(10-27-2021 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2021 05:05 PM)Saint Bulldog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2021 07:09 PM)JRsec Wrote: [ -> ]The SEC will stand at 16 members when Oklahoma and Texas formally move. That means the SEC will have 5 of the top 10 earning programs in the United States and 11 of the top 20, and 12 of the top 25.
The SEC already is richer in blue blood football programs and adding Texas and Oklahoma makes the conference's slate of teams hands down the top conference for football.
So, if we expand again all we need do is to expand in such a way as to make the SEC an unsurpassed basketball conference as well. Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, and Virginia would not upset the power of football and added to Arkansas, Florida, L.S.U. and Kentucky would represent a massive collection of basketball history and championships.
What's more is that 3 of those 4 have stellar baseball as well and all 4 are AAU.
I can't think of a move that would bring more sports strength and balance than this one and the 4 weaker football programs do not detract from the football pedigree.
Perhaps this is how the SEC should move to 20. Clemson, FSU, and Louisville can still be played OOC.
Maybe it's time to make the SEC superior year round!
Very good post. I have been thinking that the addition of UNC, Kansas and one of the Virginia schools would be a great addition to the SEC. Of course, some say Kansas isn't in the south. But who cares!
I agree with you that making the "SEC superior year-round" would be an awesome idea and one that would move us way ahead of all other conferences in money, recruiting, and reputation. I guess Duke would be okay for #4 but for some reason, I am not 100% on board with them.
Let me ask you if you could only get 3 of the 4 - who would you choose for #4 and would that be for basketball as well or best all-around? I have thought about going after Ohio State for #4. Opinions?
The natural evolution which will occur in higher ed due to a coming 15 year lag in enrollment between 2035-2050, and which has already slowly started, could inevitably lead to consolidation moves among the top sports branded schools. Boomers are statistically irrelevant by 2035. X'er's didn't reproduce like their parents. Subsequent generations are not as well fixed financially and are burdened with all kinds of debt and extremely concerned over ROI when it comes to higher ed.
What most don't realize, and I'm not justifying this because I'm against it, is that open borders carries with it a dirty little secret. I have a friend who worked with immigrants and companies who employ them collect taxes and FICA/SSI on 3 of every 10 employed and INS never checks on the rest, wink wink. They are undocumented so they won't be applying for those funds any time soon and they supplement the maintenance of retiring Boomers without raising rates on young citizens as dramatically as they would have to otherwise. So in short it's politically popular.
2nd generation immigrants frequently don't go to college, but third generations do. So in the next 18 to 25 years the enrollment drops will be dramatic. Part of the push for old established brands to cluster is the move to insulate themselves from the cutbacks which are coming to many of the bottom 2/3rds of the G5 and all of the FCS and small privates which don't already have large endowments (and there aren't many who do).
So consolidation into a league which included Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa and Penn State is not as farfetched as many may believe.
So obviously Ohio State is a grand slam candidate, but like Texas, one which must have a specific motivation, if not fear, before they would ever leave "their" conference and if critical mass was achieved they would want friends to move with them in order to preserve the core of their heritage.
In the interim we will see regional consolidation. UNC is tied at the hip to Duke. in 2011 when Maryland departed the ACC UNC's AD called Birmingham and asked Slive if the worst happened to the ACC would they have an SEC home? Supposedly we said yes. So my conjecture was based on that knowledge. Should Duke decide to go Ivy, and that has been kicked around in gossip, who would make a great 4th? How about Notre Dame? Yeah I know, but they want deep south recruiting ties and while not a Southern school, and while not a hoops power, they add to the SEC in virtually every conceivable way, history, academically, baseball, football, national draw, major northern mid-west large metro markets, and putting them in that Northern pod with Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri actually gives them a sub division they can win often enough to keep them in the conference playoffs. There's massive dollars to be made there. Barring ND, FSU gives the SEC advertising leverage in Florida and they aren't bad at hoops or baseball.
I hope that answers your question. I just believe we will see 3 or 4 regions consolidate brands and scoop up the top half dozen G5's, and then in 15 years you may see a greater consolidation into 2 regional leagues or perhaps 1 large one.
Maybe I'm off, but the thing about trends is that once people realize what the end product is going to be, there's an inertia shift that tends to speed up the process.
Texas and Oklahoma were in a position to realize some big shifts coming so they made a move before they absolutely had to. The fallout was a lot of instability, backbiting, and some fairly revolutionary ideas being thrown out. We haven't seen the end of the reverberation, it's just less public now I'm sure.
On to the next verse...
