(12-17-2015 09:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The P5 is the P5. The only question is whether it becomes the P4 or P3. Time, monetary disparity, and the pressure to compete will decide that issue.

Maybe Texas fancies itself as Snow White (surrounded by dwarfs), but OU does not. Therein lies the fuse that could blow the Big 12 apart.

Florida State and Clemson will not be content to sit idly by and let the gap grow in revenue with their in state rivals. Couple that with the shenanigans at UNC academically and you have a volatile mixture within the ACC. If Notre Dame or another big draw school like Texas refuse to join the ACC in full and therefore the national audience is not in the bag for an ACCN then therein lies the fuse that can ignite that simmering mixture within the ACC.

The Big 10, SEC, and PAC might have some minor issues but nothing that can blow them apart. In that regard all 3 are extremely stable. More importantly all 3 need only do nothing as the present momentum each has will only build pressure within the other two. Time is truly on their side.

Question,

Assuming the networks are flexible on some of the finer points, who exactly do these conferences want?

I see the SEC wanting Oklahoma, Texas, Florida State, Clemson, and a NC and VA school.

I see the B1G wanting Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, a NC and a VA school, and perhaps Georgia Tech

I see the PAC 12 wanting Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe a couple more from the Big 12 to balance out the numbers.

Obviously, not everyone can get what they want. Where Texas goes decides a lot for everyone else which I don't really like that there is only one such linchpin in all this.

Crazy theory #471:

Is it possible that ESPN wants to save both the Big 12 and the ACC? That providing networks to both will increase the amount of content that ESPN has under its control?

ESPN has several mostly underused properties like ESPNews, ESPN Classic, the infamous LHN, and an ESPNU channel that won't have much of anything if both the SEC and ACC have their own network.

The SECN has set the standard for conference TV networks with the BTN close behind. Whatever the PAC 12, the ACC, or the Big 12 put up will never compete directly with those 2 for profitability. I say that even with the potential for some sort of hybrid Big12/ACC league emerging as the fans of such a league won't have longstanding rivalries to be interested in or a craving for match-ups from other regions that have no history with each other.

BUT...does ESPN gain more by converting some of their current products to conference networks and consolidating their college athletics properties in that they create better footing to secure 1st and 2nd Tier rights in the future?

Let's say ESPN allows the Big 12 to expand with some desirable, but more regionally aligned programs...such as Houston, Memphis, BYU, Colorado State, UCF, USF...not all of them obviously but enough to dedicate a network to. Let's also say ESPN gives the SEC a slight boost with programs like Cincinnati(new market) and SMU(greater share of TX). UConn is always available if Notre Dame decides to join the ACC.

The LHN is converted to a Big 12 Network. Either ESPNews or ESPN Classic is converted to an ACC Network. They can still use ESPNU for leftover content from the 3 leagues that they essentially own with scattered content from other leagues as well obviously.

This way both the Big 12 and the ACC survive in a more regional format with an economic boost from a network without having to be carved up and gerrymandered into some sort of hybrid which I imagine none of the parties really are interested in or it would have happened by now.

Of course, all the most valuable properties would easily fit into the SEC for the most part, but 1) ESPN would lose a lot of content from marginal programs, 2) ESPN doesn't really want to pay any exorbitant rates to a mega-SEC, and 3) ESPN would lose some of those valuable properties to the Big Ten and/or PAC.

Pat, I'd like to solve the puzzle!

(12-17-2015 12:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 09:03 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The P5 is the P5. The only question is whether it becomes the P4 or P3. Time, monetary disparity, and the pressure to compete will decide that issue.

Maybe Texas fancies itself as Snow White (surrounded by dwarfs), but OU does not. Therein lies the fuse that could blow the Big 12 apart.

Florida State and Clemson will not be content to sit idly by and let the gap grow in revenue with their in state rivals. Couple that with the shenanigans at UNC academically and you have a volatile mixture within the ACC. If Notre Dame or another big draw school like Texas refuse to join the ACC in full and therefore the national audience is not in the bag for an ACCN then therein lies the fuse that can ignite that simmering mixture within the ACC.

