(11-01-2015 06:53 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 04:15 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 10:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Schools I would want from the ACC should it come apart:

FSU, Clemson, GT, UNC, Duke, NC State, UVA, VT, Pitt, Louisville

The others don't do much for us.

Now I'm not saying we should try to get all 10 even though I wouldn't have a problem with that. I am saying some combo of those schools is the way to go.

I do agree that UNC and Duke probably end up in the SEC in this scenario. In all honesty, I think we should take 6 while we can get them. That may leave the trimmings slim for the Big Ten, but I'm perfectly fine with trying to establish supremacy over that league. If we can get 6 schools that we want then I say go for it.

After UNC and Duke, I say we should target a VA school. I'm actually fine with both VA schools and I don't know if they have any interest in staying together, but if both are willing to come then I say go for that. UVA is the old money and the AAU institution while VT is the brand of the future while also adding a strong football program.

Next I say, go for FSU and Clemson. If we want to put pressure on the Big 12 to fish or cut bait then this is the combo that does it. There are no better 2 expansion options for them.

So let's say we can't get 2 VA schools. At that point I'm open to either Pitt or GT. I think tapping into Western PA would be a good move albeit the school not being remotely Southern. I don't see the Big Ten taking Pitt as the brand is not a strong one like ND or FSU. It makes sense that you add schools within the current footprint only if the content is strong. Pitt is worth much more to the SEC or the Big 12 for that matter than it is to the Big Ten. It's also an AAU school and there aren't a lot of solid AAU schools lying around so I think the SEC would be wise to jump on that.

GT is also fine. I would rather the Big Ten not get into Atlanta, but if GT is not near the top of our list then I think that makes Pitt all the more valuable. After NC and VA, there aren't any large markets on our borders other than PA and OH. I know PA isn't really a border state, but it's pretty close especially by air. If the Big Ten lands a VA and NC school next time then I would prefer they not also land a GA school. Or if they do then I think we need to counter with another large new market.

My first choice:

SEC North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, UVA, VT
SEC East: FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, South Carolina
SEC Central: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida
SEC West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss

4 division games, 3 permanent rivals against 1 team from each of the other divisions, 3 rotating games against 1 each from the other divisions.

You could play 10 games, preserve a great deal of rivalries, create new regional rivalries, and make sure everyone plays everyone at least once every 4 years. I don't think it could get any better than that.

Drop Louisville and Pitt and we can agree. We want to keep the SEC culturally cohesive (unlike the ACC) and Kentucky is the only conference school that is dead set against their in state rival ever being a member besides the Aggies.

Yeah, I think that is an admirable goal and I don't think Pitt would be likely anyway.

I don't see the major brands ending up in the Big 12 because I see ESPN wanting to preserve as much content in the SEC as possible.

Big Ten gets:

Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, Georgia Tech

Big 12 gets:

Miami, Louisville, Pitt, NC State

Have the SEC pick up FSU, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, UVa and it's a perfect 20. Taking 3 from NC isn't necessarily ideal but it is advantageous for a few reasons. First, UNC and NCSU are nearly impossible to separate, as are UNC and Duke. Taking all 3 keeps Delaney out of NC and bolsters basketball.

The B1G would probably take VT and maybe GT at that point.

Just take all 8 and offer OU & UT. Then divide into 4 six team divisions and play all 12 of our games among ourselves. It would be a lot more fun and given the SOS our top two finishers should be shoe ins for the CFP.

Or...

Take a different 10 from the ACC:

UVA, VT, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Clemson, GT, FSU, and Miami

SEC North: UVA, VT, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, South Carolina, Clemson
SEC East: Georgia, GT, Florida, FSU, Miami, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
SEC West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss, Miss State, Alabama, Auburn

3 divisions of 8 instead of 4x6...that's for preserving rivalries

Play 7 division games, 1 permanent rival against each of the other 2 divisions, rotate 1 each from the other divisions and you play everyone at least once every 7 years.

Semi-final to determine champion and the 12th game can either be a team from another league.

My favorite alignment is probably the 4x5 I listed in the other post, but this one is good too as it includes more rivalries.

