Good thoughts, JR. A school that does not come up much as a potential drop is Georgia Tech, but I think the right circumstances could push them out. For instance, if all of the private schools except Stanford, USC, and Notre Dame said to the heck with it, I can see schools like Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh dropping if those other private schools (namely Miami, Vandy, Duke, WF, NW, BC, Cuse) would let them in their newly formed conference. Everything about Georgia Tech recently suggests de-emphasizing... not at the rate of Miami, but a decline compared to other public school programs, nonetheless.

Although a schools like Washington State and either of the Mississippi schools would appear more deserving of the chopping block, I think those schools will fight tooth and nail to stay with the top tier. I don't sense that urgency from Georgia Tech. We may be surprised by who decides to opt out if the requirements become too professional looking; although I am certainly not suggesting that they are thinking in these terms, the public schools I can see with the "forget it" mentality are Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Purdue, and maybe a few surprises like Virginia, Michigan, and California. This next move by the top tier better be well laid out with clear consensus before anything is announced. There are so many conflicting agendas and egos involved when your range is from Stanford to West Virginia that all the ducks had better be in a row.

(04-04-2014 02:04 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good thoughts, JR. A school that does not come up much as a potential drop is Georgia Tech, but I think the right circumstances could push them out. For instance, if all of the private schools except Stanford, USC, and Notre Dame said to the heck with it, I can see schools like Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh dropping if those other private schools (namely Miami, Vandy, Duke, WF, NW, BC, Cuse) would let them in their newly formed conference. Everything about Georgia Tech recently suggests de-emphasizing... not at the rate of Miami, but a decline compared to other public school programs, nonetheless.

Although a schools like Washington State and either of the Mississippi schools would appear more deserving of the chopping block, I think those schools will fight tooth and nail to stay with the top tier. I don't sense that urgency from Georgia Tech. We may be surprised by who decides to opt out if the requirements become too professional looking; although I am certainly not suggesting that they are thinking in these terms, the public schools I can see with the "forget it" mentality are Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Purdue, and maybe a few surprises like Virginia, Michigan, and California. This next move by the top tier better be well laid out with clear consensus before anything is announced. There are so many conflicting agendas and egos involved when your range is from Stanford to West Virginia that all the ducks had better be in a row.

I considered Georgia Tech and Purdue as possible drops, but I also thought of their alumni pressure to stay involved. I think Syracuse will make a push to stay if it comes to it. I briefly pondered Cal, but the one I should have thought of that you did was Virginia. I think you could be right about any or all of these except Michigan. Having lived there the culture of the fan base is more akin to the SEC than any of the other schools excepting Michigan State and Ohio State. I don't see them dropping out at all. There academic leadership might lean that way, but the alumni base is solidly behind the athletics.

I also agree that gaining a consensus is going to have difficulties, but remember this: An idea is a hard concept with which to find unity ever, a crisis is an entirely other matter. I actually think a breakaway is much closer than anyone thinks, but it is because of the growing crises surrounding the sport. I think what you are going to see (and the reason I favor two leagues) is that once the unity to breakaway is reached, and the crises are managed, that more fundamental differences will lead to two separate approaches to college athletics. In such a climate I could more easily see a Virginia separating from the South along with Georgia Tech, and we might see a couple of Northern or Western schools move more in the direction of the approach the SEC might take.

In that regard it would be more like the issues that once divided the Southern Conference into the SEC and ACC.

I just truly believe we are very close to critical mass for separation, if we haven't already reached it. If for no other reason than the composition and mass of the NCAA will prove far too cumbersome to deal effectively with the issues at hand.

I think the solution that the I-AAA and FCS schools derailed (current NCAA limit scholie plus a stipend) is the likely model because COA depends not just on the school cost but the cost of living in each community. Cal and Stanford in a true COA would be able to offer more cash than say Baylor and Texas Tech. The coaches don't want a system where a coach comes in and says we can give you X dollars more cash than they can even if the bigger number has identical spending power.

The core of most NCAA regulation is that sort of paranoia and always has been.

(04-04-2014 03:47 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think the solution that the I-AAA and FCS schools derailed (current NCAA limit scholie plus a stipend) is the likely model because COA depends not just on the school cost but the cost of living in each community. Cal and Stanford in a true COA would be able to offer more cash than say Baylor and Texas Tech. The coaches don't want a system where a coach comes in and says we can give you X dollars more cash than they can even if the bigger number has identical spending power.

The core of most NCAA regulation is that sort of paranoia and always has been.

The only workaround I see here is to non monetize the actual cost of the education. A free ride for books, lodging, tuition, fees, and all actual costs created by enrollment are simply waived and the goods and services provided. The only distinguishing factor then becomes the reputation of the school and that is a natural benefit that cannot be minimized and shouldn't be minimized because that is where educational institutions should seek their advantage.

Then the living money is set the same everywhere. If that goes farther in one place than another that too is a natural advantage that should not be taken away as it forces efforts in this regard for efficiency.

The paranoia comes from those things not specified that can be manipulated for an advantage. Take the dollar figure out of the actual education and a free education just becomes a free education. Living expense just becomes living expense. Reputation and location remain the variables we agree to live with.

Jr, do you think Baylor would really make the jump?

(04-05-2014 11:43 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Jr, do you think Baylor would really make the jump?

Unless the Union situation was totally prohibitive, I do think they would make the jump. They've spent way to much on their new football stadium and other sports enhancements to just abandon them. Plus like Duke and Vanderbilt I don't think they have a money problem. Also Medic their enrollment isn't as low as a Wake Forest, and their local backing is much stronger than a Miami or Pitt or Boston College.

Not only that, but Baylor is not a Stanford or NWU or Vandy or Duke kind of elite private school. In fact they are really nothing special academically compared to many good publics like UT and A&M or fellow private schools like TCU and SMU and are far below the local elite privates Rice and Tulane.

