CSNbbs

1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

The contract expires for OU's T3 rights expires at the end of the 2022 season.

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

(01-06-2020 01:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

I don't think there is anyway that Texas joins the ACC in full without at least 2 other Texas schools joining with them. It would totally violate their business model and their other sports would be total outliers.

So I just don't see it happening.

Nor do I see N.D. going all in with the ACC ever. Even with Texas there just wouldn't be enough revenue to justify the moves.

If Texas goes to the ACC here is what I think happens:
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech go as a half division in a 16 member ACC. N.D. remains independent until 2037 and then they don't join the ACC, but rather the Big 10. And in order to make that move agreeable to the SEC the SEC lands either N.C. State and Virginia Tech which make the most sense in that they do not hurt the ACC footprint in the move, or the SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas and Virginia Tech and N.C. State are free to move to the Big 10.

If Texas doesn't move to the ACC then they pick up West Virginia and possibly T.C.U. for content and markets. The SEC lands Texas and Texas Tech. And Kansas and Oklahoma head to the Big 10.

And really I expect the final moves to be fairly simple.

Will the SEC make a play for both OU and Texas? Sure. But Texas offers the most value due to the size of the state and their national appeal and academics. So we might still agree to take Tech to get them. Everyone in Oklahoma knows they can't move to the Big 10 with OSU so Kansas is the natural partner.

And more importantly ESPN wants total control in Texas. And they probably want to keep at least the 49% they still have of the Big 10 so OU and KU are probably acceptable to them to head to the Big 10.

But I don't see ESPN landing all of those unless they go after all of the Big 10.

(01-05-2020 09:55 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

The contract expires for OU's T3 rights expires at the end of the 2022 season.

I do see ESPN going after the Tier 3 rights for Oklahoma, and I'd be a little surprised if they don't get them. They did that for Kansas and they've obviously got a pretty big meat hook in Texas at the moment. If nothing else, that sort of move bolsters their ESPN+ venture and helps them integrate more Big 12 content into that platform.

FOX no longer has a reasonable platform to host anyone's Tier 3 rights. They need bigger events with more national appeal because all they have at their disposal now is the FOX broadcast network, FS1, and FS2.

At that point, ESPN could potentially have greater influence over OU. I think the biggest question would be...how long is that contract? If it's only 2 or 3 years then it means OU wants to open everything up at the same time. They'd definitely be leaving the Big 12, but they would be a free agent so to speak.

If the contract is longer and contains some special perks that put them more in the same category with Texas then I couldn't see OU going anywhere other than the SEC.

(01-06-2020 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

I don't think there is anyway that Texas joins the ACC in full without at least 2 other Texas schools joining with them. It would totally violate their business model and their other sports would be total outliers.

So I just don't see it happening.

Nor do I see N.D. going all in with the ACC ever. Even with Texas there just wouldn't be enough revenue to justify the moves.

If Texas goes to the ACC here is what I think happens:
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech go as a half division in a 16 member ACC. N.D. remains independent until 2037 and then they don't join the ACC, but rather the Big 10. And in order to make that move agreeable to the SEC the SEC lands either N.C. State and Virginia Tech which make the most sense in that they do not hurt the ACC footprint in the move, or the SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas and Virginia Tech and N.C. State are free to move to the Big 10.

If Texas doesn't move to the ACC then they pick up West Virginia and possibly T.C.U. for content and markets. The SEC lands Texas and Texas Tech. And Kansas and Oklahoma head to the Big 10.

And really I expect the final moves to be fairly simple.

Will the SEC make a play for both OU and Texas? Sure. But Texas offers the most value due to the size of the state and their national appeal and academics. So we might still agree to take Tech to get them. Everyone in Oklahoma knows they can't move to the Big 10 with OSU so Kansas is the natural partner.

And more importantly ESPN wants total control in Texas. And they probably want to keep at least the 49% they still have of the Big 10 so OU and KU are probably acceptable to them to head to the Big 10.

But I don't see ESPN landing all of those unless they go after all of the Big 10.

There's only one way I could see the ACC powers catching up to any reasonable degree.

The league would have to agree to some sort of tiered compensation structure...

I don't think Texas is going to the ACC, I agree with that. With Notre Dame, I think it's possible they would join fully, but ND along with the other major revenue generators would have to get extra money in comparison to the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges of the world.

Also, for Notre Dame's part, they may have to receive additional deference when it comes to their time slots.

If it keeps the ACC together for the long term then I could see the others going for it. Otherwise, you'll have schools like Florida State and Clemson exploring a way to get out as soon as the GOR expires.

(01-06-2020 03:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 12:03 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. We wait to see if ABC buys the SEC's remaining 4 years with CBS out.

2. We wait to see what the final total value of the new contract is, or whether we are looking at 63 million per school by 2024 or 66 million.

3. We wait to see what happens with the Big 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

4 We wait to see what happens with the PAC 12 as they get within 2 years of their GOR's expiration.

5. We wait to see what Notre Dame does when their NBC contract expires in 2025.

6. We wait to see who bids on and lands Oklahoma's T3 rights since that contract expires before the Big 12's GOR.

7. We wait to see if the rights to image winds up being part of a package of player rights that ends with some form of pay for play.

8. We wait to see just which main schools get antsy when the SEC's contract and the Big 10's renewal set the new revenue gaps, which are sure to be larger than the existing ones.

9. We wait to see if there is anyone besides Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma that can add value to the SEC or Big 10 simply because a network wants them as a content multiplier for either of those conferences.