In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

Someone mentioned a rumor about Nebraska wanting back in the B12. Got me thinking, what if the SEC added Nebraska and OU?

Pods
1. FL, Ga, SC, Vandy
2. Ala, Aub, UK, Tenn
3. LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, A&M
4. Ark, Mizz, Neb, OU

Permanent rivals
Aub-UGA
Tenn-UF
Ala-MSU
USC-Mizzou
Vandy-UK
Ark-A&M
OU-Ole Miss
LSU-Neb

Combine two pods to form a division, play everyone every three years.

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

(11-01-2015 10:35 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Someone mentioned a rumor about Nebraska wanting back in the B12. Got me thinking, what if the SEC added Nebraska and OU?

Pods
1. FL, Ga, SC, Vandy
2. Ala, Aub, UK, Tenn
3. LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, A&M
4. Ark, Mizz, Neb, OU

Permanent rivals
Aub-UGA
Tenn-UF
Ala-MSU
USC-Mizzou
Vandy-UK
Ark-A&M
OU-Ole Miss
LSU-Neb

Combine two pods to form a division, play everyone every three years.

You got that from Landthieves I think. At least I read it there. I can't imagine that it would be true. Nebraska would be on a major island, .......unless the move was to 18 and included Texas and Kansas.

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas

Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

But then the guys talking about it are known for throwing out the bait for others to run with.

Nebraska isn't leaving the Big 10. Missouri isn't leaving the SEC. What happens in the Big 12 and ACC is yet to be determined.

(11-01-2015 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

Add to that, the powers that be at UNC are afraid of NC State getting SEC money and exposure in the wake of Carolina going to the Big Ten. The SEC will get one of them and the question will be what kind of in-state rival would one prefer to compete against?

One of the reasons this is my favorite alignment is because of all the rivalries that can be easily preserved.

SEC North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, UVA, VT
SEC East: FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, South Carolina
SEC Central: Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida
SEC West: Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Ole Miss

Pairings for the North:
Kentucky's rivals: Duke, MSU, Mizzou
Tennessee's rivals: Alabama, Arkansas, FSU
Vanderbilt's rivals: Ole Miss, Georgia, South Carolina
Virginia's rivals: UNC, Auburn, LSU
Virginia Tech's rivals: Clemson, A&M, Florida

Pairings for the East:
Florida State's rivals: Tennessee, Florida, LSU
Clemson's rivals: VT, Auburn, A&M
North Carolina's rivals: Virginia, Alabama, Mizzou
Duke's rivals: Kentucky, MSU, Ole Miss
South Carolina's rivals: Georgia, Vandy, Arkansas

Pairings for the Central:
Mississippi State's rivals: Ole Miss, Duke, Kentucky
Alabama's rivals: Tennessee, UNC, LSU
Auburn's rivals: Clemson, Virginia, A&M
Georgia's rivals: South Carolina, Vandy, Mizzou
Florida's rivals: FSU, VT, Arkansas

Pairings for the West:
Texas A&M's rivals: VT, Auburn, Clemson
LSU's rivals: Alabama, FSU, Virginia
Arkansas' rivals: Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina
Missouri's rivals: Georgia, UNC, Kentucky
Ole Miss' rivals: MSU, Duke, Vandy

There are a lot of great annual match-ups in that lineup. I'm just sayin'

(11-01-2015 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

Carolina is the 9th-13th largest research University (depending on which rating being used) in the country, Dook ranks somewhere between #4 and #8).
Our biggest donors are not folks that contribute to the Athletic Department, but those that support the University as a whole. Now some of our fans are delusional, the vocal ones are young and naive. The fans that are also donors are a pretty realistic bunch and can understand economics. While the SEC may look flashy, it gives us very little opportunity for success. BTW if you recall the article on MR. SEC where it said that the SEC would be willing to take NC State to get Carolina.....guess what, the B1G would too.
If Carolina has to move, it will be to join our Academic peers with enough of our friends to be comfortable.