The only thing Baylor has had to sell themselves over these other local private schools (until TCUs recent promotion) was their unearned membership in the Big 12 given to them by TX politics. A Baylor trying to sell its dogmatic religious atmosphere, expensive tuition and Waco location (TX biggest and most boring retirement community) without the benefit of big time college athletics is a Baylor barely holding on to survival as a school.

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

(04-05-2014 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

It sounds like the part I am missing is that we are operating on the premise that there is no limit to what a network can charge for its product. If a school doesn't add the needed value to a conference, the network pays the conference anyway, and simply raises its rates to make up the difference. Is this correct?

(04-05-2014 04:43 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

It sounds like the part I am missing is that we are operating on the premise that there is no limit to what a network can charge for its product. If a school doesn't add the needed value to a conference, the network pays the conference anyway, and simply raises its rates to make up the difference. Is this correct?

I guess it would depend on the value of # of people who drop their subscriptions vs. the amount of new subscribers+ retained subscribers. Interesting thought..

(04-05-2014 04:43 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

It sounds like the part I am missing is that we are operating on the premise that there is no limit to what a network can charge for its product. If a school doesn't add the needed value to a conference, the network pays the conference anyway, and simply raises its rates to make up the difference. Is this correct?

Nope. The SEC is projected to earn 35 million per school by the third year of operation of the network. Both the ACC and Big 12 schools will earn between 23 plus T3 for the Big 12 by 2018 and around 27 from all sources for the ACC by 2018. For most of the Big 12 schools the + T3 will come in around 3 million. For Kansas and Oklahoma the gross will be 7 minus expenses so around 5 to 5.5 million. WVU will be in that neighborhood as well on the NET side. Texas is plus 11 million for the LHN.

If the need is there for ESPN to shelter ACC property and some of its Big 12 property by creating one large conference the actual costs to do so are not that significantly great. They essentially pay for 28 of the SEC and ACC schools now (minus the CBS portion of the SEC contract). They pay over half for Texas and Kansas. ESPN gets to cut out its overhead obligation to the ACC for a network if they merge the ACC with the SEC and they can essentially get the 36 schools of the new conference to buy out the LHN expense by skimming the additional money by around 300,000 per school for 12 years (the remaining term of the LHN extended from the end of 2018). And assuming part of the need here for ESPN to encourage such a move would be a FOX or a FOX/NBC move to consolidate interests in the Big 10/PAC it might also be assumed that ESPN's overhead in costs for those two conferences would be reduced.

So their additional costs of boosting the merger teams to 37 or 38 million per year per school would not be that prohibitive. 42 million for the SEC, 154 million for the ACC, 4 million for Texas, 27 million total for Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (if WVU is included), and around 48 million for the other 4 Big 12 schools. So for a total increase initially of about 275 million a year such a conference can be formed. But that's just the initial outlay. Subtracted from that expense would be the overhead of starting an ACCN, subtracted would be their former expense in the PAC leases and in the Big 10's T1 content, subtracted from that is the added content value of games between Texas and F.S.U., Texas and Florida, Texas and Alabama, Texas and L.S.U., Texas and Georgia, etc, and duplicated for Oklahoma and multiplied by the hoops match ups for Kansas vs the ACC or Baylor vs the ACC in hoops would also offset the investment. The money and advertising rights from the internal conference championship playoff would also easily eclipse their expense in making such a move. And as I'm sure FOX or FOX / NBC would do with the Big 10 / PAC excess games would be leased out defraying further costs. The schools with added bowl tie ins would net a bit more and two whole shares of conference expenses would go back into the division of income as well.

So no it's not dependent upon the network paying out endless sums of money. It's about controlling the most dominant portion of the college football and basketball market for little additional expense and lots of shaved overhead.

In the end each school after additional playoff revenues are calculated and bowl money is added up should wind up receiving north of $40 million per school per year.

Then by setting up the conference divisional breakdown regionally to control the overhead expenses of minor sports part of the schools' overhead will be cut and their closest rivals preserved. And that also means for the top schools they essentially have to beat out 5 of their regular old foes to qualify for the playoff. That access is far more certain that the system we have now.

It's the structure, the content of the structure, and the exclusivity of the internal playoff system that will prove most profitable for the networks.

If ESPN puts its concentration here, instead of trying to have a piece of everything, they will come out way ahead.

Now as for what a network can charge for its product the SEC is presently projecting a $1.30 for its cable charges for the new network. Considering the new market footprint would cover Texas and Florida and extend to Massachusetts and New York with everything in between included I don't think ESPN would need to go up on that rate at all to make it a winner. The only caveat I could foresee would be if we eventually had three channels each covering 12 regional schools and there was a bundled rate. That way you could maximize regional advertising in addition to making sure there were key games on each to generate some national advertising. Any package including 7 of the 10 most profitable schools in the nation and 3/4's of the top 20 will have a large national draw by followers of college football and basketball.

Also to address what was your initial concern, if you look at the schools in the 28 team model listed in the thread opening I think that you will find that there is more per team value than in the 36 team model by far and should the weaker privates drop out that could become a possibility and would be more profitable still than what I've been talking about with 36.

Ideally what all of us would want is handcuffed by the required number of schools it takes to dissolve the respective conferences. But something like the following would be wonderful:

North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

But there are way too many political obstacles to be able to move there.

(04-05-2014 07:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:43 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

It sounds like the part I am missing is that we are operating on the premise that there is no limit to what a network can charge for its product. If a school doesn't add the needed value to a conference, the network pays the conference anyway, and simply raises its rates to make up the difference. Is this correct?