10. And when all of that is decided we wait to see if there is still a desire to press for playoff expansion, or whether an emerging P4 settles that matter.

Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

I don't think there is anyway that Texas joins the ACC in full without at least 2 other Texas schools joining with them. It would totally violate their business model and their other sports would be total outliers.

So I just don't see it happening.

Nor do I see N.D. going all in with the ACC ever. Even with Texas there just wouldn't be enough revenue to justify the moves.

If Texas goes to the ACC here is what I think happens:
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech go as a half division in a 16 member ACC. N.D. remains independent until 2037 and then they don't join the ACC, but rather the Big 10. And in order to make that move agreeable to the SEC the SEC lands either N.C. State and Virginia Tech which make the most sense in that they do not hurt the ACC footprint in the move, or the SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas and Virginia Tech and N.C. State are free to move to the Big 10.

If Texas doesn't move to the ACC then they pick up West Virginia and possibly T.C.U. for content and markets. The SEC lands Texas and Texas Tech. And Kansas and Oklahoma head to the Big 10.

And really I expect the final moves to be fairly simple.

Will the SEC make a play for both OU and Texas? Sure. But Texas offers the most value due to the size of the state and their national appeal and academics. So we might still agree to take Tech to get them. Everyone in Oklahoma knows they can't move to the Big 10 with OSU so Kansas is the natural partner.

And more importantly ESPN wants total control in Texas. And they probably want to keep at least the 49% they still have of the Big 10 so OU and KU are probably acceptable to them to head to the Big 10.

But I don't see ESPN landing all of those unless they go after all of the Big 10.

There's only one way I could see the ACC powers catching up to any reasonable degree.

The league would have to agree to some sort of tiered compensation structure...

I don't think Texas is going to the ACC, I agree with that. With Notre Dame, I think it's possible they would join fully, but ND along with the other major revenue generators would have to get extra money in comparison to the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges of the world.

Also, for Notre Dame's part, they may have to receive additional deference when it comes to their time slots.

If it keeps the ACC together for the long term then I could see the others going for it. Otherwise, you'll have schools like Florida State and Clemson exploring a way to get out as soon as the GOR expires.

The reality after 2025 is going to be rather stark. You'll have the SEC and Big 10 pushing 70 million in per school revenue. So one of two things will happen. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all leave the Big 12 pushing the SEC and Big 10 north of 70 million in per school revenues (which I consider very likely) and with the PAC GOR expiring at the same time it is possible that Colorado and Kansas could head to the Big 10 and Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Colorado may prefer the PAC but do they prefer them for 30 million less in per school sports revenue?

The second thing that could happen seems much less likely. The ACC/Big 12/PAC could find a way to consolidate into 2 conferences.

Working against that is the PAC's geographical distance and cultural distance from the other 2. Texas could lead the other 3 Texas teams to the ACC but that really works best at 16 total members for the ACC.

They could move with 6 and take Kansas State and West Virginia with them to move to 20. The SEC might then take the 2 Oklahoma's Kansas and Iowa State. But that isn't going to be profitable.

You could move N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC ala 2011, and move in the Texas 4. Maybe the SEC goes for that but really those two don't add enough to pay for their entrance at nearly 70 million. Oklahoma and Kansas would be more profitable for the SEC. So what do you do with N.C. state and Virginia Tech? Maybe the Big 10 as they are both large land grant schools but neither are AAU although both are close.

But if there is anything past realignment has shown us it is that the more complicated the plan the less likely it is to happen.

I still think in the end the ACC only adds West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame.

The SEC flirts with Oklahoma but winds up with Texas and Texas Tech because I think that's what ESPN has wanted for a long time. I remember Slive speaking in DFW and telling a gathering that the SEC would be proud to have any or all three of the Texas public schools.

I also think the Big 10 ends with Kansas and Oklahoma. And the reason here is the Big 10 can't take enough Texas schools to satisfy the UT business model.

Now what does that do to overall strength?

The ACC remains a distant 3rd in a new P4. The PAC either remains isolated and remains an even more distant 4th, or they knuckle under for exposure taking T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

The Big 10 remains very close to the SEC in revenue per school form media, but fail to gain competitively in football as an isolated Oklahoma now starts to fade a little from their Big 12 glory and even more so from their Big 8 glory days. Kansas does well enough in Big 10 basketball.

Texas has now distanced Oklahoma a little bit from Texas recruits because the players parents won't see so many of their games if they are in the Big 10. Texas distances themselves from Baylor and T.C.U. in conference branding and overall appeal to recruits. Texas elevates Arkansas a bit, plays even with A&M, and both of those remain preferable to Tech. And, Texas keeps its business model.

The SEC owns all of Texas and that's a pay boost. What we don't get is a basketball blueblood, but we have a lot more to spend on hoops and our outlook is growing in that sport.

With a P4 in place the PAC and ACC get their champion into the CFP but the economic disparity leaves the option open for the networks to move to league play by consolidating the PAC into the Big 10 and the ACC into the SEC at some future date.

(01-06-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 03:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2020 09:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Do we know what year OU's tier 3 rights go on the market? I think that will at least give us some hints.

I'm going to predict that Disney goes hard after Notre Dame's package when that comes up. I'm also going to predict they use that as a pretense to open up the ACC contract in the event ND agrees to incorporate fully.

Not that I expect ESPN to pay the ACC on par with the SEC or Big Ten, but they'll need to be creative. Otherwise, there's quite a few members of the ACC that will be disgruntled.

