A six team division for an 18 school SEC might have TAMU, TT, OU, OSU, Arkansas and Kansas, or TAMU, OU, LSU, Arkansas, TT, and OSU, allowing a Gulf or Central division with Alabama, Ole Miss, MSU, Mizzou, Kansas, and TN or Vandy or Auburn (although Auburn needs to get back to the East).

Imagine the hoopla around an SEC West Champ Oklahoma, an SEC Gulf Champ Bama, and SEC East champ Florida, and a wild card of either TAMU, LSU, Georgia, or TN?

The two highest champs host the semi.

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 06:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Kansas covers its way if the model goes to 3 divisions. At 15 the B10 can split:

Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois
Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue
NW, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, MD

The money made by the semi final would pay Kansas' way without the B10 having to make a huge academic exception for OU and having to "cow-tow" to Texas.

it's hard to calculate the value for basketball. The semis would help, but would they help 51 million dollars worth? In the Big 10 basketball revenue is about 20% of the total revenue So if the payout's 51 million Kansas could account for between 10-11 million. Would the football revenue really account for 40 million more? Remember too that the Big 10 has gate sharing. Although the percentage is not that high a school that averaged 25,900 per home game last year is a drain on the main brands of the Big 10.

If Lumber means what I think - 2 more football games in the form of a conference semi-final round - I think $51M for 2 games is reasonable (wasn't the championship game worth over $30M for them?). Beyond that, Kansas probably adds a few million a year for basketball (TV + NCAA), but not $51M... as you've pointed out before, it would have to come from a bump in football revenue when the threshold is that high.

Yes, two more games, but even more importantly one more title to win and a wild card race for the fans.

The internal structural issues for football that you get into when cross 15 schools is damn significant. The issue will become "how many do you get play every year". POD's cut that to three with 4 pods. Two divisions tie up 7 games for 16, and 8 if you go to 18. Around here, "NC and Va" most of the schools have at least 4 games they want every year to go with games they just as soon play every other year.

I think divisions of 5 and 6 make that easier.

I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

I suppose the devil is in how to split 6 or 7 B12 schools. I say six only because the ACC can take a non B12 school to make ND happy as long as Clemson's and FSU's home schedule does not suffer. Baylor and Kansas State are out. ISU is likely out. WVa is boarderline after LSU's trip there. The ACC really does not want TT or OSU - nothing personal just the distance for what you gain.

Let's see this puzzle is:

Go to 18
SEC adds 4
ACC adds 3 maybe 4
OU must go to SEC
OSU must go with OU
ND's demands must be met
Texas' demands must be met
Then make 3 divisions in both conferences that piss off only the weakest schools

Tricky, but doable.

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  it's hard to calculate the value for basketball. The semis would help, but would they help 51 million dollars worth? In the Big 10 basketball revenue is about 20% of the total revenue So if the payout's 51 million Kansas could account for between 10-11 million. Would the football revenue really account for 40 million more? Remember too that the Big 10 has gate sharing. Although the percentage is not that high a school that averaged 25,900 per home game last year is a drain on the main brands of the Big 10.

If Lumber means what I think - 2 more football games in the form of a conference semi-final round - I think $51M for 2 games is reasonable (wasn't the championship game worth over $30M for them?). Beyond that, Kansas probably adds a few million a year for basketball (TV + NCAA), but not $51M... as you've pointed out before, it would have to come from a bump in football revenue when the threshold is that high.

Yes, two more games, but even more importantly one more title to win and a wild card race for the fans.

The internal structural issues for football that you get into when cross 15 schools is damn significant. The issue will become "how many do you get play every year". POD's cut that to three with 4 pods. Two divisions tie up 7 games for 16, and 8 if you go to 18. Around here, "NC and Va" most of the schools have at least 4 games they want every year to go with games they just as soon play every other year.

I think divisions of 5 and 6 make that easier.

