(07-20-2018 01:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-20-2018 12:54 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  The ACC's proposed non-division pods they were proposed several years ago, was shot down by the SEC and BIG, while giving the B12 what they wanted.
The ACC intended to incorporate Notre Dame into their new proposed system for determining the conference champion.
The three pod model could work in the SEC. Conferences @ 15 members with three pods @ 5 members would be workable. So if just Texas was added to the SEC, that could work if minds were changed about divisions.
Such could be good for the remnants of the B12. Maybe the BIG is really just willing to go after one school the next time. It would fit a basketball format, as well as baseball.

SEC:. adds Texas (15)
PAC: adds OU, oSu, and TTU (15)
BIG: adds Kansas (15)
ACC:. Add ND fb FT (15)

Big 12 north:. KSU, ISU, WVU, Cincy, UConn
BIG 12 SW:. TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tulane
BIG 12 East:. Memphis, UCF, USF, ECU, Temple

OK, the ultra-expansion advocates won't like it. But it is doable. Who loses?

It's the same reason I supported 18 in 3 divisions of 6 for so long. But yes the format works and yes it may be the more economical way to move. But no, I don't see the Big 10 taking Kansas in that format. They are a natural fit but they don't increase the pie.

If each conference could only take 1 school to get to 15 then that school is going to have to deliver a lot.

So you are absolutely correct that if we had only 1 slot left then Texas checks more boxes for the SEC than any other school.

So who does that for the Big 10? Notre Dame They may not be able to land them but that's who they would go all out to get if 15 was going to be it. And if there was only going to be 1 more for the ACC and Notre Dame only has a one foot in now then they have to think about the total revenue moving forward. The ACC only has an upside in a 15 school model of 1/2 of Notre Dame. So let's say the Irish go all in and that the ACCN pays out 7 million a year (a healthy estimate for 3 years from the launch date). That puts the ACC in the 40 million range, or roughly where the SEC is today. If the SEC adds just Texas then at that time we along with the Big 10 would be North of 50 million. But Notre Dame could make as much as 15 million a year more than their potential ACC payout with a move to the Big 10. That's a 150 million a decade.

So if Texas goes SEC there will be great pressure for N.D. to go for much greater revenue.

So as I see it the SEC / ESPN would go for Texas.
The Big 10 would go for N.D. and settle for OU.
The PAC would add Kansas, Texas Tech, and possibly I.S.U.
The ACC would either retain N.D. fully, or would get stuck trying to find a replacement. Things at that point could get really interesting.

But if Kansas was acceptable to the Big 10 then you might have nailed down the moves.

So for the sake of discussion let's say the Big 10 doesn't take Kansas. How would it play out then?

I'm still not sure if there is a clause in ND contract that they have to join the ACC if they join a conference.

If, however, ND is free to choose a conference and chooses the Big 10, I think that destabilizes the ACC enough that even if conferences had decided to stop at 15, they would reevaluate with new eastern targets now possible. At that point I would think that at least 16 if not 18 would be the move as the Big 10/SEC claimed the schools of value from the east as well as from the west.

Yes, that clause that ND signed with the ACC per fb would be very costly if ND seeks to go elsewhere during the term of the GoR. But if ND did go to the BIG, then slide in WVU to the ACC..

The problem with the idea of 15 member conferences is that all P5 conferences would need to agree to it.

I have long felt that if there are minimum membership numbers for conferences, then maximum numbers could also be applied.

Having maximum numbers, IMO, would offer "overall" enhanced stabilization, though some in the P5 are very stabilized already. If conditions change, they can lift or modify such a requirement.

Coupled with this, I favor abolishing GoRs. Have standard exit fees that cover reasonable costs, but are not intended to be punitive or look like it is extorting. Exit fees should cover real administrative costs, and the revenue required by each member school to reschedule and find replacements. An 18 to 24 month notice to leave for all sports sounds appropriate.

(07-20-2018 05:08 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Yes, that clause that ND signed with the ACC per fb would be very costly if ND seeks to go elsewhere during the term of the GoR. But if ND did go to the BIG, then slide in WVU to the ACC..