If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

I don't think there is anyway that Texas joins the ACC in full without at least 2 other Texas schools joining with them. It would totally violate their business model and their other sports would be total outliers.

So I just don't see it happening.

Nor do I see N.D. going all in with the ACC ever. Even with Texas there just wouldn't be enough revenue to justify the moves.

If Texas goes to the ACC here is what I think happens:
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech go as a half division in a 16 member ACC. N.D. remains independent until 2037 and then they don't join the ACC, but rather the Big 10. And in order to make that move agreeable to the SEC the SEC lands either N.C. State and Virginia Tech which make the most sense in that they do not hurt the ACC footprint in the move, or the SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas and Virginia Tech and N.C. State are free to move to the Big 10.

If Texas doesn't move to the ACC then they pick up West Virginia and possibly T.C.U. for content and markets. The SEC lands Texas and Texas Tech. And Kansas and Oklahoma head to the Big 10.

And really I expect the final moves to be fairly simple.

Will the SEC make a play for both OU and Texas? Sure. But Texas offers the most value due to the size of the state and their national appeal and academics. So we might still agree to take Tech to get them. Everyone in Oklahoma knows they can't move to the Big 10 with OSU so Kansas is the natural partner.

And more importantly ESPN wants total control in Texas. And they probably want to keep at least the 49% they still have of the Big 10 so OU and KU are probably acceptable to them to head to the Big 10.

But I don't see ESPN landing all of those unless they go after all of the Big 10.

There's only one way I could see the ACC powers catching up to any reasonable degree.

The league would have to agree to some sort of tiered compensation structure...

I don't think Texas is going to the ACC, I agree with that. With Notre Dame, I think it's possible they would join fully, but ND along with the other major revenue generators would have to get extra money in comparison to the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges of the world.

Also, for Notre Dame's part, they may have to receive additional deference when it comes to their time slots.

If it keeps the ACC together for the long term then I could see the others going for it. Otherwise, you'll have schools like Florida State and Clemson exploring a way to get out as soon as the GOR expires.

The reality after 2025 is going to be rather stark. You'll have the SEC and Big 10 pushing 70 million in per school revenue. So one of two things will happen. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all leave the Big 12 pushing the SEC and Big 10 north of 70 million in per school revenues (which I consider very likely) and with the PAC GOR expiring at the same time it is possible that Colorado and Kansas could head to the Big 10 and Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Colorado may prefer the PAC but do they prefer them for 30 million less in per school sports revenue?

The second thing that could happen seems much less likely. The ACC/Big 12/PAC could find a way to consolidate into 2 conferences.

Working against that is the PAC's geographical distance and cultural distance from the other 2. Texas could lead the other 3 Texas teams to the ACC but that really works best at 16 total members for the ACC.

They could move with 6 and take Kansas State and West Virginia with them to move to 20. The SEC might then take the 2 Oklahoma's Kansas and Iowa State. But that isn't going to be profitable.

You could move N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC ala 2011, and move in the Texas 4. Maybe the SEC goes for that but really those two don't add enough to pay for their entrance at nearly 70 million. Oklahoma and Kansas would be more profitable for the SEC. So what do you do with N.C. state and Virginia Tech? Maybe the Big 10 as they are both large land grant schools but neither are AAU although both are close.

But if there is anything past realignment has shown us it is that the more complicated the plan the less likely it is to happen.

I still think in the end the ACC only adds West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame.

The SEC flirts with Oklahoma but winds up with Texas and Texas Tech because I think that's what ESPN has wanted for a long time. I remember Slive speaking in DFW and telling a gathering that the SEC would be proud to have any or all three of the Texas public schools.

I also think the Big 10 ends with Kansas and Oklahoma. And the reason here is the Big 10 can't take enough Texas schools to satisfy the UT business model.

Now what does that do to overall strength?

The ACC remains a distant 3rd in a new P4. The PAC either remains isolated and remains an even more distant 4th, or they knuckle under for exposure taking T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

The Big 10 remains very close to the SEC in revenue per school form media, but fail to gain competitively in football as an isolated Oklahoma now starts to fade a little from their Big 12 glory and even more so from their Big 8 glory days. Kansas does well enough in Big 10 basketball.

Texas has now distanced Oklahoma a little bit from Texas recruits because the players parents won't see so many of their games if they are in the Big 10. Texas distances themselves from Baylor and T.C.U. in conference branding and overall appeal to recruits. Texas elevates Arkansas a bit, plays even with A&M, and both of those remain preferable to Tech. And, Texas keeps its business model.

The SEC owns all of Texas and that's a pay boost. What we don't get is a basketball blueblood, but we have a lot more to spend on hoops and our outlook is growing in that sport.

With a P4 in place the PAC and ACC get their champion into the CFP but the economic disparity leaves the option open for the networks to move to league play by consolidating the PAC into the Big 10 and the ACC into the SEC at some future date.

Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

(01-06-2020 04:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 03:49 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 03:19 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:56 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 01:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]If Fox thinks that Disney is going after the Domers' Tier One package then it would behoove them to go hard after Oklahoma's Tier Three package to keep them out of the SEC. Otherwise, we'd easily see a scenario of OU/KU to SEC and UT/ND to ACC (no Tejas tagalongs necessary). That fear may even compel them to pay to keep the Big 12 together to avoid a situation which they can't have influence over.

