Let's begin with an interesting correlation. I know they are only estimates of intrinsic worth based on support, regional merchandise sales, and the impacts made upon hotels, restaurants, and other aspects of schools economic impact upon their regions but the Wall Street Journal Valuations have an interesting rough but not quite exact correlation to media revenue. Roughly 1 billion in WSJ valuation translates to 10 million in media revenue.
The SEC's Value was 7.5 billion their new contract will translate in 2024-5 into roughly 70 million.
The Big 10's Value is at 5.4 billion and their most recently reported media distribution was in the 55 million range.
The PAC 12's Value was 3.0 billion and they last earned right at 32 million.
The ACC's Value was 2.2 billion but roughly half of Notre Dame's is 460 million so that translates into 27 million for the last reported income which will be highe after this year and likely more in the 32 million range. Anyway you get the point in this inexact but interesting correlation.
First there aren't enough potential valuable targets for the ACC to catch the SEC, but hypothetically they could catch the Big 10, but it would take some kind of super deal with moving parts all nursed by ESPN to make it happen.
How do you raise the 2.2 billion dollar conference value to levels equal to or exceeding the Big 10?
The answer is you have to attract Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame all in.
Texas alone has a value of 1.1 billion.
Notre Dame's value is .913 billion.
Oklahoma's is .885 billion.
Together that's roughly 2.9 billion.
Add all 3 in full to the ACC and you have a 5.1 billion dollar value.
Drop your lowest 3 valued schools and you only lose combined 225 million. (Duke, B.C., Wake Forest).
Now add Oklahoma State and Texas Tech 515 million. You now have a valuation of 5.39 billion which is a virtual tie with the Big 10. And you are at 16 members. And nobody leaves. If Texas refuses to move without more Texas schools you take Baylor and Kansas State (another 382 million) and stop at 18 in 3 divisions of 6.
Now keep in mind that even in the 16 team iteration of this plan the payout would be right at 54 million per school. Texas made 55 last year.
Notre Dame wants independence.
Oklahoma wants a solid football conference with good academics.
So the least valuable of the 3 is the only one you have a chance to land and they wouldn't come alone.
But this should put things into perspective.
It doesn't come as a surprise but the task before Phillips is monumental, though theoretically possible, and I'd say a bit more possible at 18 than 16, and without asking Duke, Wake Forest and B.C. to leave the task is a lot tougher. I think to attract Texas you would need to add a Big 12 division of 6 schools. To accomplish this you need to place 3 schools elsewhere in the ESPN family. But who has more value elsewhere than in the ACC? Basketball schools from North Carolina and Virginia would have market and hoops value to the SEC.
That might solve any internal power struggles for the ACC as well. Your new leaders would be Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State.
Perhaps an ACC that looks like this could best rival both the Big 10 and SEC?
OBE Division: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
OB12 Division: Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
OACC Division: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
The SEC picks up Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Kansas.
East: Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas A&M
The SEC gets pro rata for the 4 additions.
The ACC gets 62 million per school.
Why? North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas need solid football revenue to remain at the top of the heap in recruiting nationwide in hoops. The SEC has plenty of football value. They get their money and the SEC accepts this face value.
The ACC finally becomes a premier football conference and is paid accordingly.
It all stays under ESPN.
Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
(05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.
For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.
Ok. I can see where that would be an asset. But the SEC also like being top dog. This would elevate a total of 22 teams to their media earning level. Don’t you think the SEC would want to maintain that advantage, rather than facilitate a move that puts their competitors on an equal playing field?
I think you have Kansas in both the ACC and SEC too.
This certainly accomplishes creating a third conference in the same value ballpark as the SEC and B1G. You would now have a clear cut P4, with the AAC separating even further from the rest of the G5 with the presumed addition of TCU, West Virginia and Iowa State left over from the Big 12.
You would also have some very reluctant participants in this new venture, not the least of which is Notre Dame, which could very well opt out if they would be required to play an eight or nine game league schedule. Not sure how they could be accommodated.
You have another plus in that you would need to have a four team Conference Championship Tournament (CCT), something which I believe the B1G would go along with willingly. A downside to this (or maybe an upside, depending on your point of view) is that the extra CCT week would make expanding the CFP more difficult for the presidents to swallow.