The problem with the idea of 15 member conferences is that all P5 conferences would need to agree to it.

I have long felt that if there are minimum membership numbers for conferences, then maximum numbers could also be applied.

Having maximum numbers, IMO, would offer "overall" enhanced stabilization, though some in the P5 are very stabilized already. If conditions change, they can lift or modify such a requirement.

Coupled with this, I favor abolishing GoRs. Have standard exit fees that cover reasonable costs, but are not intended to be punitive or look like it is extorting. Exit fees should cover real administrative costs, and the revenue required by each member school to reschedule and find replacements. An 18 to 24 month notice to leave for all sports sounds appropriate.

Well oddly as to that ND GOR, the 5 football games (which is where the bulk of value is located) may not be under the GOR. I believe all of their other sports are under the GOR and the value of N.D. basketball is pretty low.

The GOR for the minor sports may not be an issue at all if the Big 10 took them as a football only member until the GOR expired. Buying out the value of 5 N.D. ACC football games a year would still leave them a profit for those 5 games in the Big 10 plus their other 4. So while I agree that it would not be as likely because of N.D.'s actual arrangement I wouldn't think it unworkable. The exit fee might not even be in order under that kind of arrangement. Of course N.D. could always simply contract for a certain number of Big 10 games to "hold" their spot until they could financially swing the move. They didn't paint themselves in as big of a corner as most think.

The inherent problem of 15 is the scheduling and the fact that it means there will never be an all conference schedule and likely not even an all P schedule.

Most folks are so used to bracket structures that an odd number inevitably will lack universal acceptance. But it is a valid concept relate to the present conditions.

BTW, We are 100% in agreement about GOR's. Besides I'm really not sure that a GOR is enforceable against a state school. And the punitive nature of them are what should be challenged in court because punitive damages aren't supposed to be a part of a contract, but rather actual damages. Besides in volatile times everyone should be free to move in their self interests.

ND did sign an agreement that if they did join a conference for FT fb, it would be the ACC. I don't recall the dollar figures attached to that, but believe it runs for the duration of the ACC's GoR. Yes, it can be challenged, perhaps defied with acceptable consequences,, or, as noted, gets weakened with age. Agree, ND could start playing more BIG games if that's where they eventually expect to be. Game sacrifices would have to happen somewhere.

ND always out-negotiates potential partners. Being adversarial is not their approach. Taking advantage of deferences and the eagerness of counterparts, is their methodology.

(07-21-2018 11:58 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ND did sign an agreement that if they did join a conference for FT fb, it would be the ACC. I don't recall the dollar figures attached to that, but believe it runs for the duration of the ACC's GoR. Yes, it can be challenged, defied, orbit gets weakened with age. Agree, ND could start playing more BIG games if that's where they eventually expect to be. Game sacrifices would have to happen somewhere.

I think they would be subject to an exit fee (last established was 52 million) which the ACC has now pegged as a multiple to their media revenue, but which is so punitive it won't stand up to contract law, and they would owe on the GOR for their sports other than football, but that figure wouldn't be significant because basketball is the only other thing that adds revenue and N.D.'s basketball valuation is the lower than any ACC school and isn't even in the top 100 for all college hoops teams.

But, moving in steps not in violation of any GOR and bringing their non football sports over in 2037 or shortly before would be very workable if they wanted to change their direction.

(07-21-2018 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 11:58 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ND did sign an agreement that if they did join a conference for FT fb, it would be the ACC. I don't recall the dollar figures attached to that, but believe it runs for the duration of the ACC's GoR. Yes, it can be challenged, defied, orbit gets weakened with age. Agree, ND could start playing more BIG games if that's where they eventually expect to be. Game sacrifices would have to happen somewhere.

I think they would be subject to an exit fee (last established was 52 million) which the ACC has now pegged as a multiple to their media revenue, but which is so punitive it won't stand up to contract law, and they would owe on the GOR for their sports other than football, but that figure wouldn't be significant because basketball is the only other thing that adds revenue and N.D.'s basketball valuation is the lower than any ACC school and isn't even in the top 100 for all college hoops teams.