I don't think there is anyway that Texas joins the ACC in full without at least 2 other Texas schools joining with them. It would totally violate their business model and their other sports would be total outliers.

So I just don't see it happening.

Nor do I see N.D. going all in with the ACC ever. Even with Texas there just wouldn't be enough revenue to justify the moves.

If Texas goes to the ACC here is what I think happens:
Texas, Baylor, T.C.U. and Tech go as a half division in a 16 member ACC. N.D. remains independent until 2037 and then they don't join the ACC, but rather the Big 10. And in order to make that move agreeable to the SEC the SEC lands either N.C. State and Virginia Tech which make the most sense in that they do not hurt the ACC footprint in the move, or the SEC lands Oklahoma and Kansas and Virginia Tech and N.C. State are free to move to the Big 10.

If Texas doesn't move to the ACC then they pick up West Virginia and possibly T.C.U. for content and markets. The SEC lands Texas and Texas Tech. And Kansas and Oklahoma head to the Big 10.

And really I expect the final moves to be fairly simple.

Will the SEC make a play for both OU and Texas? Sure. But Texas offers the most value due to the size of the state and their national appeal and academics. So we might still agree to take Tech to get them. Everyone in Oklahoma knows they can't move to the Big 10 with OSU so Kansas is the natural partner.

And more importantly ESPN wants total control in Texas. And they probably want to keep at least the 49% they still have of the Big 10 so OU and KU are probably acceptable to them to head to the Big 10.

But I don't see ESPN landing all of those unless they go after all of the Big 10.

There's only one way I could see the ACC powers catching up to any reasonable degree.

The league would have to agree to some sort of tiered compensation structure...

I don't think Texas is going to the ACC, I agree with that. With Notre Dame, I think it's possible they would join fully, but ND along with the other major revenue generators would have to get extra money in comparison to the Wake Forests and Boston Colleges of the world.

Also, for Notre Dame's part, they may have to receive additional deference when it comes to their time slots.

If it keeps the ACC together for the long term then I could see the others going for it. Otherwise, you'll have schools like Florida State and Clemson exploring a way to get out as soon as the GOR expires.

The reality after 2025 is going to be rather stark. You'll have the SEC and Big 10 pushing 70 million in per school revenue. So one of two things will happen. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas all leave the Big 12 pushing the SEC and Big 10 north of 70 million in per school revenues (which I consider very likely) and with the PAC GOR expiring at the same time it is possible that Colorado and Kansas could head to the Big 10 and Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC. Colorado may prefer the PAC but do they prefer them for 30 million less in per school sports revenue?

The second thing that could happen seems much less likely. The ACC/Big 12/PAC could find a way to consolidate into 2 conferences.

Working against that is the PAC's geographical distance and cultural distance from the other 2. Texas could lead the other 3 Texas teams to the ACC but that really works best at 16 total members for the ACC.

They could move with 6 and take Kansas State and West Virginia with them to move to 20. The SEC might then take the 2 Oklahoma's Kansas and Iowa State. But that isn't going to be profitable.

You could move N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC ala 2011, and move in the Texas 4. Maybe the SEC goes for that but really those two don't add enough to pay for their entrance at nearly 70 million. Oklahoma and Kansas would be more profitable for the SEC. So what do you do with N.C. state and Virginia Tech? Maybe the Big 10 as they are both large land grant schools but neither are AAU although both are close.

But if there is anything past realignment has shown us it is that the more complicated the plan the less likely it is to happen.

I still think in the end the ACC only adds West Virginia and waits on Notre Dame.

The SEC flirts with Oklahoma but winds up with Texas and Texas Tech because I think that's what ESPN has wanted for a long time. I remember Slive speaking in DFW and telling a gathering that the SEC would be proud to have any or all three of the Texas public schools.

I also think the Big 10 ends with Kansas and Oklahoma. And the reason here is the Big 10 can't take enough Texas schools to satisfy the UT business model.

Now what does that do to overall strength?

The ACC remains a distant 3rd in a new P4. The PAC either remains isolated and remains an even more distant 4th, or they knuckle under for exposure taking T.C.U., Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Iowa State.

The Big 10 remains very close to the SEC in revenue per school form media, but fail to gain competitively in football as an isolated Oklahoma now starts to fade a little from their Big 12 glory and even more so from their Big 8 glory days. Kansas does well enough in Big 10 basketball.

Texas has now distanced Oklahoma a little bit from Texas recruits because the players parents won't see so many of their games if they are in the Big 10. Texas distances themselves from Baylor and T.C.U. in conference branding and overall appeal to recruits. Texas elevates Arkansas a bit, plays even with A&M, and both of those remain preferable to Tech. And, Texas keeps its business model.

The SEC owns all of Texas and that's a pay boost. What we don't get is a basketball blueblood, but we have a lot more to spend on hoops and our outlook is growing in that sport.

With a P4 in place the PAC and ACC get their champion into the CFP but the economic disparity leaves the option open for the networks to move to league play by consolidating the PAC into the Big 10 and the ACC into the SEC at some future date.

Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

But to your question Texas needs at least 2 other Texas schools in their conference to keep their business model viable. The Big 10 could take Tech to try to get Texas but the distances and the lack of another Texas school would probably be the deal killer.

2. The threat of Oklahoma coming to the SEC will probably be the motivator for Texas to seriously consider the SEC. They can't afford to be in a lesser conference than A&M / Oklahoma / and Arkansas and L.S.U. recruits Houston well. But if Texas digs in Oklahoma is always going to be the go to and taking the Pokes would be our best leverage if in competition with the Big 10 for them. However the much preferred companion (if not Texas) would be Kansas.