The Big 10, SEC, and PAC might have some minor issues but nothing that can blow them apart. In that regard all 3 are extremely stable. More importantly all 3 need only do nothing as the present momentum each has will only build pressure within the other two. Time is truly on their side.

Question,

Assuming the networks are flexible on some of the finer points, who exactly do these conferences want?

I see the SEC wanting Oklahoma, Texas, Florida State, Clemson, and a NC and VA school.

I see the B1G wanting Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, a NC and a VA school, and perhaps Georgia Tech

I see the PAC 12 wanting Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe a couple more from the Big 12 to balance out the numbers.

Obviously, not everyone can get what they want. Where Texas goes decides a lot for everyone else which I don't really like that there is only one such linchpin in all this.

Crazy theory #471:

Is it possible that ESPN wants to save both the Big 12 and the ACC? That providing networks to both will increase the amount of content that ESPN has under its control?

ESPN has several mostly underused properties like ESPNews, ESPN Classic, the infamous LHN, and an ESPNU channel that won't have much of anything if both the SEC and ACC have their own network.

The SECN has set the standard for conference TV networks with the BTN close behind. Whatever the PAC 12, the ACC, or the Big 12 put up will never compete directly with those 2 for profitability. I say that even with the potential for some sort of hybrid Big12/ACC league emerging as the fans of such a league won't have longstanding rivalries to be interested in or a craving for match-ups from other regions that have no history with each other.

BUT...does ESPN gain more by converting some of their current products to conference networks and consolidating their college athletics properties in that they create better footing to secure 1st and 2nd Tier rights in the future?

Let's say ESPN allows the Big 12 to expand with some desirable, but more regionally aligned programs...such as Houston, Memphis, BYU, Colorado State, UCF, USF...not all of them obviously but enough to dedicate a network to. Let's also say ESPN gives the SEC a slight boost with programs like Cincinnati(new market) and SMU(greater share of TX). UConn is always available if Notre Dame decides to join the ACC.

The LHN is converted to a Big 12 Network. Either ESPNews or ESPN Classic is converted to an ACC Network. They can still use ESPNU for leftover content from the 3 leagues that they essentially own with scattered content from other leagues as well obviously.

This way both the Big 12 and the ACC survive in a more regional format with an economic boost from a network without having to be carved up and gerrymandered into some sort of hybrid which I imagine none of the parties really are interested in or it would have happened by now.

Of course, all the most valuable properties would easily fit into the SEC for the most part, but 1) ESPN would lose a lot of content from marginal programs, 2) ESPN doesn't really want to pay any exorbitant rates to a mega-SEC, and 3) ESPN would lose some of those valuable properties to the Big Ten and/or PAC.

Pat, I'd like to solve the puzzle!

If you want to know whether ESPN wants schools from the Big 12 or ACC in another conference then ask yourself whether the school in question is worth $40 million a year to ESPN in the conference being considered.

Moving Texas would save them some money long term. Moving Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or Florida State from a branding standpoint would be worth it.

Forget T2 & T3 inventory. In a world that is moving to streaming content is the key revenue enhancer. Brand vs brand generates the most revenue. ESPN would be happy to pay for further consolidation if they don't have to pay top dollar for filler schools that don't have brand cachet.

That is why at the end of the GOR's it is highly unlikely that the little brothers find homes.

Face it, if the SEC expanded with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson and Oklahoma then ESPN would multiply the value of owning Kentucky in hoops, and would have 3 more brand multipliers to add to an already deep football product. Let's say each of those schools got 17 million more for moving. For not having to pay Wake Forest, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, top dollar anymore ESPN saves overhead while multiplying their must see lineup which sells very well whether on prime time TV or streamed. Multiply that savings by what they no longer have to pay for half of the Big 12 properties not involved in such a move and voila they have content galore, few dogs, and a lot less mouth to feed. Even if the ESPN had to add Texas, Oklahoma State, Louisville, and Texas Tech to get it done it still comes out money ahead.

