(05-06-2018 04:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's what makes me think Colorado is a legitimate option in this scenario.

1. If Oklahoma joins the Big Ten then another familiar face will help smooth things out. For that matter, Nebraska could use another familiar face.

2. If the B1G can't break into ACC territory right now then Denver and the CO market really makes a great deal of sense. It is at least a growing state as opposed to most of the Midwest/Northeast markets within reach of the B1G.

3. From CU's perspective, if the PAC can't get a handle on things then they're going to be woefully underfunded. The PAC Network has not been successful so they could make quite a bit more in the B1G.

4. While CU does have a lot of alumni in CA, it's not as though they have large roving bands of fans following their team around PAC territory. If CU moved then they could make up for whatever ripples it caused by consistently scheduling West Coast schools in non-conference.

5. More than that, their exposure in the East and Midwest has been reduced to nil. I wouldn't be shocked if Colorado believed in 2010 that they were going to be the first in a line of Big 12 schools to break ranks and create a larger, more robust PAC. It obviously didn't happen that way, but there had to be discussions of this prospect and we all know Texas was trying to lead a squadron over there. I'm not saying that CU doesn't prefer the PAC, but I'm not convinced that their new conference home is doing everything for them that they expected it would.

-Now, I really don't think Notre Dame is an option to move in this scenario. Here are my reasons for that.

1. The ACC offers far superior demographics compared to the B1G. Long term, the Midwest and the Northeast to some degree may have issues. Southern and Mid-Atlantic markets, however, are still growing and providing ND with a fresh new crop of eyeballs. More or less, the B1G wants to take schools in the ACC for essentially the same reason. ND by contrast has had the freedom to move their affiliation rather than hoping schools from the growing regions attach themselves to a different league.

2. ESPN wants it all. I don't think ESPN would give up any access to ND games unless they had to. While the network would love to get greater access to B1G games, they may be able to do it anyway if the BTN loses more steam and/or the exposure on FOX continues to be limited. They've got about 5 more years and they'll be going back to the negotiating table anyway. By that point, ESPN will have several years worth of ESPN+ activity, operational RSNs, and the after effects of the SECN and ACCN being bundled together to add to their selling points. The B1G might come back without requiring favors. In a manner of speaking, I think ND in the ACC is actually a point of leverage for ESPN. ESPN has access to a lot of Midwestern markets without paying the full cost for the B1G. ESPN can say..."Delaney, we don't have to have your full slate to have your markets."

Then again, I'm not sure the B1G would really come back to ESPN in a more expanded role under any circumstances...not while Delaney is in charge anyway.

3. ND could probably make a good bit more money in the B1G, but I'm not sure it would be $200M over the course of a decade. If they go all in on the ACC then that ends up being a decent bump. The bundling of the ACCN and SECN will cause a bump as well. The gap will still be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it will quite be that much. I think the reasons that ND has always rebuffed the B1G are wide and varied so I think it will take more than a nice raise to get their attention.

4. The buyout would be significant even if all parties were interested in making it happen. If for no more reason than ND has to get out of that NBC deal...

Interesting, feasible and well laid out.
I would think that the PAC would have to have an "on deck" replacement for Colorado. The only logical choice would be BYU as a football or football/basketball only partial.

(05-06-2018 07:32 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 04:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Here's what makes me think Colorado is a legitimate option in this scenario.

1. If Oklahoma joins the Big Ten then another familiar face will help smooth things out. For that matter, Nebraska could use another familiar face.

2. If the B1G can't break into ACC territory right now then Denver and the CO market really makes a great deal of sense. It is at least a growing state as opposed to most of the Midwest/Northeast markets within reach of the B1G.

3. From CU's perspective, if the PAC can't get a handle on things then they're going to be woefully underfunded. The PAC Network has not been successful so they could make quite a bit more in the B1G.

4. While CU does have a lot of alumni in CA, it's not as though they have large roving bands of fans following their team around PAC territory. If CU moved then they could make up for whatever ripples it caused by consistently scheduling West Coast schools in non-conference.

5. More than that, their exposure in the East and Midwest has been reduced to nil. I wouldn't be shocked if Colorado believed in 2010 that they were going to be the first in a line of Big 12 schools to break ranks and create a larger, more robust PAC. It obviously didn't happen that way, but there had to be discussions of this prospect and we all know Texas was trying to lead a squadron over there. I'm not saying that CU doesn't prefer the PAC, but I'm not convinced that their new conference home is doing everything for them that they expected it would.

-Now, I really don't think Notre Dame is an option to move in this scenario. Here are my reasons for that.

1. The ACC offers far superior demographics compared to the B1G. Long term, the Midwest and the Northeast to some degree may have issues. Southern and Mid-Atlantic markets, however, are still growing and providing ND with a fresh new crop of eyeballs. More or less, the B1G wants to take schools in the ACC for essentially the same reason. ND by contrast has had the freedom to move their affiliation rather than hoping schools from the growing regions attach themselves to a different league.

2. ESPN wants it all. I don't think ESPN would give up any access to ND games unless they had to. While the network would love to get greater access to B1G games, they may be able to do it anyway if the BTN loses more steam and/or the exposure on FOX continues to be limited. They've got about 5 more years and they'll be going back to the negotiating table anyway. By that point, ESPN will have several years worth of ESPN+ activity, operational RSNs, and the after effects of the SECN and ACCN being bundled together to add to their selling points. The B1G might come back without requiring favors. In a manner of speaking, I think ND in the ACC is actually a point of leverage for ESPN. ESPN has access to a lot of Midwestern markets without paying the full cost for the B1G. ESPN can say..."Delaney, we don't have to have your full slate to have your markets."

Then again, I'm not sure the B1G would really come back to ESPN in a more expanded role under any circumstances...not while Delaney is in charge anyway.