3. For the monetary difference the Big 10 can make a play for these if they miss out on Texas and require AAU status: Colorado (they make nearly twice the money in the Big 10 and their GOR expires in 2025). Kansas (which probably prefers the Big 10), Missouri (if we don't land Kansas and they feel isolated the Big 10 might make a play. Plus it saves face for the Big 10 to "raid the SEC" when we are landing Texas, and possibly Oklahoma with them.) And it likely would be a no as this school has been courted before by the Big 10, but the Big 10 has long coveted Vanderbilt (nice market and strong AAU).

Of course if either Vandy or Missouri were to be courted away it only opens the SEC to perhaps consider others. For instance if we lost a state school like Missouri we might have that opening for Tech or OSU if it was absolutely necessary to have one or the other to cement that deal. If it was Vanderbilt that left it might open the door for a strong private because of the need to keep a private around to cover disclosure laws that public schools have to adhere to unless there is one private in the conference. So Baylor as the oldest school in Texas would come into play along with T.C.U. for a presence in the DFW market, but neither of those would come into play if the pair we had lined up was Texas and Tech. At that point I'm not sure who we would go with. Tulane and Rice and Tulsa sit there but none of them would be more profitable than Vanderbilt and we won't be adding a 4th Texas school so no Baylor or T.C.U.. It might be a great time to see if the ACC through ESPN would let Miami go.

4. If the upper tier ever separates from the NCAA then basketball becomes much more profitable. At that point Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and other such schools become much more valuable to the conference as a whole. But right now the NCAA effectively caps that revenue with tournament shares that are only a fraction of the tournament profits that the NCAA pockets.

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

But to your question Texas needs at least 2 other Texas schools in their conference to keep their business model viable. The Big 10 could take Tech to try to get Texas but the distances and the lack of another Texas school would probably be the deal killer.

2. The threat of Oklahoma coming to the SEC will probably be the motivator for Texas to seriously consider the SEC. They can't afford to be in a lesser conference than A&M / Oklahoma / and Arkansas and L.S.U. recruits Houston well. But if Texas digs in Oklahoma is always going to be the go to and taking the Pokes would be our best leverage if in competition with the Big 10 for them. However the much preferred companion (if not Texas) would be Kansas.

3. For the monetary difference the Big 10 can make a play for these if they miss out on Texas and require AAU status: Colorado (they make nearly twice the money in the Big 10 and their GOR expires in 2025). Kansas (which probably prefers the Big 10), Missouri (if we don't land Kansas and they feel isolated the Big 10 might make a play. Plus it saves face for the Big 10 to "raid the SEC" when we are landing Texas, and possibly Oklahoma with them.) And it likely would be a no as this school has been courted before by the Big 10, but the Big 10 has long coveted Vanderbilt (nice market and strong AAU).

Of course if either Vandy or Missouri were to be courted away it only opens the SEC to perhaps consider others. For instance if we lost a state school like Missouri we might have that opening for Tech or OSU if it was absolutely necessary to have one or the other to cement that deal. If it was Vanderbilt that left it might open the door for a strong private because of the need to keep a private around to cover disclosure laws that public schools have to adhere to unless there is one private in the conference. So Baylor as the oldest school in Texas would come into play along with T.C.U. for a presence in the DFW market, but neither of those would come into play if the pair we had lined up was Texas and Tech. At that point I'm not sure who we would go with. Tulane and Rice and Tulsa sit there but none of them would be more profitable than Vanderbilt and we won't be adding a 4th Texas school so no Baylor or T.C.U.. It might be a great time to see if the ACC through ESPN would let Miami go.

4. If the upper tier ever separates from the NCAA then basketball becomes much more profitable. At that point Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and other such schools become much more valuable to the conference as a whole. But right now the NCAA effectively caps that revenue with tournament shares that are only a fraction of the tournament profits that the NCAA pockets.

Mostly in response to point #3:

I'm always fascinated by the notion of backup options...especially when it comes to private schools.

To me, Colorado seems like a good fit for the Big Ten. If I was that league then I'd make a play for them either way. Their travel, for the most part, would be equivalent with whatever they are dealing with now. They'd get much better exposure in the East anyway. Obviously, there's the money difference.

We're told that Colorado wanted to be in the PAC 12 to be closer to their alumni in CA, but I've never noticed throngs of Buffalo fans following their team up and down PAC territory. So I don't really see any great benefit there. It would, however, be of benefit to the Big Ten if they could claim a reasonable number of people in the state of CA watching some of their games simply because of Colorado's inclusion.

In the event the SEC lost a team, even though I wouldn't think that's likely, I think it opens up some interesting options.

Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

West Virginia is an interesting option and certainly one that is available. Iowa State is as well although they would be a significant outlier without Missouri or Kansas to fill in the gap.

At that point, I have to say South Florida makes the most sense. We would grow our market presence in FL and bring along an up and coming school. They are a little more in the geographic core as opposed to any of the Midwestern options, and it would mitigate the influence of the ACC or even the Big Ten for that matter in FL.

(01-06-2020 05:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

But to your question Texas needs at least 2 other Texas schools in their conference to keep their business model viable. The Big 10 could take Tech to try to get Texas but the distances and the lack of another Texas school would probably be the deal killer.

