Article

I'll just say this. Any league that associates with Notre Dame seems to be a target of destabilization attempts.

No doubt the big 10/sec want to raid the ACC and both leagues f'd over the ACC by not allowing their rule change. I don't think any of the ACC targets, the school's in VA and NC have any interest in joining the big 10/sec no matter the amount of money for spots 15 and 16. What could cause some movement would be for the big 10 or sec to offer 4 spots to the pool of UVA, V tech, UNC, Duke and NC STAte to jump to 18. Or for the big 10/sec to target other ACC school's. I think the big 10/sec could pull FSU which might destabilize the ACC. I think that would be a great pick up for the big 10 but a lousy pickup for the SEC.

That is a long read. Cliff notes please.

Whoever the writer is for that site is someone who is a member of this board. Every theory that was presented is one that I have read on this board.

(01-24-2016 11:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Whoever the writer is for that site is someone who is a member of this board. Every theory that was presented is one that I have read on this board.

Makes for interesting reads though, doesn't it?

(01-24-2016 11:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Whoever the writer is for that site is someone who is a member of this board. Every theory that was presented is one that I have read on this board.

Yes, but he is correct about one thing: the B1G and ACC do have conflicting interests. The obvious one is that both seek control of market share in the northeast corridor.

Second, if the B1G expands again, while the most easy to get candidates are in the Big 12 (e.g., Kansas, Iowa State), the most desirable candidates are in the ACC. So a weak ACC is good for the B1G because it makes it more likely that ACC schools it approaches will be amenable to switching, as Maryland was.

Those are pretty large bases for conflict.

(01-24-2016 11:47 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  Whoever the writer is for that site is someone who is a member of this board. Every theory that was presented is one that I have read on this board.

It's an eco-friendly article - instead of wasting energy coming up with new ideas, he recycled old ones gathering dust in the garage. Way to go green, man!

It was long, but well written and well thought out. I think it is also an accurate representation of the present landscape.

There is, however, one error in perception that being a feud between the Big 10 and the ACC. A more accurate statement given the history of the formation of the BTN is that there has been a running feud between Delany and ESPN who just happens to own 100% of the rights to the ACC.

A decade, give or take a year or two, ago when the Big 10 was seeking a new ESPN contract the Mouse offered Delany a low ball figure for the Big 10 rights. Delany balked and the ESPN representative told him if he didn't like the offer to form his own network. Delany did and, in spite of what many might think my feelings are toward the Big 10, he became a hero of mine with that decision.

The fallout has been an ongoing war with ESPN (a war to be sure that still included a business relationship of convenience between the two). When the Big 10 formed the network they did so with a full understanding that the endeavor would lead them into the population centers of the Northeast.

ESPN's reaction was to add all of the possible targets for the new Network to the only conference in proximity and the only one where they held 100% of the rights. It was obvious that the money involved would not stop raids on the Big East so the ACC became the repository of some of the more desirable expansion options for a Big 10 move into that region.

The SEC does share a loose alliance based upon similar objectives with the Big 10. And while the SEC has benefited greatly from its association with ESPN it is not lost on us that over the last twenty years ESPN has also parked in the ACC schools in the Southeast that kept us from consolidating our footprint and therefore strengthening our leverage for Southeastern football content.

So in short the ACC is the parking lot for programs who have more value to the Big 10 and SEC than they might even have to the ACC, especially its old core schools.

Another thing the writer omits is that the cable model that paid for potential viewers in states where a conference had members was a tool used to break up the leverage that schools in large areas had over the network.

Prying A&M out of the Big 12 was such a move and it has weakened the position of Texas. Attempting a deal with the SEC that would offer the ACC key brands to expand, but would cost them N.C. State and Virginia Tech was another attempt to break up the voting strength of the six schools in the beltway states. Denying expansion candidates to the PAC is another form of this same strategy. Only with the case of the PAC withholding brands and markets curtails the desire of anyone to offer full carriage of the PACN. It does however allow FOX and ESPN to cherry pick the games they want to air from their leased rights.

