(02-17-2014 03:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  The death of the Big 10 is inevitable. The only question is how long it takes. 10 years, 150 years? Same for the SEC.

YEP. People fail to realize it, but even the Big Ten WILL die - the only variable is time.

(02-17-2014 06:15 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  If the Big 12 revenue streams fall behind it will die. If it maintains equal or better revenue streams, as it does currently, it will be fine. It really just comes down to that. Number of teams really doesn't matter in the equation.

TRUE. If the Big XII remains #1 (or at least not #5), I doubt anyone leaves UNLESS the SEC recruits Texas to such an extent that teams feel they can no longer compete on the field unless they switch leagues (of course, this year COULD just be a fluke).

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

One thing that I believe is grossly under-considered in the realignment thinking is fan and school culture.

Arkansas wasn't eager to join the SEC just because they were afraid UT and TAMU might. The truth is Arkansas fans never felt at home in the SWC despite being there three quarters of a century. Only a small portion of Arkansas has a "southwest" culture (ie Oklahoma, Eastern Texas, none is west Texas nor New Mexico). Downtown Ft. Smith would the perfect place to film a movie set in Ft. Worth circa 1940-1970 because of the architecture. Little Rock has been economically oriented toward Dallas since the 1970's but most of Arkansas is culturally more akin to the SE than the SW or the midwest. The I-540 corridor north of the Hopper tunnel culturally is closer to much of the old Big 8 territory.

Arkansas not fitting in made Arkansas ripe for the picking.

Anyone who has spent much time in Missouri knows there is a wedge shaped portion of the southern part of the state that is culturally close to the SEC culture while the remainder of the state is culturally akin to the plains states on the west and the midwest on the eastern side of the state. For every fan in Kansas City apalled that Mizzou went SEC there were fans in Cape and Sikeston who felt Mizzou had finally been set free.

Having attended games around much of the country, I'm still not sold on Mizzou in the SEC because the gameday experience there reminds me far more of Iowa or Nebraska than LSU or Ole Miss.

Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

The benefit Arkansas has in the SEC is the league is full of titans who have a mutual distrust yet mutual desire to play one another. Nothing gets done in the SEC without coalition building. The Hogs have greater influence in the SEC because they can be a swing vote.

(02-18-2014 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

The benefit Arkansas has in the SEC is the league is full of titans who have a mutual distrust yet mutual desire to play one another. Nothing gets done in the SEC without coalition building. The Hogs have greater influence in the SEC because they can be a swing vote.

That was truer when Arkansas first came into the Conference. Coalition is not the operative word now. Consensus is more the operative word and there have been precious few business votes held until a general consensus is reached. There is even less tension that way. This is what I believe may be the biggest unsung legacy of the Slive era. Everything now is discussed focusing on the bottom line. It's not void of its petty differences and gamesmanship, but the commissioner does a great job of forcing everyone to keep their eyes on the bigger issue. That's why our branding had an opportunity to skyrocket. And that's why the share and share alike policy of the conference has made a collection of behemoths finally realize that they need each other to maximize everything.

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

WRT to UT/OU influence here, you can say the same about Bama(SEC), Michigan/tOSU (B1G), the Carolina Mafia (ACC), and the California schools in the PAC as those schools hold sway in those leagues.

Also last I checked pretty much every realignment move has featured the new school getting less influence than it had before politically. That would not be unique to us.

(02-18-2014 10:22 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

The benefit Arkansas has in the SEC is the league is full of titans who have a mutual distrust yet mutual desire to play one another. Nothing gets done in the SEC without coalition building. The Hogs have greater influence in the SEC because they can be a swing vote.

That was truer when Arkansas first came into the Conference. Coalition is not the operative word now. Consensus is more the operative word and there have been precious few business votes held until a general consensus is reached. There is even less tension that way. This is what I believe may be the biggest unsung legacy of the Slive era. Everything now is discussed focusing on the bottom line. It's not void of its petty differences and gamesmanship, but the commissioner does a great job of forcing everyone to keep their eyes on the bigger issue. That's why our branding had an opportunity to skyrocket. And that's why the share and share alike policy of the conference has made a collection of behemoths finally realize that they need each other to maximize everything.