2. The threat of Oklahoma coming to the SEC will probably be the motivator for Texas to seriously consider the SEC. They can't afford to be in a lesser conference than A&M / Oklahoma / and Arkansas and L.S.U. recruits Houston well. But if Texas digs in Oklahoma is always going to be the go to and taking the Pokes would be our best leverage if in competition with the Big 10 for them. However the much preferred companion (if not Texas) would be Kansas.

3. For the monetary difference the Big 10 can make a play for these if they miss out on Texas and require AAU status: Colorado (they make nearly twice the money in the Big 10 and their GOR expires in 2025). Kansas (which probably prefers the Big 10), Missouri (if we don't land Kansas and they feel isolated the Big 10 might make a play. Plus it saves face for the Big 10 to "raid the SEC" when we are landing Texas, and possibly Oklahoma with them.) And it likely would be a no as this school has been courted before by the Big 10, but the Big 10 has long coveted Vanderbilt (nice market and strong AAU).

Of course if either Vandy or Missouri were to be courted away it only opens the SEC to perhaps consider others. For instance if we lost a state school like Missouri we might have that opening for Tech or OSU if it was absolutely necessary to have one or the other to cement that deal. If it was Vanderbilt that left it might open the door for a strong private because of the need to keep a private around to cover disclosure laws that public schools have to adhere to unless there is one private in the conference. So Baylor as the oldest school in Texas would come into play along with T.C.U. for a presence in the DFW market, but neither of those would come into play if the pair we had lined up was Texas and Tech. At that point I'm not sure who we would go with. Tulane and Rice and Tulsa sit there but none of them would be more profitable than Vanderbilt and we won't be adding a 4th Texas school so no Baylor or T.C.U.. It might be a great time to see if the ACC through ESPN would let Miami go.

4. If the upper tier ever separates from the NCAA then basketball becomes much more profitable. At that point Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and other such schools become much more valuable to the conference as a whole. But right now the NCAA effectively caps that revenue with tournament shares that are only a fraction of the tournament profits that the NCAA pockets.

Mostly in response to point #3:

I'm always fascinated by the notion of backup options...especially when it comes to private schools.

To me, Colorado seems like a good fit for the Big Ten. If I was that league then I'd make a play for them either way. Their travel, for the most part, would be equivalent with whatever they are dealing with now. They'd get much better exposure in the East anyway. Obviously, there's the money difference.

We're told that Colorado wanted to be in the PAC 12 to be closer to their alumni in CA, but I've never noticed throngs of Buffalo fans following their team up and down PAC territory. So I don't really see any great benefit there. It would, however, be of benefit to the Big Ten if they could claim a reasonable number of people in the state of CA watching some of their games simply because of Colorado's inclusion.

In the event the SEC lost a team, even though I wouldn't think that's likely, I think it opens up some interesting options.

Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

West Virginia is an interesting option and certainly one that is available. Iowa State is as well although they would be a significant outlier without Missouri or Kansas to fill in the gap.

At that point, I have to say South Florida makes the most sense. We would grow our market presence in FL and bring along an up and coming school. They are a little more in the geographic core as opposed to any of the Midwestern options, and it would mitigate the influence of the ACC or even the Big Ten for that matter in FL.

I agree wholeheartedly about the future of South Florida and with Austin and College Station in the fold with the Mississippi schools and L.S.U. it really does open up that weekend cruise to the football game.

I think they are a very strong long term play and would prefer them to Baylor or T.C.U. for the long term. I wouldn't want a 4th Texas school because it would give Texas too much influence. Three in a 16 member conference is safe enough. And the geographical positioning of South Florida is strategically significant for the SEC and recruiting all of Florida.

And let's face it. With a full share of SEC money they would eclipse Central Florida quickly and would grow into a major program within 5 years.

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Soobahk40050' pid='16592555' dateline='1578345097']
[quote='JRsec' pid='16592507' dateline='1578343750']
[quote='AllTideUp' pid='16592440' dateline='1578341950']
[quote='JRsec' pid='16591522' dateline='1578293764']


1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

Just a slight correction, the problem with Nebraska and AAU was two-fold:

First, AAU decided that since agricultural grants are usually designated and not competitive, they would discount such grants in computing research dollars.

Secondly, you are correct that Nebraska has a problem with their medical school but NOT because it is not on campus. The problem is not that it was in Omaha but that the medical school is totally governed in Omaha...Lincoln really has nothing to say or do with the Medical School other than sharing the "University of Nebraska" name. Though KU's medical school is in Kansas City and Wichita (not Lawrence) it is "governed" from Lawrence. It is therefore considered as part of KU for AAU purposes. BTW, quite a few schools have their medical schools on other than their main campus. For example, OU's medical school is in Oklahoma City and Tulsa (not Norman) but as at least OKC is directly OU (Tulsa seems to be a joint program with the University of Tulsa) its medical school would count for AAU purposes.

As to you statement about Georgia, I didn't research their situation but the key to determine if a medical school "counts" for AAU purposes is whether that school is governed from the main campus (AAU' s requirement) or from elsewhere.

(01-06-2020 10:13 PM)ICThawk Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Soobahk40050' pid='16592555' dateline='1578345097']
[quote='JRsec' pid='16592507' dateline='1578343750']
[quote='AllTideUp' pid='16592440' dateline='1578341950']
[quote='JRsec' pid='16591522' dateline='1578293764']


1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

Just a slight correction, the problem with Nebraska and AAU was two-fold:

First, AAU decided that since agricultural grants are usually designated and not competitive, they would discount such grants in computing research dollars.