You see what started as a simple feud with Delany has become a struggle for the complete takeover of NCAA Division I football as a product to exploit for commercial value.

In 2010 on another site (a Georgia site that no longer exists) I had a running argument (a friendly one) with their blog writer about the true motives behind the footprint model. I favored taking brands then over markets. I've stated as much in posts here on both the SEC and this board. I told folks then that it was only designed to break up the power coalitions that had held regions and conferences together and that this was the sole purpose of this model which would be switched when the goals were achieved for the networks. Those goals were to destabilize those coalitions. I stated at the time that a "saturation model" would be forthcoming. A Saturation model would pay the conferences for the actual % of viewers in a state where multiple conferences held interests.

So the carrot was to pay everyone for the whole state for one contract period (which is purposeful over payment as bait to get the fragmenting of state markets such as Texas accomplished) and then in the second contract to switch to actually paying them for just who watches which would cut out the expensive overhead of the networks and reduce value to the conferences unless they would concede other points necessary to enhance their commercial value. So extra conference games, playing all P5 schedules, and playing more brands are those concessions to keep the increased pay. That and further product placement which is what we call realignment.

ESPN had plans for the ACC. Those plans met with resistance from the old core schools who realized what was happening to them. Those plans may now have changed. But understand this. You can substitute the term "streaming" for what I once called a market saturation plan. The bait and switch is being completed.

Once again corporate America is changing what we love.

It is not Jim Delany, who lost status in my eyes when he sold out to FOX to obtain carriage, that is the villain. It is not Mike Slive either. Both of those guys were hired because they knew the business of sports rights contracts and understood the motivations of networks. The villains behind realignment are mostly ESPN and then FOX. They are smart and solid businesses that recognized an opportunity and seized it, particularly ESPN. They baited conferences into further realignment to realize added profits from engaged regions of advertising.

Now we are entering the restructuring phase of realignment. Make college football make sense to the public in a believable and acceptable way so that it can become more of an institution for the masses, rather than just for alumni. 4 relatively symmetrical conferences that engage the most regions of the nation are a way to accomplish that goal.

While I don't think ESPN originally planned to broker out the ACC, I do think they planned to control the most valuable product totally under their rights until the SEC and Big 10 had been reshaped and in ways that would prove profitable to ESPN. Perhaps the Big 12 was spared to gain control of the PAC. We'll see.

The other objective has been the isolation and capture of one school, Notre Dame. This is why I admire them for remaining obstructionists in this endeavor even though I have no particular love of the Irish. In that regard Terry D's school also receives my admiration for being stubbornly and unapologetically independent. I wish all of us still had that bent. JR

(01-24-2016 02:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So in short the ACC is the parking lot

In a sense, yeah. So is the Big 12. ESPN wants to keep any one conference from getting too much leverage. That's why Texas is still in the Big 12. Even more so, why LHN exists and pays UT so much.

So who's the 4th JR? We know the PAC, SEC & the B1G will survive but who will be the 4th? ACC? Big 12? A new conference? Isn't likely that Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & possibly ND end up together?

(01-24-2016 04:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So who's the 4th JR? We know the PAC, SEC & the B1G will survive but who will be the 4th? ACC? Big 12? A new conference? Isn't likely that Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & possibly ND end up together?

It's pretty clear to me that eventually, the SEC and Big 10 will absorb most of the ACC and perhaps some of the Big 12, with the Pac 12 absorbing some of the Big 12 and perhaps select others.

In the end, there will be three major conferences of 20-24 teams each.

(01-24-2016 04:29 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So who's the 4th JR? We know the PAC, SEC & the B1G will survive but who will be the 4th? ACC? Big 12? A new conference? Isn't likely that Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & possibly ND end up together?