Don't think in terms of markets. That issue is fast becoming passe. Don't think in terms of who you would like to see in a conference because the conferences will have only a smidgen of input in regards to additions. Think instead of how much a network can maximize its profits without having to maintain larger inventory. That's where we are headed. And finally ask yourself for instance is a Cincinnati worth 40 million a year to ESPN. The Bearcats are nice, but not 40 million a year nice to the bottom line.

NBC does digital pretty well (they might do it best). Please see Olympic coverage. They might not pay great, but the exposure might be worth it, especially if it involves ND and teams regain certain rights back.
ESPN might outmaneuver themselves if they aren't careful.

(12-17-2015 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you want to know whether ESPN wants schools from the Big 12 or ACC in another conference then ask yourself whether the school in question is worth $40 million a year to ESPN in the conference being considered.

Moving Texas would save them some money long term. Moving Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or Florida State from a branding standpoint would be worth it.

Forget T2 & T3 inventory. In a world that is moving to streaming content is the key revenue enhancer. Brand vs brand generates the most revenue. ESPN would be happy to pay for further consolidation if they don't have to pay top dollar for filler schools that don't have brand cachet.

That is why at the end of the GOR's it is highly unlikely that the little brothers find homes.

Face it, if the SEC expanded with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson and Oklahoma then ESPN would multiply the value of owning Kentucky in hoops, and would have 3 more brand multipliers to add to an already deep football product. Let's say each of those schools got 17 million more for moving. For not having to pay Wake Forest, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, top dollar anymore ESPN saves overhead while multiplying their must see lineup which sells very well whether on prime time TV or streamed. Multiply that savings by what they no longer have to pay for half of the Big 12 properties not involved in such a move and voila they have content galore, few dogs, and a lot less mouth to feed. Even if the ESPN had to add Texas, Oklahoma State, Louisville, and Texas Tech to get it done it still comes out money ahead.

Don't think in terms of markets. That issue is fast becoming passe. Don't think in terms of who you would like to see in a conference because the conferences will have only a smidgen of input in regards to additions. Think instead of how much a network can maximize its profits without having to maintain larger inventory. That's where we are headed. And finally ask yourself for instance is a Cincinnati worth 40 million a year to ESPN. The Bearcats are nice, but not 40 million a year nice to the bottom line.

So considering the new additions to the $100 million club...

I would have to think those are brands that ESPN doesn't want to lose. I was a little surprised to see Baylor and Louisville among them, but I guess it is what it is.

Does it make more sense to break the ACC up with the emphasis being on strengthening the SEC? Follow that up with the new hybrid league of ACC/Big 12 schools that contain more $100M teams than the PAC 12?

Let's say UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT to the SEC

$100M members(10) = Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M with additional strong brands.

Then move FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, and maybe a couple more to the Big 12. Now, you've got the basis for a network and you could easily convert an existing property like the LHN to cut down on start-up costs. I say that because it would be hard to put them all in one league.

$100M members(6) = Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Baylor, Louisville, Kansas with additional strong brands.

ESPN saves cash by dropping Miami, Wake Forest, Pitt, Boston College

Virginia Tech and Syracuse probably head to the B1G in that scenario...

Or...is it possible that ESPN would try to stuff all their valuable brands in one league? That would be a huge league, but it could definitely save money.

Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas from the Big 12...

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson, Louisville...possibly Notre Dame from the ACC.

That would be a 26 team league. Either leave off Louisville or add a couple more decent brands.

Savings from cutting...Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, Pitt, Boston College, NC State, Wake Forest, and Miami

That's a huge league with a lot of strong content from one opponent to another.

(12-18-2015 10:31 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-17-2015 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If you want to know whether ESPN wants schools from the Big 12 or ACC in another conference then ask yourself whether the school in question is worth $40 million a year to ESPN in the conference being considered.

Moving Texas would save them some money long term. Moving Oklahoma, North Carolina, Duke, or Florida State from a branding standpoint would be worth it.

Forget T2 & T3 inventory. In a world that is moving to streaming content is the key revenue enhancer. Brand vs brand generates the most revenue. ESPN would be happy to pay for further consolidation if they don't have to pay top dollar for filler schools that don't have brand cachet.