Nope. The SEC is projected to earn 35 million per school by the third year of operation of the network. Both the ACC and Big 12 schools will earn between 23 plus T3 for the Big 12 by 2018 and around 27 from all sources for the ACC by 2018. For most of the Big 12 schools the + T3 will come in around 3 million. For Kansas and Oklahoma the gross will be 7 minus expenses so around 5 to 5.5 million. WVU will be in that neighborhood as well on the NET side. Texas is plus 11 million for the LHN.

If the need is there for ESPN to shelter ACC property and some of its Big 12 property by creating one large conference the actual costs to do so are not that significantly great. They essentially pay for 28 of the SEC and ACC schools now (minus the CBS portion of the SEC contract). They pay over half for Texas and Kansas. ESPN gets to cut out its overhead obligation to the ACC for a network if they merge the ACC with the SEC and they can essentially get the 36 schools of the new conference to buy out the LHN expense by skimming the additional money by around 300,000 per school for 12 years (the remaining term of the LHN extended from the end of 2018). And assuming part of the need here for ESPN to encourage such a move would be a FOX or a FOX/NBC move to consolidate interests in the Big 10/PAC it might also be assumed that ESPN's overhead in costs for those two conferences would be reduced.

So their additional costs of boosting the merger teams to 37 or 38 million per year per school would not be that prohibitive. 42 million for the SEC, 154 million for the ACC, 4 million for Texas, 27 million total for Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (if WVU is included), and around 48 million for the other 4 Big 12 schools. So for a total increase initially of about 275 million a year such a conference can be formed. But that's just the initial outlay. Subtracted from that expense would be the overhead of starting an ACCN, subtracted would be their former expense in the PAC leases and in the Big 10's T1 content, subtracted from that is the added content value of games between Texas and F.S.U., Texas and Florida, Texas and Alabama, Texas and L.S.U., Texas and Georgia, etc, and duplicated for Oklahoma and multiplied by the hoops match ups for Kansas vs the ACC or Baylor vs the ACC in hoops would also offset the investment. The money and advertising rights from the internal conference championship playoff would also easily eclipse their expense in making such a move. And as I'm sure FOX or FOX / NBC would do with the Big 10 / PAC excess games would be leased out defraying further costs. The schools with added bowl tie ins would net a bit more and two whole shares of conference expenses would go back into the division of income as well.

So no it's not dependent upon the network paying out endless sums of money. It's about controlling the most dominant portion of the college football and basketball market for little additional expense and lots of shaved overhead.

In the end each school after additional playoff revenues are calculated and bowl money is added up should wind up receiving north of $40 million per school per year.

Then by setting up the conference divisional breakdown regionally to control the overhead expenses of minor sports part of the schools' overhead will be cut and their closest rivals preserved. And that also means for the top schools they essentially have to beat out 5 of their regular old foes to qualify for the playoff. That access is far more certain that the system we have now.

It's the structure, the content of the structure, and the exclusivity of the internal playoff system that will prove most profitable for the networks.

If ESPN puts its concentration here, instead of trying to have a piece of everything, they will come out way ahead.

Now as for what a network can charge for its product the SEC is presently projecting a $1.30 for its cable charges for the new network. Considering the new market footprint would cover Texas and Florida and extend to Massachusetts and New York with everything in between included I don't think ESPN would need to go up on that rate at all to make it a winner. The only caveat I could foresee would be if we eventually had three channels each covering 12 regional schools and there was a bundled rate. That way you could maximize regional advertising in addition to making sure there were key games on each to generate some national advertising. Any package including 7 of the 10 most profitable schools in the nation and 3/4's of the top 20 will have a large national draw by followers of college football and basketball.

Also to address what was your initial concern, if you look at the schools in the 28 team model listed in the thread opening I think that you will find that there is more per team value than in the 36 team model by far and should the weaker privates drop out that could become a possibility and would be more profitable still than what I've been talking about with 36.

Ideally what all of us would want is handcuffed by the required number of schools it takes to dissolve the respective conferences. But something like the following would be wonderful:

North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

But there are way too many political obstacles to be able to move there.

To get all of those teams I would definitely take VT, WV, Clemson, and GT and be at 24, and would even go to 30 and take NCS, Louisville, OSU, TT, KSU and .... Cincinnati (If Nebraska cannot free itself from the B1G).

(04-05-2014 07:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 04:43 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-05-2014 01:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

A Few Assumptions:

1. There will be a breakaway.

2. Full cost of attendance scholarships will be given based upon the cost at each individual institution.

3. A living stipend paid monthly will be given to all athletes everywhere and will be the same sum everywhere.

4. Some schools, particularly small private schools, may opt out.

Given those parameters which schools would be left and how might they be realigned?

ACC: Teams prepared to make the breakaway: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, N.C. State, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech & *Notre Dame

ACC: Those schools that might opt out: Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest

SEC: All in.

Big 10: All in except Northwestern

PAC: All in.

Big 12: All in except T.C.U.

Option 1: 64 schools: Big 10 & PAC:

Connecticut, Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Notre Dame, Purdue, Syracuse
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

California, California Los Angeles, Southern California, Stanford
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Utah
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State

SEC & ACC:

Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, West Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Baylor, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech
Central Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, South Florida
Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State
Cincinnati, Louisville, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Option 2 Two Large Conferences Emerge

Big 10/PAC

Indiana, Maryland, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona St., Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas St., Utah

California, Cal Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

SEC/ACC

Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, South Carolina

Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana St., Mississippi, Mississippi St., Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M

Yes the weakest public program from the PAC was omitted there is no Washington State. And I am assuming that Syracuse would opt in. Notre Dame is a given, but their placement is not. However in a breakaway that resulted in two large leagues essentially, I don't see how they would receive a special status.

During most of realignment it has been assumed that all of the current P5 schools would keep their spots. If however the total financial package is put in place for the athletes I can see programs opting out, particularly small private schools and perhaps some more weakly financed public schools. Shelala has already said she intends to de-emphasize sports (football particularly) at Miami and that was before the Northwestern issue arose. Given their attendance and general direction I think they might surprise us an opt out. B.C., Pitt, Wake and T.C.U. may follow suit given the total expense involved.

