(07-04-2017 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's how I would look at it.

1) What's your support profile look like?
2) What's your institutional profile look like?
3) What's your history of success look like?
4) Are you a real threat to thrive as a top 20 program as an outsider?
5) Do you have any powerful allies pushing for you to be included?

Baylor has an issue with item 1, 2, 4, and 5. And 3 is iffy.

---

Also, remember that in a world without 'must take' cable contracts, Birmingham is more valuable than NYC. And Memphis is more important than DC. My question is this...how does this program being in this or that association help my team make money? If I leave that team out, will they create a CREDIBLE competitor to my conference? Can I actually add/retain this team without upsetting my stakeholders?

In a 'big bug out' scenario, Baylor is probably on the outside looking in. I don't see BYU making the cut either. They're on the outside now for a reason.

My guess is that the next realignment will take the form of a conference raid or a defection by certain teams. And that the Big XII will lose OU and UT and that the ACC's premier programs will be tempted to jump. If anything happens. OU and UT could actually even - gasp - just try to go indy.

Its kind of odd, but I think Oklahoma State has more to worry about than Vandy does at this point.

We know for a fact that the Big XII cannot continue down the same path they've been traveling: something has got to give. Another big factor in all of this: how bad does the SEC want to keep the Big Ten out of the DFW & KC markets? If the SEC really wants to keep the Big Ten out of those markets: it will do one of two things: offer SEC invitations to the Big XII programs in those areas or convince (bribe) ESPN to keep the Big XII afloat.

(07-06-2017 12:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's how I would look at it.

1) What's your support profile look like?
2) What's your institutional profile look like?
3) What's your history of success look like?
4) Are you a real threat to thrive as a top 20 program as an outsider?
5) Do you have any powerful allies pushing for you to be included?

Baylor has an issue with item 1, 2, 4, and 5. And 3 is iffy.

---

Also, remember that in a world without 'must take' cable contracts, Birmingham is more valuable than NYC. And Memphis is more important than DC. My question is this...how does this program being in this or that association help my team make money? If I leave that team out, will they create a CREDIBLE competitor to my conference? Can I actually add/retain this team without upsetting my stakeholders?

In a 'big bug out' scenario, Baylor is probably on the outside looking in. I don't see BYU making the cut either. They're on the outside now for a reason.

My guess is that the next realignment will take the form of a conference raid or a defection by certain teams. And that the Big XII will lose OU and UT and that the ACC's premier programs will be tempted to jump. If anything happens. OU and UT could actually even - gasp - just try to go indy.

Its kind of odd, but I think Oklahoma State has more to worry about than Vandy does at this point.

We know for a fact that the Big XII cannot continue down the same path they've been traveling: something has got to give. Another big factor in all of this: how bad does the SEC want to keep the Big Ten out of the DFW & KC markets? If the SEC really wants to keep the Big Ten out of those markets: it will do one of two things: offer SEC invitations to the Big XII programs in those areas or convince (bribe) ESPN to keep the Big XII afloat.

You've got it backwards. The question is how badly does ESPN want the DFW market for the SEC? And how badly does ESPN want Kansas City? Because if they want them they will pay the SEC enough to take them.

Look at the map and plot the location of all of the schools in the combined AAC, ACC, and SEC conferences and you will have your answer. Their strategy is no accident.

(07-04-2017 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 03:15 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  An SEC plus Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, and West Virginia adds some football and basketball depth.

West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma. Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Central: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia

Nice. That to me is the optimal SEC while keeping the conference as compact as possible in terms of both geography and culture.

Cheers,
Neil

While that lineup would be nice purely from a geographical standpoint it has some obstacles to overcome.

First, I'm not sure WVU which has applied twice in the past, offers enough to cover the 43 million that the SEC will have paid out by the end of August this year.

Second, I'm not so sure that the SEC will be calling the shots in this expansion. I think we will be promised enough to take what needs to be placed within our conference.

Third, I'm not so sure that Kansas will or could be a part of that mix, although they would provide a natural rival for Mizzou and some basketball gravitas to go along with Kentucky.

Why? I think the plan at work doesn't belong to the SEC, but rather to ESPN. And that plan focuses on having all of the P schools and top G5 schools in states with a sustained growth pattern.