That is why at the end of the GOR's it is highly unlikely that the little brothers find homes.

Face it, if the SEC expanded with North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson and Oklahoma then ESPN would multiply the value of owning Kentucky in hoops, and would have 3 more brand multipliers to add to an already deep football product. Let's say each of those schools got 17 million more for moving. For not having to pay Wake Forest, Boston College, Miami, Pitt, Louisville, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, top dollar anymore ESPN saves overhead while multiplying their must see lineup which sells very well whether on prime time TV or streamed. Multiply that savings by what they no longer have to pay for half of the Big 12 properties not involved in such a move and voila they have content galore, few dogs, and a lot less mouth to feed. Even if the ESPN had to add Texas, Oklahoma State, Louisville, and Texas Tech to get it done it still comes out money ahead.

Don't think in terms of markets. That issue is fast becoming passe. Don't think in terms of who you would like to see in a conference because the conferences will have only a smidgen of input in regards to additions. Think instead of how much a network can maximize its profits without having to maintain larger inventory. That's where we are headed. And finally ask yourself for instance is a Cincinnati worth 40 million a year to ESPN. The Bearcats are nice, but not 40 million a year nice to the bottom line.

So considering the new additions to the $100 million club...

I would have to think those are brands that ESPN doesn't want to lose. I was a little surprised to see Baylor and Louisville among them, but I guess it is what it is.

Does it make more sense to break the ACC up with the emphasis being on strengthening the SEC? Follow that up with the new hybrid league of ACC/Big 12 schools that contain more $100M teams than the PAC 12?

Let's say UNC, Duke, UVA, and GT to the SEC

$100M members(10) = Alabama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M with additional strong brands.

Then move FSU, Clemson, Louisville, NC State, and maybe a couple more to the Big 12. Now, you've got the basis for a network and you could easily convert an existing property like the LHN to cut down on start-up costs. I say that because it would be hard to put them all in one league.

$100M members(6) = Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, Baylor, Louisville, Kansas with additional strong brands.

ESPN saves cash by dropping Miami, Wake Forest, Pitt, Boston College

Virginia Tech and Syracuse probably head to the B1G in that scenario...

Or...is it possible that ESPN would try to stuff all their valuable brands in one league? That would be a huge league, but it could definitely save money.

Texas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas from the Big 12...

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Florida State, Clemson, Louisville...possibly Notre Dame from the ACC.

That would be a 26 team league. Either leave off Louisville or add a couple more decent brands.

Savings from cutting...Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia, Pitt, Boston College, NC State, Wake Forest, and Miami

That's a huge league with a lot of strong content from one opponent to another.

As to North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Georgia Tech, if they did join the SEC the bump in revenue would place one, possibly two, of them in the 100M club as well.

As to the creation of another P conference out of the remnants that is possible and might allow a way for B.Y.U., Cincinnati and Connecticut to find a way into the P5.

(12-18-2015 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Georgia Tech, if they did join the SEC the bump in revenue would place one, possibly two, of them in the 100M club as well.

As to the creation of another P conference out of the remnants that is possible and might allow a way for B.Y.U., Cincinnati and Connecticut to find a way into the P5.

So a realistic number might be 28 if ESPN is truly serious about storing their best properties in one league...

Let's say...

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

I threw Pitt in there because 1) new market 2) AAU school 3) potential rival for ND 4) potential basketball content

All the $100 million ESPN properties are now under one roof.

The B1G takes Syracuse and Virginia Tech to add solid brands and markets.

Leftover league(I'll call it the Big American) maintains Power status, but doesn't cost the networks nearly as much to keep. A few undervalued G5 teams get in as well to better secure markets and provide content.

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston,
Central: Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Cincinnati
North: West Virginia, Boston College, UConn, Temple
South: Miami, UCF, NC State, Wake Forest

So the top dollar products are the SEC and the B1G. The PAC 12 holds down the middle tier, but is limited due to geography. The Big American rounds out a P4, but is filled with the lower tier programs that can't demand big money.