3. ND could probably make a good bit more money in the B1G, but I'm not sure it would be $200M over the course of a decade. If they go all in on the ACC then that ends up being a decent bump. The bundling of the ACCN and SECN will cause a bump as well. The gap will still be nothing to sneeze at, but I don't think it will quite be that much. I think the reasons that ND has always rebuffed the B1G are wide and varied so I think it will take more than a nice raise to get their attention.

4. The buyout would be significant even if all parties were interested in making it happen. If for no more reason than ND has to get out of that NBC deal...

Interesting, feasible and well laid out.
I would think that the PAC would have to have an "on deck" replacement for Colorado. The only logical choice would be BYU as a football or football/basketball only partial.

Really? Total hogwash! Magical underwear and the doctrine of it will never make an appearance in the PAC. North Carolina jerks screwed things up in 2010. That's the end of the story. Now ESPN has to figure out how to satisfy the SEC, save the ACC, and do it without pissing off the Big 10 or SEC and that's the whole truth.

BTW: Even though Colorado won't be headed to the Big 10, the logical answer to replacing them would be Texas Tech and T.C.U. and another Big 12 school like KState.

Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.

The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.

The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.

The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.

I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.

The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.

(05-06-2018 08:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.

The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.

The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.

The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.

I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.

The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.

I agree with all of the bolded part and in principle on the rest. Normally realignment would be about geography, the appeasement of the alumni consumers and donors, and of course the money.

One could argue that a move to 20 that included Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State along with the top 3 would be a strong go toward owning the region and settling things down permanently. But as you have expressed already you doubt that we grow larger without first settling at 16. I agree with the logic of that in a pre streaming world. In a post streaming world being the go to channel for all things important to those states, while also holding top national brands, will be what keeps the subscription money flowing in. Take those 6 and the SEC can let everyone else settle whatever it is they need to do.

Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

With those set up in half divisions the WAC rotation works fine for a 9 game schedule. Add 1 permanent rival and we are at 10. That leaves two OOC games to satisfy other contingencies.

From a marketing standpoint that maximizes the West and only leaves Florida at less capacity. But if still bundled with the ACC it doesn't matter.

If the ACC wants a slice of Texas they have Baylor and T.C.U. to accommodate. Add Connecticut, Cincinnati and Houston if they want to go to 20. There's always Tulane if you want to connect the dots to Houston, but they don't bring much to the table.

If we were staying with simply linear networks I would wholeheartedly agree with the best two additions and stopping.

If Missouri has proven anything it's that you can't really incorporate a school adequately unless you permit them to bring a core of a familiar schedule. This ultimately is why adding pairs from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would permit their cementing into the conference.

Separate Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State out and you get an agitated market where dis-affected alums and irritated state officials can hurt your marketing strategy. Moving forward controlling all of the largest alumni bases in a state will have the important upside of keeping the best advertising rates if the merchandisers want access to your audiences they have to go through you. You aren't leaving a back door in like the Big 10 did by failing to land the Irish.

(05-06-2018 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 08:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.

The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.

The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.

The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.

I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.

The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.

I agree with all of the bolded part and in principle on the rest. Normally realignment would be about geography, the appeasement of the alumni consumers and donors, and of course the money.

One could argue that a move to 20 that included Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State along with the top 3 would be a strong go toward owning the region and settling things down permanently. But as you have expressed already you doubt that we grow larger without first settling at 16. I agree with the logic of that in a pre streaming world. In a post streaming world being the go to channel for all things important to those states, while also holding top national brands, will be what keeps the subscription money flowing in. Take those 6 and the SEC can let everyone else settle whatever it is they need to do.

Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

With those set up in half divisions the WAC rotation works fine for a 9 game schedule. Add 1 permanent rival and we are at 10. That leaves two OOC games to satisfy other contingencies.

From a marketing standpoint that maximizes the West and only leaves Florida at less capacity. But if still bundled with the ACC it doesn't matter.

If the ACC wants a slice of Texas they have Baylor and T.C.U. to accommodate. Add Connecticut, Cincinnati and Houston if they want to go to 20. There's always Tulane if you want to connect the dots to Houston, but they don't bring much to the table.

If we were staying with simply linear networks I would wholeheartedly agree with the best two additions and stopping.

If Missouri has proven anything it's that you can't really incorporate a school adequately unless you permit them to bring a core of a familiar schedule. This ultimately is why adding pairs from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would permit their cementing into the conference.

Separate Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State out and you get an agitated market where dis-affected alums and irritated state officials can hurt your marketing strategy. Moving forward controlling all of the largest alumni bases in a state will have the important upside of keeping the best advertising rates if the merchandisers want access to your audiences they have to go through you. You aren't leaving a back door in like the Big 10 did by failing to land the Irish.

As you noted, I am not a fan of going the mega-conference (over 16) route, but may talk more about that at another time. Too tired tonight and over my limit.

I do think the SEC may want to improve the Mizzou comfort level. Mizzou seems OK playing in the SEC-east, but it is a bit awkward in terms of geography. Another school bordering Mizzou could help their situation. I don't know if they really want a Kansas school. A couple of years ago, I heard they didn't due to competition for recruits. Oklahoma would be another short southern border state that connects to Texas with A&M, and Oklahoma is an old B8/B12 foe/comrade.
I doubt there is a lot of SEC passion to travel to either Kansas, and certainly not Ames, Iowa. But I understand the unsettled variables.
And the SEC having 3 Texas schools? Don't think that will fly regardless of what ESPN wants. Do you think Alabama and Auburn would buy into that? Power centers matter to some more than others.

(05-06-2018 10:17 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 08:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.

The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.

The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.

The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.

I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.

The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.

I agree with all of the bolded part and in principle on the rest. Normally realignment would be about geography, the appeasement of the alumni consumers and donors, and of course the money.

One could argue that a move to 20 that included Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State along with the top 3 would be a strong go toward owning the region and settling things down permanently. But as you have expressed already you doubt that we grow larger without first settling at 16. I agree with the logic of that in a pre streaming world. In a post streaming world being the go to channel for all things important to those states, while also holding top national brands, will be what keeps the subscription money flowing in. Take those 6 and the SEC can let everyone else settle whatever it is they need to do.

Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

With those set up in half divisions the WAC rotation works fine for a 9 game schedule. Add 1 permanent rival and we are at 10. That leaves two OOC games to satisfy other contingencies.

From a marketing standpoint that maximizes the West and only leaves Florida at less capacity. But if still bundled with the ACC it doesn't matter.

If the ACC wants a slice of Texas they have Baylor and T.C.U. to accommodate. Add Connecticut, Cincinnati and Houston if they want to go to 20. There's always Tulane if you want to connect the dots to Houston, but they don't bring much to the table.

If we were staying with simply linear networks I would wholeheartedly agree with the best two additions and stopping.

If Missouri has proven anything it's that you can't really incorporate a school adequately unless you permit them to bring a core of a familiar schedule. This ultimately is why adding pairs from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would permit their cementing into the conference.

Separate Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State out and you get an agitated market where dis-affected alums and irritated state officials can hurt your marketing strategy. Moving forward controlling all of the largest alumni bases in a state will have the important upside of keeping the best advertising rates if the merchandisers want access to your audiences they have to go through you. You aren't leaving a back door in like the Big 10 did by failing to land the Irish.

As you noted, I am not a fan of going the mega-conference (over 16) route, but may talk more about that at another time. Too tired tonight and over my limit.

I do think the SEC may want to improve the Mizzou comfort level. Mizzou seems OK playing in the SEC-east, but it is a bit awkward in terms of geography. Another school bordering Mizzou could help their situation. I don't know if they really want a Kansas school. A couple of years ago, I heard they didn't due to competition for recruits. Oklahoma would be another short southern border state that connects to Texas with A&M, and Oklahoma is an old B8/B12 foe/comrade.
I doubt there is a lot of SEC passion to travel to either Kansas, and certainly not Ames, Iowa. But I understand the unsettled variables.
And the SEC having 3 Texas schools? Don't think that will fly regardless of what ESPN wants. Do you think Alabama and Auburn would buy into that? Power centers matter to some more than others.

Beware, the one school to one state model dies with cable subscriptions. Moving forward controlling a state guarantees the best advertising rates for your carrier, which in turn supplies you with the most money. We are going to rue the day we don't have another Florida school as the payout model shifts. I said that in 2008 and it's still true today.

In 1992 Florida was concerned about "not" having F.S.U. in the conference. Their concern at the time was that if we continued growth eventually OOC rivals would be in jeopardy. Their president (UF's) then argued for F.S.U.'s inclusion. That fear was expressed in the meetings of 2010. Only the subscription fee model tabled the notion of adding another major school from within 1 state.

Now if ESPN holds the SEC contract and the ACC contract and between those two conferences all of the top product in that state is held then we can afford not to take them all. But should another network's conference acquire some of those schools the add rates will drop.

Look at a map and plot the schools that ESPN holds the rights to through the AAC, ACC, and SEC and you will see a solid map from Virginia through Kentucky and over to Missouri being solid down through Mississippi and Arkansas and down the entire east coast south of Virginia to Miami. That's why the ad rates are solid for the SEC without our having to hold Clemson and Florida State. We may not be so lucky in Texas and Auburn and Alabama would hardly care if we, having all 3 state schools in Texas, garnered the highest rate on 28 million people.

Streaming will bring about larger, not smaller conferences, and the schools that comprise them will consolidate their states viewing audiences. In a streaming world you can't afford to share a state. You have to dominate their viewing habits. Oklahoma and Texas have the highest market saturation for college sports outside of the SEC.

What worked in 2010 won't work in 2024. Put it out of your mind. The ability to pay on actual viewers is here. Advertisers aren't going to pay for rates on the # of cable subscribers if they can pay for the actual number of viewers. And they sure as heck aren't going to give top rates to the ACC and SEC for the state of Florida by paying for all of those subscribers twice. But they will pay the highest add rate to utilize F.S.U., Miami and Florida through ESPN.

Then there's content that the nation wants to watch. Brand vs Brand will be a point of emphasis for making additions along with controlling the Saturday advertising within regions and states.

I know where you logic lies, and it's circa 2010. It's a different ball game now and that's one reason things are on pause. There are many in the industry trying to agree on a new strategy moving forward. The Big 12 is the best remaining product not totally locked up by ESPN. But in Texas and Oklahoma only the Big 12 schools are not more completely under the ESPN thumb. Should Baylor and T.C.U. head to the AAC (where Houston, S.M.U., and Tulsa are already members) and should the SEC land Texa-homa that gives ESPN total control over a regional market comprised of 2 states with a potential of 32 million plus viewers and in a high rabid college sports market with extremely good saturation.

Now if those 6 schools are divided between the AAC/ACC/SEC it still works for ESPN. That's where they are going and why they want them. For the price of 6 schools, ESPN makes certain that 32 million people have to buy an ESPN package to watch. If they want Kansas too then make it 8 schools but the saturation numbers in Kansas are much lower.

What's more is that if the 5 state P schools of Texas and Oklahoma have games spread throughout the day the ESPN or the SECN or ACCN get to double and triple dip on the advertising every week for 32 million potential viewers. And if Baylor and T.C.U. wind up in the AAC then with S.M.U., Houston, and Tulsa you get to triple dip again just for a slightly reduced rate. That's 6 shots across a spectrum of channels in which advertisers can saturate the news about their product to a high % of the residents of the state of Texas and Oklahoma. And even if those schools initially don't care to watch Florida or Georgia we still get their dedication for the schools they do care about and that still pays the bills.

That's going to be part of the secret of making money moving forward and it is why the SEC is still in the best position to monetize it. We are in a growth area where the highest % of viewers watch college sports.....religiously. Even in a streaming world that's money in the bank. Monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma along with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas is major. Having ESPN hold all of the product in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky helps. Do that and the ESPN model still works. Don't and you're screwed.