I could foresee 56 schools in the new upper tier as opposed to 60 or 64. These certainly aren't the only scenarios but I thought they might take the discussion in a slightly different direction.

Long time reader and first time poster. I find all the realignment possibilities pretty fascinating and enjoy reading the opinions on here. I think it would be interesting to see what the alignment possibilities would be if you looked at it more from the perspective of which schools the SEC, B1G and PAC would actually be interested in adding rather than just trying to fit them in somewhere. Would the SEC really expand to add West Virginia and Oklahoma State? West Virginia only has 750K households and Oklahoma State is the number 2 school in a state of only 1.5 million households. If the ACC really had as many teams opt out as you speculate, it would seem more likely that schools the SEC would actually expand for would be available. For the SEC, as everyone knows, that is a pretty short list. It may even start and end with the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Texas isn't going to give up their network and no other schools in Texas would make any sense. kansas only has 1 million households. None of these seem to make much sense from an SEC perspective. If the speculation is 16 team conferences, it will likely take the ACC breaking up to do it. Having several ACC teams opt out could do that or maybe the ACC schools finally get tired of falling further and further behind in the money race. In either case, the fourth conference won't be geographically pretty, but would seem to be more likely. It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up as the leftovers with some sort of scheduling deal with Texas and Notre Dame, similar to what Notre Dame currently has, that allows those 2 to keep their TV deals in some fashion. In any case, things will get interesting if a breakaway does happen.

First of all, welcome to the board and join in anytime. You've kind of entered a discussion in mid stream and may or may not have missed some of the givens that some of us have assumed to get to this point in this speculation. I don't really see realignment as being about the preferences of conferences as much as it is about networks grouping product into the most profitable configurations to maximize advertising revenue and content.

The thought that took us to this point was the assumption that if the ACC were to find itself vulnerable due to an unfavorable ruling in the Maryland case then ESPN might look to shelter its ACC properties in a safer grouping (like that of the SEC) rather than lose some of them, especially key properties, to FOX via the Big 10.

If this was simply about what the SEC saw itself becoming then Virginia and North Carolina to end at 16 might be ideal. Texas and Oklahoma to end at 16 would even be more dynamic. And that would be our short list to which you refer. However, it is fairly clear now that networks are driving realignment. I've often said that what it really has been is a hostile takeover of an undervalued product by a corporate entity that saw an opportunity to maximize profits by first acquiring, then culling non profitable products, and then rearranging the profitable products in packages that optimize their value.

Missouri didn't optimize the Big 10's value and they existed in a conference that was poorly positioned market wise to make a bigger splash. But, Missouri added far more value to the SEC than they could have added elsewhere. Ditto for Texas A&M. Rutgers and Maryland are both worth far more to the Big 10 than they were worth to their previous conferences.

With that in mind what has ESPN really done? They picked up undervalued basketball properties in Syracuse and Pitt and placed them in a more valuable product lineup in the ACC. I believe that ESPN's initial strategy was to build and maintain the premier football conference in the SEC and to do the same for basketball with the ACC. But there is a caveat. By purchasing the ACC outright and buying extra rights to two of the top 3 properties remaining in the Big 12 (Texas and Kansas) ESPN essentially locked down most of the target product for expansion. So if the PAC refuses to sell rights to the PACN ESPN withholds expansion product from the PAC. If the Big 10 remains somewhat hostile to ESPN and signs their T1 rights over to FOX or NBC then ESPN withholds expansion product from the Big 10. Since that is precisely what Delany wished to test prior to signing a new contract we have the Maryland lawsuit. If Victorious the Big 10 will go after the ACC schools they want. If unsuccessful they will have to decide how much if any business they desire to do with ESPN in order to soften up expansion property.

ESPN wanted options. If the PAC and Big 10 are difficult then having a premier basketball conference to balance an SEC weakness is great. If they lose ground and the ACC is vulnerable then the SEC is a great place to park the product they desire most to hold. Since the Big 12 is also volatile then Texas and Kansas help to block a hostile move there, especially since Oklahoma might like to stay with Texas.

That said should there be a breakaway (out of necessity in order to deal with the myriad growing issues surrounding college sports) then ESPN could look to protect all of its product by doing two things. 1. Grouping them together. And, 2. Signing a new contract reflective of current value and the willingness of FOX or NBC to payout more for a larger piece of the product. Hence the speculation on a 36 team conference which essentially is a merger of 3 properties in which ESPN matches the best market with two of the most watched products in college football from the standpoint of saturating the viewership of their own footprints. Never mind that ESPN would be holding 7 of the top 10 sports products in the nation and almost 3/4's of the top 20.

To make the SEC amenable to such a proposal they would have to pay them more. The Big 12 and ACC schools would be thrilled if they could bring along their friends and gain an equal share of the new SEC payout.

ESPN could then of course lease any product they didn't need to use. That's more of the theory here.

I think most of us agree that if the goal was to get to 16 for the SEC the targets in order would be: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia, or North Carolina State and Virginia Tech, or even Florida State (which while not a new market does add content value to the conference).

So give it a go thinking through the options as viewed by the networks and see what you think.

It sounds like the part I am missing is that we are operating on the premise that there is no limit to what a network can charge for its product. If a school doesn't add the needed value to a conference, the network pays the conference anyway, and simply raises its rates to make up the difference. Is this correct?

Nope. The SEC is projected to earn 35 million per school by the third year of operation of the network. Both the ACC and Big 12 schools will earn between 23 plus T3 for the Big 12 by 2018 and around 27 from all sources for the ACC by 2018. For most of the Big 12 schools the + T3 will come in around 3 million. For Kansas and Oklahoma the gross will be 7 minus expenses so around 5 to 5.5 million. WVU will be in that neighborhood as well on the NET side. Texas is plus 11 million for the LHN.