One possible way to accommodate ND would be for the CCT to include division champs based only on their division record, plus the highest ranked non-champ that played at least 8 league games. If, for example, the Irish agreed only to their five game division schedule plus an annual game against Texas, they could be eligible for the CCT only if they win their division (which they would probably do more often than not). I'm not sure if the rest of the league (or ESPN) would go along with that.
You could easily fit an SEC-ACC Sugar Bowl and a B1G-PAC Rose Bowl into this scenario, with a Plus One game matching the winners of those two bowls that would be viewed as a National Championship game even if it weren't billed as such. The CFP would just disappear when the initial contract runs out, and only four conferences need to be a party to the Plus One deal.
ESPN might need to guarantee an NY bowl game for the best G5 team if there is no CFP.
Would the Big Ten response be to absorb most of the PAC 12 and AAU Iowa St?
Big Ten East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Nebraska, Colorado
Big Ten Pacific: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
(05-17-2021 10:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Would the Big Ten response be to absorb most of the PAC 12 and AAU Iowa St?
Big Ten East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Nebraska, Colorado
Big Ten Pacific: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
I think Utah (AAU member) would get in over Arizona St. (non-AAU member) or maybe over Iowa St., but other than that, I think that would be solid if this happened.
Your figures seem to only be taking into account football value and not basketball value. While for some schools, like Texas, the basketball value is negligible relative to the football value, in others the basketball value is comparable to or greater than that for football. For instance, based on the 2018 WSJ valuations for football, Duke is dead last in the ACC with $67.5M, but their most recent WSJ valuation for basketball (2016) was $190M. That was second best in the ACC after Louisville.
(05-17-2021 11:49 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 10:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Would the Big Ten response be to absorb most of the PAC 12 and AAU Iowa St?
Big Ten East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Nebraska, Colorado
Big Ten Pacific: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
I think Utah (AAU member) would get in over Arizona St. (non-AAU member) or maybe over Iowa St., but other than that, I think that would be solid if this happened.
Arizona State has the advantage of being located in the Phoenix metro, so I could see the Big Ten overlooking their non-AAU status. Utah would likely be preferable over Iowa State, especially since the small Iowa market is already represented by the Hawkeyes.
(05-17-2021 10:40 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. I can see where that would be an asset. But the SEC also like being top dog. This would elevate a total of 22 teams to their media earning level. Don’t you think the SEC would want to maintain that advantage, rather than facilitate a move that puts their competitors on an equal playing field?
Mostly the SEC doesn't care about what others make as long as the SEC is making as much as everyone else. Recruiting will remain in the SEC's favor as long as the Southeast produces the greatest volume of athletes coming out of high school. So for most of the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf States this region will remain the most talent rich spot to recruit, Texas and California excepted and Ohio and Pennsylvania acknowledged.
As to Ken D's post, Ken I don't see why we couldn't move to the 5 division games being the only required scheduled games and let all other games be scheduled as the schools, any school, desires so long as they are all P games. This should solve N.D.'s issues. A conference should require perhaps 7 games in conference and therefore any school could play their 5 division games, schedule two more they want to play in conference and still have 5 games to schedule anywhere against anyone in the P4 or P3.
So Notre Dame would play their 5 divisional games schedule USC, schedule 2 Deep South games in conference (one home and one away), and still have 4 to play any way they wish to schedule them.
This works and should be encouraged for several reasons:
1. It makes winning the division a way into the playoffs. And with only 2 more conference games required it leaves 5 games to be scheduled OOC. Making a rematch in the conference semi finals unlikely.
2. Five games OOC gives enough annual crossover to determine strength of competition.
3. It keeps things familiar enough with a core of 5 and fresh enough with 7 fresher faces to keep interest.
4. 5 open games OOC and 2 open games in conference gives plenty of coverage for top rivals regardless of what division they are in, or what conference.
(05-17-2021 10:57 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Would the Big Ten response be to absorb most of the PAC 12 and AAU Iowa St?