BTW: That strategy could also help ESPN land all of the Big 10 contract someday. If Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Connecticut, Temple, and Cincinnati are accounted for under the umbrella of ESPN then Big 10 rates have no competitors that aren't in the corporate family and their rates go up too.

PS: Personally, I don't like Texas, don't like the idea of Kansas in the SEC, and find it much simpler to take the pair of Oklahoma schools and call it quits on realignment and let ESPN and the other conferences deal with the leftovers. We'd be fine. But there is a network angle to be considered. A conference angle to be considered, and the feelings of our individual member schools to be considered. With OU in hand should we ever be faced with the need to expand again I still say grab Clemson, Florida State and consider calling it a day. Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State are the most SEC like schools out there. None of the three would dilute our brand. But that's just me thinking as a fan.

(05-06-2018 10:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 10:17 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 08:50 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Looking at geography, the SEC borders EVERY state that contains B12 schools. And the B12 is not even contiguous with Iowa (ISU) and West Virginia. So from a geographical perspective, the SEC could assess them all with more confidence in terms of logistical factors.

The BIG, to reach Texas, has to include Kansas and Oklahoma, or jump them. If that happened, the BIG would look tornado-shaped, blowing hard-east. The BIG has been a east-west expansion conference; then it would take a southern drop on the west end if Texas (& co.) were added. Texas would find it hard to bond with the unnatural flow, travel, weather, and non-traditional differences.

The ACC make no sense for Texas; but WVU, absolutely does.

The PAC12 would need a "cluster" from the B12 for practicality purposes. Iowa State is east of Nebraska, and wouldn't fit well even with a cluster. A separated-out Kansas school would be an odd fit as well. UT, TTU, OU, and oSu was the old try; and perhaps some version of it could be pursued again if sentiments and financial incentives drift that way.

I don't know what the SEC will do, if anything, in a few years if the B12 breaks or becomes vulnerable. I do believe a few will indeed leave the B12 around 23/24. The conference has never really been settled-down and content. The year 2023/24 is really not that far off, so those that are prone to explore are already doing so. Within three years, leaks as to anticipated movements, will abound with growing confidence. Does Bowlsby have a strategy to prevent such? The same ole PR line won't work if a couple or so are unhappy and have somewhere else to go that looks like an improvement.

The SEC is positioned best in all this if they play their cards right. If Slive was still around (no slight to Sankey intended--don't know enough about his style), he'd have plan A already set up, and a damn good plan B just in case. He was a very good "expansion" chess player.

I agree with all of the bolded part and in principle on the rest. Normally realignment would be about geography, the appeasement of the alumni consumers and donors, and of course the money.

One could argue that a move to 20 that included Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State along with the top 3 would be a strong go toward owning the region and settling things down permanently. But as you have expressed already you doubt that we grow larger without first settling at 16. I agree with the logic of that in a pre streaming world. In a post streaming world being the go to channel for all things important to those states, while also holding top national brands, will be what keeps the subscription money flowing in. Take those 6 and the SEC can let everyone else settle whatever it is they need to do.

Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Texas , Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

With those set up in half divisions the WAC rotation works fine for a 9 game schedule. Add 1 permanent rival and we are at 10. That leaves two OOC games to satisfy other contingencies.

From a marketing standpoint that maximizes the West and only leaves Florida at less capacity. But if still bundled with the ACC it doesn't matter.

If the ACC wants a slice of Texas they have Baylor and T.C.U. to accommodate. Add Connecticut, Cincinnati and Houston if they want to go to 20. There's always Tulane if you want to connect the dots to Houston, but they don't bring much to the table.

If we were staying with simply linear networks I would wholeheartedly agree with the best two additions and stopping.

If Missouri has proven anything it's that you can't really incorporate a school adequately unless you permit them to bring a core of a familiar schedule. This ultimately is why adding pairs from Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas would permit their cementing into the conference.

Separate Kansas State, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State out and you get an agitated market where dis-affected alums and irritated state officials can hurt your marketing strategy. Moving forward controlling all of the largest alumni bases in a state will have the important upside of keeping the best advertising rates if the merchandisers want access to your audiences they have to go through you. You aren't leaving a back door in like the Big 10 did by failing to land the Irish.

As you noted, I am not a fan of going the mega-conference (over 16) route, but may talk more about that at another time. Too tired tonight and over my limit.

I do think the SEC may want to improve the Mizzou comfort level. Mizzou seems OK playing in the SEC-east, but it is a bit awkward in terms of geography. Another school bordering Mizzou could help their situation. I don't know if they really want a Kansas school. A couple of years ago, I heard they didn't due to competition for recruits. Oklahoma would be another short southern border state that connects to Texas with A&M, and Oklahoma is an old B8/B12 foe/comrade.
I doubt there is a lot of SEC passion to travel to either Kansas, and certainly not Ames, Iowa. But I understand the unsettled variables.
And the SEC having 3 Texas schools? Don't think that will fly regardless of what ESPN wants. Do you think Alabama and Auburn would buy into that? Power centers matter to some more than others.

Beware, the one school to one state model dies with cable subscriptions. Moving forward controlling a state guarantees the best advertising rates for your carrier, which in turn supplies you with the most money. We are going to rue the day we don't have another Florida school as the payout model shifts. I said that in 2008 and it's still true today.

In 1992 Florida was concerned about "not" having F.S.U. in the conference. Their concern at the time was that if we continued growth eventually OOC rivals would be in jeopardy. Their president (UF's) then argued for F.S.U.'s inclusion. That fear was expressed in the meetings of 2010. Only the subscription fee model tabled the notion of adding another major school from within 1 state.

Now if ESPN holds the SEC contract and the ACC contract and between those two conferences all of the top product in that state is held then we can afford not to take them all. But should another network's conference acquire some of those schools the add rates will drop.