Alabama: Auburn, Alabama (SEC)
Arkansas: Arkansas (SEC)
Florida: Florida (SEC) Florida State, Miami (ACC), South Florida, Central Florida (AAC)
Georgia: Georgia (SEC) Georgia Tech (ACC)
Kentucky: Kentucky (SEC) Louisville (ACC)
Louisiana: L.S.U. (SEC) Tulane (SEC)
Mississippi: Ole Miss, Mississippi State (SEC)
Missouri: Missouri (SEC)
North Carolina: Duke, U.N.C., N.C. State, Wake Forest (ACC) E.C.U. (AAC)
South Carolina: Clemson (ACC) South Carolina (SEC)
Tennessee: Tennessee, Vanderbilt (SEC) Memphis (AAC)
Virginia: Virginia, Virginia Tech (ACC)

What you won't find there are any FOX properties.

If ESPN holds true to form they will pursue the following:
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Why? Both Texas and Oklahoma have growing states. Between Texas and Oklahoma you account for 79.96% of the total population of the Big 12 states and roughly 65% of the total revenue produced by the Big 12 schools.

ESPN owns Texas A&M (SEC) S.M.U., Houston (AAC) and Tulsa (AAC)

Since nobody will be pursuing Baylor ESPN can control them by sliding them into the AAC. If T.C.U. has no suitors in the PAC and Big 10 they will slide to the AAC as well. ESPN will still hold them both.

Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State could go together to the SEC or could be split between the SEC and ACC.

If ESPN does what it takes to land this product they will control all of the advertising for major college sports from Virginia to Miami and throughout the Southeast and into Texas and Oklahoma without a network rival. With the Texa-homa schools ESPN with A&M in that fold will control the eyes of just over 31 million people at least 3 times per Saturday and as many as 5 times per Saturday. The advertisers would have to pay the higher rate to command those sets. That's a pile of money. And if advertisers want to have their product seen from the Mid Atlantic throughout the Southeast they already have to go through ESPN to get into that college rabid region of the nation.

It is why the ACCN holds good promise, and why the SECN has been so lucrative.

If ESPN picked up Kansas they are not gaining a growth state, but they are fully picking up the Kansas City market. It would be a nice ancillary addition, but hardly a main target. With Virginia Tech and Pitt ESPN doesn't need West Virginia. They have that market covered and how much could a state of 1.88 million really be worth? Probably not 40 million a year.

Iowa State is not exactly a growth area either.

That's why I'm pretty confident that ESPN will do whatever it takes to land Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and little brother status doesn't mean a darned thing in a content driven world where 1 network controls the regional advertising opportunities. Tech and the Pokes just give ESPN another chance to charge for those 31 million people each Saturday and so pay their way in quite nicely with a guarantee of 7 home games a year and rivalry games with Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and L.S.U. to be played. Have any of those schedule Houston or S.M.U. or T.C.U. or Baylor from the AAC and it's another big in state payday.

So ESPN's strategy has been quietly building to the moment of this next realignment. They completely own the marketable product in the growing Southerly states and they have kept a finger in the pies of the Big 10 and PAC. So ESPN maximizes content and revenue in the most rabid college sports markets that still have sustained growth, and they minimize their competitions revenue by sharing the product FOX owns.

As they say at Guinness, "Brilliant!".

So I don't look for Kansas and West Virginia to be very high on ESPN's priority list, and therefore not very high on the SEC and ACC's priorities list either. I do look for Texas and Oklahoma, as was expected, to be top priorities on their list. But surprisingly Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to be there as well for the reasons stated above. If it breaks right T.C.U. may slip in, but most likely will not.

And no, I don't push little brothers except as a way for ESPN to lock up the 4 their model shows they will really want. And the SEC and ACC will do whatever they need to because their paydays will be guaranteed if they do.

So I don't think 18 is out of the question for either the SEC or ACC, but 16 with the right division would be more efficient.

And, asking whether the SEC would take OSU isn't relevant. The only relevant question is does ESPN want them. Look at the map, the exclusivity within Texas/Oklahoma as a region, and look at what ESPN has already quietly accomplished and the answer is "Yes".

