I agree with the earlier poster who thinks that schools will eventually tire of the consolidated conferences where they will have to fight harder to be in contention for playoff slots. A three power conference setup would be a big negative for a lot of these schools. It would actually drive big programs to other conferences where they would be a big name instead of another face in the crowd. I like to use Nebraska as that example. Their brand worth has dropped signifigantly since their move to the B1G. I just think conferences are already near max density. Cant see how more consolidation will occur.

(08-19-2015 08:36 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I agree with the earlier poster who thinks that schools will eventually tire of the consolidated conferences where they will have to fight harder to be in contention for playoff slots. A three power conference setup would be a big negative for a lot of these schools. It would actually drive big programs to other conferences where they would be a big name instead of another face in the crowd. I like to use Nebraska as that example. Their brand worth has dropped signifigantly since their move to the B1G. I just think conferences are already near max density. Cant see how more consolidation will occur.

The commutative law of math is applicable here. They compete already against more schools for those same 4 slots. The issue therefore is revenue generated while doing it. There's your motivation for consolidation.

(08-19-2015 08:36 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  like to use Nebraska as that example. Their brand worth has dropped signifigantly since their move to the B1G.

Depends on your location, in the Big Ten region its increased..

I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

OK JR, let's play the game, then.

Only the PAC, B1G and SEC live on as Power conferences. Each has 18 teams.

1) Exclude Notre Dame. They will continue to be independent. If the ACC collapses, they'll put their non-fb sports in the new Big East.

And they might encourage other former colleagues from the old Big East to follow their lead into the football independence/new Big East path. Programs like: Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville. Thus creating a new, old Big East, for non-fb.

2) So that leaves us with 64 current P5 teams (12 PAC, 10 XII, 14 B1G, 14 ACC, 14 SEC).

3) The B1G, SEC and PAC are currently at 40 teams. So 14 teams must be added from the 24 teams in the XII and ACC.

4) Who gets in, and where do they go?


Keep in mind that teams in the Eastern time zone probably aren't going to want to end up in the PAC. Yet, the PAC has to add six to get to 18.

Just throwing a scenario out there:

PAC takes: Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma, Kansas

B1G takes: Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech

SEC takes: Florida St, Clemson, NC St, VT


IA St, KS St, OK St, Miami, Wake Forest and Louisville join the AAC.

BC, UConn, Syracuse, Pitt and WV put their non-FB sports in the new Big East, along with Notre Dame. All go football independent, with a scheduling agreement amongst themselves.

(08-19-2015 07:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  If I was ESPN or FOX, I would be very leery about creating one or two or three super conferences. That would give those leagues a lot of leverage and that would not be good for my business.

I think the deregulation of the way leagues conduct their championship games/determine their league champions, if it passes, could result in more, smaller conferences, not fewer, larger leagues.

I also think the landscape will look very similar in 10 years to how it looks now.

That's another fallacy in these scenarios. ESPN and Fox were very unenthused about the Pac 16 and tried to discourage it.

I agree that consolidation hurts schools ability to be seen higher (even while helping financially, at least for awhile). It looks a heck of a lot better to be the 2nd or 3rd team in a 10 team conference than it does to be 2nd or 3rd place team in a division in an 18 team conference.

Look at the Big 12 right now. It's unstable over the long haul sure, but is it really bad for most programs? Baylor, Oklahoma State, and TCU have all risen up in the last few years and won Big 12 championships. Those rises would have likely been harder and for less result in bigger conferences.

Now turn to the Big Ten. The conference has expanded with some big names and some big recruiting/media areas. What has this done for the ability of teams like Indiana/Purdue to have a chance to win?

Even if you look at someone like Nebraska. Monetarily, they love this set-up, but think about it vs. the Big 8 where they made their name. In it, they were one of the big 2 and a force every year.

College football isn't going back in time, but I don't think a consolidated model will be good for as many national brands as we've had in the past.