Look at a map and plot the schools that ESPN holds the rights to through the AAC, ACC, and SEC and you will see a solid map from Virginia through Kentucky and over to Missouri being solid down through Mississippi and Arkansas and down the entire east coast south of Virginia to Miami. That's why the ad rates are solid for the SEC without our having to hold Clemson and Florida State. We may not be so lucky in Texas and Auburn and Alabama would hardly care if we, having all 3 state schools in Texas, garnered the highest rate on 28 million people.

Streaming will bring about larger, not smaller conferences, and the schools that comprise them will consolidate their states viewing audiences. In a streaming world you can't afford to share a state. You have to dominate their viewing habits. Oklahoma and Texas have the highest market saturation for college sports outside of the SEC.

What worked in 2010 won't work in 2024. Put it out of your mind. The ability to pay on actual viewers is here. Advertisers aren't going to pay for rates on the # of cable subscribers if they can pay for the actual number of viewers. And they sure as heck aren't going to give top rates to the ACC and SEC for the state of Florida by paying for all of those subscribers twice. But they will pay the highest add rate to utilize F.S.U., Miami and Florida through ESPN.

Then there's content that the nation wants to watch. Brand vs Brand will be a point of emphasis for making additions along with controlling the Saturday advertising within regions and states.

I know where you logic lies, and it's circa 2010. It's a different ball game now and that's one reason things are on pause. There are many in the industry trying to agree on a new strategy moving forward. The Big 12 is the best remaining product not totally locked up by ESPN. But in Texas and Oklahoma only the Big 12 schools are not more completely under the ESPN thumb. Should Baylor and T.C.U. head to the AAC (where Houston, S.M.U., and Tulsa are already members) and should the SEC land Texa-homa that gives ESPN total control over a regional market comprised of 2 states with a potential of 32 million plus viewers and in a high rabid college sports market with extremely good saturation.

Now if those 6 schools are divided between the AAC/ACC/SEC it still works for ESPN. That's where they are going and why they want them. For the price of 6 schools, ESPN makes certain that 32 million people have to buy an ESPN package to watch. If they want Kansas too then make it 8 schools but the saturation numbers in Kansas are much lower.

What's more is that if the 5 state P schools of Texas and Oklahoma have games spread throughout the day the ESPN or the SECN or ACCN get to double and triple dip on the advertising every week for 32 million potential viewers. And if Baylor and T.C.U. wind up in the AAC then with S.M.U., Houston, and Tulsa you get to triple dip again just for a slightly reduced rate. That's 6 shots across a spectrum of channels in which advertisers can saturate the news about their product to a high % of the residents of the state of Texas and Oklahoma. And even if those schools initially don't care to watch Florida or Georgia we still get their dedication for the schools they do care about and that still pays the bills.

That's going to be part of the secret of making money moving forward and it is why the SEC is still in the best position to monetize it. We are in a growth area where the highest % of viewers watch college sports.....religiously. Even in a streaming world that's money in the bank. Monopolizing Texas and Oklahoma along with Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas is major. Having ESPN hold all of the product in Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Kentucky helps. Do that and the ESPN model still works. Don't and you're screwed.

BTW: That strategy could also help ESPN land all of the Big 10 contract someday. If Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Connecticut, Temple, and Cincinnati are accounted for under the umbrella of ESPN then Big 10 rates have no competitors that aren't in the corporate family and their rates go up too.

PS: Personally, I don't like Texas, don't like the idea of Kansas in the SEC, and find it much simpler to take the pair of Oklahoma schools and call it quits on realignment and let ESPN and the other conferences deal with the leftovers. We'd be fine. But there is a network angle to be considered. A conference angle to be considered, and the feelings of our individual member schools to be considered. With OU in hand should we ever be faced with the need to expand again I still say grab Clemson, Florida State and consider calling it a day. Oklahoma, Clemson, and Florida State are the most SEC like schools out there. None of the three would dilute our brand. But that's just me thinking as a fan.

I agree. OU and OSU is the best option for the SEC for western expansion. They also border three SEC states. I think the Red River Rivalry is important to OU, so they would have to work that out. Bedlam will be preserved. I believe Oklahoma will fit better than any of the other western schools. They would be an awesome boost for Missouri and Arkansas, and A&M, as well. I can only imagine the LSU-OU primetime games at Norman and Baton Rouge. This would cement the SEC as the greatest conference of all time. You are also correct that the old 2010 cable days are over. While Oklahoma is not the population center of the country, OU has an obvious national brand, and OSU brings a great program in the new age of streaming. We go to 16 and wait for the east to play itself out. I think a couple ACC schools might find the increase in conference revenue intriguing.

(05-06-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.


....


Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.

Some of the more reliable intel we have at this juncture is that Kansas could very likely be getting ready for the SEC. I think we have to view everything else through that prism.

The move that makes ESPN the most money in the short term is the big one...Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC.

This way, the B1G is cut off in the West and they will need ESPN's help to grow in any significant way for the future. That's leverage.

Notre Dame moving to the B1G could cement that league back into the ESPN corner and if a few select schools from the Mid-Atlantic move with them then that would seal the deal, but all these moves don't have to happen at the same time. The Big Ten will renegotiate in about 5 years and that's when they'll expect their biggest windfall.

If you use the American in the meantime to house most of the rest of the Big 12 and you give them decent money then maybe you can give them another boost later if you break up the ACC.

The SEC could pick up a couple more key brands out of the ACC while the B1G gets what they want out of the Mid-Atlantic. The American becomes a fairly solid Power league with leftovers from both the Big 12 and ACC. By contrast, unless the PAC is willing to do something dramatic then they're outta luck for any growth.

So at this point, you don't really have a great deal of balance economically speaking. It could work, but it would bring its own set of problems.

This is actually one of the reasons I suggested Colorado move to the B1G in exchange for the PAC acquiring the remaining Big 12 schools once UT, OU, and KU have departed. That's the PAC's most realistic shot at growing their brand and income by reaching into the Central portion of the country.