Big Ten East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Nebraska, Colorado
Big Ten Pacific: Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona St
I don't see why they would need to respond. It would serve their interest just fine if there are four viable power conferences, and they don't have to all be of equal size.
Realignment starting block #1 for ESPN: Texas to the ACC as a ND type partial. The Longhorns can be paid any amount necessary through the LHN without giving the entire conference a pay raise. With only 5 conference games, Texas would have plenty of opportunity to schedule the bulk of it's remaining OOC teams in Texas.
#2: move Kansas to the ACC. It basically blocks any effort by the B1G to add the best remaining AAU school from the Big 12, and insures premiere basketball status for ESPN.
#3: football status of Duke, Kansas and Vanderbilt, although members of the ACC and SEC respectively moved to 5 game partial status.
#4 add back one football platform to the SEC West (so that Alabama could remain in the west and Auburn could move to the east) in a market that is desired by the SEC=TCU (TCU, A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, MSU, Alabama/Auburn, Ole Miss, Ky., Tenn., Florida, Georgia, South Carolina)
#5 re-establish ACC/SEC rivalry games (Texas v. A&M and Kansas v. Missouri). Continue to schedule one SEC v. Notre Dame game per year and one Texas v. SEC game per year for content.
(05-17-2021 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.
For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.
One thing I'm struggling with here is this.
If I'm the SEC, and somehow I manage to convince UNC, Duke and Virginia to join us, why not just add UT, OU, OK State and Kansas to join as well? The SEC could get all the advantages it seeks with respect to geography, academics and hoops while improving on its dominance in football. It would still have the highest per team media revenue as well.
Your divisions:
East: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Vandy
West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M
At that point, you propose a 16 team playoff, consisting of all the division champions in the SEC, B1G, ACC and PAC plus 7 at large teams beginning on Thanksgiving weekend. For its part, the ACC accommodates Notre Dame by only requiring that they play the five schools in their division plus one from the other division so they can easily keep their national schedule.
(05-18-2021 06:47 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.
For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.
One thing I'm struggling with here is this. If I'm the SEC, and somehow I manage to convince UNC, Duke and Virginia to join us, why not just add UT, OU, OK State and Kansas to join as well? The SEC could get all the advantages it seeks with respect to geography, academics and hoops while improving on its dominance in football. It would still have the highest per team media revenue as well.
Your divisions:
East: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Vandy
West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M
At that point, you propose a 16 team playoff, consisting of all the division champions in the SEC, B1G, ACC and PAC plus 7 at large teams beginning on Thanksgiving weekend. For its part, the ACC accommodates Notre Dame by only requiring that they play the five schools in their division plus one from the other division so they can easily keep their national schedule.
What would keep the SEC from doing this?
Size is important to a productive structure for a region, or in the case of the Southeast/Southwest regions. The idea in athletics, which is predicated upon audience, is to have competitiveness. In setting up these conferences however there are inherently some geographical limitations. The potential remedies for the PAC 12 are damaged most by geography. The Big 10 has enough strength in both football and basketball to be competitive. The Big 12 is sandwiched between the inaccessible, due to travel costs, (PAC) and the unobtainable due to the strength and longstanding relationships of the Big 10 and SEC, an affliction that also creates issues for the ACC.
So when looking at the three conferences that share the most sports culture the best marketing ploy is to make them as equivalent as possible to feed rivalries and public interest. That means that whatever approach is taken needs to address economic inequities and athletic ones as well. In the Southeast/west geography can be reasonably dealt with by concentrating divisions which will make up the bulk of a schedule.
If the issue is balance you have schools in the Big 12 which are both good at football and solid in hoops. In the SEC while basketball investment is beginning to pay off it still is a football culture. In the ACC where you have a solid hoops reputation you have only a couple of prominent football programs at any one time.
The trick therefore is to strengthen the SEC where it is weakest but not in a financially powerful way. This rules out Texas and Oklahoma which would tilt the balance of power nationally in their favor both financially and in brand dominance for football. This would kill football nationally. It would severely hurt football if those 2 went to the Big 10. However, the interest out west is too weak for UT and OU to either substantially help the PAC 12 or to benefit themselves financially.