(08-19-2015 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that consolidation hurts schools ability to be seen higher (even while helping financially, at least for awhile). It looks a heck of a lot better to be the 2nd or 3rd team in a 10 team conference than it does to be 2nd or 3rd place team in a division in an 18 team conference.

Look at the Big 12 right now. It's unstable over the long haul sure, but is it really bad for most programs? Baylor, Oklahoma State, and TCU have all risen up in the last few years and won Big 12 championships. Those rises would have likely been harder and for less result in bigger conferences.

Now turn to the Big Ten. The conference has expanded with some big names and some big recruiting/media areas. What has this done for the ability of teams like Indiana/Purdue to have a chance to win?

Even if you look at someone like Nebraska. Monetarily, they love this set-up, but think about it vs. the Big 8 where they made their name. In it, they were one of the big 2 and a force every year.

College football isn't going back in time, but I don't think a consolidated model will be good for as many national brands as we've had in the past.

I think you're just proving what everyone in realignment discussion knows: schools would rather take the money and perform average than perform well with less money.

Schools like Purdue, which may have had some level of national success, once upon a time, are now more content to just sit back and collect the $$$ that come from being in the B1G association, knowing they'll most likely never win the conference in football or men's basketball ever again (or once every 30 years, perhaps).

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

(08-19-2015 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that consolidation hurts schools ability to be seen higher (even while helping financially, at least for awhile). It looks a heck of a lot better to be the 2nd or 3rd team in a 10 team conference than it does to be 2nd or 3rd place team in a division in an 18 team conference.

Look at the Big 12 right now. It's unstable over the long haul sure, but is it really bad for most programs? Baylor, Oklahoma State, and TCU have all risen up in the last few years and won Big 12 championships. Those rises would have likely been harder and for less result in bigger conferences.

Now turn to the Big Ten. The conference has expanded with some big names and some big recruiting/media areas. What has this done for the ability of teams like Indiana/Purdue to have a chance to win?

Even if you look at someone like Nebraska. Monetarily, they love this set-up, but think about it vs. the Big 8 where they made their name. In it, they were one of the big 2 and a force every year.

College football isn't going back in time, but I don't think a consolidated model will be good for as many national brands as we've had in the past.

I think you're just proving what everyone in realignment discussion knows: schools would rather take the money and perform average than perform well with less money.

Schools like Purdue, which may have had some level of national success, once upon a time, are now more content to just sit back and collect the $$$ that come from being in the B1G association, knowing they'll most likely never win the conference in football or men's basketball ever again (or once every 30 years, perhaps).

So Purdue should hop to the MAC so they can be more "successful"?? Just because they would be beating crappy teams, doesnt mean they are more successful..

(08-19-2015 07:35 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  ACC failed with Syracuse and Pittsburgh ? My now That is a Stretch !

They are no TCU, Missouri or Texas A&M.

(08-19-2015 11:48 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 09:38 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I guess I don't understand why the Privates would be in a different situation than anyone else. In fact I've gathered that there are even potential advantages being private- more financial flexibility and less red tape and less political budgetary confinements. The alumni numbers are less, but the per capita alumni giving is typically higher.

The enrollment/alumni numbers are the biggest factor. A school with about 8,000 undergrads (e.g. Northwestern) might get higher per capita donations than a "flagship" public university with about 32,000 undergrads (e.g. Illinois), but it's not going to be 4x as much money per alum. That would be true whether the school is public or private.

I think people often use "public" and "private" as shorthand for "larger" and "smaller" even if it doesn't fit. USC, for example, has more students than half the schools in the Pac-12 and it's misleading, for purposes of such discussions, to lump very large private schools like USC in with schools that have one-third or one-fourth as many students.

I dunno. I think as you pointed out earlier, we haven't been hurting in terms of donations- our stadium redo (actually all projects) was completely financed without debt financing. Other privates seem to be keeping up with the infrastructure arms race despite smaller alumni bases, too. In addition, seems like the stories of being behind the financial 8 ball seem to have been about public universities (e.g. Rutgers).