(11-02-2015 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

Carolina is the 9th-13th largest research University (depending on which rating being used) in the country, Dook ranks somewhere between #4 and #8).
Our biggest donors are not folks that contribute to the Athletic Department, but those that support the University as a whole. Now some of our fans are delusional, the vocal ones are young and naive. The fans that are also donors are a pretty realistic bunch and can understand economics. While the SEC may look flashy, it gives us very little opportunity for success. BTW if you recall the article on MR. SEC where it said that the SEC would be willing to take NC State to get Carolina.....guess what, the B1G would too.
If Carolina has to move, it will be to join our Academic peers with enough of our friends to be comfortable.

We'll see. Personally I just see it as pressure to get N.D. all in.

(11-02-2015 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

Carolina is the 9th-13th largest research University (depending on which rating being used) in the country, Dook ranks somewhere between #4 and #8).
Our biggest donors are not folks that contribute to the Athletic Department, but those that support the University as a whole. Now some of our fans are delusional, the vocal ones are young and naive. The fans that are also donors are a pretty realistic bunch and can understand economics. While the SEC may look flashy, it gives us very little opportunity for success. BTW if you recall the article on MR. SEC where it said that the SEC would be willing to take NC State to get Carolina.....guess what, the B1G would too.
If Carolina has to move, it will be to join our Academic peers with enough of our friends to be comfortable.

We'll see. Personally I just see it as pressure to get N.D. all in.

Now that's an interesting idea. ESPN offers X dollars extra until the network is stood up and Y dollars on top of that after the network is up and running. They also add a caveat that if ND is all in, the interim bump is much larger, as is the dollars after the network. They could even add in Cincy as the 16th to close the footprint, solidify the incursion into the Midwest and further screw the Big 12-4+2.

(11-02-2015 01:02 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 08:33 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 10:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-01-2015 09:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  In an Athletic department study at Carolina, it was determined that in order to be competitive for football in the SEC, the UNC Athletic Department would have to eliminate 7 of 28 sports and channel all of those funds into football. However, it was determined that Carolina could be competitive in the B1G with our current budget.
Now I ask, if Carolina had to make a move because we were no longer able to keep the ACC together, which conference do you think we would choose? Hint.......it would not be the SEC.

The results from your fan base and donors was very much different, as was the inquiry from your school back in 2011-2.

Carolina is the 9th-13th largest research University (depending on which rating being used) in the country, Dook ranks somewhere between #4 and #8).
Our biggest donors are not folks that contribute to the Athletic Department, but those that support the University as a whole. Now some of our fans are delusional, the vocal ones are young and naive. The fans that are also donors are a pretty realistic bunch and can understand economics. While the SEC may look flashy, it gives us very little opportunity for success. BTW if you recall the article on MR. SEC where it said that the SEC would be willing to take NC State to get Carolina.....guess what, the B1G would too.
If Carolina has to move, it will be to join our Academic peers with enough of our friends to be comfortable.

We'll see. Personally I just see it as pressure to get N.D. all in.

Now that's an interesting idea. ESPN offers X dollars extra until the network is stood up and Y dollars on top of that after the network is up and running. They also add a caveat that if ND is all in, the interim bump is much larger, as is the dollars after the network. They could even add in Cincy as the 16th to close the footprint, solidify the incursion into the Midwest and further screw the Big 12-4+2.

Exactly. With Cincy off the market the Big 12 is left with a contingent B.Y.U. and a duplicated footprint add with Houston, which by the way would severely tick off Oklahoma. We really still are in a situation where all the ACC has to do is outlast the Big 12. That gives ESPN much more leverage on the current Big 12 properties.

The downside here is that your fate could be in the hands of the most selfish program in the U.S., N.D..

But if they say yes then you place Texas virtually in a must take action situation because OU would go ballistic.

Look, everybody approaches realignment from the wrong end of the rope. Who would the SEC take? Who does the Big 10 want? Who does the ACC go after? That's all hooey! The question is who does ESPN want, especially if they are up against budget cuts? The answer is they want the most bang for the fewest dollars. That's as plain as the nose on your face. Who does that for them? Notre Dame all in boosts the entire value of the ACC. If it means that you take a Cincy to do that then that's relatively cheap. What does the SEC need to do for ESPN? Land Oklahoma and preferably Texas, or settle for Kansas. Either way for the price of just 4 more schools ESPN dominates the top inventory in terms of revenue producers (7 of the top 10), in terms of attendance, in terms of viewership, in terms of pedigree, and in terms of multiple sports.