You can however build a third competitive conference in football both financially and brand wise if you build around them with Notre Dame and the 2 usually competitive ACC programs (2 of Clemson, Miami, Florida State, or another). With those changes you can't have a culture clash between the egos at North Carolina and Duke and to a lesser extent Virginia all who offer solid and historic basketball but seldom solid football and Notre Dame, Texas and Oklahoma. Duke and UNC and UVa when matched with Kentucky and perhaps Kansas would sustain their prominence longer with SEC payouts where they would remain hoops darlings without making the SEC much wealthier, and in a conference where their football venues would remain solid attraction to traveling fans, but where their need to be competitive in football would not be essential to the conferences well being.
So you have 3 conferences which really are competitive and some tremendous cross conference rivalries to draw interest from Texas to the Eastern Seaboard.
Expanding just for dominance ruins the possibility of restoring interest, and in preserving traditional basketball brands which if you haven't noticed have been losing ground steadily to better funded hoops programs belonging to football first schools. Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke have lost such ground. Virginia seems to be fine. Some of that is one and done, some of that is coaching, but Auburn, Baylor, Texas Tech, Alabama, Florida State, and Miami have all made much more noise than usual and that is no accident. It's trickle down from successful athletic programs that lead with football.
So what I hypothetically proposed is a potential solution to an existing problem which will only get worse with NIL and devastatingly so if stipend caps are raised or lifted.
(05-18-2021 08:04 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2021 06:47 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.
For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.
One thing I'm struggling with here is this. If I'm the SEC, and somehow I manage to convince UNC, Duke and Virginia to join us, why not just add UT, OU, OK State and Kansas to join as well? The SEC could get all the advantages it seeks with respect to geography, academics and hoops while improving on its dominance in football. It would still have the highest per team media revenue as well.
Your divisions:
East: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Vandy
West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M
At that point, you propose a 16 team playoff, consisting of all the division champions in the SEC, B1G, ACC and PAC plus 7 at large teams beginning on Thanksgiving weekend. For its part, the ACC accommodates Notre Dame by only requiring that they play the five schools in their division plus one from the other division so they can easily keep their national schedule.
What would keep the SEC from doing this?
Size is important to a productive structure for a region, or in the case of the Southeast/Southwest regions. The idea in athletics which are predicated upon audience is to have competitiveness. In setting up these conferences however there are inherently some geographical limitations. The potential remedies for the PAC 12 are damaged most by geography. The Big 10 has enough strength in both football and basketball to be competitive. The Big 12 is sandwiched between the inaccessible, due to travel costs, (PAC) and the unobtainable due to the strength and longstanding relationships of the Big 10 and SEC, an affliction that also creates issues for the ACC.
So when looking at the three conferences that share the most sports culture the best marketing ploy is to make them as equivalent as possible to feed rivalries and public interest. That means that whatever approach is taken needs to address economic inequities and athletic ones as well. In the Southeast/west geography can be reasonably dealt with by concentrating divisions which will make up the bulk of a schedule.
If the issue is balance you have schools in the Big 12 which are both good at football and solid in hoops. In the SEC while basketball investment is beginning to pay off it still is a football culture. In the ACC where you have a solid hoops reputation you have only a couple of prominent football programs at any one time.
The trick therefore is to strengthen the SEC where it is weakest but not in a financially powerful way. This rules out Texas and Oklahoma which would tilt the balance of power nationally in their favor both financially and in brand dominance for football. This would kill football nationally. It would severely hurt football if those 2 went to the Big 10. However, the interest out west is too weak for UT and OU to either substantially help the PAC 12 or to benefit themselves financially.
You can however build a third competitive conference in football both financially and brand wise if you build around them with Notre Dame and the 2 usually competitive ACC programs (2 of Clemson, Miami, Florida State, or another). With those changes you can't have a culture clash between the egos at North Carolina and Duke and to a lesser extent Virginia all who offer solid and historic basketball but seldom solid football and Notre Dame, Texas and Oklahoma. Duke and UNC and UVa when matched with Kentucky and perhaps Kansas would sustain their prominence longer with SEC payouts where they would remain hoops darlings without making the SEC much wealthier, and in a conference where their football venues would remain solid attraction to traveling fans, but where their need to be competitive in football would not be essential to the conferences well being.