If the need is there for ESPN to shelter ACC property and some of its Big 12 property by creating one large conference the actual costs to do so are not that significantly great. They essentially pay for 28 of the SEC and ACC schools now (minus the CBS portion of the SEC contract). They pay over half for Texas and Kansas. ESPN gets to cut out its overhead obligation to the ACC for a network if they merge the ACC with the SEC and they can essentially get the 36 schools of the new conference to buy out the LHN expense by skimming the additional money by around 300,000 per school for 12 years (the remaining term of the LHN extended from the end of 2018). And assuming part of the need here for ESPN to encourage such a move would be a FOX or a FOX/NBC move to consolidate interests in the Big 10/PAC it might also be assumed that ESPN's overhead in costs for those two conferences would be reduced.

So their additional costs of boosting the merger teams to 37 or 38 million per year per school would not be that prohibitive. 42 million for the SEC, 154 million for the ACC, 4 million for Texas, 27 million total for Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia (if WVU is included), and around 48 million for the other 4 Big 12 schools. So for a total increase initially of about 275 million a year such a conference can be formed. But that's just the initial outlay. Subtracted from that expense would be the overhead of starting an ACCN, subtracted would be their former expense in the PAC leases and in the Big 10's T1 content, subtracted from that is the added content value of games between Texas and F.S.U., Texas and Florida, Texas and Alabama, Texas and L.S.U., Texas and Georgia, etc, and duplicated for Oklahoma and multiplied by the hoops match ups for Kansas vs the ACC or Baylor vs the ACC in hoops would also offset the investment. The money and advertising rights from the internal conference championship playoff would also easily eclipse their expense in making such a move. And as I'm sure FOX or FOX / NBC would do with the Big 10 / PAC excess games would be leased out defraying further costs. The schools with added bowl tie ins would net a bit more and two whole shares of conference expenses would go back into the division of income as well.

So no it's not dependent upon the network paying out endless sums of money. It's about controlling the most dominant portion of the college football and basketball market for little additional expense and lots of shaved overhead.

In the end each school after additional playoff revenues are calculated and bowl money is added up should wind up receiving north of $40 million per school per year.

Then by setting up the conference divisional breakdown regionally to control the overhead expenses of minor sports part of the schools' overhead will be cut and their closest rivals preserved. And that also means for the top schools they essentially have to beat out 5 of their regular old foes to qualify for the playoff. That access is far more certain that the system we have now.

It's the structure, the content of the structure, and the exclusivity of the internal playoff system that will prove most profitable for the networks.

If ESPN puts its concentration here, instead of trying to have a piece of everything, they will come out way ahead.

Now as for what a network can charge for its product the SEC is presently projecting a $1.30 for its cable charges for the new network. Considering the new market footprint would cover Texas and Florida and extend to Massachusetts and New York with everything in between included I don't think ESPN would need to go up on that rate at all to make it a winner. The only caveat I could foresee would be if we eventually had three channels each covering 12 regional schools and there was a bundled rate. That way you could maximize regional advertising in addition to making sure there were key games on each to generate some national advertising. Any package including 7 of the 10 most profitable schools in the nation and 3/4's of the top 20 will have a large national draw by followers of college football and basketball.

Also to address what was your initial concern, if you look at the schools in the 28 team model listed in the thread opening I think that you will find that there is more per team value than in the 36 team model by far and should the weaker privates drop out that could become a possibility and would be more profitable still than what I've been talking about with 36.

Ideally what all of us would want is handcuffed by the required number of schools it takes to dissolve the respective conferences. But something like the following would be wonderful:

North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

But there are way too many political obstacles to be able to move there.

You make a good case. I think you may be underestimating the costs and overestimating the savings though.

If you want to use 2018 estimates for the ACC and Big 12, we should probably do the same for the SEC. The network will have completed its fourth year of operation by then. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume an additional 2 to 3 million per school by then. That would add roughly an additional 50 million dollar expense to your theory.

I would agree that there would be a subtraction for the expense of starting an ACC network, if that came to fruition. I'm not sure that is a given but it is a potential savings. This would only be a one time savings however, not something that occurs every year. If an ACC network was created, it would probably be run in the same location as the SEC network anyway.

I would agree that there is savings in cutting ties with the PAC and B1G.

I am not totally onboard with the added content value of games. You can't just look at a Texas-LSU matchup in a vacuum and say this matchup adds x value. For example, right now Texas would play Oklahoma State and LSU would play Mississippi. Those 2 games have some value. In order for Texas to play LSU, Oklahoma State then has to play Mississippi. While the Texas-LSU game has added value, the Oklahoma State-Mississippi game has reduced value. Which pair of games has more value? I would have to say the pair matching Texas and LSU, but not significantly. Texas is also not going to be playing in a marquee matchup every week and duplicated for Oklahoma. They will still play a significant number of lower tier teams.

Baylor basketball isn't going to offset a significant amount of any investment.

There is no need to go to 30 something teams to have an internal conference championship playoff. 16 team conferences that play a semi-final and a final followed by a semi-final and final national championship playoff is really no different than two 32 team conferences playing a quarter-final a semi-final and a final followed by the winners meeting in a championship game. Either way it is 15 games. There is no added money here.

Combining teams into bigger conferences does not create any more excess games to lease out than exist currently. Each team still plays 12 regular season games. In fact, with some teams opting out, it would be more likely that there would be less excess games to lease out than there are currently. This could actually be an added expense.

Unless the bowl eligibility requirements are changed, which could be done without combining conferences, there won't be any additional bowl tie-ins. There will still be roughly half of the teams qualify for a bowl and half not. There is no additional bowl money here.