Then the Mouse doesn't need much of the Big 10 except a slice of their T1 and they don't need more than the lease they already have on the PAC. The Big 10 is a 4 or 5 team conference where those top 4 or 5 don't even all play each other. The rest of the conference wreaks. You don't need 2nd or 3rd pick every week in the Big 10 to find inventory. All you need are 1st picks. The ACC & SEC lock down the property they want more of an exclusive hold over. But all they want of the SEC and ACC in return is that we play ball with their desires. That's the Chapel Hill issue that has to be overcome. They are extremely resistant to other dominant programs and the challenge they would pose to Heel dominance of the ACC.

(11-02-2015 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look, everybody approaches realignment from the wrong end of the rope. Who would the SEC take? Who does the Big 10 want? Who does the ACC go after? That's all hooey! The question is who does ESPN want, especially if they are up against budget cuts? The answer is they want the most bang for the fewest dollars. That's as plain as the nose on your face. Who does that for them? Notre Dame all in boosts the entire value of the ACC. If it means that you take a Cincy to do that then that's relatively cheap. What does the SEC need to do for ESPN? Land Oklahoma and preferably Texas, or settle for Kansas. Either way for the price of just 4 more schools ESPN dominates the top inventory in terms of revenue producers (7 of the top 10), in terms of attendance, in terms of viewership, in terms of pedigree, and in terms of multiple sports.

Then the Mouse doesn't need much of the Big 10 except a slice of their T1 and they don't need more than the lease they already have on the PAC. The Big 10 is a 4 or 5 team conference where those top 4 or 5 don't even all play each other. The rest of the conference wreaks. You don't need 2nd or 3rd pick every week in the Big 10 to find inventory. All you need are 1st picks. The ACC & SEC lock down the property they want more of an exclusive hold over. But all they want of the SEC and ACC in return is that we play ball with their desires. That's the Chapel Hill issue that has to be overcome. They are extremely resistant to other dominant programs and the challenge they would pose to Heel dominance of the ACC.

I think the question then is what makes ESPN the most money?

Content matters, quality of content matters, market penetration matters, overall ratings matter.

Does ESPN profit more from consolidating leagues and pawning the schools left out to a leftover league? Something akin to the old system where the Big East provided some bargain content while the major leagues provided the Tier 1 stuff?

Currently, the ACC is underfunded which causes instability because certain programs need more money to compete with their rivals. The ACCN has been delayed while apparently a bump in pay has been added to stem the tide. The question is does that payment mean ESPN is committed to an ACCN or that they are just stalling? Dan Wolken's comments suggest that the ACC is on the outside looking in and that the clock is ticking.

The B1G contract is coming up and I imagine ESPN wants a nice slice of the pie. Even though most of the league is very average, the average ratings are still better than the ACC.

The SEC is the cash cow and would certainly be a home for the major products from the ACC that ESPN wants to keep. The same could be said for the Big 12 although ESPN doesn't have full control over that conference.

The vote to deregulate conference championships is coming in Jan. What effect does this have on potential realignment?

ND is not going to join the ACC unless it's proven they can't make the playoff with a reasonable resume.

Texas, I don't think, wants to join the ACC or any other league because they have a fiefdom in the Big 12. They get to play neighbors and be the boss although time is ticking on the LHN and the media footprint for the league is abysmal for creating their own network. The Big 12 was overpaid to stay together in part because FOX wanted a tent pole for their new venture. My theory as well is that ESPN went along with it because realignment was happening too fast. They weren't in total control so they used a new Big 12 TV contract to hit the pause button. They still maintain control of Texas, however.

So what makes ESPN the most money given all the fluid dynamics of the situation?

