Let’s speculate for a moment that in 2024 the Big 12 sees its biggest brands poached.
What does the post season look like? Do you think there is an impetus for an SEC vs ACC Sugar Bowl and a Big Ten vs PAC 12 Rose Bowl and then a Plus One National Championship with the participants determined after all the bowl are played?
For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
(01-10-2021 05:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
I think it would have to go to 12 teams. 8 divisional champs with 4 at large teams (which may......may include a G5 team or two).
(01-10-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 05:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
(01-11-2021 04:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 05:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
(01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 05:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
(01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 05:07 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]For the Rose (BIG v PAC) and Sugar (SEC v ACC) to become permanent semifinals, the P4 would need to be somewhat balanced in terms of strength of each conference.
Currently, there is still some parity amongst the power 5. The SEC is the strongest conference in terms of CFP wins and championships, but it’s not overwhelming dominance. The ACC and BIG have won championships. A PAC team (Oregon) has made the finals. A B12 team (Oklahoma) has made the CFP frequently.
If the SEC poaches the best programs from the B12 (e.g., Oklahoma and Texas) in 2024, then the SEC may better differentiate itself in terms football strength. At that point, the SEC may prefer the current CFP selection model (best 4 teams). The current CFP selection model would likely result in more SEC teams being selected.
The ACC, BIG and PAC will almost certainly prefer a conference champions model...regardless of how a P4 is derived. These conferences will likely propose safe-guards to encourage selection of conference champions in the playoffs. For example, 0 or 1 loss P4 conference champions are automatically selected. These 3 conferences would also probably be favorable of the Rose & Sugar being fixed semifinals.
1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
(01-11-2021 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2021 06:30 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]1. The SEC is pretty dominant in reality. It has not only won the largest number of championships since the BCS era, but has the most teams winning a national championship. Nobody else is really that close as a conference. Clemson during that time is the only school to have a period of competing at the highest level outside of Alabama.
2. If the SEC lands Oklahoma and / or Texas I would think they would want to move to 8 teams. 4 conference champs and 4 at large. It is the only way really that they could stockpile two more national brands and keep them happy.
A compromise might be a first round game where each conference's #2 plays at the home of another conference's #1. Then go to the bowls to play it out.
I'm just pointing out it will be in the SEC's interest if either Texas or Oklahoma or both join to support an expanded playoff. It's the only way to make Texas and/or Oklahoma, A&M, L.S.U., Auburn, Georgia, and Florida feel like they have a legit shot each year.
In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
My “overpay” reference was about how to entice the most valuable programs to join a league with lower average media payouts. For example, the PAC could add 2 (possibly even 3) tag-alongs to UT Austin and still increase its average media payouts. The PAC can be more accommodating on certain matters that may be worthwhile to UT Austin.
(01-11-2021 09:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:48 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]In order to maintain better balance in college football...if the B12 falls apart, then my preferred scenario:
Oklahoma and Kansas go to the BIG
Texas and friends (likely Texas Tech plus TCU and/or Baylor) go to the PAC
Notre Dame would consider the ACC
This would result in structuring a P4 champions playoff that even the SEC could support.
The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
My “overpay” reference was about how to entice the most valuable programs to join a league with lower average media payouts. For example, the PAC could add 2 (possibly even 3) tag-alongs to UT Austin and still increase its average media payouts. The PAC can be more accommodating on certain matters that may be worthwhile to UT Austin.
However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
(01-12-2021 04:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 09:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
My “overpay” reference was about how to entice the most valuable programs to join a league with lower average media payouts. For example, the PAC could add 2 (possibly even 3) tag-alongs to UT Austin and still increase its average media payouts. The PAC can be more accommodating on certain matters that may be worthwhile to UT Austin.
However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
ESPN could funnel any amount necessary to Texas through the LHN if the Longhorns were to join the ACC as either full time of partial members, to insure that the Longhorns were the highest paid program in America.