I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Lumber means what I think - 2 more football games in the form of a conference semi-final round - I think $51M for 2 games is reasonable (wasn't the championship game worth over $30M for them?). Beyond that, Kansas probably adds a few million a year for basketball (TV + NCAA), but not $51M... as you've pointed out before, it would have to come from a bump in football revenue when the threshold is that high.

Yes, two more games, but even more importantly one more title to win and a wild card race for the fans.

The internal structural issues for football that you get into when cross 15 schools is damn significant. The issue will become "how many do you get play every year". POD's cut that to three with 4 pods. Two divisions tie up 7 games for 16, and 8 if you go to 18. Around here, "NC and Va" most of the schools have at least 4 games they want every year to go with games they just as soon play every other year.

I think divisions of 5 and 6 make that easier.

I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

Not playing GT, Duke, VT, and UVa, but once every six years is sickening for us. Duke is 12 miles from Raleigh and they have 20,000 seats for the visitors. VT is a trip to the mountains. You can come and go to UVa in a day. GT is an overnight deal but you get to go to Atlanta where you can go to a real strip club, or to the Varsity Drive in, or to a real Aquarium, etc., etc. You don't have to fly to Atlanta from Raleigh, unlike Miami, Boston, or NYC.

It's Hell to drive to Louisville from Raleigh. It's worse to drive to Syracuse. Driving to Tallahassee is not easy but then neither is flying there. Often it's easier to fly into NO or Mobile. Boston is a great trip about every 4 years and when you get there you can decide to skip the game instead of trying to park in Chestnut Hill. (I've done that twice - went to Newport once and spent the day in the North end instead of actually attending the game).

Isn't 3x5 more realistic for expansion and to justify additions to the TV contracts? I could see the SEC and B1G justify one or two additions, but four sounds like a stretch, unless one of the conferences lands both Texas and Oklahoma. And, the odd number of teams is not a big deal. B1G had 11 teams for years. MAC had 13 teams for years. MWC had 9 teams. There is no BYE issue.

SEC adds Oklahoma, B1G adds Kansas, PAC 12 adds Texas, Texas Tech and TCU, ACC adds Notre Dame.

SEC
EAST: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Kentucky
SOUTH: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Vanderbilt
WEST: LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, A&M, Oklahoma

B1G
EAST: Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland
SOUTH: Michigan St., Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern
WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Kansas

PAC
NORTH: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Utah
SOUTH: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Colorado
EAST: Arizona, ASU, Texas, Tech, TCU

ACC
ATLANTIC: Florida St., Clemson, Louisville, NC State, Wake Forest
COASTAL: North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech
OTHER: Notre Dame, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami

4 games against your division and then rotate 5 games through the other 10 - play everyone in the conference at least twice in four years.

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If Lumber means what I think - 2 more football games in the form of a conference semi-final round - I think $51M for 2 games is reasonable (wasn't the championship game worth over $30M for them?). Beyond that, Kansas probably adds a few million a year for basketball (TV + NCAA), but not $51M... as you've pointed out before, it would have to come from a bump in football revenue when the threshold is that high.

Yes, two more games, but even more importantly one more title to win and a wild card race for the fans.

The internal structural issues for football that you get into when cross 15 schools is damn significant. The issue will become "how many do you get play every year". POD's cut that to three with 4 pods. Two divisions tie up 7 games for 16, and 8 if you go to 18. Around here, "NC and Va" most of the schools have at least 4 games they want every year to go with games they just as soon play every other year.

I think divisions of 5 and 6 make that easier.

I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

I'm also most partial to 3X6. The problem I see with that, however, is that there aren't enough desirable adds that would simultaneously make all four remaining power conferences (and their media partners) happy.

Specifically, I don't see a way to get the B1G to 18 that won't leave the SEC weaker or the PAC without any dance partners.

If the SEC could just go to 18 on its own, and get permission to have a conference semifinal, then its doable.

(09-13-2017 06:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 05:20 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 03:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 10:22 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  That's EXACTLY what I was thinking.

Be curious to see what the 23/24 schedules look like.