(11-02-2015 07:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look, everybody approaches realignment from the wrong end of the rope. Who would the SEC take? Who does the Big 10 want? Who does the ACC go after? That's all hooey! The question is who does ESPN want, especially if they are up against budget cuts? The answer is they want the most bang for the fewest dollars. That's as plain as the nose on your face. Who does that for them? Notre Dame all in boosts the entire value of the ACC. If it means that you take a Cincy to do that then that's relatively cheap. What does the SEC need to do for ESPN? Land Oklahoma and preferably Texas, or settle for Kansas. Either way for the price of just 4 more schools ESPN dominates the top inventory in terms of revenue producers (7 of the top 10), in terms of attendance, in terms of viewership, in terms of pedigree, and in terms of multiple sports.

Then the Mouse doesn't need much of the Big 10 except a slice of their T1 and they don't need more than the lease they already have on the PAC. The Big 10 is a 4 or 5 team conference where those top 4 or 5 don't even all play each other. The rest of the conference wreaks. You don't need 2nd or 3rd pick every week in the Big 10 to find inventory. All you need are 1st picks. The ACC & SEC lock down the property they want more of an exclusive hold over. But all they want of the SEC and ACC in return is that we play ball with their desires. That's the Chapel Hill issue that has to be overcome. They are extremely resistant to other dominant programs and the challenge they would pose to Heel dominance of the ACC.

I think the question then is what makes ESPN the most money?

Content matters, quality of content matters, market penetration matters, overall ratings matter.

Does ESPN profit more from consolidating leagues and pawning the schools left out to a leftover league? Something akin to the old system where the Big East provided some bargain content while the major leagues provided the Tier 1 stuff?

Currently, the ACC is underfunded which causes instability because certain programs need more money to compete with their rivals. The ACCN has been delayed while apparently a bump in pay has been added to stem the tide. The question is does that payment mean ESPN is committed to an ACCN or that they are just stalling? Dan Wolken's comments suggest that the ACC is on the outside looking in and that the clock is ticking.

The B1G contract is coming up and I imagine ESPN wants a nice slice of the pie. Even though most of the league is very average, the average ratings are still better than the ACC.

The SEC is the cash cow and would certainly be a home for the major products from the ACC that ESPN wants to keep. The same could be said for the Big 12 although ESPN doesn't have full control over that conference.

The vote to deregulate conference championships is coming in Jan. What effect does this have on potential realignment?

ND is not going to join the ACC unless it's proven they can't make the playoff with a reasonable resume.

Texas, I don't think, wants to join the ACC or any other league because they have a fiefdom in the Big 12. They get to play neighbors and be the boss although time is ticking on the LHN and the media footprint for the league is abysmal for creating their own network. The Big 12 was overpaid to stay together in part because FOX wanted a tent pole for their new venture. My theory as well is that ESPN went along with it because realignment was happening too fast. They weren't in total control so they used a new Big 12 TV contract to hit the pause button. They still maintain control of Texas, however.

So what makes ESPN the most money given all the fluid dynamics of the situation?

Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. Notre Dame and whoever Notre Dame wants to the ACC. That's what makes them the most money.

(11-02-2015 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 07:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question then is what makes ESPN the most money?

Content matters, quality of content matters, market penetration matters, overall ratings matter.

Does ESPN profit more from consolidating leagues and pawning the schools left out to a leftover league? Something akin to the old system where the Big East provided some bargain content while the major leagues provided the Tier 1 stuff?

Currently, the ACC is underfunded which causes instability because certain programs need more money to compete with their rivals. The ACCN has been delayed while apparently a bump in pay has been added to stem the tide. The question is does that payment mean ESPN is committed to an ACCN or that they are just stalling? Dan Wolken's comments suggest that the ACC is on the outside looking in and that the clock is ticking.

The B1G contract is coming up and I imagine ESPN wants a nice slice of the pie. Even though most of the league is very average, the average ratings are still better than the ACC.

The SEC is the cash cow and would certainly be a home for the major products from the ACC that ESPN wants to keep. The same could be said for the Big 12 although ESPN doesn't have full control over that conference.