I like your idea somewhat, but here's what I can see happening, partly in addition to what you said: I don't see ESPN being happy with part of the SEC tv contract & part of the Notre Dame athletic contract (men's & women's basketball, and some ND football); I can see ESPN making a huge bid to televise all of Notre Dame's football games (no more ND-NBC contract) and ESPN would allow Notre Dame to keep the status quo and also going to the SEC and tell them that they will pay more for their premium games than CBS does. This knocks out two bit players from the market. Now, it's just ESPN & FOX. I could see FOX making a play for WVU; even though they have Penn State & Maryland, taking WVU brings FOX a lot closer to Pittsburgh.

(07-04-2017 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 03:15 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(07-04-2017 02:19 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  An SEC plus Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, and West Virginia adds some football and basketball depth.

West: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma. Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Central: LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt
East: Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia

Nice. That to me is the optimal SEC while keeping the conference as compact as possible in terms of both geography and culture.

Cheers,
Neil

While that lineup would be nice purely from a geographical standpoint it has some obstacles to overcome.

First, I'm not sure WVU which has applied twice in the past, offers enough to cover the 43 million that the SEC will have paid out by the end of August this year.

Second, I'm not so sure that the SEC will be calling the shots in this expansion. I think we will be promised enough to take what needs to be placed within our conference.

Third, I'm not so sure that Kansas will or could be a part of that mix, although they would provide a natural rival for Mizzou and some basketball gravitas to go along with Kentucky.

Why? I think the plan at work doesn't belong to the SEC, but rather to ESPN. And that plan focuses on having all of the P schools and top G5 schools in states with a sustained growth pattern.

Alabama: Auburn, Alabama (SEC)
Arkansas: Arkansas (SEC)
Florida: Florida (SEC) Florida State, Miami (ACC), South Florida, Central Florida (AAC)
Georgia: Georgia (SEC) Georgia Tech (ACC)
Kentucky: Kentucky (SEC) Louisville (ACC)
Louisiana: L.S.U. (SEC) Tulane (SEC)
Mississippi: Ole Miss, Mississippi State (SEC)
Missouri: Missouri (SEC)
North Carolina: Duke, U.N.C., N.C. State, Wake Forest (ACC) E.C.U. (AAC)
South Carolina: Clemson (ACC) South Carolina (SEC)
Tennessee: Tennessee, Vanderbilt (SEC) Memphis (AAC)
Virginia: Virginia, Virginia Tech (ACC)

What you won't find there are any FOX properties.

If ESPN holds true to form they will pursue the following:
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Why? Both Texas and Oklahoma have growing states. Between Texas and Oklahoma you account for 79.96% of the total population of the Big 12 states and roughly 65% of the total revenue produced by the Big 12 schools.

ESPN owns Texas A&M (SEC) S.M.U., Houston (AAC) and Tulsa (AAC)

Since nobody will be pursuing Baylor ESPN can control them by sliding them into the AAC. If T.C.U. has no suitors in the PAC and Big 10 they will slide to the AAC as well. ESPN will still hold them both.

Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State could go together to the SEC or could be split between the SEC and ACC.

If ESPN does what it takes to land this product they will control all of the advertising for major college sports from Virginia to Miami and throughout the Southeast and into Texas and Oklahoma without a network rival. With the Texa-homa schools ESPN with A&M in that fold will control the eyes of just over 31 million people at least 3 times per Saturday and as many as 5 times per Saturday. The advertisers would have to pay the higher rate to command those sets. That's a pile of money. And if advertisers want to have their product seen from the Mid Atlantic throughout the Southeast they already have to go through ESPN to get into that college rabid region of the nation.

It is why the ACCN holds good promise, and why the SECN has been so lucrative.

If ESPN picked up Kansas they are not gaining a growth state, but they are fully picking up the Kansas City market. It would be a nice ancillary addition, but hardly a main target. With Virginia Tech and Pitt ESPN doesn't need West Virginia. They have that market covered and how much could a state of 1.88 million really be worth? Probably not 40 million a year.

Iowa State is not exactly a growth area either.

That's why I'm pretty confident that ESPN will do whatever it takes to land Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State and little brother status doesn't mean a darned thing in a content driven world where 1 network controls the regional advertising opportunities. Tech and the Pokes just give ESPN another chance to charge for those 31 million people each Saturday and so pay their way in quite nicely with a guarantee of 7 home games a year and rivalry games with Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and L.S.U. to be played. Have any of those schedule Houston or S.M.U. or T.C.U. or Baylor from the AAC and it's another big in state payday.