But, moving in steps not in violation of any GOR and bringing their non football sports over in 2037 or shortly before would be very workable if they wanted to change their direction.

Notre Dame gets nice basketball crowds, and that's been evident long before they entered the ACC. The old Big East went out of their way to add and cater to them. Their men's team are often in the NCAAs, and their women's team won the NCAA tournament this year. True, their bb is not in the class of Duke, UNC, UVA, Syracuse, Louisville, and a few others, but they seem to keep in the thick of things and are not dwelling at the bottom..
I am not a ND fan, and dislike their deal with the ACC. However, I find it difficult to believe they are not in the top 100 in valuation, and schools such as Miami and VPI rate higher for the long-term. I can't argue this. I don't know enough otherwise per data. Someone such as TerryD (?) will have to champion their partial ACC value. That said, if ND left the ACC tomorrow, I would not view it as any kind of a big loss. ACC bb doesn't need them. As to fb, the ACC can schedule other major OOC opponents. Four ACC schools already have long-established in-state SEC rivalry games built-in to yearly schedules. And no carrots are required for these games. I don't know how much ND adds to the ACC TV contracts, but ND may be getting a larger slice than what they are actually contributing.

Back to expansion. I believe Notre Dame is still a BIG target, the #1 preference. The BIG may have interest in Texas and/or Oklahoma, but getting ND would be their most favored accomplishment.

For the SEC, I believe they will have the top bargaining power with the B12 if they break in a few years.

(07-22-2018 08:15 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 11:58 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ND did sign an agreement that if they did join a conference for FT fb, it would be the ACC. I don't recall the dollar figures attached to that, but believe it runs for the duration of the ACC's GoR. Yes, it can be challenged, defied, orbit gets weakened with age. Agree, ND could start playing more BIG games if that's where they eventually expect to be. Game sacrifices would have to happen somewhere.

I think they would be subject to an exit fee (last established was 52 million) which the ACC has now pegged as a multiple to their media revenue, but which is so punitive it won't stand up to contract law, and they would owe on the GOR for their sports other than football, but that figure wouldn't be significant because basketball is the only other thing that adds revenue and N.D.'s basketball valuation is the lower than any ACC school and isn't even in the top 100 for all college hoops teams.

But, moving in steps not in violation of any GOR and bringing their non football sports over in 2037 or shortly before would be very workable if they wanted to change their direction.

Notre Dame gets nice basketball crowds, and that's been evident long before they entered the ACC. The old Big East went out of their way to add and cater to them. Their men's team are often in the NCAAs, and their women's team won the NCAA tournament this year. True, their bb is not in the class of Duke, UNC, UVA, Syracuse, Louisville, and a few others, but they seem to keep in the thick of things and are not dwelling at the bottom..
I am not a ND fan, and dislike their deal with the ACC. However, I find it difficult to believe they are not in the top 100 in valuation, and schools such as Miami and VPI rate higher for the long-term. I can't argue this. I don't know enough otherwise per data. Someone such as TerryD (?) will have to champion their partial ACC value. That said, if ND left the ACC tomorrow, I would not view it as any kind of a big loss. ACC bb doesn't need them. As to fb, the ACC can schedule other major OOC opponents. Four ACC schools already have long-established in-state SEC rivalry games built-in to yearly schedules. And no carrots are required for these games. I don't know how much ND adds to the ACC TV contracts, but ND may be getting a larger slice than what they are actually contributing.

Back to expansion. I believe Notre Dame is still a BIG target, the #1 preference. The BIG may have interest in Texas and/or Oklahoma, but getting ND would be their most favored accomplishment.

For the SEC, I believe they will have the top bargaining power with the B12 if they break in a few years.

Your post made me wonder: if expansion was a draft and both the SEC/Big 10 had their pick of any other school, how would it go?

Big 10: ND
SEC: Texas

Snake draft would be:
SEC: OK
Big 10: UVA? Washington? Colorado?

Or would Big 10 take Texas first knowing ND could be their number 2, in which case the SEC takes OK/Kansas?