That's probably fair. Kramer used to say when he walked into a meeting 4 schools were in favor, 4 were against and the meeting was about swaying the 4 who came in not caring.

Wouldn't be surprised if Slive doesn't push forward when he has 8 votes and sets a goal of 14.

(02-18-2014 10:26 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

WRT to UT/OU influence here, you can say the same about Bama(SEC), Michigan/tOSU (B1G), the Carolina Mafia (ACC), and the California schools in the PAC as those schools hold sway in those leagues.

Also last I checked pretty much every realignment move has featured the new school getting less influence than it had before politically. That would not be unique to us.

I don't know about the interpolitics in some of the other conferences but the reason why Michigan and Ohio State hold so much "sway" in the Big Ten is because everyone else understands the fact that much of the value the Big Ten holds is due to these brands. Michigan and Ohio State do not hold a gun to the heads of the other schools, if anything it is the opposite, they are brandished by everyone in the Big Ten and expected to pull their massive weight. Of course to outsiders that can appear to be Michigan and Ohio State pushing their way around when actually quite often they are being pushed from behind.

From what I have gleened and read, it doesn't quite work the same way in the SEC as Alabama has the headquarters in their backyard and for many years used that influence in much different manner.

The Big Ten has a century of working together under it's belt. The South has had much more upheaval in it's conference systems within it's history.

As for the Southwest? I don't think there is any king of a conference that holds as much sway over the conference as Texas does. I really don't find a comparison between Texas and Ohio State/Michigan to be all that genuine. It is two very different situations.

(02-18-2014 10:26 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 09:37 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I agree with you JR, Arkansas leaving is a stretch, in all likely hood will never happen. Just for talking points, IMHO I was basing it on the historical ties and the need to be CFB relevant in making the new playoff system to have a shot at a NC, sometimes (emphasis on sometimes because this whole realignment stuff IMO has not been a totally rational process) glory overides money sometimes, especially for a fan base, as well as administrators, too. Being in a weaker B12 would make that more likely (being a big fish in a smaller pond, so to speak) to get into a playoff and a shot at a NC. Especially if the money gap could be closed with any move, because them shifting, would move some money over the B12. I know it would be no where near the 15 mil range, but it would close the money gap some. Question is how much? Especially if they could cull a couple of P5 schools. If I was a conference commish that is exactly the road I woud attempt first, before going to a G5. Corerect me if I'm wrong the SEC has not GOR.

I understand the premise and have read similar things on many message boards including those of Texas and Oklahoma, but what you have to remember is that any P5 school who considers themselves to be a "Big Fish" for the Big 12 is delusional. No other program tops Texas in influence and profitability and any school that thought that they would move to the Big 12 to be a big fish isn't going to be one with Texas in the conference. Oklahoma is big news, but they play second fiddle to Bevo in conference politics, profitability, and national attention. Arkansas or Clemson, or even Florida State would move into the conference and immediately become #3 tops, it could be lower. That's not a big fish. That's a tuna about to be swallowed by a Great White. And the fact that the total revenue disparity is so great within that conference means that nothing is going to change the pecking order. Oklahoma State and Kansas would have more political influence than an Arkansas, Clemson, F.S.U., or Arizona school. All of those schools have as much, or more influence in their present conferences and are earning either as much or more. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the fortunes of the other P5 conferences for the Big 12 to successfully take one of their schools.

WRT to UT/OU influence here, you can say the same about Bama(SEC), Michigan/tOSU (B1G), the Carolina Mafia (ACC), and the California schools in the PAC as those schools hold sway in those leagues.

Also last I checked pretty much every realignment move has featured the new school getting less influence than it had before politically. That would not be unique to us.