(12-19-2015 05:27 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 07:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Georgia Tech, if they did join the SEC the bump in revenue would place one, possibly two, of them in the 100M club as well.

As to the creation of another P conference out of the remnants that is possible and might allow a way for B.Y.U., Cincinnati and Connecticut to find a way into the P5.

So a realistic number might be 28 if ESPN is truly serious about storing their best properties in one league...

Let's say...

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

I threw Pitt in there because 1) new market 2) AAU school 3) potential rival for ND 4) potential basketball content

All the $100 million ESPN properties are now under one roof.

The B1G takes Syracuse and Virginia Tech to add solid brands and markets.

Leftover league(I'll call it the Big American) maintains Power status, but doesn't cost the networks nearly as much to keep. A few undervalued G5 teams get in as well to better secure markets and provide content.

West: BYU, Texas Tech, TCU, Houston,
Central: Kansas State, Iowa State, Memphis, Cincinnati
North: West Virginia, Boston College, UConn, Temple
South: Miami, UCF, NC State, Wake Forest

So the top dollar products are the SEC and the B1G. The PAC 12 holds down the middle tier, but is limited due to geography. The Big American rounds out a P4, but is filled with the lower tier programs that can't demand big money.

The most I can see the SEC and Big 10 adding and still finding value would be 4 each and even then it would have to be a very select 4.

Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia for the Big 10.
Clemson, Florida State, Oklahoma, Texas for the SEC.

Content will be the main factor in pay increases going forward. There is your reason.

This is precisely why I've said over and over that if the GOR's expire the chance of second state schools making the cut goes away.

How many of the remnant the PAC might take would be the difference in whether it is 54, or 58, or even 60 schools that would make the cut into the future P level of conference play.

Given ESPN's level of investment in the SECN and the diversity of the ACC's schools it seems to me now that while under economic duress a parsing of the ACC may be closer at hand than many might think. We'll see. But if it happens a P3 or a reconstructed Big 12 in a P4 might very well be the outcomes.

When you add Dook, Carolina, Notre Dame and UVa to the B1G, which two do you let go and how do you arrange it? I would think Northwestern and Purdue, but that's just a guess.
And for the SEC? Do you invite Mississippi and Miss State along with Vanderbilt to go? Then who can you add as #16, the Pokes (they do have the revenue to survive) ?

(12-20-2015 09:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  When you add Dook, Carolina, Notre Dame and UVa to the B1G, which two do you let go and how do you arrange it? I would think Northwestern and Purdue, but that's just a guess.
And for the SEC? Do you invite Mississippi and Miss State along with Vanderbilt to go? Then who can you add as #16, the Pokes (they do have the revenue to survive) ?

Actually nobody is let go. Both simply move to 18. Iowa State, Kansas, Texas Tech and Houston to the PAC to make 16. The new Big 12 is then reconstituted and also stands at 18.

Boston College, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

The brands move to new associations. The PAC expands into Texas and picks up the two remaining P5 AAU. And the best of the G5 find their way into an 18 member Big 12 that is geographically balanced. 70 are in, nobody is left out and realignment is over. The PAC has the option to add two more later if they desire to do so.

BTW: The PAC groupings work well.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Houston, Texas Tech
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Utah

(12-21-2015 08:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 09:50 PM)XLance Wrote:  When you add Dook, Carolina, Notre Dame and UVa to the B1G, which two do you let go and how do you arrange it? I would think Northwestern and Purdue, but that's just a guess.
And for the SEC? Do you invite Mississippi and Miss State along with Vanderbilt to go? Then who can you add as #16, the Pokes (they do have the revenue to survive) ?

Actually nobody is let go. Both simply move to 18. Iowa State, Kansas, Texas Tech and Houston to the PAC to make 16. The new Big 12 is then reconstituted and also stands at 18.

Boston College, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia

Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest

Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech

The brands move to new associations. The PAC expands into Texas and picks up the two remaining P5 AAU. And the best of the G5 find their way into an 18 member Big 12 that is geographically balanced. 70 are in, nobody is left out and realignment is over. The PAC has the option to add two more later if they desire to do so.