While I understand the notion of CU leaving may look like it would create instability for the PAC, I don't see the B1G raiding that league. The distance is simply too great for a move like that to be made and remain cost effective. Travel times alone would be horrendous if there was to be any cohesiveness whatsoever.

If CU leaves purely on the condition that UT, OU, and KU are already out the door then I think it could work. You'd get 4 conferences of 16, a champs only playoff, and a much more tidy way or organizing everything and making sure the financial gaps aren't altogether huge.

BUT...if the B1G gets Oklahoma in all this and if Notre Dame accompanies them then I think the ACC falls anyway although it may take longer. That league's financial outlook is already mediocre with ND on board. Let the Irish depart and it's only a matter of time before they fall so far behind that it won't matter what degree of profitability exists by raiding them. There will be local political pressure within the SEC states to rescue their in-state brethren and elevate them back to relevance.

(05-08-2018 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.


....


Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.

Some of the more reliable intel we have at this juncture is that Kansas could very likely be getting ready for the SEC. I think we have to view everything else through that prism.

The move that makes ESPN the most money in the short term is the big one...Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC.

This way, the B1G is cut off in the West and they will need ESPN's help to grow in any significant way for the future. That's leverage.

Notre Dame moving to the B1G could cement that league back into the ESPN corner and if a few select schools from the Mid-Atlantic move with them then that would seal the deal, but all these moves don't have to happen at the same time. The Big Ten will renegotiate in about 5 years and that's when they'll expect their biggest windfall.

If you use the American in the meantime to house most of the rest of the Big 12 and you give them decent money then maybe you can give them another boost later if you break up the ACC.

The SEC could pick up a couple more key brands out of the ACC while the B1G gets what they want out of the Mid-Atlantic. The American becomes a fairly solid Power league with leftovers from both the Big 12 and ACC. By contrast, unless the PAC is willing to do something dramatic then they're outta luck for any growth.

So at this point, you don't really have a great deal of balance economically speaking. It could work, but it would bring its own set of problems.

This is actually one of the reasons I suggested Colorado move to the B1G in exchange for the PAC acquiring the remaining Big 12 schools once UT, OU, and KU have departed. That's the PAC's most realistic shot at growing their brand and income by reaching into the Central portion of the country.

While I understand the notion of CU leaving may look like it would create instability for the PAC, I don't see the B1G raiding that league. The distance is simply too great for a move like that to be made and remain cost effective. Travel times alone would be horrendous if there was to be any cohesiveness whatsoever.

If CU leaves purely on the condition that UT, OU, and KU are already out the door then I think it could work. You'd get 4 conferences of 16, a champs only playoff, and a much more tidy way or organizing everything and making sure the financial gaps aren't altogether huge.

BUT...if the B1G gets Oklahoma in all this and if Notre Dame accompanies them then I think the ACC falls anyway although it may take longer. That league's financial outlook is already mediocre with ND on board. Let the Irish depart and it's only a matter of time before they fall so far behind that it won't matter what degree of profitability exists by raiding them. There will be local political pressure within the SEC states to rescue their in-state brethren and elevate them back to relevance.

Really? Total hogwash!
Your comment is better placed here, JR.

(05-08-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.


....


Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.

Some of the more reliable intel we have at this juncture is that Kansas could very likely be getting ready for the SEC. I think we have to view everything else through that prism.

The move that makes ESPN the most money in the short term is the big one...Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC.

This way, the B1G is cut off in the West and they will need ESPN's help to grow in any significant way for the future. That's leverage.

Notre Dame moving to the B1G could cement that league back into the ESPN corner and if a few select schools from the Mid-Atlantic move with them then that would seal the deal, but all these moves don't have to happen at the same time. The Big Ten will renegotiate in about 5 years and that's when they'll expect their biggest windfall.

If you use the American in the meantime to house most of the rest of the Big 12 and you give them decent money then maybe you can give them another boost later if you break up the ACC.

The SEC could pick up a couple more key brands out of the ACC while the B1G gets what they want out of the Mid-Atlantic. The American becomes a fairly solid Power league with leftovers from both the Big 12 and ACC. By contrast, unless the PAC is willing to do something dramatic then they're outta luck for any growth.

So at this point, you don't really have a great deal of balance economically speaking. It could work, but it would bring its own set of problems.

This is actually one of the reasons I suggested Colorado move to the B1G in exchange for the PAC acquiring the remaining Big 12 schools once UT, OU, and KU have departed. That's the PAC's most realistic shot at growing their brand and income by reaching into the Central portion of the country.

While I understand the notion of CU leaving may look like it would create instability for the PAC, I don't see the B1G raiding that league. The distance is simply too great for a move like that to be made and remain cost effective. Travel times alone would be horrendous if there was to be any cohesiveness whatsoever.

If CU leaves purely on the condition that UT, OU, and KU are already out the door then I think it could work. You'd get 4 conferences of 16, a champs only playoff, and a much more tidy way or organizing everything and making sure the financial gaps aren't altogether huge.

BUT...if the B1G gets Oklahoma in all this and if Notre Dame accompanies them then I think the ACC falls anyway although it may take longer. That league's financial outlook is already mediocre with ND on board. Let the Irish depart and it's only a matter of time before they fall so far behind that it won't matter what degree of profitability exists by raiding them. There will be local political pressure within the SEC states to rescue their in-state brethren and elevate them back to relevance.

Really? Total hogwash!
Your comment is better placed here, JR.

Actually X while ESPN will be working hard to keep the family happy, since Skipper isn't heading it anymore, should either the SEC or ACC not deliver as expected, or should they lag in the ratings, I don't think there will be any security moving forward in what is about to be a much more cutthroat business environment for media providers.

If the SEC can't expand in a meaningful way to the West ESPN will have to rethink what they could make off of key ACC brands whether they were placed in the SEC or Big 10. In a content driven world that might mean Kansas and Kentucky to the ACC and a few top football schools to the SEC.