Just not sure there is evidence of a distinct "line" separating publics and privates when it comes to being able to handle the new full cost era.

As I said earlier, I think TCU is an exception and the amount of money donated/pledged there for athletics is an outlier among smaller schools. TCU was outside of what we now call "P5" when that money was pledged. I strongly doubt that any other relatively small non-P5 school will ever raise that much in donations for athletics, and most smaller P5 schools won't either. BYU is private and non-P5, but has 27,000 undergrads and doesn't fit into any "smaller" category.

The problem with the PAC 12, if they don't get the two crown jewel of Texas and Oklahoma? They will not add anybody from the Big 12. They will pick the top G5 schools from the MWC. I think the ACC is the one in danger than the Big 12. They have more schools that both SEC and Big 10 wants.

UNC
NCState
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Duke is not on anybody's list. I see Duke will be left out. I could see them reform by taken West Virginia, Cincinnati, U. Conn., Temple, Navy, UCF, East Carolina and some others.

Big 12 can look more westward by adding Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State and New Mexico.

MWC will backfill with UTEP, UTSA, SMU, Eastern Washington, North Dakota State.

Tulsa, Texas State and New Mexico State go to C-USA. C-USA will be more central centric. Add Missouri State, Northern Iowa, Lamar and Arkansas State.

AAC will take Old Dominion, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Old Dominion, UAB, Marshall, FIU, Georgia Southern, James Madison and Delaware.

Sun Belt will take FAU back, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, Sam Houston State, Central Arkansas, Jackson State. Idaho gets booted.

MAC will add Illinois State, Indiana State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook and Liberty.

(08-19-2015 11:53 AM)TheNealT Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I agree that consolidation hurts schools ability to be seen higher (even while helping financially, at least for awhile). It looks a heck of a lot better to be the 2nd or 3rd team in a 10 team conference than it does to be 2nd or 3rd place team in a division in an 18 team conference.

Look at the Big 12 right now. It's unstable over the long haul sure, but is it really bad for most programs? Baylor, Oklahoma State, and TCU have all risen up in the last few years and won Big 12 championships. Those rises would have likely been harder and for less result in bigger conferences.

Now turn to the Big Ten. The conference has expanded with some big names and some big recruiting/media areas. What has this done for the ability of teams like Indiana/Purdue to have a chance to win?

Even if you look at someone like Nebraska. Monetarily, they love this set-up, but think about it vs. the Big 8 where they made their name. In it, they were one of the big 2 and a force every year.

College football isn't going back in time, but I don't think a consolidated model will be good for as many national brands as we've had in the past.

I think you're just proving what everyone in realignment discussion knows: schools would rather take the money and perform average than perform well with less money.

Schools like Purdue, which may have had some level of national success, once upon a time, are now more content to just sit back and collect the $$$ that come from being in the B1G association, knowing they'll most likely never win the conference in football or men's basketball ever again (or once every 30 years, perhaps).

So Purdue should hop to the MAC so they can be more "successful"?? Just because they would be beating crappy teams, doesnt mean they are more successful..

Wins mean different things to different people.

I agree with you, better to be in the B1G than win at a lower level.

(08-18-2015 08:47 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  The most valuable resources are people.

They are the customers, the fans.

Public schools have more of these valuable resources than private schools. They are more inclusive.

In the entertainment business, like all business without customers you have no business.

It doesn’t matter about future technology whether cable or streaming or a new business model. You need a lot of people at the other end of broadcast to stay in business.

The new Big East is a good study case.

How much a well-known brand worth when no one buying?