BTW: The PAC groupings work well.

Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford
Arizona, Arizona State, Houston, Texas Tech
Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Utah

Nah! 18 just won't work, besides you are taking the dregs of the SEC and the B1G and pushing them further down the ladder of success. The only reason for them to remain is to be the cannon fodder for the rest of the conference(s). Because by your definition only the highest dollar schools can compete and add value and because of that those schools have to go. But, how can you explain Ole Miss and their recent success? Is it an anomaly? Maybe money (or more to the point, budgets) is not the determining factor of success, if it were Texas would be the champion every year.
The concept of only three conferences (or only two for that matter) just won't work for college athletics at this time, and NOBODY (not even the B1G or the SEC) is ready or willing to go beyond 16 now.
I can not see any school being demoted from the P5, and I don't see any of those schools willingly dropping down and giving up money and prestige. That hodgepodge conference you put together is just that; a hodgepodge and there aren't enough really strong brands to be it's standard bearer.
Keep working JR, you will find the solution, but right now you are on the wrong track.

(12-20-2015 05:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is precisely why I've said over and over that if the GOR's expire the chance of second state schools making the cut goes away.

While I agree with that statement in principle, I don't think all 2nd state schools are created equal.

Virginia Tech for example, I think is undervalued in your scenario. There's a good argument actually that the B1G would prefer VT to UVA as things stand today. UVA wants to be a public ivy while VT is more of the traditional flagship state school with research, high enrollment, and a more revenue sport focused athletic program. VT's football attendance is already much higher and they are now considered the most popular college product in the state. UVA generates more money overall, but not a lot more. VT got a late start on things it would seem...much like FSU.

Given the state of VA's ascent to wealth and if the trend of VT churning out more alumni continues for the long term then VT will be quite the prize. I think any league would be foolish to pass them up if they don't already have UVA on their roster.

I would argue that had VT not been invited to the ACC when they were then they would likely be in the SEC today instead of Missouri.

I'm not sure NC State falls quite into that same boat, but we already know FSU and Clemson do. Texas A&M does. Michigan State does. I don't think it's far fetched to make a move for VT given the opportunity.

As for Kansas, even though their football product isn't great, they have a lot of other things going for them. They are basically another Kentucky. Valuable to the Big Ten? Maybe not. More valuable to the SEC? Quite possibly. The SEC needs greater basketball content and KU is obviously one of, if not the biggest content multiplier on the board in that regard. It's an AAU school and it's in the $100M club despite being disadvantaged in the Big 12. For that reason alone, I don't see ESPN giving them up. The market is not large, but is comparable to MS and AR, however, it's one of the few schools with a truly national fan base similar to UNC or Duke.

Perhaps this alignment would work...

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

I think 20 is a number that structurally gives the league more flexibility than 18 and at least from the network's perspective offers more profitability.

If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

I'd actually put Baylor higher up (partly based on conversations from this board). They do have both basketball and football, and they wouldn't tick off A&M. We could do worse than gunning for OK/Baylor (shifting Mizzou to the west and Alabama and Auburn east). I'd love a Baylor-TN women's basketball conference matchup and it would just make that sport that much more entertaining for the network.

(12-21-2015 03:38 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If I were the SEC, It would depend on what my goal was.

For 16: Kansas and Oklahoma
For 18: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia

Kansas for basketball.
Oklahoma for football, basketball, and national appeal.
Texas because it's Texas.
West Virginia for its likeness to SEC programs along with a decent football program and a good basketball program.

I would consider Oklahoma St only if Oklahoma declined.
I would consider Baylor only if Texas declined.
I would not consider TCU or Texas Tech. TCU is football-centric while Baylor has strong football and basketball. Texas is too far away.
I would not consider Kansas St. Their football and basketball are both typically okay, but neither program are as Kansas is to basketball.
I would consider Iowa St if the goal was beyond 18.

I'd actually put Baylor higher up (partly based on conversations from this board). They do have both basketball and football, and they wouldn't tick off A&M. We could do worse than gunning for OK/Baylor (shifting Mizzou to the west and Alabama and Auburn east). I'd love a Baylor-TN women's basketball conference matchup and it would just make that sport that much more entertaining for the network.