I know it doesn't work like a draft, but does make me think about expansion strategy.

(07-22-2018 08:15 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 12:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 11:58 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  ND did sign an agreement that if they did join a conference for FT fb, it would be the ACC. I don't recall the dollar figures attached to that, but believe it runs for the duration of the ACC's GoR. Yes, it can be challenged, defied, orbit gets weakened with age. Agree, ND could start playing more BIG games if that's where they eventually expect to be. Game sacrifices would have to happen somewhere.

I think they would be subject to an exit fee (last established was 52 million) which the ACC has now pegged as a multiple to their media revenue, but which is so punitive it won't stand up to contract law, and they would owe on the GOR for their sports other than football, but that figure wouldn't be significant because basketball is the only other thing that adds revenue and N.D.'s basketball valuation is the lower than any ACC school and isn't even in the top 100 for all college hoops teams.

But, moving in steps not in violation of any GOR and bringing their non football sports over in 2037 or shortly before would be very workable if they wanted to change their direction.

Notre Dame gets nice basketball crowds, and that's been evident long before they entered the ACC. The old Big East went out of their way to add and cater to them. Their men's team are often in the NCAAs, and their women's team won the NCAA tournament this year. True, their bb is not in the class of Duke, UNC, UVA, Syracuse, Louisville, and a few others, but they seem to keep in the thick of things and are not dwelling at the bottom..
I am not a ND fan, and dislike their deal with the ACC. However, I find it difficult to believe they are not in the top 100 in valuation, and schools such as Miami and VPI rate higher for the long-term. I can't argue this. I don't know enough otherwise per data. Someone such as TerryD (?) will have to champion their partial ACC value. That said, if ND left the ACC tomorrow, I would not view it as any kind of a big loss. ACC bb doesn't need them. As to fb, the ACC can schedule other major OOC opponents. Four ACC schools already have long-established in-state SEC rivalry games built-in to yearly schedules. And no carrots are required for these games. I don't know how much ND adds to the ACC TV contracts, but ND may be getting a larger slice than what they are actually contributing.

Back to expansion. I believe Notre Dame is still a BIG target, the #1 preference. The BIG may have interest in Texas and/or Oklahoma, but getting ND would be their most favored accomplishment.

For the SEC, I believe they will have the top bargaining power with the B12 if they break in a few years.

As to N.D.'s basketball value all you have to do is check the WSJ numbers pinned in the important threads section at the top of this page.

BTW: I looked. Notre Dame's basketball was valued at 14.5 million by the WSJ which ranked 105th. Women's Basketball is not a revenue sport anywhere now that Connecticut and Tennessee are in the red on the sport.

[/quote]

Your post made me wonder: if expansion was a draft and both the SEC/Big 10 had their pick of any other school, how would it go?

Big 10: ND
SEC: Texas

Snake draft would be:
SEC: OK
Big 10: UVA? Washington? Colorado?

Or would Big 10 take Texas first knowing ND could be their number 2, in which case the SEC takes OK/Kansas?

I know it doesn't work like a draft, but does make me think about expansion strategy.
[/quote]

I think you answered the question... everyone would take Texas first and then let the cards fall from there. Texas is the linchpin that it seems many schools are awaiting to make their own decisions. With Texas, each conference backfills toward their core with programs that fit their profile. The PAC, BIG, SEC, and ACC could all talk themselves into UT being right for them assume the Longhorn Network issues are worked out. Must be nice to always be courted; you only have to take sweetheart deals.

Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

(07-23-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

If that happens I think ESPN would push for TCU and one other to the ACC because, while the Mouse wants Texas all to themselves, they don't necessarily want that for the SEC...

(07-23-2018 03:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

If that happens I think ESPN would push for TCU and one other to the ACC because, while the Mouse wants Texas all to themselves, they don't necessarily want that for the SEC...

TCU & Houston wouldn't be a bad combination to the ACC.

(07-23-2018 03:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

If that happens I think ESPN would push for TCU and one other to the ACC because, while the Mouse wants Texas all to themselves, they don't necessarily want that for the SEC...