Texas doesn't need the SEC or the B1G to be the highest earning team.
(01-12-2021 04:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2021 04:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
ESPN could funnel any amount necessary to Texas through the LHN if the Longhorns were to join the ACC as either full time of partial members, to insure that the Longhorns were the highest paid program in America.
Texas doesn't need the SEC or the B1G to be the highest earning team.
The question then would be how much money would it take to get Texas to the Pac-12 and would it be worth it to the network(s) involved?
The reasons I've said the Pac-12 is a factor are
1) The Pac-12 has definitely flirted with Texas (and/or Oklahoma) before
2) They have the lowest valued contract between the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 so they would "need" UT and/or OU the most.
3) They have the least bargaining power so they are the most likely to take the dead weight little brother(s) the SEC and Big Ten don't have to take.
4) They have the fewest current members which is good because they have the space to take more teams without a conference too large (the pie isn't divided into as many pieces and teams would play more often). If the Big Ten or SEC took OU/UT/+2, they'd become an 18 team conference. By contrast, if the Pac 12 did, they'd still only be a 16 team conference.
If the SEC and Big 10 say no to Texas Tech but the Pac 12 says yes to Texas Tech and I'm ESPN, I think it's still worth it to push Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac 12. Would I rather UT be with the California schools and Oregon or with Baylor and Iowa State? Yes, Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable in 1) SEC, 2) Big 10. But the Pac 12 is still more valuable than the Big 12 and I'd push for that over staying in the Big 12. If Oklahoma and Texas insist on staying in the Big 12, I'm stuck paying the "Little 8".
On the other hand, if I have to pay so much to get Texas to the Pac 12 that I'd be paying less to pay for the Pac 12 and Big 12 separately, it's not worth it.
You know—we talk about the PAC 12 going after Big 12 schools but maybe we schools be looking at this the other way. A lot of folks joke about there being a Big 2 and Little 8 but the Big 12 schools, on average, outdraw the PAC 12.
The PAC 12 is also the conference that’s a financial and organizational mess thanks to the leadership of Tennis Larry.
If I’m the Big 12 (or maybe if I’m Fox and I want the rights to two solid P conferences, I make a push to pull in 6 Pac 12 schools and/or BYU.
Maybe some hard choices have to be made and a couple Big 12 schools end up voted out (2 of Baylor, TCU, and WVU) to make the math work. Or Fox has to pull some creativeness (Iowa St and Kansas to the Big Ten) to work things out.
Just spitballing here but West Coast football seems to be on the decline while Great Plains football remains strong.
(01-12-2021 05:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]You know—we talk about the PAC 12 going after Big 12 schools but maybe we schools be looking at this the other way. A lot of folks joke about there being a Big 2 and Little 8 but the Big 12 schools, on average, outdraw the PAC 12.
The PAC 12 is also the conference that’s a financial and organizational mess thanks to the leadership of Tennis Larry.
If I’m the Big 12 (or maybe if I’m Fox and I want the rights to two solid P conferences, I make a push to pull in 6 Pac 12 schools and/or BYU.
Maybe some hard choices have to be made and a couple Big 12 schools end up voted out (2 of Baylor, TCU, and WVU) to make the math work. Or Fox has to pull some creativeness (Iowa St and Kansas to the Big Ten) to work things out.
Just spitballing here but West Coast football seems to be on the decline while Great Plains football remains strong.
If it weren't for significant cultural differences between the 2 regions then I think the economics would work well.
The travel could also be an issue though.
The important thing for the Big 12 though...the majority of the value of the PAC 12 is in the CA schools. Theoretically, they could pry Utah or the AZ schools away, but I'm not sure it would really do any good.
(01-12-2021 04:57 PM)schmolik Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2021 04:40 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2021 04:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
ESPN could funnel any amount necessary to Texas through the LHN if the Longhorns were to join the ACC as either full time of partial members, to insure that the Longhorns were the highest paid program in America.