It's pretty clear to me that eventually, the SEC and Big 10 will absorb most of the ACC and perhaps some of the Big 12, with the Pac 12 absorbing some of the Big 12 and perhaps select others.

In the end, there will be three major conferences of 20-24 teams each.

I think that is fairly clear as well. But that assessment is based upon the PAC's willingness to sell a % of their network to one or both of the major networks involved. If they do then this makes sense for these reasons:

1. The additional overhead is relatively low since all three surviving conferences have viable networks up and running. No start up costs.

2. It balances the 3 conferences much more equitably with regards to revenue, competitiveness, and geography (as much as is at least practical with regards to the PAC and the divisional configurations that would arise).

3. It gives the networks a definable structure for providing 3 of the 4 playoff entrants via conference semi's and also permits a wild card team with which they most assuredly would play with ratings.

4. They keep the focus of the nation from December through the second week of January by playing the conference semis and finals during the first two weeks of December and then playing the national finals the first two weeks of January.

5. By designing the structure they also ensure that they distribute the national playoff revenue, and guide the selection of bowl match ups from those schools not involved in the national playoff.

All of this is a commercial bonanza well worth the additional leverage of the larger conferences.

All for football?

I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

(01-24-2016 05:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

The issues between Delany and ESPN were quite well documented at the time H1. I acknowledged that both continued to do business with one another. I'm sorry if it doesn't represent your story line.

(01-24-2016 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

The issues between Delany and ESPN were quite well documented at the time H1. I acknowledged that both continued to do business with one another. I'm sorry if it doesn't represent your story line.

There is a difference between issues and simply having a difference of opinion during business negotiations. I am sorry if that doesn't represent your story line. You don't actually respond to the other facts presented in my post. ESPN and The Big Ten are quite close. They are not run by children, they can have disagreements and still be close. You act like ESPN and the SEC are in bed together and yet ESPN doesn't even have T1 rights to The SEC. Facts like that are what causes cracks in the foundation of a relationship.

ESPN wasn't in the business of helping conferences create conference networks at the time of the creation of The BTN while FOX was desperate to get involved in anything they could. They were willing to take the risk. If anything ESPN would now be grateful for The Big Ten doing this because they were able to sell the concept of The SEC Network to Disney thanks to Delany and The Big Ten.

That...is reality.

(01-24-2016 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:29 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So who's the 4th JR? We know the PAC, SEC & the B1G will survive but who will be the 4th? ACC? Big 12? A new conference? Isn't likely that Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & possibly ND end up together?

It's pretty clear to me that eventually, the SEC and Big 10 will absorb most of the ACC and perhaps some of the Big 12, with the Pac 12 absorbing some of the Big 12 and perhaps select others.

In the end, there will be three major conferences of 20-24 teams each.

I think that is fairly clear as well. But that assessment is based upon the PAC's willingness to sell a % of their network to one or both of the major networks involved. If they do then this makes sense for these reasons:

1. The additional overhead is relatively low since all three surviving conferences have viable networks up and running. No start up costs.

2. It balances the 3 conferences much more equitably with regards to revenue, competitiveness, and geography (as much as is at least practical with regards to the PAC and the divisional configurations that would arise).

3. It gives the networks a definable structure for providing 3 of the 4 playoff entrants via conference semi's and also permits a wild card team with which they most assuredly would play with ratings.

4. They keep the focus of the nation from December through the second week of January by playing the conference semis and finals during the first two weeks of December and then playing the national finals the first two weeks of January.

5. By designing the structure they also ensure that they distribute the national playoff revenue, and guide the selection of bowl match ups from those schools not involved in the national playoff.

All of this is a commercial bonanza well worth the additional leverage of the larger conferences.

Would #3 work? Would the P3 be okay with one of them (SEC) getting 2 teams in the CFP?