The vote to deregulate conference championships is coming in Jan. What effect does this have on potential realignment?

ND is not going to join the ACC unless it's proven they can't make the playoff with a reasonable resume.

Texas, I don't think, wants to join the ACC or any other league because they have a fiefdom in the Big 12. They get to play neighbors and be the boss although time is ticking on the LHN and the media footprint for the league is abysmal for creating their own network. The Big 12 was overpaid to stay together in part because FOX wanted a tent pole for their new venture. My theory as well is that ESPN went along with it because realignment was happening too fast. They weren't in total control so they used a new Big 12 TV contract to hit the pause button. They still maintain control of Texas, however.

So what makes ESPN the most money given all the fluid dynamics of the situation?

Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. Notre Dame and whoever Notre Dame wants to the ACC. That's what makes them the most money.

I don't see ND heading to the ACC anytime soon though. They are currently getting all the perks of ACC membership without any of the compromises. Unless the playoff committee starts snubbing them on a regular basis, I don't see it.

I'd welcome OU and Texas although I would prefer to go ahead and grab everything we would need for the future.

What are your thoughts on this:

Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas along with UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, Clemson, GT, and FSU

SEC West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
SEC North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, Duke

That would pretty much consolidate everything ESPN cares about under one roof. No need to spend money on an ACC Network. Getting a T1 deal for the B1G would include most Notre Dame games, more than they've got now probably. Unless, of course, ND wanted to head South then arrangements could be made to trade off one of the listed additions or add a few more to make the numbers work.

Let's say the B1G gets Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, and NC State

The Big 12 reforms with:

Big 12 West: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State

Big 12 Central: Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Big 12 North: Pittsburgh, Temple, UConn, Wake Forest, East Carolina

Big 12 South: Tulane, Miami, UCF, USF, Navy

That's a reasonably decent league that fills out ESPN's roster with watchable games at bargain basement prices.

Of course, some sort of Big 12/Pac 12 merger could take place as well, but the decent markets available would be limited to TX. I could see the PAC taking a couple of TX schools and being done with it.

(11-03-2015 12:46 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 07:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the question then is what makes ESPN the most money?

Content matters, quality of content matters, market penetration matters, overall ratings matter.

Does ESPN profit more from consolidating leagues and pawning the schools left out to a leftover league? Something akin to the old system where the Big East provided some bargain content while the major leagues provided the Tier 1 stuff?

Currently, the ACC is underfunded which causes instability because certain programs need more money to compete with their rivals. The ACCN has been delayed while apparently a bump in pay has been added to stem the tide. The question is does that payment mean ESPN is committed to an ACCN or that they are just stalling? Dan Wolken's comments suggest that the ACC is on the outside looking in and that the clock is ticking.

The B1G contract is coming up and I imagine ESPN wants a nice slice of the pie. Even though most of the league is very average, the average ratings are still better than the ACC.

The SEC is the cash cow and would certainly be a home for the major products from the ACC that ESPN wants to keep. The same could be said for the Big 12 although ESPN doesn't have full control over that conference.

The vote to deregulate conference championships is coming in Jan. What effect does this have on potential realignment?

ND is not going to join the ACC unless it's proven they can't make the playoff with a reasonable resume.

Texas, I don't think, wants to join the ACC or any other league because they have a fiefdom in the Big 12. They get to play neighbors and be the boss although time is ticking on the LHN and the media footprint for the league is abysmal for creating their own network. The Big 12 was overpaid to stay together in part because FOX wanted a tent pole for their new venture. My theory as well is that ESPN went along with it because realignment was happening too fast. They weren't in total control so they used a new Big 12 TV contract to hit the pause button. They still maintain control of Texas, however.

So what makes ESPN the most money given all the fluid dynamics of the situation?

Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. Notre Dame and whoever Notre Dame wants to the ACC. That's what makes them the most money.

I don't see ND heading to the ACC anytime soon though. They are currently getting all the perks of ACC membership without any of the compromises. Unless the playoff committee starts snubbing them on a regular basis, I don't see it.

I'd welcome OU and Texas although I would prefer to go ahead and grab everything we would need for the future.