Texas doesn't need the SEC or the B1G to be the highest earning team.
The question then would be how much money would it take to get Texas to the Pac-12 and would it be worth it to the network(s) involved?
The reasons I've said the Pac-12 is a factor are
1) The Pac-12 has definitely flirted with Texas (and/or Oklahoma) before
2) They have the lowest valued contract between the SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 so they would "need" UT and/or OU the most.
3) They have the least bargaining power so they are the most likely to take the dead weight little brother(s) the SEC and Big Ten don't have to take.
4) They have the fewest current members which is good because they have the space to take more teams without a conference too large (the pie isn't divided into as many pieces and teams would play more often). If the Big Ten or SEC took OU/UT/+2, they'd become an 18 team conference. By contrast, if the Pac 12 did, they'd still only be a 16 team conference.
If the SEC and Big 10 say no to Texas Tech but the Pac 12 says yes to Texas Tech and I'm ESPN, I think it's still worth it to push Texas and Oklahoma to the Pac 12. Would I rather UT be with the California schools and Oregon or with Baylor and Iowa State? Yes, Texas and Oklahoma are more valuable in 1) SEC, 2) Big 10. But the Pac 12 is still more valuable than the Big 12 and I'd push for that over staying in the Big 12. If Oklahoma and Texas insist on staying in the Big 12, I'm stuck paying the "Little 8".
On the other hand, if I have to pay so much to get Texas to the Pac 12 that I'd be paying less to pay for the Pac 12 and Big 12 separately, it's not worth it.
The question would be: who would cut the check?
(01-12-2021 05:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]You know—we talk about the PAC 12 going after Big 12 schools but maybe we schools be looking at this the other way. A lot of folks joke about there being a Big 2 and Little 8 but the Big 12 schools, on average, outdraw the PAC 12.
The PAC 12 is also the conference that’s a financial and organizational mess thanks to the leadership of Tennis Larry.
If I’m the Big 12 (or maybe if I’m Fox and I want the rights to two solid P conferences, I make a push to pull in 6 Pac 12 schools and/or BYU.
Maybe some hard choices have to be made and a couple Big 12 schools end up voted out (2 of Baylor, TCU, and WVU) to make the math work. Or Fox has to pull some creativeness (Iowa St and Kansas to the Big Ten) to work things out.
Just spitballing here but West Coast football seems to be on the decline while Great Plains football remains strong.
If Oklahoma has wandering eyes (and is in discussions with either the BIG or SEC), then UT-Austin may have to lead a Hail Mary dialogue with key PAC schools. UT-Austin likely prefers maintaining the current B12 structure, but Oklahoma has to remain in order to ensure the B12’s long term viability.
Completely agree with your perspective that -as a whole- the B12 seems to have a more promising ‘football’ future than the PAC. The B12 has two of the top five brands (Longhorns and Sooners), and all the other schools are investing in football. Perennial doormat programs like Iowa State and Baylor have strong attendance and are competing well. Kansas continues to be inept at football, but the school is still investing (and the Jayhawks’ basketball reputation gives them more slack). The B12’s decision to remain at 10 teams (while other conferences grew to 14 or 12 teams) has really helped its fortunes relative to the PAC...and ACC.
Economically, the most valuable properties in the PAC are (in order)...USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Cal-Berkeley and Oregon. The PAC is built around these schools and they like playing each other. Utah, Arizona(s) and Colorado don’t add enough value to be difference-makers in media payouts...they would likely be additional mouths-to-feed to the B12. Working with the best PAC programs would be frustrating (if not nearly impossible).
(01-10-2021 07:54 PM)XLance Wrote: [ -> ]I think it would have to go to 12 teams. 8 divisional champs with 4 at large teams (which may......may include a G5 team or two).
In effect, you're making the CFP a double elimination tournament since any team that loses their conference championship game could still get in the CFP. Furthermore, if the G schools want to play for a championship game then they can start their own tournament.