If the B1G was smart, they would try to pull the trigger on Texas/Oklahoma before the SEC can even if that's before the GoR expires. If they snagged those two, how would the SEC respond? Or would they respond?

Texas can't head to a FOX held conference without ESPN's blessing and I seriously doubt they would get it. Oklahoma on its own lacks the academic credentials and even if that were to be waived by the Big 10 I'm not so sure the Sooners would want to be there on their own. And then the question over how tied they are to Oklahoma State remains unanswered. And perhaps the bigger question would be can Kansas actually cover their way into a conference that is basketball strong and has a current payout (as of 2018) of 51 million per school? That's a tall order.

The simple truth is that the schools that would pay their way into the Big 10 and meet their criteria are to the East and to the far West. Outside of Texas there isn't one to the South-Southwest.

If Texas could shake loose or receive Mickey Mouse's blessing then Steamboat Bevo and Kansas would probably make a profitable and acceptable pair for the Big 10. And Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would likely stick together and look to the SEC. But we'll see.

Thats not even close to true. They are in a conference who has half their FB contract with Fox. Texas has the call about the Long Horn Network. They can ditch it anytime they want and ESPN would be very happy they did. It's an albatross around their neck. ESPN doesn't have Texas under it's thumb, in fact it's the opposite. Texas has ESPN paying them for a station thats causing ESPN to lose money on and not just from paying Texas but from operating said network.

Read the contract, at least the available portions of it. ESPN didn't pay them an average of 15 million a year for 1 game for nothing.

They aren't paying them to determine what conference they are in. If they were they would steer them toward a fully owned ESPN conference and dissolve the Long Horn Network.

https://www.burntorangenation.com/2015/5...s-and-espn

Quote:On top of just the gulf in numbers alone, remember too that the Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12 Networks all have multiple states and markets to charge the "in-market" rate. LHN has exactly one. For a comparison, think how much you watch, say, CBS Sports Network -- Viacom's oft-neglected 24 hours sports network. If subscriber rates are an accurate reflection of how often people are watching a network, CBS Sports Network (.25 cents/mo) is drawing nearly thirteen times the eyeballs nationally of Longhorn Network. That's ugly news for ESPN and Texas' athletic coffers.

And here's the craziest fact of all: If the Longhorn Network hadn't existed, then the SEC Network wouldn't have existed either. Without Texas A&M leaving for the SEC, the SEC's own network wasn't lucrative enough to undertake. It was the eight million cable and satellite subscribers in Texas that made the SEC Network financially viable. Here's some simple math for you: Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas pays around $16.80 a year for the SEC Network. Every major cable and satellite subscriber in Texas -- except for those with Comcast, which doesn't carry it -- pays $3.48 for the Longhorn Network. So right now in Texas, the only state paying more than a quarter a year for the Longhorn Network, the SEC Network makes nearly five times as much every month. (Nationwide the SEC Network, on pace to do nearly $550 million in revenue this year, makes nearly 22 times as much money a month as the Longhorn Network.)

This means the Longhorn Network, launched to strengthen Texas' competitive stature for a generation to come, actually strengthened its rivals more than it did Texas. The launch of the Longhorn Network was such a disaster that ESPN used it as a road map for what not to do when they launched the SEC Network. The result? The SEC Network was the most successful channel launch in cable history; the Longhorn Network remains the least successful cable launch in ESPN history.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-fo...-thus-far/

Quote:The initial business plan called for the network to broadcast prominent Texas high school football games, which the NCAA squashed. The LHN receives just two lower-tier Texas football games to broadcast each year. And cable providers were slow to add the station, which charges a fee of just 29 cents per subscriber.

ESPN has had to eat most of the costs. The company signed an agreement with the University of Texas to create the network just one year after coach Mack Brown led his team to a 13-1 finish with a loss to Alabama in the national championship game.

According to the San Antonio Express-News, ESPN signed a 20-year, $295 million contract, and also agreed to “absorb LHN production costs pegged at an estimated $26 million a year.”

ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN.

Pfffft. ESPN has lost a total of about $48 million in 5 years on LHN? ESPN pays the NFL more than that for each Monday Night Football game. That's not a bath for them; it's a couple of drops of water. And it's well worth it to keep their hand in whatever the Horns might decide to do.

(09-14-2017 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN.

Pfffft. ESPN has lost a total of about $48 million in 5 years on LHN? ESPN pays the NFL more than that for each Monday Night Football game. That's not a bath for them; it's a couple of drops of water. And it's well worth it to keep their hand in whatever the Horns might decide to do.

They pay 26 mil a year just on operation costs thats not even counting what they pay Texas for those rights. Out of state subscribers pay $.02 a month. Thats $.24 a year. Not taking a bath but when the company is for the first time under Disneys watch not growing like it was, this is money they don't want to be spending. They would LOVE to be able to get out of this deal.

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

(09-14-2017 11:55 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN.

Pfffft. ESPN has lost a total of about $48 million in 5 years on LHN? ESPN pays the NFL more than that for each Monday Night Football game. That's not a bath for them; it's a couple of drops of water. And it's well worth it to keep their hand in whatever the Horns might decide to do.

They pay 26 mil a year just on operation costs thats not even counting what they pay Texas for those rights. Out of state subscribers pay $.02 a month. Thats $.24 a year. Not taking a bath but when the company is for the first time under Disneys watch not growing like it was, this is money they don't want to be spending. They would LOVE to be able to get out of this deal.

What's relevant to ESPN is not the cost, it's the total net loss, which, according to the article that you linked, is less than $10 million/year. And for that price they get a veto over any move UT might make over the life of the contract. Suppose that UT wants to move to a conference where ESPN owns the "Tier 3" rights, i.e. the SEC or ACC? Easy deal. But suppose UT wants to move to the Pac-12 or Big Ten? Those conferences require their members to assign all "Tier 3" rights to the conference for use in conference networks that ESPN does not own, and UT can't make that assignment unless ESPN consents.

You might think UT is no more valuable in realignment than any random P5 school. If so, then you think ESPN is overpaying for that veto. But to everyone who thinks UT is probably the most valuable potential realignment piece, it looks like ESPN is getting a bargain.

I hope it allows the B1G and hopefully other conferences (B12, P12) to allow late season OOC games. Iowa-Iowa State would be a bigger game in November. Same for say a KU-Mizzou or Texas vs A&M renewal. Or in the P12 Utah vs BYU (not just the games played at Utah, but also those at BYU). I frankly think it should be a rule that all schools are allowed a November OOC rival.

Nobody seriously believes FSU-Florida, Clemson-SoCar, Georgia Tech-UGa games being late in the season diminish either the SEC or the ACC seasons.

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

(09-14-2017 12:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I hope it allows the B1G and hopefully other conferences (B12, P12) to allow late season OOC games. Iowa-Iowa State would be a bigger game in November. Same for say a KU-Mizzou or Texas vs A&M renewal. Or in the P12 Utah vs BYU (not just the games played at Utah, but also those at BYU). I frankly think it should be a rule that all schools are allowed a November OOC rival.

Nobody seriously believes FSU-Florida, Clemson-SoCar, Georgia Tech-UGa games being late in the season diminish either the SEC or the ACC seasons.

I would love to see that happen. I don't like Utah/BYU is in September. I also want the backyard brawl on black friday!

(09-14-2017 10:50 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:53 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2017 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Yes, two more games, but even more importantly one more title to win and a wild card race for the fans.

The internal structural issues for football that you get into when cross 15 schools is damn significant. The issue will become "how many do you get play every year". POD's cut that to three with 4 pods. Two divisions tie up 7 games for 16, and 8 if you go to 18. Around here, "NC and Va" most of the schools have at least 4 games they want every year to go with games they just as soon play every other year.

I think divisions of 5 and 6 make that easier.