So you have 3 conferences which really are competitive and some tremendous cross conference rivalries to draw interest from Texas to the Eastern Seaboard.
Expanding just for dominance ruins the possibility of restoring interest, and in preserving traditional basketball brands which if you haven't noticed have been losing ground steadily to better funded hoops programs belonging to football first schools. Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke have lost such ground. Virginia seems to be fine. Some of that is one and done, some of that is coaching, but Auburn, Baylor, Texas Tech, Alabama, Florida State, and Miami have all made much more noise than usual and that is no accident. It's trickle down from successful athletic programs that lead with football.
So what I hypothetically proposed is a potential solution to an existing problem which will only get worse with NIL and devastatingly so if stipend caps are raised or lifted.
I can't disagree with anything you have said. That's the best answer for the long run. What I can't see is the likelihood that in a culture where achieving "We're Number One" status is a prime motivator, you could get enough votes within the SEC to take such a magnanimous view in the short run. That's not a knock on the SEC - when I say "culture" I'm referring to the entire country. It's why we obsessively want to rank anything and everything. We want to win, even in realignment, and even when that leads to sub-optimization for the sport as a whole (and eventually to all its subsets).
(05-18-2021 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2021 08:04 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-18-2021 06:47 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 08:20 AM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2021 07:53 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Is the SEC going to cooperate and add members to accommodate ESPN’s Big 12/ACC mega conference though?
I’m not seeing the incentive.
It addresses the SEC's academic profile in a major way with 4 AAU schools, it jumps the SEC's basketball profile with 4 historic programs and it adds 3 new states to the footprint bringing the entire South into the SEC's profile, and it does not damage our football profile. As long as pro rata is observed our Presidents would be quite happy and our football win / loss percentage in conference would improve. More importantly however is we would not lose any ground by seeing either OU or UT heading to the Big 10.
For college football that gives the nation 3 balanced conferences where viewing is the strongest. The PAC can grow its conference more naturally or ally itself with the Big 10 less formally than with a merger.
One thing I'm struggling with here is this. If I'm the SEC, and somehow I manage to convince UNC, Duke and Virginia to join us, why not just add UT, OU, OK State and Kansas to join as well? The SEC could get all the advantages it seeks with respect to geography, academics and hoops while improving on its dominance in football. It would still have the highest per team media revenue as well.
Your divisions:
East: Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida
Central: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Vandy
West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M
At that point, you propose a 16 team playoff, consisting of all the division champions in the SEC, B1G, ACC and PAC plus 7 at large teams beginning on Thanksgiving weekend. For its part, the ACC accommodates Notre Dame by only requiring that they play the five schools in their division plus one from the other division so they can easily keep their national schedule.
What would keep the SEC from doing this?
Size is important to a productive structure for a region, or in the case of the Southeast/Southwest regions. The idea in athletics which are predicated upon audience is to have competitiveness. In setting up these conferences however there are inherently some geographical limitations. The potential remedies for the PAC 12 are damaged most by geography. The Big 10 has enough strength in both football and basketball to be competitive. The Big 12 is sandwiched between the inaccessible, due to travel costs, (PAC) and the unobtainable due to the strength and longstanding relationships of the Big 10 and SEC, an affliction that also creates issues for the ACC.
So when looking at the three conferences that share the most sports culture the best marketing ploy is to make them as equivalent as possible to feed rivalries and public interest. That means that whatever approach is taken needs to address economic inequities and athletic ones as well. In the Southeast/west geography can be reasonably dealt with by concentrating divisions which will make up the bulk of a schedule.
If the issue is balance you have schools in the Big 12 which are both good at football and solid in hoops. In the SEC while basketball investment is beginning to pay off it still is a football culture. In the ACC where you have a solid hoops reputation you have only a couple of prominent football programs at any one time.
The trick therefore is to strengthen the SEC where it is weakest but not in a financially powerful way. This rules out Texas and Oklahoma which would tilt the balance of power nationally in their favor both financially and in brand dominance for football. This would kill football nationally. It would severely hurt football if those 2 went to the Big 10. However, the interest out west is too weak for UT and OU to either substantially help the PAC 12 or to benefit themselves financially.