Secondly, you are correct that Nebraska has a problem with their medical school but NOT because it is not on campus. The problem is not that it was in Omaha but that the medical school is totally governed in Omaha...Lincoln really has nothing to say or do with the Medical School other than sharing the "University of Nebraska" name. Though KU's medical school is in Kansas City and Wichita (not Lawrence) it is "governed" from Lawrence. It is therefore considered as part of KU for AAU purposes. BTW, quite a few schools have their medical schools on other than their main campus. For example, OU's medical school is in Oklahoma City and Tulsa (not Norman) but as at least OKC is directly OU (Tulsa seems to be a joint program with the University of Tulsa) its medical school would count for AAU purposes.

As to you statement about Georgia, I didn't research their situation but the key to determine if a medical school "counts" for AAU purposes is whether that school is governed from the main campus (AAU' s requirement) or from elsewhere.

Thanks for the corrections. The problem for Georgia is the same as for Nebraska. The Medical College of Georgia is governed from Augusta.

(01-06-2020 05:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

But to your question Texas needs at least 2 other Texas schools in their conference to keep their business model viable. The Big 10 could take Tech to try to get Texas but the distances and the lack of another Texas school would probably be the deal killer.

2. The threat of Oklahoma coming to the SEC will probably be the motivator for Texas to seriously consider the SEC. They can't afford to be in a lesser conference than A&M / Oklahoma / and Arkansas and L.S.U. recruits Houston well. But if Texas digs in Oklahoma is always going to be the go to and taking the Pokes would be our best leverage if in competition with the Big 10 for them. However the much preferred companion (if not Texas) would be Kansas.

3. For the monetary difference the Big 10 can make a play for these if they miss out on Texas and require AAU status: Colorado (they make nearly twice the money in the Big 10 and their GOR expires in 2025). Kansas (which probably prefers the Big 10), Missouri (if we don't land Kansas and they feel isolated the Big 10 might make a play. Plus it saves face for the Big 10 to "raid the SEC" when we are landing Texas, and possibly Oklahoma with them.) And it likely would be a no as this school has been courted before by the Big 10, but the Big 10 has long coveted Vanderbilt (nice market and strong AAU).

Of course if either Vandy or Missouri were to be courted away it only opens the SEC to perhaps consider others. For instance if we lost a state school like Missouri we might have that opening for Tech or OSU if it was absolutely necessary to have one or the other to cement that deal. If it was Vanderbilt that left it might open the door for a strong private because of the need to keep a private around to cover disclosure laws that public schools have to adhere to unless there is one private in the conference. So Baylor as the oldest school in Texas would come into play along with T.C.U. for a presence in the DFW market, but neither of those would come into play if the pair we had lined up was Texas and Tech. At that point I'm not sure who we would go with. Tulane and Rice and Tulsa sit there but none of them would be more profitable than Vanderbilt and we won't be adding a 4th Texas school so no Baylor or T.C.U.. It might be a great time to see if the ACC through ESPN would let Miami go.

4. If the upper tier ever separates from the NCAA then basketball becomes much more profitable. At that point Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and other such schools become much more valuable to the conference as a whole. But right now the NCAA effectively caps that revenue with tournament shares that are only a fraction of the tournament profits that the NCAA pockets.

Mostly in response to point #3:

I'm always fascinated by the notion of backup options...especially when it comes to private schools.

To me, Colorado seems like a good fit for the Big Ten. If I was that league then I'd make a play for them either way. Their travel, for the most part, would be equivalent with whatever they are dealing with now. They'd get much better exposure in the East anyway. Obviously, there's the money difference.

We're told that Colorado wanted to be in the PAC 12 to be closer to their alumni in CA, but I've never noticed throngs of Buffalo fans following their team up and down PAC territory. So I don't really see any great benefit there. It would, however, be of benefit to the Big Ten if they could claim a reasonable number of people in the state of CA watching some of their games simply because of Colorado's inclusion.

In the event the SEC lost a team, even though I wouldn't think that's likely, I think it opens up some interesting options.

Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

West Virginia is an interesting option and certainly one that is available. Iowa State is as well although they would be a significant outlier without Missouri or Kansas to fill in the gap.

At that point, I have to say South Florida makes the most sense. We would grow our market presence in FL and bring along an up and coming school. They are a little more in the geographic core as opposed to any of the Midwestern options, and it would mitigate the influence of the ACC or even the Big Ten for that matter in FL.

Well, Missouri fans here have constantly claimed that they would never share a conference with UT again. But they've also said that they'd never agree to the type of accession deal the Big Ten offers. So it would be interesting to see which theory is actually correct. Will they swallow their pride if it means they get paid more or would the prospect of reuniting with old Big 8 rivals be too much to turn down?

(01-06-2020 11:56 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 05:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 04:11 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: [ -> ]Not arguing with you here, but a few questions:

1) With Texas Tech recently receiving Tier One status, would the Big 10 be willing to take Tech to get Texas? It broke its AAU pattern with Nebraska (albeit that was a special case). Is Tech an AAU possibility down the road?

2) Is the path of least resistance still OK and OSU to the SEC for 16 or do you think Texas/Tech is now more likely?

3) If the Big 10 still wants AAU, do they lose out if they don't expand and wait to grab UVA and say GT or UNC?

4) Do shifting TV-watching patterns (i.e, moving away from market towards other factors) highlight a need for basketball more and more? I.e, does someone like Duke eventually become more valuable?