So no it's not hogwash, it's a possibility which under the right circumstances could jump to being a probability or even a reality. And the three days that it was agreed that Clemson and Florida State would be joining the SEC back in 2010 prove just how fickle that relationship can be even with a UNC alum as president of ESPN.

(05-08-2018 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.


....


Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.

Some of the more reliable intel we have at this juncture is that Kansas could very likely be getting ready for the SEC. I think we have to view everything else through that prism.

The move that makes ESPN the most money in the short term is the big one...Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC.

This way, the B1G is cut off in the West and they will need ESPN's help to grow in any significant way for the future. That's leverage.

Notre Dame moving to the B1G could cement that league back into the ESPN corner and if a few select schools from the Mid-Atlantic move with them then that would seal the deal, but all these moves don't have to happen at the same time. The Big Ten will renegotiate in about 5 years and that's when they'll expect their biggest windfall.

If you use the American in the meantime to house most of the rest of the Big 12 and you give them decent money then maybe you can give them another boost later if you break up the ACC.

The SEC could pick up a couple more key brands out of the ACC while the B1G gets what they want out of the Mid-Atlantic. The American becomes a fairly solid Power league with leftovers from both the Big 12 and ACC. By contrast, unless the PAC is willing to do something dramatic then they're outta luck for any growth.

So at this point, you don't really have a great deal of balance economically speaking. It could work, but it would bring its own set of problems.

This is actually one of the reasons I suggested Colorado move to the B1G in exchange for the PAC acquiring the remaining Big 12 schools once UT, OU, and KU have departed. That's the PAC's most realistic shot at growing their brand and income by reaching into the Central portion of the country.

While I understand the notion of CU leaving may look like it would create instability for the PAC, I don't see the B1G raiding that league. The distance is simply too great for a move like that to be made and remain cost effective. Travel times alone would be horrendous if there was to be any cohesiveness whatsoever.

If CU leaves purely on the condition that UT, OU, and KU are already out the door then I think it could work. You'd get 4 conferences of 16, a champs only playoff, and a much more tidy way or organizing everything and making sure the financial gaps aren't altogether huge.

BUT...if the B1G gets Oklahoma in all this and if Notre Dame accompanies them then I think the ACC falls anyway although it may take longer. That league's financial outlook is already mediocre with ND on board. Let the Irish depart and it's only a matter of time before they fall so far behind that it won't matter what degree of profitability exists by raiding them. There will be local political pressure within the SEC states to rescue their in-state brethren and elevate them back to relevance.

Really? Total hogwash!
Your comment is better placed here, JR.

Actually X while ESPN will be working hard to keep the family happy, since Skipper isn't heading it anymore, should either the SEC or ACC not deliver as expected, or should they lag in the ratings, I don't think there will be any security moving forward in what is about to be a much more cutthroat business environment for media providers.

If the SEC can't expand in a meaningful way to the West ESPN will have to rethink what they could make off of key ACC brands whether they were placed in the SEC or Big 10. In a content driven world that might mean Kansas and Kentucky to the ACC and a few top football schools to the SEC.

So no it's not hogwash, it's a possibility which under the right circumstances could jump to being a probability or even a reality. And the three days that it was agreed that Clemson and Florida State would be joining the SEC back in 2010 prove just how fickle that relationship can be even with a UNC alum as president of ESPN.

I'm not worried about the ACC holding up our end, JR.

(05-08-2018 07:19 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 05:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 04:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-08-2018 02:47 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-06-2018 07:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't disagree with the bolded portion, but if Colorado was the school then the PAC would be in the process of being raided. I don't think Oklahoma or Texas would be headed anywhere if the PAC was up for grabs.


....


Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 is the most economical move the Big 10 can make to 16. Texas and Kansas to the SEC is the most economical move the SEC can make to 16. Do that and add West Virginia and one of T.C.U./Connecticut/or another to the ACC and they are safe at 16 from here on out. Why? Because the SEC and B1G cannot possibly profit by making any addition from the remaining ACC.

Some of the more reliable intel we have at this juncture is that Kansas could very likely be getting ready for the SEC. I think we have to view everything else through that prism.

The move that makes ESPN the most money in the short term is the big one...Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Kansas to the SEC.

This way, the B1G is cut off in the West and they will need ESPN's help to grow in any significant way for the future. That's leverage.

Notre Dame moving to the B1G could cement that league back into the ESPN corner and if a few select schools from the Mid-Atlantic move with them then that would seal the deal, but all these moves don't have to happen at the same time. The Big Ten will renegotiate in about 5 years and that's when they'll expect their biggest windfall.

If you use the American in the meantime to house most of the rest of the Big 12 and you give them decent money then maybe you can give them another boost later if you break up the ACC.

The SEC could pick up a couple more key brands out of the ACC while the B1G gets what they want out of the Mid-Atlantic. The American becomes a fairly solid Power league with leftovers from both the Big 12 and ACC. By contrast, unless the PAC is willing to do something dramatic then they're outta luck for any growth.

So at this point, you don't really have a great deal of balance economically speaking. It could work, but it would bring its own set of problems.

This is actually one of the reasons I suggested Colorado move to the B1G in exchange for the PAC acquiring the remaining Big 12 schools once UT, OU, and KU have departed. That's the PAC's most realistic shot at growing their brand and income by reaching into the Central portion of the country.

While I understand the notion of CU leaving may look like it would create instability for the PAC, I don't see the B1G raiding that league. The distance is simply too great for a move like that to be made and remain cost effective. Travel times alone would be horrendous if there was to be any cohesiveness whatsoever.

If CU leaves purely on the condition that UT, OU, and KU are already out the door then I think it could work. You'd get 4 conferences of 16, a champs only playoff, and a much more tidy way or organizing everything and making sure the financial gaps aren't altogether huge.