It would seem the GOR is holding up the ACC schools although we now know those things aren't as ironclad as previously thought. It would seem they remain an impediment in some sense. Nonetheless, we can see where a rights holder like ESPN might move some things around in order to protect their investment.
What could that look like?
I don't think it will be Notre Dame joining because they simply don't want it and have little motivation. What it could be though is ESPN hastening the demise of the NCAA. The end game?
1. Allowing a basketball first conference in the ACC to maximize its advantages. All of a sudden they're more valuable. ESPN benefits from a stronger, wealthier ACC.
2. ESPN benefits from more valuable basketball content overall, but they also get the opportunity to break into March Madness in a whole new way. With basketball free from the NCAA monopoly, a new tournament with more brands emerges. The format likely doesn't change much, but there will be fewer mouths to feed for the schools and more opportunity for ESPN to crack CBS' stranglehold.
That's a stopgap as far as conference realignment goes. Mostly it's an alignment between ESPN's interests and the major schools' interests as both stand to gain considerably from basketball being untied essentially from the NCAA.
In the meantime, other leagues have more flexibility with their contracts. Some have long thought the Big Ten and PAC 12 would form a strong alliance or that the PAC 12 would be raided. Officially, the "Alliance" is a thing, but it doesn't really mean much. Going back to the theme of trends speeding up, I think the Big Ten powers might realize their situation earlier than expected. It won't be in the next couple of years, but I think it will be soon.
Their next contact will likely expire after another 6 year term or so, but I have to wonder if the next deal will have certain features that the current one does not. In other words, greater built-in flexibility because there's no one for the Big Ten to add that can match the economic power Texas and Oklahoma offer. By the time the next Big Ten deal is nearing its end, the effect of UT and OU in the SEC will be realized and no longer hypothetical.
The CFP will likely have expanded by that point offering a revenue infusion. It's entirely possible the NCAA Tournament won't exist as we currently know it either. Both of those things are good for the Big Ten, but it doesn't address any core issues.
So here's what I'm thinking...
The Big Ten is fairly top heavy when it comes to revenue producers, not as top heavy as the Big 12 was, but comparable in that there's no one for the Big Ten to add that will increase their depth. Even their last 2 additions were fairly paltry when it comes to economic influence. Rutgers and Maryland added some dollars to the TV contract, but that's it and their effect is likely short term.
The PAC 12 schools are too far away and the ACC schools are locked up for the time being. Even if the ACC schools were more free, most of the realistic options don't really solve the Big Ten's problem. A VA or NC school for them would be beneficial, more so than Rutgers or Maryland, but it would likely only aid those new additions disproportionately as they would have access to new funds. The Big Ten itself would benefit from better demographic access, but again...most of the Big Ten would still be what they are...large schools that predominantly reside in states that are struggling to grow economically.
Raiding the ACC is akin to AT&T buying up DirecTV. It has value in the marketplace, but the technology is on the way out and eventually it's more trouble than it's worth. More accurately, adding ACC schools could patch some holes, but it doesn't change the fact you're in a boat out away from land. The Big Ten needs access to better demographics, but gobbling up a few schools in growing markets won't reverse any trends on a macro scale. If anything, it will open up the new schools to more recruits from legacy Big Ten states, providing more and more opportunities for those students to leave behind the Midwestern economic structure.
Even accessing CA would be a problem for the Big Ten if it was doable. Plenty of new money and plenty of new problems too. The political landscape has become detrimental to growth and new trends are emerging that might just indicate CA is beginning a slow slide into economic depression. And who knows when the next bizarre mandate might come down that directly harms the Big Ten's interests. I suppose it's neither here nor there.
The point is that the Big Ten, much like the Big 12, is stuck in a place where they're mostly fine, but hemmed in. Notre Dame is not coming and the SEC is now in a position of strength when it comes to maneuvering nationally. I think half the reason the "Alliance" was formed was simply to give the Big Ten a renewed sense that they're leading the pack. In reality, they are not, but for a moment, perhaps they felt more confident about their ability to direct their own future. There may very well be several whole conferences that will oppose the SEC, but it's not going to matter. Democracy is gone.
The reality is that economic trends, that turned into patterns quite some time ago, are about to really bear some fruit.
One way that might occur is if the Big Ten leaders, who seem discontent and divided anyway, realize there's no stopping this. Try to work the problem and maintain as much of your lifestyle as possible, that's about all you can do. You can't beat 'em so you might as well join 'em.
There's a handful of Big Ten schools that would be immeasurably better off if they simply didn't bother trying to save the other half of the conference.