If we were still going to be market driven I might consider adding Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas to form a Western divisions with Arkansas and Missouri.

However, we are going to be moving to a content model as more streaming comes into play. Therefore the two that add the most content value remain Texas and Oklahoma.

If we brokered the movement to dissolve the Big 12 then perhaps we could take Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, or a second Texas school and since we are the only ones that have nothing against Baylor it might have to be them.

I'm working on the theory that the SEC plans to pick apart the Big 12 at some point in the future.

Who's worth having? Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, I think, are the top 4 programs and are very much worth having for a variety of reasons. I think all of these additions would be a plus in the streaming model.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

I still think there is a chance that an additional 6 teams from the ACC could prove profitable as well as long as FSU and Clemson are among them. The reason I think that is because the more conference games you play among a larger group of schools, the more content is under one roof. Is there really a need to play non-conference games when you could play at least 11 strong and varied opponents within your league? Each games that adds to the outcome of the conference race adds value as opposed to playing 2 or more non-conference games and splitting the value with another league. You could save true non-conference games for the postseason. It would probably make the bowl games more special and slightly more valuable as well.

The other reason is basic market dynamics. I seriously doubt ESPN wants to pay for a 20+ team league. But...they'll have to or risk losing the content. Monopolization of the product is the key. The bigger the primary leagues become the fewer relevant leagues there will be. Entities like ESPN or FOX can save money by not having to go to the trouble of paying decent rates to lesser leagues. If all the leftovers are essentially relegated to G5-like leagues with the rates that go with them then there's a potential for significant savings there. Does ESPN care if there are 60 or 72 major programs as long as there are more conference games between power programs? I doubt it.

Who could provide great content from the ACC?

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

I'm excluding the possibility of UNC, Duke, and UVA here as I don't think those schools will want to leave unless the league is falling apart. It's entirely possible that the league's value could collapse with the invitation of FSU and Clemson, but even then they may choose the B1G. It's not such a bad thing though as VT is a better brand to have than UVA. Pitt taps another new market plus bringing another AAU school. GT's inclusion also brings another AAU school and also helps to renew some regional rivalries with old SEC teams. I think that helps to multiply interest within the region that cares about college football the most. NC State is not a great brand, but it taps a new market and with SEC money it will develop into a much more relevant brand.

Playing 11 league games, as I think the Power leagues are going to end up doing before much longer anyway, will allow a regular rotation and an increased amount of content.

5 division games, 1 permanent rival against each of the other 3, 1 rotating game against each of the other 3. You play everyone in the league at least once every 5 years.

Maybe the 12th game is a non-conference rivalry or G5 team. Then you add the value of 4 division winners playing in a conference semi-final. I think it would work.

(01-01-2016 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm working on the theory that the SEC plans to pick apart the Big 12 at some point in the future.

Who's worth having? Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, I think, are the top 4 programs and are very much worth having for a variety of reasons. I think all of these additions would be a plus in the streaming model.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

I still think there is a chance that an additional 6 teams from the ACC could prove profitable as well as long as FSU and Clemson are among them. The reason I think that is because the more conference games you play among a larger group of schools, the more content is under one roof. Is there really a need to play non-conference games when you could play at least 11 strong and varied opponents within your league? Each games that adds to the outcome of the conference race adds value as opposed to playing 2 or more non-conference games and splitting the value with another league. You could save true non-conference games for the postseason. It would probably make the bowl games more special and slightly more valuable as well.

The other reason is basic market dynamics. I seriously doubt ESPN wants to pay for a 20+ team league. But...they'll have to or risk losing the content. Monopolization of the product is the key. The bigger the primary leagues become the fewer relevant leagues there will be. Entities like ESPN or FOX can save money by not having to go to the trouble of paying decent rates to lesser leagues. If all the leftovers are essentially relegated to G5-like leagues with the rates that go with them then there's a potential for significant savings there. Does ESPN care if there are 60 or 72 major programs as long as there are more conference games between power programs? I doubt it.