You can however build a third competitive conference in football both financially and brand wise if you build around them with Notre Dame and the 2 usually competitive ACC programs (2 of Clemson, Miami, Florida State, or another). With those changes you can't have a culture clash between the egos at North Carolina and Duke and to a lesser extent Virginia all who offer solid and historic basketball but seldom solid football and Notre Dame, Texas and Oklahoma. Duke and UNC and UVa when matched with Kentucky and perhaps Kansas would sustain their prominence longer with SEC payouts where they would remain hoops darlings without making the SEC much wealthier, and in a conference where their football venues would remain solid attraction to traveling fans, but where their need to be competitive in football would not be essential to the conferences well being.
So you have 3 conferences which really are competitive and some tremendous cross conference rivalries to draw interest from Texas to the Eastern Seaboard.
Expanding just for dominance ruins the possibility of restoring interest, and in preserving traditional basketball brands which if you haven't noticed have been losing ground steadily to better funded hoops programs belonging to football first schools. Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina and Duke have lost such ground. Virginia seems to be fine. Some of that is one and done, some of that is coaching, but Auburn, Baylor, Texas Tech, Alabama, Florida State, and Miami have all made much more noise than usual and that is no accident. It's trickle down from successful athletic programs that lead with football.
So what I hypothetically proposed is a potential solution to an existing problem which will only get worse with NIL and devastatingly so if stipend caps are raised or lifted.
I can't disagree with anything you have said. That's the best answer for the long run. What I can't see is the likelihood that in a culture where achieving "We're Number One" status is a prime motivator, you could get enough votes within the SEC to take such a magnanimous view in the short run. That's not a knock on the SEC - when I say "culture" I'm referring to the entire country. It's why we obsessively want to rank anything and everything. We want to win, even in realignment, and even when that leads to sub-optimization for the sport as a whole (and eventually to all its subsets).
That is perhaps the only situation where the corporate mindset would be welcomed. It would be their approach to save the product and to urge the most profitable outcome which would involve keeping some equity in the games. The gambling industry, also usually unwelcomed, would have an interest in preserving the games as well.
The SEC presidents would be persuaded because their revenue is solid and they would want the academic associations. That's the selling point for them. The commissioners all have close associations with the networks. So that would help. It's the AD's and boosters who would want dominance. So they are the ones who need to be sold on balance for long term survival and balance by improving hoops in the SEC. All of the four entering programs play good to stellar baseball. And lacrosse associations would have to remain the same while the SEC encouraged Vanderbilt, Florida, and perhaps Tennessee or Georgia to pick it up.
I could see where this particular JR plan could be beneficial to the SEC in a post 2037 climate where football no longer reigns supreme and having basketball brands is more important. (Although, if the paradigm shifts, I can see traditional football powers just using their giant war chests to buy their way into basketball’s top tier.)
In the short term, it seems far more like a favor to ESPN, the ACC, and the Texlahoma 4.
(05-18-2021 10:02 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]I could see where this particular JR plan could be beneficial to the SEC in a post 2037 climate where football no longer reigns supreme and having basketball brands is more important. (Although, if the paradigm shifts, I can see traditional football powers just using their giant war chests to buy their way into basketball’s top tier.)
In the short term, it seems far more like a favor to ESPN, the ACC, and the Texlahoma 4.
It's simply good business for all involved:
1. It builds the brand, value, and revenue for the ACC.
2. It adds to the SEC's academics and markets and helps Missouri which we need to help develop.
3. It gives Texas more power in its new conference and gives them a division of current friends to play.
4. Oklahoma would be in a more difficult conference set up but still not as many as the SEC or Big 10 would throw at them.
5. It would definitely earn some points with ESPN and in great business arrangements these favors are not forgotten.
6. It would keep the Southeast and Southwest stable.
7. If a Vanderbilt or Wake Forest bowed out due to NIL or stipends T.C.U. and West Virginia are there to fill the void.
8. I absolutely think it would bring the Big 10 and PAC 12 much closer together though not as one unit certainly much tighter in scheduling.