BUT...if the B1G gets Oklahoma in all this and if Notre Dame accompanies them then I think the ACC falls anyway although it may take longer. That league's financial outlook is already mediocre with ND on board. Let the Irish depart and it's only a matter of time before they fall so far behind that it won't matter what degree of profitability exists by raiding them. There will be local political pressure within the SEC states to rescue their in-state brethren and elevate them back to relevance.

Really? Total hogwash!
Your comment is better placed here, JR.

Actually X while ESPN will be working hard to keep the family happy, since Skipper isn't heading it anymore, should either the SEC or ACC not deliver as expected, or should they lag in the ratings, I don't think there will be any security moving forward in what is about to be a much more cutthroat business environment for media providers.

If the SEC can't expand in a meaningful way to the West ESPN will have to rethink what they could make off of key ACC brands whether they were placed in the SEC or Big 10. In a content driven world that might mean Kansas and Kentucky to the ACC and a few top football schools to the SEC.

So no it's not hogwash, it's a possibility which under the right circumstances could jump to being a probability or even a reality. And the three days that it was agreed that Clemson and Florida State would be joining the SEC back in 2010 prove just how fickle that relationship can be even with a UNC alum as president of ESPN.

I'm not worried about the ACC holding up our end, JR.

Well that's good, because I'm certainly not worried about our end of it at all.

I'll tell you guys now, if for any reason the FOX / Disney deal fails then ESPN would be super wise to bite the bullet and place all of the Big 12 schools into the SEC and ACC where they would be secure until 2035-7. Then they would be buying themselves some much needed time to work everything else out. I know they would prefer to only have 4-5 of those schools at a higher rate of pay, but seriously they would come out ahead of the game by making that move. Otherwise they'll have to bid even more for them in a a few years.

Still both FOX and Disney want this deal and FOX doesn't want cash. So odds are I think it goes through anyway.

With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

(05-19-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

(05-19-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

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

(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

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

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.

(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 12:33 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  With sources in the PAC12 complaining about revenue, how re-alignment/expansion plays out gets more confusing. The PAC12 made a big mistake not accepting OU & oSu when that was on the table and the PAC12 was in a stronger position for a destination. They possibly could have lured UT with TTU a short time later. Now, a B12-PAC12 combo deal, minus a few, perhaps from both, is not unthinkable.
The SEC is in a strong position to take a couple of the more desirable when the time comes. Suppose Texas and OU reject the PAC12, even with promised tag-alongs?

Given Texas Tech's location, they could be a decent geographic fit, particularly with the non-coastal PAC12 schools. The Kansas schools, maybe oSu,, could be options. Iowa State could be too far east, WVU would be way too east, TCU isn't reseach-oriented, and Baylor would not be wanted for multiple reasons. Also, some connector schools such as CSU, New Mexico, etc. would be an option if necessary.

Basically, the SEC and BIG would be the "first pickings" conferences. But the queen of the B12, Texas, may defer a decision on SEC and/or BIG offers. Thus, OU would be the prime target if they show increasing availability.

Given Texas, I would not be suprised, rather expect, they would be trying to construct/re-construct a new conference. Would the PAC12 be the co-op group?
The question is not if they will try. Assume that. The question would can they pull it off? It can't be with just SMU-Houston-Rice types. They'll need a few current P5 big names elsewhere to associate.

Maybe these commissioners and select Presidents need to get in a smoked-filled room with TV executives and wheel and deal. That methodology, though, is now extinct. And guessing, the SEC would still end up with OU & oSu as an outcome.

I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

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

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.

High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

(05-19-2018 09:14 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 07:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 07:22 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:55 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree with your logic. My question is what do you think would happen should the SEC take the pair of Oklahoma schools and then Texas realizes that they are potentially loosing too much of a familiar schedule and then they approach the SEC about joining? Would we simply decline them or would be looking at 18 schools because the opportunity to land them may only come once?

That remains the big question. Hopefully, before offers are extended, Texas is clear on their intentions. But we know they can flip or play manipulative games.

Going to 18 to include UT? That may be too much at one time, particularly 4 to the west (B12). But given near future variables, inclusive of broadcasting contracts, it would be hard to rule it out with certainty.

18 seems unruly in reality (fun in fantasy realignment.) However, should be optin be available, I can’t imaine either party (Texas or SEC) forgoing it without simply being stubborn. I’d do:

16 - Oklahoma, Oklahoma St
18 - Texas, Texas Tech
20 - Kansas, West Virginia
24 - Florida St, Clemson, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech

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

If the SEC landed Oklahoma and Texas, even with Oklahoma State and Texas Tech, there would be no further additions, ever. With UT & OU in the fold nobody left in the CFP outside of Ohio State and Notre Dame could add to our revenue. That twosome, or foursome is game over for the SEC.

High member numbers, say anything above 16, the entity ceases being a fundamental conference and more of an association. There are only 12 regular season fb games a season, and 20-something basketball games, several of which are home-to-home meetings. Plus all the other sports need to be accommodated and adjust. It would be a nightmare for the baseball tournament, unless cutting the invites. That will not go over well. And teams not getting basketball tournament invites will be a huge fuss. Those tournament available dates are crunched as it is.
Even for fb, making the full round or rotation gets extended. Bonding works better with frequency.
I am not one of those that says take Texas at all cost. And in terms of stability, it could lessen and the breakaway movement happens. The more-haves leave the haves. They will not all be equal, and they certainly aren't now.

In a content driven world having more haves will just be the norm for the best paid conferences.

The way you handle the baseball and basketball tournaments is to have the first rounds in division at a divisional location. with the division winner getting a bye to the finals. The other 8 play it out and the winner in each division advance to the final 4 of the Conference.

If there is one thing you learn setting up tournaments it's that a little imagination solves a myriad of problems.

As for scheduling at 18 you can still play everyone every three years by moving to 9 conference games. You simply rotate 6 groups of three to create 2 divisions of 9 every year. If you have to keep a permanent rival then you play 10 conference games, or just don't count the rival as a conference game.

I think the valid objection to Texas is the potential of future divisiveness.