I've been a proponent of 3 divisions of 6 for quite sometime. The semi aspect is one reward, but keeping more schools invested deep into the season for that best at large spot is even more valuable to the schools in pursuit. Plus it yields enough regional games that rivals can be covered.

And in both the SEC and ACC the divisions at 18 break down quite nicely with regard to geography.

Fifteen I'm not as keen on because for one thing it is an odd number so the number of idle weeks has to be doubled to work it out. With 18 you can play the 5 in your division and rotate 2 each from the other two divisions and with 9 conference games you play everyone in your conference every three years. That still leaves 3 for scheduling a key OOC game or OOC rival, and having two left to guarantee 7 home games a year.

I like that format.

So do I and not mentioned yet by either of us is that it keeps the fans driving to most of the games they truly care about and the rotating teams add flavor and interest to the annual schedule. I think even without the wild card, which is key, that there is a tremendous upside by preserving regionality in an expanded conference.

I'm also most partial to 3X6. The problem I see with that, however, is that there aren't enough desirable adds that would simultaneously make all four remaining power conferences (and their media partners) happy.

Specifically, I don't see a way to get the B1G to 18 that won't leave the SEC weaker or the PAC without any dance partners.

If the SEC could just go to 18 on its own, and get permission to have a conference semifinal, then its doable.

I love a challenge:

B1G:
Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska
California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Stanford, Washington, Oregon

ACC:
Connecticut, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, West Virginia
Boston College, Duke, Maryland, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

SEC:
Kentucky, Missouri, N.C. State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, South Florida
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

B12:
Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon State, San Diego St., Utah, Washington St.
Cincinnati, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
Baylor, Brigham Young, Colorado State, Houston, Texas, Texas Tech

The Big 10 gives up the East Coast for far better brands on the West Coast.

The SEC picks up North Carolina and Virginia as markets without damaging the ACC's footprint, and they add 2nd schools in Texas and Florida.

The ACC gets a very nice gain with Rutgers and Penn State, and they pick Maryland back up and add West Virginia. They lose nothing that OOC rival games can't take care of.

The B12 survives and picks up the West Coast for markets, the LHN is converted, with ESPN's agreement, into a Big 12 network and FOX retains 50% of the T1 & T2. They give up a duplicate (T.C.U.) in a market that Texas controls, and adds Houston to counteract A&M's presence in the nations 4th largest city. They also add Colorado State.

From the Network perspective:
ESPN gets the SECN into North Carolina and Virginia with in state schools. They own the East coast with the ACC and the ACCN has all of the markets it needs. Notre Dame is all in. Penn State secures a large % of viewers. Reuniting Penn State, Pitt, and West Virginia generates a lot of pigskin interest in the Northeast. Syracuse benefits from it and because of that Connecticut basketball can be added. It's a win win for ESPN in the East.

Out West ESPN doesn't lose much except for the a small percentage of the PAC schools headed to the Big 10's T1 & T2 rights.

They lose nothing on the PAC schools headed to the B12 and pick up the TV network through the conversion of the LHN. Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas get to stick together and they now share T3 instead of fight over it. They lose an outlier (WVU) and a duplicate market (T.C.U.). They pick up the West coast and Colorado State and shore up Houston.

FOX loses nothing but gains key PAC schools for the BTN.

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

I like a nice 4x4 or 4x5 personally.

B1G:
I95 - RU, PSU, Mary, OSU, Cuse
Plains- UT, OU, KU, NU, Iowa
Midwest- Minn, UW, NW, Illinois, Mizz
Great Lakes- UM, MSU, IU, Purdue, ND

SEC:
Swamps- UF, UGA, USC, FSU, Clem
Appalachia- UK, Vandy, UT, WVU, VT
Deep South- Bama, Auburn, MSU, Ole M, LSU
Tornado Alley- A&M, Ark, OSU, TCU, KSU

Pac:
Pacific NW- UO, OSU, UW, WSU, Boise
Mountains- Utah, CU, BYU, UNLV, Wyoming
Desert- UA, ASU, Texas Tech, Houston, New Mexico
Surf- USC, UCLA, Cal, Stan, SD St

Big XX:
OG BE- BC, Temple, Pitt, Louisville, Cincy
I Don't Have an Idenity- Miami, GT, USF, UCF, ECU
OG ACC- UNC, Duke, NC St, Wake, UVA
SWC/XII Merger- Baylor, SMU, Tulsa, Memphis, ISU

(09-14-2017 12:51 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:55 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN.