There is some savings in taking 3 conferences and running them as 1. It is not 2 whole shares of conference expenses however. While it is cheaper to run 1 big company versus 3 smaller companies, it is not 1/3 of the cost.

I honestly don't see anything there that comes close to 325 million per year in increased profits and savings.

Now adding new territories to the network footprint adds a significant amount of money. That is only true for the new territories though. The combination of all three probably more than covers the costs. I have to admit that it is a possibility. It will be interesting to see what happens.

For what it's worth I think Maryland will get out for significantly less than the 52 million the ACC wants. We will see if that triggers anything.

(04-06-2014 12:32 AM)reick Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='10639844' dateline='1396742946']
You make a good case. I think you may be underestimating the costs and overestimating the savings though.

If you want to use 2018 estimates for the ACC and Big 12, we should probably do the same for the SEC. The network will have completed its fourth year of operation by then. I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume an additional 2 to 3 million per school by then. That would add roughly an additional 50 million dollar expense to your theory.

I would agree that there would be a subtraction for the expense of starting an ACC network, if that came to fruition. I'm not sure that is a given but it is a potential savings. This would only be a one time savings however, not something that occurs every year. If an ACC network was created, it would probably be run in the same location as the SEC network anyway. I agree

I would agree that there is savings in cutting ties with the PAC and B1G.

I am not totally onboard with the added content value of games. You can't just look at a Texas-LSU matchup in a vacuum and say this matchup adds x value. For example, right now Texas would play Oklahoma State and LSU would play Mississippi. Those 2 games have some value. In order for Texas to play LSU, Oklahoma State then has to play Mississippi. While the Texas-LSU game has added value, the Oklahoma State-Mississippi game has reduced value. Which pair of games has more value? I would have to say the pair matching Texas and LSU, but not significantly. Texas is also not going to be playing in a marquee matchup every week and duplicated for Oklahoma. They will still play a significant number of lower tier teams.
True, but the total number of 1st line Content games would increase every week making the CBS slot merely equal to other games rather than the sole premier game. That adds value for ESPN. And yes just by the sheer number of teams playing there will be extra product to lease. On any given weekend there could be up to 18 games to televise. Of those games ESPN will have slots for as many as 9 (but probably closer to 6 or 7), ABC will be able to claim 1, and the SEC network will have room for 3 (among which some will be the less desired games), and CBS will claim 1. That will still leave 4 games to be leased.

Baylor basketball isn't going to offset a significant amount of any investment.
Not by best example but they do play quality basketball.

There is no need to go to 30 something teams to have an internal conference championship playoff. 16 team conferences that play a semi-final and a final followed by a semi-final and final national championship playoff is really no different than two 32 team conferences playing a quarter-final a semi-final and a final followed by the winners meeting in a championship game. Either way it is 15 games. There is no added money here.

That's not accurate. A 32 or 36 school conference with internal playoffs keeps all of its playoff revenue and lays claim to half of the revenue from the final championship game against the other conference. Our plans are for a 4 team playoff right now following the Conference Championship Game. We are comparing today's money from today's system against future model changes. Quarter Finals and Semi Finals provide for seven contests to determine a champion in what amounts to two combined conferences' worth of teams versus two conference championship games from the same two conferences today. That's a net increase of 5 games at the conference level for the combined schools.

Under the playoff model due to start next year there are no guarantees to any conference other than the Big 10 and SEC that they will have 1 let alone 2 participants in the playoff. For former members of the ACC the internal playoff system guarantees income from the internal conference playoff even if the former teams of the ACC aren't among those conference teams playing it off. The same would be true for any former Big 12 members. For existing SEC schools it offers a broader chance for participation.

In the existing proposal for a 4 team playoff the ACC and Big 12 are not guaranteed income from participation. With two major conferences each would be guaranteed a split of the final championship game. The guarantee of revenue from the final is more reliable than a chance at the semis in the current proposal.

Combining teams into bigger conferences does not create any more excess games to lease out than exist currently. Each team still plays 12 regular season games. In fact, with some teams opting out, it would be more likely that there would be less excess games to lease out than there are currently. This could actually be an added expense.

Unless the bowl eligibility requirements are changed, which could be done without combining conferences, there won't be any additional bowl tie-ins. There will still be roughly half of the teams qualify for a bowl and half not. There is no additional bowl money here.

This sounds correct with prima facia reasoning but it is not accurate either. Bowl qualifications might well be changed, but with the existing tie ins for the conferences involved all of the major payday bowls would be split 50/50 between the Northern/Western conference and the Southern/Eastern conference. A 50% split is more than any collection of former conferences could have been guaranteed before. For university presidents a static figure of bowl revenue can become a dependable revenue stream that may be counted upon when budgets are made.

There is some savings in taking 3 conferences and running them as 1. It is not 2 whole shares of conference expenses however. While it is cheaper to run 1 big company versus 3 smaller companies, it is not 1/3 of the cost.


This is true. But a great deal depends upon whether you eventually consolidate former conference functions all into one. At that point you no longer carry the separate budgets and can sell the real estate for a 1 time boon.

I honestly don't see anything there that comes close to 325 million per year in increased profits and savings.

Neither of us would know for sure here, but the dropping of expense for the PAC and Big 10 by ESPN would cover the increases. ESPN would be essentially adding 7 teams to its payroll and dropping 1/2 interest or a little less in 26. And advertising revenue from an additional 4 playoff games (5 more conference and 1 less national) would be a big plus as well. And remember from a production standpoint live sports is still the best guarantee for ad revenues (no reruns) for a time slot and it is still the cheapest product to produce for entertainment's sake.

Now adding new territories to the network footprint adds a significant amount of money. That is only true for the new territories though. The combination of all three probably more than covers the costs. I have to admit that it is a possibility. It will be interesting to see what happens.