In conference realignment, all things being equal:

Public flagship (or flagship equivalent, i.e. UCLA, Texas A&M, Michigan State, etc.) > Private school > non-flagship public schools

Like I've said many times here, the people on this board generally overrate non-flagship public schools and underrate private schools simply based on enrollment. Higher education is the most elitist club in America - the company that you keep with fellow conference mates is part of your branding. A private school in a key market will generally get more opportunities than a larger non-flagship public school, whether it's fair or not. The powers that be (both university presidents and TV executives) will give MUCH more leeway to the market power of a private school than a non-flagship public school.

(08-19-2015 08:36 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  I like to use Nebraska as that example. Their brand worth has dropped signifigantly since their move to the B1G.

Absolutely ridiculous statement. They're in a stable conference that's academically superior to the rest of the P5 and makes the most money athletically. Nebraska now runs commercials on the academic side that tout receiving a "Big Ten education", which doesn't happen in the Big 12 (or SEC, ACC or Pac-12, for that matter).

If you're running a school, you absolutely do NOT want your brand to be tied to only what occurs on the field from year-to-year. Even the richest programs, such as Texas, Florida and Michigan, will go through rough times. That stability is why schools want to join the Big Ten and SEC. It's not just fan-based football results focus that goes into a school's brand.

(08-18-2015 06:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I dis agree with what you said.

Duke's football product is not valuable at all. Both Duke and Wake Forest will fall to the wayside. Northwestern as well.
Kansas's football is not valuable either.

Nobody really wants North Carolina, Florida State and Miami Florida nobody wants right now since they are black eyes to the ACC right now with their issues.

Slive and the PAC 12 leader thinks that there will be some G5 schools that are btter than some of the P5 schools that could be part of the haves in the future like Boise State. Slive knows what could be the best product for the SEC. Inviting both Missouri and Texas A&M to the conference was a big hit. PAC 12 failed with Colorado. Big 12 kinda failed with West Virginia with no partner school for them. ACC failed with Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
SEC bringing East Carolina in would bring a strong product for the SEC Network is a good example.

Only on this board can we see a statement where "nobody" wants UNC, FSU, Miami, Duke and Kansas... and then end it with arguing that the SEC needs to bring in East Carolina. WOW. And this guy doesn't even list himself as an ECU fan.

(08-19-2015 12:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The problem with the PAC 12, if they don't get the two crown jewel of Texas and Oklahoma? They will not add anybody from the Big 12. They will pick the top G5 schools from the MWC. I think the ACC is the one in danger than the Big 12. They have more schools that both SEC and Big 10 wants.

UNC
NCState
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Duke is not on anybody's list. I see Duke will be left out. I could see them reform by taken West Virginia, Cincinnati, U. Conn., Temple, Navy, UCF, East Carolina and some others.

Big 12 can look more westward by adding Memphis, Tulane, Houston, Colorado State, BYU, Boise State and New Mexico.

MWC will backfill with UTEP, UTSA, SMU, Eastern Washington, North Dakota State.

Tulsa, Texas State and New Mexico State go to C-USA. C-USA will be more central centric. Add Missouri State, Northern Iowa, Lamar and Arkansas State.

AAC will take Old Dominion, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Old Dominion, UAB, Marshall, FIU, Georgia Southern, James Madison and Delaware.

Sun Belt will take FAU back, Coastal Carolina, Eastern Kentucky, Sam Houston State, Central Arkansas, Jackson State. Idaho gets booted.

MAC will add Illinois State, Indiana State, Youngstown State, Stony Brook and Liberty.

Besides you, who is making these lists that Duke is not on? The B1G would take Duke in a split second, as would the SEC.

Have you figured out yet how these conference networks work? The bulk of their money is made by subscribers in their footprint. The Big Ten Network has a higher subscriber fee in Ohio than it does in Georgia. The SEC Network has a higher fee in Georgia than it does in Ohio. Even as they way people watch tv shift, the cost isn't going to change for those fans in the footprint.

There are very schools worth doubling down for. Duke/UNC is one of them. Texas and a friend is another.