(01-12-2021 04:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 09:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC will support what is profitable for the SEC. Don't get stupid about a simple situation. They all will act in their self interest. Anything else is each of our own delusions.
It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
My “overpay” reference was about how to entice the most valuable programs to join a league with lower average media payouts. For example, the PAC could add 2 (possibly even 3) tag-alongs to UT Austin and still increase its average media payouts. The PAC can be more accommodating on certain matters that may be worthwhile to UT Austin.
However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
What if Texas goes Indy in football with a Notre Dame type arrangement? What might their payout be?
(01-14-2021 04:29 PM)texoma Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2021 04:05 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 09:28 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:36 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2021 05:24 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote: [ -> ]It is in the self interest of schools from the BIG, PAC and ACC to block further football brands from becoming the property of the SEC. The SEC has somewhat differentiated its football during the past several decades. Other conferences should be able to over-pay (relative to the SEC’s interest) in order to provide viable options for Oklahoma and Texas.
Conference's don't overpay. Networks do. So realignment is a confluence of self interests. ESPN/Disney will have some and they pay. FOX will have some and they pay. The conferences have preferences, but they don't pay, they get paid. Schools will also act in their own self interests. Where those interests meet is where there is a chance for realignment to occur. Texas and Oklahoma won't move for less. Texas has contractual obligations until 2031 with ESPN for the LHN. OU's T3 rights with FOX disappear in about 2 years and the RSN's they were on are gone. Do you think ESPN would anger the SEC to appease the SEC? I don't. Short term thinking for the most valuable product isn't in their self interest. Most of this matter, should it occur, will be decided at the Network level and the conferences involved will merely be grateful beneficiaries because none of them would turn down Texas and likely none of them would turn down Oklahoma.
Where the conferences will get involved is in making concessions like scheduling, or accommodations for travel buddies if necessary, etc. But nobody would turn down Texas and Oklahoma IMO. There is too much money on the table and too much prestige, and such a large market involved. But my point is the conference input will be a limited one with regard to what they will accept or agree to in helping the respective networks land them.
Nobody is going to be doing any blocking, certainly not the PAC which can't get their own stuff straight and has no network backing, or the ACC which will do what ESPN tells them to do. The Big 10 will use FOX to go all out for the two schools, but so too will ESPN and the SEC. Do you really think ESPN would tolerate the ACC trying to block anything the SEC wanted to do? First they want the best possible relations with the nations top product. Second, the ACC doesn't want to lose those year end rivalry games with SEC schools and neither does ESPN. Third, corporations don't think in terms of short term gains with long term downsides.
If ESPN wanted to prevent potential conflict, and they might, their best bet is to overpay to keep the Big 12 intact. If that happens the Big 10 and SEC stand pat and the revenue gap with the ACC and PAC continues to grow. Texas and Oklahoma will use their leverage to get what they want. The Big 10 and SEC will use their leverage to get what they want. ESPN will use the best tool to acquire Texas and Oklahoma, and that isn't the ACC because the payouts aren't anywhere close to being competitive with those of the Big 10. The SEC's is. And that's reality.
My “overpay” reference was about how to entice the most valuable programs to join a league with lower average media payouts. For example, the PAC could add 2 (possibly even 3) tag-alongs to UT Austin and still increase its average media payouts. The PAC can be more accommodating on certain matters that may be worthwhile to UT Austin.
However, Texas can't make that move to the PAC and increase their current payouts.
Only the Big Ten or SEC would offer a raise over what they are currently getting in the Big 12.
What if Texas goes Indy in football with a Notre Dame type arrangement? What might their payout be?
Wouldn't shock me if they tried it, but I don't think the PAC would let them in under those conditions.
The PAC?? I am talking about Texas going Indy in football and leaving their other sports in the Big12 with a Notre Dame/ACC type arrangement.