What are your thoughts on this:

Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas along with UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, Clemson, GT, and FSU

SEC West: Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC South: LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State
SEC North: Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina
SEC East: Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Clemson, Duke

That would pretty much consolidate everything ESPN cares about under one roof. No need to spend money on an ACC Network. Getting a T1 deal for the B1G would include most Notre Dame games, more than they've got now probably. Unless, of course, ND wanted to head South then arrangements could be made to trade off one of the listed additions or add a few more to make the numbers work.

Let's say the B1G gets Notre Dame, Syracuse, Boston College, and NC State

The Big 12 reforms with:

Big 12 West: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma State

Big 12 Central: Kansas State, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia

Big 12 North: Pittsburgh, Temple, UConn, Wake Forest, East Carolina

Big 12 South: Tulane, Miami, UCF, USF, Navy

That's a reasonably decent league that fills out ESPN's roster with watchable games at bargain basement prices.

Of course, some sort of Big 12/Pac 12 merger could take place as well, but the decent markets available would be limited to TX. I could see the PAC taking a couple of TX schools and being done with it.

"If" the ACC becomes vulnerable due to revenue disparity, they and the Big 12 won't both get hit at the same time. The only way I see an ACC implosion failing to help the Big 12 is if the SEC and Big 10 both took 6 ACC schools each. Then the Big 12 would be forced into a merger with the PAC and vice versa. Now if the Big 12 gets nibbled by the Big 10 or SEC or both and then later the ACC falls even farther behind because of the revenue enhancement of content brands into the Big 10 or SEC you might wind up with a scenario where the Big 10 and SEC picked up more than 16 schools by going to 20 out of the ACC.

If it goes down that path a 4th conference of lesser brands and privates will likely be formed, earn less than the other three P conferences, but could likely find inclusion in the P system. Let's say for instance that Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas left the Big 12 for either of the SEC or Big 10. At some point the Virginia schools and North Carolina schools might have to make some moves. Then a conference of non flagship state schools and privates would likely be formed.

The most likely course however is that either the Big 12 implodes and the ACC is stabilized or the ACC implodes and the Big 12 is stabilized. If the Big 12 goes the ACC likely lands N.D. because we are moving to a P4. If the ACC implodes the Big 12 expands with quality additions.

VT, SU, BC, Pitt to Big Ten. They get a more solid footing in the East to balance out the Midwest, reunites former Big East programs, gives Maryland an old partner, gains an AAU, a former AAU, a strong private and a near AAU school.

SEC would have to bring in NC State to make the UNC/Duke pairing a reality. So those three plus UVA and you win the heart of the ACC.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville and __ to XII, depending on who the __ could be. ND could join the XII on a similar deal or even in full if independence is no longer viable.

(11-03-2015 02:47 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  VT, SU, BC, Pitt to Big Ten. They get a more solid footing in the East to balance out the Midwest, reunites former Big East programs, gives Maryland an old partner, gains an AAU, a former AAU, a strong private and a near AAU school.

SEC would have to bring in NC State to make the UNC/Duke pairing a reality. So those three plus UVA and you win the heart of the ACC.

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville and __ to XII, depending on who the __ could be. ND could join the XII on a similar deal or even in full if independence is no longer viable.

Given the recent developments with the ACCN delay (I still hold out hope that ESPN will come through just because I think they would rather the ACC survive and thrive rather than be picked apart)...

here's a novel idea that Swofford is undoubtedly not smart enough to conjure himself: Conspire to cannibalize the Big12 with the SEC and ESPN. We need 8 votes to dissolve the conference and nullify the GOR. The SEC is negotiating from a position of strength, so let them have the two properties they desire the most: OU and Kansas. The ACC then takes 6 to destroy the Big12: WVU, KState, Okie State, Texas, Baylor, TCU. The elephant in the room is the Longhorn network. Let Texas keep it, but they get zero revenue from the ACCN. The ACC gets subscribers all through Texahoma, Kansas and probably into Missouri. The ACC and SEC get new interconference rivalries with Kansas-KState, OU-OSU, and just maybe Texas-aTm. Iowa State and TTech are hosed, but that's life.