For what it's worth I think Maryland will get out for significantly less than the 52 million the ACC wants. We will see if that triggers anything.
I do too! And the rapidity with what transpires after that could determine how many ACC schools would be available for a merger. So it will be interesting either way.

All good points. I have a couple of more comments and 1 question.

I understand that there would be up to 18 games to televise on any given weekend. The total for the season would be somewhere around 250 games, maybe a few less. ESPN currently holds the rights to close to 300 games per season, maybe more. Some rough estimates are 90 SEC games, 100 ACC games, 30 Big 12 games, 40 PAC and 40 B1G games. These are not exact numbers but should be close and you could probably add a few more for AAC games for Louisville, Cincinnati and UConn if they were going to be part of the 36 teams. Subtract out the games for teams that would opt out (maybe 35-40) and you would still be left with more than 250 games. My point is that ESPN actually ends up with less games to lease out plus they have replaced some of those games with Big 12 tier 3 games. This looks like a loss to me.

As for internal conference championship playoffs, I am not comparing todays system to future changes. I am comparing a 16 team to 32 team model change. I agree in the 32 team model you are looking at 8 guaranteed games. 7 within the conference and 1 championship game split with the B1G/PAC so let's say 7 1/2. I'm not sure how I came up with 15, higher math I guess. With two 16 team conferences I believe you are still looking at basically 8 guaranteed games. 6 would be within the 2 conferences. It is reasonable to assume that on average, 2 teams from the 16 team conferences would make the national semi-final. Some years 1 and others 3 but on average 2. They should also average 1 team in the final per year. So basically this is the same 8 games. Some years they would play 7 and in others 9 but average would be 8. The difference here would be that the larger conference would control 1 additional game and this would be the only increased payout that I see. Taking it 1 step further and looking at just a 16 team SEC in this setup, they already would have 3 guaranteed playoff games internally and I would guess would average more than 1 team in the national semi-final per year. I would think that there would be more years that they get 2 teams in than 0. Add in the times they get 1 or even 2 teams in the final and they probably average about 4 full playoff games per year alone, split amongst the 16 teams, compared to 7 1/2 split amongst 32 or 36 teams. Sorry if I am messing up the math but from an SEC perspective this is probably at best a wash.

For bowl games what I think what you're getting at is that the 2 large conferences could set up the bowls in a similar fashion to the way the Rose and Sugar are. I would submit that four sixteen team conferences could do the same although it would obviously be much easier to deal with 2 conferences rather than 4.

Anyway on to my question. All these things I agree are great for ESPN, the ACC and the Big 12. I'm not so sure you are offering the SEC much more than they will already get on their own. Granted, the offer is a few million more per year per school for the SEC now, but is that enough for them to surrender what looks like will be a pretty significant advantage over the ACC and Big 12 and potentially the B1G and PAC as well? Why put everyone else on a level playing field with yourself when you don't need to and what would be the repercussions of that? It would seem like the better option for the SEC would be to just be patient and let the ACC and Big 12 fall farther and farther behind. It is a gamble but may well be worth it.

(04-06-2014 11:42 AM)reick Wrote:  All good points. I have a couple of more comments and 1 question.

I understand that there would be up to 18 games to televise on any given weekend. The total for the season would be somewhere around 250 games, maybe a few less. ESPN currently holds the rights to close to 300 games per season, maybe more. Some rough estimates are 90 SEC games, 100 ACC games, 30 Big 12 games, 40 PAC and 40 B1G games. These are not exact numbers but should be close and you could probably add a few more for AAC games for Louisville, Cincinnati and UConn if they were going to be part of the 36 teams. Subtract out the games for teams that would opt out (maybe 35-40) and you would still be left with more than 250 games. My point is that ESPN actually ends up with less games to lease out plus they have replaced some of those games with Big 12 tier 3 games. This looks like a loss to me.

As for internal conference championship playoffs, I am not comparing todays system to future changes. I am comparing a 16 team to 32 team model change. I agree in the 32 team model you are looking at 8 guaranteed games. 7 within the conference and 1 championship game split with the B1G/PAC so let's say 7 1/2. I'm not sure how I came up with 15, higher math I guess. With two 16 team conferences I believe you are still looking at basically 8 guaranteed games. 6 would be within the 2 conferences. It is reasonable to assume that on average, 2 teams from the 16 team conferences would make the national semi-final. Some years 1 and others 3 but on average 2. They should also average 1 team in the final per year. So basically this is the same 8 games. Some years they would play 7 and in others 9 but average would be 8. The difference here would be that the larger conference would control 1 additional game and this would be the only increased payout that I see. Taking it 1 step further and looking at just a 16 team SEC in this setup, they already would have 3 guaranteed playoff games internally and I would guess would average more than 1 team in the national semi-final per year. I would think that there would be more years that they get 2 teams in than 0. Add in the times they get 1 or even 2 teams in the final and they probably average about 4 full playoff games per year alone, split amongst the 16 teams, compared to 7 1/2 split amongst 32 or 36 teams. Sorry if I am messing up the math but from an SEC perspective this is probably at best a wash.

For bowl games what I think what you're getting at is that the 2 large conferences could set up the bowls in a similar fashion to the way the Rose and Sugar are. I would submit that four sixteen team conferences could do the same although it would obviously be much easier to deal with 2 conferences rather than 4.

Anyway on to my question. All these things I agree are great for ESPN, the ACC and the Big 12. I'm not so sure you are offering the SEC much more than they will already get on their own. Granted, the offer is a few million more per year per school for the SEC now, but is that enough for them to surrender what looks like will be a pretty significant advantage over the ACC and Big 12 and potentially the B1G and PAC as well? Why put everyone else on a level playing field with yourself when you don't need to and what would be the repercussions of that? It would seem like the better option for the SEC would be to just be patient and let the ACC and Big 12 fall farther and farther behind. It is a gamble but may well be worth it.

