over as far as raids upon other power conferences are concerned.

If the former happens we might wind up with the 4 conferences of 16 model. If the latter happens we might wind up with 5 conferences of 14 each and it will take 10 years to get there. Or more likely we get 5 conferences with this makeup: SEC-14, Big 10-14, ACC-14.5, Big 12-12, and the PAC-12.
(05-10-2013 09:17 AM)Knightsweat Wrote: [ -> ]The Big12 has waited too long to grab quality teams and now faces the network's input on which teams are left that the networks are interested in. The Big12 has basically lost its position of leverage as it concerns expansion, and the networks (FOX more than anyone) now have that leverage. IMO, the Big12's fate rests on 10 teams being enough with a good enough SoS to make it to the playoffs. Ultimately I think it will be a handicap to the Big12.

Either way I think the Big12 faces some tough decisions on how to grow the conference, keep their high TV money payout, and remain relevant in regards to the new playoff system.

I think that Frank was right in identifying BYU and either Cincy or UConn as the combination that could boost the revenue stream enough to make it work. Going to 12 will provide a revenue boost of $10-15 million right off the bat with the addition of the CCG.
(05-10-2013 07:50 AM)USM@FTL Wrote: [ -> ]Texas and OU to the SEC seems more likely to me.

A&M and Johnny Football might speed things up.

You think Texas is going to follow little bro A&M anywhere??

03-lmfao

TX > B1G is more likely than TX > SEC.
One advantage of having just 10 teams is that if the conference footprint won't support an overall payout on the scale of the B1G, SEC, Pac, or ACC, it's still possible to retain a high per-school payout since that smaller pie isn't being carved into as many slices. If the football and basketball anchors can continue to make lucrative Tier3 deals that they don't share among their conference brethren, their incentive to leave is reduced as well.
As long as Texas prefers being a big fish in a small pond, the Big 12 is solid as a rock. The day Texas takes an institutional preference for associating with more similar universities will be a very bad day for the Big 12.
Thanks for the link, Maize.

One thought that that I didn't point out in that post is that I sincerely believe that the Big 12 thought Louisville would be one of those schools that would always be there for the taking when necessary and was very surprised that the ACC ended up choosing them over UConn. (After all, the ACC passed on West Virginia many times prior to that.) That really limited the Big 12's options for future expansion. The Big 12 leaders can keep saying publicly that they're happy with 10 and the round-robin schedule, but deep down, I don't think they really expected to still be at 10 at this point in the game (especially in the wake of the Big Ten expanding further to 14).
(05-10-2013 10:09 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote: [ -> ]As long as Texas prefers being a big fish in a small pond, the Big 12 is solid as a rock. The day Texas takes an institutional preference for associating with more similar universities will be a very bad day for the Big 12.

I think this is true, but the larger point is that this is true even if the Big 12 goes to 12 or 14. IOW, going to 12 or 14 has no effect on stability, since the weakest link is Texas in any size Big 12.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reference URL's