Who could provide great content from the ACC?

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

I'm excluding the possibility of UNC, Duke, and UVA here as I don't think those schools will want to leave unless the league is falling apart. It's entirely possible that the league's value could collapse with the invitation of FSU and Clemson, but even then they may choose the B1G. It's not such a bad thing though as VT is a better brand to have than UVA. Pitt taps another new market plus bringing another AAU school. GT's inclusion also brings another AAU school and also helps to renew some regional rivalries with old SEC teams. I think that helps to multiply interest within the region that cares about college football the most. NC State is not a great brand, but it taps a new market and with SEC money it will develop into a much more relevant brand.

Playing 11 league games, as I think the Power leagues are going to end up doing before much longer anyway, will allow a regular rotation and an increased amount of content.

5 division games, 1 permanent rival against each of the other 3, 1 rotating game against each of the other 3. You play everyone in the league at least once every 5 years.

Maybe the 12th game is a non-conference rivalry or G5 team. Then you add the value of 4 division winners playing in a conference semi-final. I think it would work.

I agree that even with streaming that taking Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas would be a NET gain.

18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

(01-01-2016 09:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  18 team conferences?
There would be room only for two. I like 3 pods of 6.

B1G
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan and Michigan State
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois
Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia Tech and NC State

SEC
Tejas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and LSU
Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Florida State, Louisville/West Virginia
Florida, Auburn, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky

The PAC stays the same at 12

The ACC also becomes a 12 team conference
Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Wake Forest, Carolina, Dook, UVa, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, and UConn/West Virginia/Louisville.

Now that's a bit more creative. I will think on this.

(01-01-2016 03:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-01-2016 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm working on the theory that the SEC plans to pick apart the Big 12 at some point in the future.

Who's worth having? Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas, I think, are the top 4 programs and are very much worth having for a variety of reasons. I think all of these additions would be a plus in the streaming model.

Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas

Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky

I still think there is a chance that an additional 6 teams from the ACC could prove profitable as well as long as FSU and Clemson are among them. The reason I think that is because the more conference games you play among a larger group of schools, the more content is under one roof. Is there really a need to play non-conference games when you could play at least 11 strong and varied opponents within your league? Each games that adds to the outcome of the conference race adds value as opposed to playing 2 or more non-conference games and splitting the value with another league. You could save true non-conference games for the postseason. It would probably make the bowl games more special and slightly more valuable as well.

The other reason is basic market dynamics. I seriously doubt ESPN wants to pay for a 20+ team league. But...they'll have to or risk losing the content. Monopolization of the product is the key. The bigger the primary leagues become the fewer relevant leagues there will be. Entities like ESPN or FOX can save money by not having to go to the trouble of paying decent rates to lesser leagues. If all the leftovers are essentially relegated to G5-like leagues with the rates that go with them then there's a potential for significant savings there. Does ESPN care if there are 60 or 72 major programs as long as there are more conference games between power programs? I doubt it.

Who could provide great content from the ACC?

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh

I'm excluding the possibility of UNC, Duke, and UVA here as I don't think those schools will want to leave unless the league is falling apart. It's entirely possible that the league's value could collapse with the invitation of FSU and Clemson, but even then they may choose the B1G. It's not such a bad thing though as VT is a better brand to have than UVA. Pitt taps another new market plus bringing another AAU school. GT's inclusion also brings another AAU school and also helps to renew some regional rivalries with old SEC teams. I think that helps to multiply interest within the region that cares about college football the most. NC State is not a great brand, but it taps a new market and with SEC money it will develop into a much more relevant brand.

Playing 11 league games, as I think the Power leagues are going to end up doing before much longer anyway, will allow a regular rotation and an increased amount of content.

5 division games, 1 permanent rival against each of the other 3, 1 rotating game against each of the other 3. You play everyone in the league at least once every 5 years.

Maybe the 12th game is a non-conference rivalry or G5 team. Then you add the value of 4 division winners playing in a conference semi-final. I think it would work.

I agree that even with streaming that taking Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas would be a NET gain.

I'm inching you my way JR