A P4 or a P2 would be cleaner. A P2 would fully restore the bowl system, eliminate polls & committees & wouldn't add any more games to the season. In a P2 you would have 4 divisions in each (equal # between 6-8). Division broken down geographically. The division winners face off for the conference championship & the 2 meet for the national championship, the bowls go on as always. A P4 or P3 would add a 16th game to the season, a 4 team conference playoff & a 4 team CFP.

(01-24-2016 05:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 05:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I'm sorry but there is not a feud between ESPN and The Big Ten just because The Big Ten is working with Fox on The BTN. If that was the case then there would also be a feud between The PAC and ESPN because the PAC has sold T1 rights to Fox as well as pushed their own Network to have T1 rights too.
The Big Ten and ESPN are quite close. Hell, The Big Ten has T1 rights with ESPN only right now. The SEC cant even say that. I would highly suggest not listening to SEC folks that feel the need to try and present this false reality.

The issues between Delany and ESPN were quite well documented at the time H1. I acknowledged that both continued to do business with one another. I'm sorry if it doesn't represent your story line.

There is a difference between issues and simply having a difference of opinion during business negotiations. I am sorry if that doesn't represent your story line. You don't actually respond to the other facts presented in my post. ESPN and The Big Ten are quite close. They are not run by children, they can have disagreements and still be close. You act like ESPN and the SEC are in bed together and yet ESPN doesn't even have T1 rights to The SEC. Facts like that are what causes cracks in the foundation of a relationship.

ESPN wasn't in the business of helping conferences create conference networks at the time of the creation of The BTN while FOX was desperate to get involved in anything they could. They were willing to take the risk. If anything ESPN would now be grateful for The Big Ten doing this because they were able to sell the concept of The SEC Network to Disney thanks to Delany and The Big Ten.

That...is reality.

The BTN did help them sell the SECN to Disney. There ends the factual part of your post.

(01-24-2016 05:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:29 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 04:23 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So who's the 4th JR? We know the PAC, SEC & the B1G will survive but who will be the 4th? ACC? Big 12? A new conference? Isn't likely that Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Clemson & possibly ND end up together?

It's pretty clear to me that eventually, the SEC and Big 10 will absorb most of the ACC and perhaps some of the Big 12, with the Pac 12 absorbing some of the Big 12 and perhaps select others.

In the end, there will be three major conferences of 20-24 teams each.

I think that is fairly clear as well. But that assessment is based upon the PAC's willingness to sell a % of their network to one or both of the major networks involved. If they do then this makes sense for these reasons:

1. The additional overhead is relatively low since all three surviving conferences have viable networks up and running. No start up costs.

2. It balances the 3 conferences much more equitably with regards to revenue, competitiveness, and geography (as much as is at least practical with regards to the PAC and the divisional configurations that would arise).

3. It gives the networks a definable structure for providing 3 of the 4 playoff entrants via conference semi's and also permits a wild card team with which they most assuredly would play with ratings.

4. They keep the focus of the nation from December through the second week of January by playing the conference semis and finals during the first two weeks of December and then playing the national finals the first two weeks of January.

5. By designing the structure they also ensure that they distribute the national playoff revenue, and guide the selection of bowl match ups from those schools not involved in the national playoff.

All of this is a commercial bonanza well worth the additional leverage of the larger conferences.

Would #3 work? Would the P3 be okay with one of them (SEC) getting 2 teams in the CFP?

A P4 or a P2 would be cleaner. A P2 would fully restore the bowl system, eliminate polls & committees & wouldn't add any more games to the season. In a P2 you would have 4 divisions in each (equal # between 6-8). Division broken down geographically. The division winners face off for the conference championship & the 2 meet for the national championship, the bowls go on as always. A P4 or P3 would add a 16th game to the season, a 4 team conference playoff & a 4 team CFP.

As long as all national playoff revenues are split equally I don't see a major problem.

(01-24-2016 05:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  Would #3 work? Would the P3 be okay with one of them (SEC) getting 2 teams in the CFP?

P3 is what the Big 10 and Pac 12 want. Voting control.