Actually S11, in spite of another decent attempt at Big 12 apologetics you are dead wrong. The fact that Alabama gets the same share of the total revenue of the conference that everyone else gets is a big big difference. I might add that Ohio State and Michigan even share their gate receipts with the rest of the Big 10. The Carolina Mafia as you call them now has revenue sharing now too. It's your Big 12 where T3 rights were held in reserve for the individual school where the pecking order is maintained in spades. Texas gets 15 million for the LHN, and it goes down in descending order from there. In the SEC Texas A&M now has an equal voice, as does Missouri, as does Arkansas, and as does South Carolina. Alabama has to reach a general consensus with everyone else before they can get something they want passed. It is very very different from the Big 12. I believe this became that way because we have an assemblage of state leaders. Kentucky is our Kansas, but then we have Georgia, Florida, L.S.U., and Tennessee all of whom are just as big of a fish as Alabama is institutionally speaking. And my in state Tigers along with the Tide and 3 other SEC schools are in the top 10 in the nation in profitability. That too is a major difference between the two conferences. No doubt Alabama would try to wield the power of Texas if they were in a conference where there were only two top 10 earners and a bunch of teams ranked between the 30's and 40's in earnings power behind them. But in the SEC 5 are in the top 10 and 9 are in the top 20. So the two are very different.

The very fact that Texas wants a fiefdom is telling. The reason the Big 12 is under duress and the reason that 4 flagship schools defected is exactly because there was entrenched inequity in the Big 12 that didn't exist in the PAC, Big 10, and SEC. I the days of polls and bowls playing a couple of top notch opponents and a bunch of weaker schools was the ticket to the National Championship as proclaimed by the AP and UPI. The BCS changes that slightly and the CCG changed it slightly. Now you had to play 4 or 5 quality teams to accomplish what you once had under the bowls and polls system.

What made the SEC take off was the denser competition level within the conference. As SEC schools learned that it was in their best interest to work with each other the conference got stronger. First Kramer and now Slive have helped everyone to see that. The model for success is utilizing each others' strengths to build a brand and command a greater audience and garner greater profits. The old model is now outdated and is so because of its inefficiencies and inequities. Had the Big 12 with brands like Texas and Oklahoma gone to a total revenue sharing model you might have landed a Florida State or Clemson when things first got riled up and I doubt that Nebraska or Missouri would have departed. But all of that happened because your business model is anachronistic and that makes you very different.

My premise on Arkansas or any other school to join B12 from P5. Would you rather be a equal among equal (SEC) even in this situation some are more equal than others; or be more equal than say others and be Titan number 3 among the rest (B12) knowing what you know about Texas /OU clout, but be willing to trade that for a more true legtimate shot at having a run at playoff/ NC every 1 or 2 years in B12 or every 5-7 years in the SEC. With a small revenue hit to the pocket book, possibly.

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Agree, especially when the playoffs take hold.

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

If you parse the google data on what parts of the country are passionate about college football what emerges is most every place where college football is at or near the top in interest sits inside the membership of B1G and SEC.

Oklahoma is about it for places that are college football crazy that don't have at least one member of those two leagues.

That doesn't mean it's not a high value product outside those areas but there is certainly some added value to being that high impact.

Let's say on a typical Saturday a small fry like Arkansas State has 30k in the stands (not uncommon especially early season) and the game draws 70k viewers in Arkansas on ESPNU. That's drawing the interest of about 3.5% of the state and Temple has the same crowd and the same number of TV viewers in Philadelphia metro area that's roughly 1.5% of the market.

Same raw number of people watching in person or on TV but an advertiser trying to reach the state of Arkansas is reaching a larger part of the market overall. There are fewer options to reach that large of a percentage of the market (remember nationally the BCS title game is viewed in about 15% of homes). The advertiser in Philadelphia has more avenues to reach that percentage of the market.

When you consider that it is not unheard of for an SEC game to reach 70% of Alabama, there is simply no substitute.

The SEC and B1G offer a product with no comparable substitute in most of their markets.

If the SEC wanted to and did successfully persuade UT, OU, UNC and Duke to join forces their market force would be a license to print money. I just have my doubts that any of those four would be inclined to do so but it would be for factors other than money.

(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

The Big 12 sponsors the least amount of sports of all the Major Conferences. Texas could afford to compete in so many other sports if they belonged in a conference that sponsored more sports.

(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

The revenue model of the ACC allows their members to stay within reach of one another and allows them to remain within the family.

I have my doubts that were the SEC to pursue Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma State, Baylor or the Big 10 were to pursue Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State that any of them would elect to remain in the Big XII.

The thing is, there is a long list of schools who would line up to affiliate with UT and OU because trailing those two by multiple millions would still make them wealthier than they are today with greater access to the national stage than they currently enjoy, so there will always be a Big XII as long as UT and OU are content and content with the schools they have to add to continue to enjoy their current situation.