The Rose and Sugar bowls remain pivotal. Expansion would be at an end which is good for the long term survivability of the game, and development would be the access to the upper tier, whether that was a Toronto or Cincinnati, or someone else. The games would remain mostly regional, rivalries would be restored should we move to 5 divisional games, 2 additional conference games and encourage intersectional play with the other 5. And the intersectional play would enhance recruiting in the South for the Big 10.
(05-16-2021 07:51 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]Let's begin with an interesting correlation. I know they are only estimates of intrinsic worth based on support, regional merchandise sales, and the impacts made upon hotels, restaurants, and other aspects of schools economic impact upon their regions but the Wall Street Journal Valuations have an interesting rough but not quite exact correlation to media revenue. Roughly 1 billion in WSJ valuation translates to 10 million in media revenue.
The SEC's Value was 7.5 billion their new contract will translate in 2024-5 into roughly 70 million.
The Big 10's Value is at 5.4 billion and their most recently reported media distribution was in the 55 million range.
The PAC 12's Value was 3.0 billion and they last earned right at 32 million.
The ACC's Value was 2.2 billion but roughly half of Notre Dame's is 460 million so that translates into 27 million for the last reported income which will be highe after this year and likely more in the 32 million range. Anyway you get the point in this inexact but interesting correlation.
First there aren't enough potential valuable targets for the ACC to catch the SEC, but hypothetically they could catch the Big 10, but it would take some kind of super deal with moving parts all nursed by ESPN to make it happen.
How do you raise the 2.2 billion dollar conference value to levels equal to or exceeding the Big 10?
The answer is you have to attract Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame all in.
Texas alone has a value of 1.1 billion.
Notre Dame's value is .913 billion.
Oklahoma's is .885 billion.
Together that's roughly 2.9 billion.
Add all 3 in full to the ACC and you have a 5.1 billion dollar value.
Drop your lowest 3 valued schools and you only lose combined 225 million. (Duke, B.C., Wake Forest).
Now add Oklahoma State and Texas Tech 515 million. You now have a valuation of 5.39 billion which is a virtual tie with the Big 10. And you are at 16 members. And nobody leaves. If Texas refuses to move without more Texas schools you take Baylor and Kansas State (another 382 million) and stop at 18 in 3 divisions of 6.
Now keep in mind that even in the 16 team iteration of this plan the payout would be right at 54 million per school. Texas made 55 last year.
Notre Dame wants independence.
Oklahoma wants a solid football conference with good academics.
So the least valuable of the 3 is the only one you have a chance to land and they wouldn't come alone.
But this should put things into perspective.
It doesn't come as a surprise but the task before Phillips is monumental, though theoretically possible, and I'd say a bit more possible at 18 than 16, and without asking Duke, Wake Forest and B.C. to leave the task is a lot tougher. I think to attract Texas you would need to add a Big 12 division of 6 schools. To accomplish this you need to place 3 schools elsewhere in the ESPN family. But who has more value elsewhere than in the ACC? Basketball schools from North Carolina and Virginia would have market and hoops value to the SEC.
That might solve any internal power struggles for the ACC as well. Your new leaders would be Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State.
Perhaps an ACC that looks like this could best rival both the Big 10 and SEC?
OBE Division: Boston College, Louisville, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
OB12 Division: Baylor, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech
OACC Division: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
The SEC picks up Duke, North Carolina, Virginia and Kansas.
East: Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia
Central: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas A&M
The SEC gets pro rata for the 4 additions.
The ACC gets 62 million per school.
Why? North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Kansas need solid football revenue to remain at the top of the heap in recruiting nationwide in hoops. The SEC has plenty of football value. They get their money and the SEC accepts this face value.
The ACC finally becomes a premier football conference and is paid accordingly.
It all stays under ESPN.
JR, what is the total value of the Big 12?
It would seem the most logical thing to do would be to try to increase the value of the ACC and the PAC to equal standing to about 4 to 4.5 each.
In order to get equality, major shifting and conference engineering would have to take place....I don't think the SEC and the B1G are ready for that.