Pfffft. ESPN has lost a total of about $48 million in 5 years on LHN? ESPN pays the NFL more than that for each Monday Night Football game. That's not a bath for them; it's a couple of drops of water. And it's well worth it to keep their hand in whatever the Horns might decide to do.

They pay 26 mil a year just on operation costs thats not even counting what they pay Texas for those rights. Out of state subscribers pay $.02 a month. Thats $.24 a year. Not taking a bath but when the company is for the first time under Disneys watch not growing like it was, this is money they don't want to be spending. They would LOVE to be able to get out of this deal.

What's relevant to ESPN is not the cost, it's the total net loss, which, according to the article that you linked, is less than $10 million/year. And for that price they get a veto over any move UT might make over the life of the contract. Suppose that UT wants to move to a conference where ESPN owns the "Tier 3" rights, i.e. the SEC or ACC? Easy deal. But suppose UT wants to move to the Pac-12 or Big Ten? Those conferences require their members to assign all "Tier 3" rights to the conference for use in conference networks that ESPN does not own, and UT can't make that assignment unless ESPN consents.

You might think UT is no more valuable in realignment than any random P5 school. If so, then you think ESPN is overpaying for that veto. But to everyone who thinks UT is probably the most valuable potential realignment piece, it looks like ESPN is getting a bargain.

Well thats assuming a conference wouldn't let Texas in if they can't have their tier 3 rights for 5 or 6 years. No matter what happens the LHN is done after this current contract runs out. That contract isn't a veto no matter how many times people on here say it is. Texas gets 15 mil a year in their new Fox owned conference from ESPN. That hurts ESPN more than it hurts Texas new conference.

Texas is worth it to any conference to not have their T3 rights for a few years.

(09-14-2017 01:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 01:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-14-2017 11:00 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  ESPN is taking a bath with the LHN. They are stuck until Texas says so or the contract runs out. And like I said before if ESPN has such a hold on Texas why do some of their home games end up on Fox?

Why do Texas home games end up on FOX? FOX holds 50% of the T1 & T2 rights to the Big 12 until 2025.

Why did ESPN organize the LHN and sign it through 2031 and pay Texas an average of 15 million per year for it? To keep them out of the PAC and to gain leverage over a brand they want fully.

But more specifically neither Texas, nor ESPN, can unilaterally end the contract. They have to agree to do so. If the Big 12 goes away or Texas chooses to leave ESPN has the right to retain their T3 rights and to purchase their T1 & T2 rights. In the contract ESPN has specified time periods in which to make counter offers. It may not seem like much, but it is a significant obstacle for a rival network to overcome.

If it's not a right to match they can make all the counter offers they want and Texas is under no obligation to accept them. If Texas really wants to go to the B1G or Pac who at that point has an exclusive contract with Fox, ESPN can't do anything to stop them. ESPN can keep paying 15 mil a year for 1 lower level Texas FB home game and a couple BBall buy games and pay for all the operation costs that run 26 mil a year. I mean if they would really want to spend that much to mildly inconvenience the new conference and Fox for a few years then sure.

Yes, they signed that contract to get leverage over Texas and that plan backfired tremendously. Thats why the LHN is a road map of how NOT to set up a network. If Texas really wants to leave they will go wherever they want once the GoR is up. Not saying they will definitely leave ESPN, i'm saying ESPN doesn't have the leverage on them you are claiming they do.

I've pointed out the contract to you. Wedge has explained it. That's about it.

Yes, you explained your opinion and I pointed out why that isn't a set in stone fact.