(02-18-2014 11:44 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

If you parse the google data on what parts of the country are passionate about college football what emerges is most every place where college football is at or near the top in interest sits inside the membership of B1G and SEC.

Oklahoma is about it for places that are college football crazy that don't have at least one member of those two leagues.

That doesn't mean it's not a high value product outside those areas but there is certainly some added value to being that high impact.

Let's say on a typical Saturday a small fry like Arkansas State has 30k in the stands (not uncommon especially early season) and the game draws 70k viewers in Arkansas on ESPNU. That's drawing the interest of about 3.5% of the state and Temple has the same crowd and the same number of TV viewers in Philadelphia metro area that's roughly 1.5% of the market.

Same raw number of people watching in person or on TV but an advertiser trying to reach the state of Arkansas is reaching a larger part of the market overall. There are fewer options to reach that large of a percentage of the market (remember nationally the BCS title game is viewed in about 15% of homes). The advertiser in Philadelphia has more avenues to reach that percentage of the market.

When you consider that it is not unheard of for an SEC game to reach 70% of Alabama, there is simply no substitute.

The SEC and B1G offer a product with no comparable substitute in most of their markets.

If the SEC wanted to and did successfully persuade UT, OU, UNC and Duke to join forces their market force would be a license to print money. I just have my doubts that any of those four would be inclined to do so but it would be for factors other than money.

In all likelihood Carolina will not have the need to act, especially if they are successful with a conference network. The disparity and lack of a significant upside will prompt movement in the Big 12 eventually. Those factors contributed to the departure of 4 major schools already. The impetus for those moves has not magically disappeared. Texas can wait it out. I'm not so sure about Oklahoma and Kansas.

(02-18-2014 11:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:33 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Institutions will certainly follow the money but when the money is roughly equal they will go where they are better aligned philosophically and culturally. When Arkansas made the move to the SEC it was pretty much a lateral move financially and we may see something like that happen again when someone figures a lateral move for a better fit is worth it. I just don't see ACC moving to Big XII or vice versa.

I agree with this general statement.

Right now the monies are too similar from conference to conference for any movement to occur, and most conferences have fairly good cultural/ historical fits as well. There are some exceptions- WVU in the Big 12- but overall I see a period of stability since there is both revenue and cultural stability pretty much across the board.

Revenue parity will no longer exist within two years, and it really won't be that close. The Big 10 will bust through that barrier followed in 2017-8 by the SEC. That's why I have my doubts about "Peace in our time".

Maybe, but I have my doubts that it will be dramatic, if much difference at all. The conference based TV networks is the biggest thing that could lead to revenue disparity, but the biggest fish in the Big 12 pond- Texas, OU and KU make a ton off their third tier rights already. Texas in particular has such a high revenue threshold point already that it is going to be tough for even the best case SEC or Big 10 scenarios to match the revenue streams they have now.

Texas will be on par with the Big 10 or SEC even after the network revenue kicks in. Oklahoma will trail by about 7 to 8 million as will Kansas. The question becomes not one of when Texas will find it necessary to move, but rather at what point does Kansas and Oklahoma find it necessary to move especially since either of them would be welcome in any of the other P5 conferences. The disparity for the rest will become palpable. And the Big 12 is not the only conference that will be affected by this. Should for any reason the ACC not get a network things could become problematic for them as well. But even if the disparity arises it will be 2026 before it hits the fan for the ACC because they aren't going to lose 12 schools prior to the end of the GOR. It would be much easier to place 8 of the Big 12 schools and that's the only reason that anything could happen there prior to the scheduled end of the GOR.

Well, you (and I) are both making assumptions on the future revenue numbers. Lots of variables in play. I usually avoid these type discussions, because there is so much guess work, but using your example, I don't think even a 7 million dollar gradient difference would cause OU or KU to move, especially when legal fees and penalties could easily eat that up quickly, not to mention the political fallout of leaving behind state institutions. I think it would need to be a bigger gradient than that. I think they'd need to increase revenue by 50% or so to overcome the status quo threshold they'd have to surpass. I doubt a 20-25% increase would be enough.