So ESPN's strategy has been quietly building to the moment of this next realignment. They completely own the marketable product in the growing Southerly states and they have kept a finger in the pies of the Big 10 and PAC. So ESPN maximizes content and revenue in the most rabid college sports markets that still have sustained growth, and they minimize their competitions revenue by sharing the product FOX owns.

As they say at Guinness, "Brilliant!".

So I don't look for Kansas and West Virginia to be very high on ESPN's priority list, and therefore not very high on the SEC and ACC's priorities list either. I do look for Texas and Oklahoma, as was expected, to be top priorities on their list. But surprisingly Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to be there as well for the reasons stated above. If it breaks right T.C.U. may slip in, but most likely will not.

And no, I don't push little brothers except as a way for ESPN to lock up the 4 their model shows they will really want. And the SEC and ACC will do whatever they need to because their paydays will be guaranteed if they do.

So I don't think 18 is out of the question for either the SEC or ACC, but 16 with the right division would be more efficient.

And, asking whether the SEC would take OSU isn't relevant. The only relevant question is does ESPN want them. Look at the map, the exclusivity within Texas/Oklahoma as a region, and look at what ESPN has already quietly accomplished and the answer is "Yes".

That all makes a lot of sense. I don't doubt that's what ESPN has in mind. However money isn't the sole driver of realignment. Another very powerful driver is ego. And that could end up thwarting ESPN's strategy, because in my view the school that will decide the Big 12's fate -- Texas -- will make its decision based on both money and ego.

While ESPN can likely put enough money on the table to make joining either the SEC or ACC a desirable move for the four schools you mention -- Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State -- the Worldwide Leader will have to consider the impact of putting that same money on the table for the rest of the SEC or ACC members. Given that reality, which will put a practical lid on how much ESPN can ultimately pay, I could see the Big 10 with support from Fox being able to match or nearly match whatever the SEC or ACC will be able to offer relying on support from ESPN.

And if the money is close to being comparable, the ego factor will kick in. Let’s assume the Big 10's offer also covers Texas and Texas Tech and Oklahoma, but with Kansas as the fourth school instead of Oklahoma State. In that case the Longhorns will be looking at an opportunity to join what is arguably the most academically prestigious of all power conferences. I imagine that will play very, very well in Austin.

Joining the ACC would also have academic appeal, but the Big 10 offer would be much more geographically friendly, putting the Longhorns and friends in a comfortable 100% Central Time Zone division stretching from Minnesota and Wisconsin down through familiar territory – Iowa and Nebraska – to Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas itself. The only outlier would be either Northwestern or Illinois, one of which would have to be consigned to the Big 10's new western division.

The play is right there for the Big 10 and Fox, if they're willing to make it. The Big 10 would have to relax its rule about accepting AAU members only, since Oklahoma and Texas Tech aren't AAU, but to land Texas I believe it would do so.

JRsec
I don't think espn really owns anybody in the aac, espn doesn't pay enough money, it's not enough to be told what to do like you seem to indicate ,I know that's how it is in sec and acc where espn does really have the leverage on y,all

(07-06-2017 04:06 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The play is right there for the Big 10 and Fox, if they're willing to make it. The Big 10 would have to relax its rule about accepting AAU members only, since Oklahoma and Texas Tech aren't AAU, but to land Texas I believe it would do so.

AAU really isn't anything special, by itself.

Missouri and Iowa State aren't elite in research. Both are around the same as Oklahoma and Nebraska are, now that OU includes the health science research from OKC with Norman. Not sure what is taking so long for Lincoln to include the health science research from Omaha, but no doubt it will someday. As of FY2015, those four are ranked #77,79,85,88. https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2015/html...ST_17.html

Tech is way down at #118. (Though no doubt Todge will charge in to tell us all that those numbers are lies and that Tech has all kinds of research that isn't counted)


And as is well known, Nebraska was removed from AAU membership.

I'm still waiting for the 30 for 30 blockbuster documentary on P5 research programs and their impact on realignment.

You don't think presidents make decisions, ken?

That's what you took away from my post?

OK, then that would mean that you do agree that presidents favor things that don't matter to an athletics dept, like research, etc., when making decisions about which peer schools should be in the same athletic conf.

Good to know

You do understand, don't you, that more than one thing can be true at the same time?

Yes, college presidents are involved in realignment decisions - some more than others. It can also be true that academic research doesn't play a significant part in many of those decisions. It is also true that we will never know how big or how small a part it plays in any school's decision.