That would result in a 16 team SEC and a 20 team ACC. The ACC would mix and match 5 team pods to form 2 divisions of 10 teams every year. They divide up rather nicely:
BC
Syracuse
Pitt
Louisville
WVU

UVa
VT
UNC
Duke
NCSU

WF
Clemson
GT
FSU
Miami

Texas
TCU
Baylor
OSU
KState

WF gets murdered every year, but WF has a history of being the peacemaker that does what is best for the conference.

(11-02-2015 11:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 07:30 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 04:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Look, everybody approaches realignment from the wrong end of the rope. Who would the SEC take? Who does the Big 10 want? Who does the ACC go after? That's all hooey! The question is who does ESPN want, especially if they are up against budget cuts? The answer is they want the most bang for the fewest dollars. That's as plain as the nose on your face. Who does that for them? Notre Dame all in boosts the entire value of the ACC. If it means that you take a Cincy to do that then that's relatively cheap. What does the SEC need to do for ESPN? Land Oklahoma and preferably Texas, or settle for Kansas. Either way for the price of just 4 more schools ESPN dominates the top inventory in terms of revenue producers (7 of the top 10), in terms of attendance, in terms of viewership, in terms of pedigree, and in terms of multiple sports.

Then the Mouse doesn't need much of the Big 10 except a slice of their T1 and they don't need more than the lease they already have on the PAC. The Big 10 is a 4 or 5 team conference where those top 4 or 5 don't even all play each other. The rest of the conference wreaks. You don't need 2nd or 3rd pick every week in the Big 10 to find inventory. All you need are 1st picks. The ACC & SEC lock down the property they want more of an exclusive hold over. But all they want of the SEC and ACC in return is that we play ball with their desires. That's the Chapel Hill issue that has to be overcome. They are extremely resistant to other dominant programs and the challenge they would pose to Heel dominance of the ACC.

I think the question then is what makes ESPN the most money?

Content matters, quality of content matters, market penetration matters, overall ratings matter.

Does ESPN profit more from consolidating leagues and pawning the schools left out to a leftover league? Something akin to the old system where the Big East provided some bargain content while the major leagues provided the Tier 1 stuff?

Currently, the ACC is underfunded which causes instability because certain programs need more money to compete with their rivals. The ACCN has been delayed while apparently a bump in pay has been added to stem the tide. The question is does that payment mean ESPN is committed to an ACCN or that they are just stalling? Dan Wolken's comments suggest that the ACC is on the outside looking in and that the clock is ticking.

The B1G contract is coming up and I imagine ESPN wants a nice slice of the pie. Even though most of the league is very average, the average ratings are still better than the ACC.

The SEC is the cash cow and would certainly be a home for the major products from the ACC that ESPN wants to keep. The same could be said for the Big 12 although ESPN doesn't have full control over that conference.

The vote to deregulate conference championships is coming in Jan. What effect does this have on potential realignment?

ND is not going to join the ACC unless it's proven they can't make the playoff with a reasonable resume.

Texas, I don't think, wants to join the ACC or any other league because they have a fiefdom in the Big 12. They get to play neighbors and be the boss although time is ticking on the LHN and the media footprint for the league is abysmal for creating their own network. The Big 12 was overpaid to stay together in part because FOX wanted a tent pole for their new venture. My theory as well is that ESPN went along with it because realignment was happening too fast. They weren't in total control so they used a new Big 12 TV contract to hit the pause button. They still maintain control of Texas, however.

So what makes ESPN the most money given all the fluid dynamics of the situation?

Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC. Notre Dame and whoever Notre Dame wants to the ACC. That's what makes them the most money.

Tejas has always been the SEC's #1 target. While Oklahoma is not nearly as valuable, they do offer great history, content, and cache'.
I would also consider pairing Tejas with Kansas, if the SEC plans to keep Missouri. That move may push Oklahoma to the PAC with Okie Lite, Texas Tech and Kansas State. Looking through ESPN's eyes, the SEC already has enough football product, but may need to worry about content the other 6-8 months of the year.