1. Tech is R1 in research status now which will help them more with the PAC and SEC both of which prefer that as the minimum academic status. I think they are a long way from AAU status but they will steadily increase their research spending.

Nebraska was AAU when they joined but everyone knew they would lose that status with a change in requirements that medical schools be located on campus sites. It's what prohibits Georgia from being AAU.

But to your question Texas needs at least 2 other Texas schools in their conference to keep their business model viable. The Big 10 could take Tech to try to get Texas but the distances and the lack of another Texas school would probably be the deal killer.

2. The threat of Oklahoma coming to the SEC will probably be the motivator for Texas to seriously consider the SEC. They can't afford to be in a lesser conference than A&M / Oklahoma / and Arkansas and L.S.U. recruits Houston well. But if Texas digs in Oklahoma is always going to be the go to and taking the Pokes would be our best leverage if in competition with the Big 10 for them. However the much preferred companion (if not Texas) would be Kansas.

3. For the monetary difference the Big 10 can make a play for these if they miss out on Texas and require AAU status: Colorado (they make nearly twice the money in the Big 10 and their GOR expires in 2025). Kansas (which probably prefers the Big 10), Missouri (if we don't land Kansas and they feel isolated the Big 10 might make a play. Plus it saves face for the Big 10 to "raid the SEC" when we are landing Texas, and possibly Oklahoma with them.) And it likely would be a no as this school has been courted before by the Big 10, but the Big 10 has long coveted Vanderbilt (nice market and strong AAU).

Of course if either Vandy or Missouri were to be courted away it only opens the SEC to perhaps consider others. For instance if we lost a state school like Missouri we might have that opening for Tech or OSU if it was absolutely necessary to have one or the other to cement that deal. If it was Vanderbilt that left it might open the door for a strong private because of the need to keep a private around to cover disclosure laws that public schools have to adhere to unless there is one private in the conference. So Baylor as the oldest school in Texas would come into play along with T.C.U. for a presence in the DFW market, but neither of those would come into play if the pair we had lined up was Texas and Tech. At that point I'm not sure who we would go with. Tulane and Rice and Tulsa sit there but none of them would be more profitable than Vanderbilt and we won't be adding a 4th Texas school so no Baylor or T.C.U.. It might be a great time to see if the ACC through ESPN would let Miami go.

4. If the upper tier ever separates from the NCAA then basketball becomes much more profitable. At that point Duke, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and other such schools become much more valuable to the conference as a whole. But right now the NCAA effectively caps that revenue with tournament shares that are only a fraction of the tournament profits that the NCAA pockets.

Mostly in response to point #3:

I'm always fascinated by the notion of backup options...especially when it comes to private schools.

To me, Colorado seems like a good fit for the Big Ten. If I was that league then I'd make a play for them either way. Their travel, for the most part, would be equivalent with whatever they are dealing with now. They'd get much better exposure in the East anyway. Obviously, there's the money difference.

We're told that Colorado wanted to be in the PAC 12 to be closer to their alumni in CA, but I've never noticed throngs of Buffalo fans following their team up and down PAC territory. So I don't really see any great benefit there. It would, however, be of benefit to the Big Ten if they could claim a reasonable number of people in the state of CA watching some of their games simply because of Colorado's inclusion.

In the event the SEC lost a team, even though I wouldn't think that's likely, I think it opens up some interesting options.

Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

West Virginia is an interesting option and certainly one that is available. Iowa State is as well although they would be a significant outlier without Missouri or Kansas to fill in the gap.

At that point, I have to say South Florida makes the most sense. We would grow our market presence in FL and bring along an up and coming school. They are a little more in the geographic core as opposed to any of the Midwestern options, and it would mitigate the influence of the ACC or even the Big Ten for that matter in FL.

Well, Missouri fans here have constantly claimed that they would never share a conference with UT again. But they've also said that they'd never agree to the type of accession deal the Big Ten offers. So it would be interesting to see which theory is actually correct. Will they swallow their pride if it means they get paid more or would the prospect of reuniting with old Big 8 rivals be too much to turn down?

If the money is close I'd have to say they would rather be with old friends closer to home. Though I've not heard anything to that effect. It just seems like what anyone would want.

I always ask myself if Auburn was stuck in a new conference and a potential situation came along that would reunite us with traditional foes what would we want to do?

So if Texas and Texas Tech headed our way and Oklahoma wanted in who would Missouri prefer to be with? Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M from the Big 12 days, or Kansas and Nebraska and possibly Colorado from Big 8 days? Considering old OOC rival is Illinois they would have to at least consider it.

(01-06-2020 05:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

Bring back Tulane to be the private school in the West, to complement Vandy in the East. I still think the SEC would keep two divisions because of geography and rivalries. You get back an AAU school and an old friend.

(01-07-2020 07:45 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-06-2020 05:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say for a moment that the Big Ten was able to pull Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri into their fold. That's a pretty decent day's work on their part. How does the SEC respond?

Texas and Texas Tech do appear to be a strong duo for the SEC and I would agree it helps a lot of pieces fit for ESPN if that is the move made. At that point, we've gone from 13 to 15. We still need one more.

Bring back Tulane to be the private school in the West, to complement Vandy in the East. I still think the SEC would keep two divisions because of geography and rivalries. You get back an AAU school and an old friend.

Would "partial membership" be enough for those rules? If so, I'd take Rice as a baseball powerhouse.

I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote: [ -> ]I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.