So it can't be dismissed. Correct

The bottom line on realignment comes down to one thing: Money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-06-2017 04:48 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The bottom line on realignment comes down to one thing: Money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If that were true BYU would be in the Pac-12.

(07-07-2017 03:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 04:48 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The bottom line on realignment comes down to one thing: Money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If that were true BYU would be in the Pac-12.

It is true that money alone isn't the only factor in realignment. But it most certainly is the dominant factor. And realignment decisions are two-sided. On the one hand are the schools who wish to join a conference. On the other are the schools that are already there, and must decide whether to invite a new member. The two sides usually have very different motivations.

For BYU, the choice is clear. They would be benefited enormously from a financial standpoint if they could get invited into the PAC 12. They would also benefit from the increased exposure that membership would bring.

For the PAC, the choice is different. Would they benefit financially by having BYU? Perhaps. Would they benefit enough to overcome their discomfort with some of BYU's policies? Apparently they don't think so. Has Fox offered them an increase in their media rights contract? Does their analysis indicate BYU's addition would make the PACN significantly more profitable?

There is probably a point where either or both of those financial factors will become too good to ignore. We just aren't there yet.

(07-07-2017 05:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 03:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 04:48 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The bottom line on realignment comes down to one thing: Money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If that were true BYU would be in the Pac-12.

It is true that money alone isn't the only factor in realignment. But it most certainly is the dominant factor. And realignment decisions are two-sided. On the one hand are the schools who wish to join a conference. On the other are the schools that are already there, and must decide whether to invite a new member. The two sides usually have very different motivations.

For BYU, the choice is clear. They would be benefited enormously from a financial standpoint if they could get invited into the PAC 12. They would also benefit from the increased exposure that membership would bring.

For the PAC, the choice is different. Would they benefit financially by having BYU? Perhaps. Would they benefit enough to overcome their discomfort with some of BYU's policies? Apparently they don't think so. Has Fox offered them an increase in their media rights contract? Does their analysis indicate BYU's addition would make the PACN significantly more profitable?

There is probably a point where either or both of those financial factors will become too good to ignore. We just aren't there yet.

Why does anyone think BYU has any shot at the PAC regardless of the money? too funny and totally ignorant of the problems the PAC has with BYU. Academic freedom of its professors is just one of many issues that cannot be overcome with a few bucks. Stanford, CAL, UCLA, USC instantly kill any shot of BYU ever making it into the PAC for a variety of reasons that go to the very core of their beliefs. There is almost zero chance of this ever happening and even UTAH will not want another Utah school so close in the PAC. For the first time Utah has an angle on recruiting mormons to the PAC versus BYU independence.

Not to mention the Sunday play issue, especially for basketball and baseball and various championships.

With that said, 10 of the 12 PAC schools affiliate with BYU in indoor track and Stanford, USC, and UCLA play men's volleyball with BYU via the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.

Also, BYU has either played within the last 5 years or has scheduled every PAC school in football except for Colorado.

(07-07-2017 09:39 AM)billings Wrote:  Why does anyone think BYU has any shot at the PAC regardless of the money? too funny and totally ignorant of the problems the PAC has with BYU. Academic freedom of its professors is just one of many issues that cannot be overcome with a few bucks. Stanford, CAL, UCLA, USC instantly kill any shot of BYU ever making it into the PAC for a variety of reasons that go to the very core of their beliefs. There is almost zero chance of this ever happening and even UTAH will not want another Utah school so close in the PAC. For the first time Utah has an angle on recruiting mormons to the PAC versus BYU independence.

Correct.

To dismiss and/or overlook the "emotional"/ego based factors that presidents do use in realignment decisions, is very shortsighted.

(07-06-2017 04:48 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  The bottom line on realignment comes down to one thing: Money.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This

(07-07-2017 10:54 AM)YNot Wrote:  Not to mention the Sunday play issue, especially for basketball and baseball and various championships.

With that said, 10 of the 12 PAC schools affiliate with BYU in indoor track and Stanford, USC, and UCLA play men's volleyball with BYU via the Mountain Pacific Sports Federation.

Also, BYU has either played within the last 5 years or has scheduled every PAC school in football except for Colorado.

WCC won't sponsor track of any kind, for either gender, and the PAC will only sponsor outdoor track ...

....... how stupid.