1. ESPN's total number of games that could be televised: Your breakdown here is good information to know and I had not considered the number of games they might be losing from the PAC and Big 10. The only advantage I still see ESPN having here is the quality of content that a merged ACC/SEC/and part of the Big 12 would given them. But, given your information on the total number of games surrendered in such a scenario I do see why you claimed there would be less to lease. The difference would have to be made up by advertising money which is based on the actual number of households viewing nationwide. Better games, more interest, more revenue would have to be relied upon and that would be an unproven.

2, 3, & 4. Internal Playoffs: The only thing that might be compared here is the monetary value of such. These games will on average be more viewed than many of the regular season games so they will be more valuable. We were comparing the projected earnings of 2018 against future moves. 4 team conference playoffs are not legal under NCAA rules at this time. The projections for 2018 do not reflect semi final conference games. Those two games for any single 16 member conference are still a monetary boost. Since the games are more valuable than regular season games having 5 extra opportunities to collect revenue for 32 teams is still a boost albeit one divided out among more schools. The net of those extra 5 games still adds to the bottom line.

To the point you are trying to make there is little structural difference between 4 conferences of 16 and two conferences of 32. The monetary difference is in leverage. Two individuals representing half of a market industry have much more leverage in contract negotiations than 4 entities representing a minority of the industry.

Also, if the upper tier remains within the NCAA we might well remain as 4 separate conferences (maybe even 5) but that will not bring stability. Equitable compensation is the only end that brings some semblance of stability. Upheaval has gone from being an interesting topic of discussion to an object of revulsion for many fans of the sport. The longer realignment is drawn out now the more college football will suffer from fan discontent. Higher ticket prices in a down economy aren't helping either. It is in everyone's interest (SEC included) to put this matter behind us and to find ways to positively interest the public (better structure for playoffs and better content which means minimizing the rent-a-kill games). Further consolidation addresses most of these issues.

Sure the SEC could wait and pick up some prizes, but at what cost? N.C. State, Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia (to a lesser extent Virginia Tech) are all really a package. Breaking them up won't lead to greater fan involvement but rather greater fan dissatisfaction. Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech are in a similar boat.

The states of Florida and South Carolina have legislated that games between Clemson & South Carolina, and games between Florida & Florida State be played. In expanding conferences there are less slots that afford opportunities for out of conference scheduling. In 1992 Florida sponsored F.S.U. for membership in the SEC because they were afraid of the difficulties of keeping their most bitter rival on the schedule should the two wind up in different conferences. The impetus for the South Carolina law requiring that the two schools play was based in the same fear. Louisville, Kansas, Georgia Tech and Texas will all become equally important for the same reason.

A breakaway affords the opportunity for the kind of consolidation that takes all minor sports play back to a reasonable driving distance for most fans. It also groups the football and basketball games that they care most about. It also offers the size that would permit the inclusion of those schools not already in the conference that are most important to the fans. And in the end nothing will repair the damage that realignment has brought like the inclusion of the games that mean the most to the fans. Culturally Kansas doesn't fit the SEC. But for Missouri having Kansas as a rival is important. Oklahoma can't go anywhere without the Cowboys because it is one of two games that matter to their fans. And in spite of the present acrimony Texas needs A&M and Oklahoma to remain relevant schedule wise to their traditional fan base.

Regionalizing consolidation preserves traditions and salves the wounds of realignment identity loss.

Add that to the increased leverage, the saved overhead of minor sports, the added stability, the additional guarantees of internal playoff revenue, and the fact that even if the SEC only makes a few million more and loses its superior revenue advantages it still gains much more by comparison to what it could also lose and those in the university systems prefer guarantees to risk. Should the Big 10 land a disgruntled F.S.U., a grateful Georgia Tech, and take Virginia, Duke, and North Carolina what has the SEC lost for the sake of having Virginia Tech and N.C. State drop in their lap? It is in our interest long term to secure and control our region.

And let's go back to the playoff / bowl situation. If we move to 4 16 team conferences the SEC most assuredly would never have two teams in the final four because when we move to that model it will by default become a 4 champions model. Oddly by having 5 conferences at present while headed into the 4 team playoff we have the best chance of having multiple entrants. Any alteration to a P4 setup eliminates that. So if we desire greater playoff revenue and want it to be guaranteed going larger to 32 is the only way to accomplish that end.

(04-05-2014 07:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Ideally what all of us would want is handcuffed by the required number of schools it takes to dissolve the respective conferences. But something like the following would be wonderful:

North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, South Carolina
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Sign me up.

One thing to remember is that consolidation results in more leverage and less competition so you will get more money as the networks and others have less places to go for the content they need and have to bid against each other to land the same content. That is a key reason why every pro sports league always merges or absorbs competitors that last more than a few years (AFL merged with the NFL, ABA teams were absorbed by the NBA, AL and NL merged into MLB). The NFL makes more than the AFL and NFL could separately because of it's monopoly power. There is nowhere else to go for that content.

In college sports the networks can go to 5 sources for the best content (B1G, SEC, PAC, B12, ACC). The more those are reduced the more the networks will end up paying for the content. The networks would have preferred that there were still six or more conferences, as that keeps the price for content lower since there are more sources of content; however, at this point I think they realize that consolidation is on the way, so the best thing ESPN could do, while it has so much control over college sports, is try to manage this consolidation in a way that it is most advantageous to ESPN. In my mind that is merging the conferences who are undervalued and ESPN controlled (ACC and SEC are both being paid less than they are worth) and paying more, but in return getting a long term (20+ years) contract to lockdown that content and keep it away from other networks, Google, Netflix, Hulu, and others while content delivery is going through upheaval over the next decade or so. Fox could do the same with the B1G and PAC. The B12 could get split between the two.