There would be only 1 other, likely Baylor. That would make things simple on ESPN. But that's one time when you might want to push for Houston instead, unless you just feel the need to collect some of the larger Southern Baptist seminaries.

But I agree that ESPN has a particular interest in just flat out owning the Lone Star state.

The way things are shaping up, and the talking points being pushed for certain schools to certain conferences are shaping up I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, T.C.U. and Baylor/Houston to the ACC, and Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10. But the wild card in my opinion is what happens if the PAC is willing to sell out to ESPN to get Texas? Then we might be looking at something entirely different than what anyone is talking about to today.

You might see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State heading to the PAC. Then what? I don't see anything left in the Big 12 that would excite the Big 10. They need a football stud for the West. Would the SEC consider Kansas? And if so who with? Baylor and T.C.U. would still be there. Would that interest the ACC? Would the SEC finally look at W.V.U? That's the monkey in the machine.

(07-23-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 03:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

If that happens I think ESPN would push for TCU and one other to the ACC because, while the Mouse wants Texas all to themselves, they don't necessarily want that for the SEC...

There would be only 1 other, likely Baylor. That would make things simple on ESPN. But that's one time when you might want to push for Houston instead, unless you just feel the need to collect some of the larger Southern Baptist seminaries.

But I agree that ESPN has a particular interest in just flat out owning the Lone Star state.

The way things are shaping up, and the talking points being pushed for certain schools to certain conferences are shaping up I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, T.C.U. and Baylor/Houston to the ACC, and Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10. But the wild card in my opinion is what happens if the PAC is willing to sell out to ESPN to get Texas? Then we might be looking at something entirely different than what anyone is talking about to today.

You might see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State heading to the PAC. Then what? I don't see anything left in the Big 12 that would excite the Big 10. They need a football stud for the West. Would the SEC consider Kansas? And if so who with? Baylor and T.C.U. would still be there. Would that interest the ACC? Would the SEC finally look at W.V.U? That's the monkey in the machine.

I think ESPN would have to get a lot in exchange for facilitating that deal.

The PAC would have to sell their network and might even have to give exclusive rights to ESPN for their 1st and 2nd tiers. Depends on how desperate the PAC is, I suppose.

In the long term, the ACC would be vulnerable to both the SEC and Big Ten if all the key pieces in the West are not available. I suppose ESPN could be ok with that, but it would have to be a certainty that they would profit big time from that sort of maneuver.

EDIT: I think in that scenario, we might be better off taking growth properties from the G5 rather than picking over the Big 12.

(07-23-2018 06:37 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 03:02 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Texas has a dilemma. If they are forced, or choose, to leave prior to 2031 they either have to abandon their contract with ESPN for the LHN (because neither the PAC, nor the Big 10) would accommodate it, or they have to join an ESPN held conference for it to be worked out amicably and profitably.

Herein lies the advantage of the SEC over and above holding two of their historic rivals already. My basic line of thinking is that this leaves Texas with only 1 need, an excuse to make the move. I think that excuse could well be Texas Tech. If so that limits the SEC's second selection. So in that scenario Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big 10 makes sense, and the SEC gets P5 Texas state school exclusivity which brings with it a real leverage on advertising rates in a state of 28 million.

If that happens I think ESPN would push for TCU and one other to the ACC because, while the Mouse wants Texas all to themselves, they don't necessarily want that for the SEC...

There would be only 1 other, likely Baylor. That would make things simple on ESPN. But that's one time when you might want to push for Houston instead, unless you just feel the need to collect some of the larger Southern Baptist seminaries.

But I agree that ESPN has a particular interest in just flat out owning the Lone Star state.

The way things are shaping up, and the talking points being pushed for certain schools to certain conferences are shaping up I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, T.C.U. and Baylor/Houston to the ACC, and Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10. But the wild card in my opinion is what happens if the PAC is willing to sell out to ESPN to get Texas? Then we might be looking at something entirely different than what anyone is talking about to today.

You might see Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State heading to the PAC. Then what? I don't see anything left in the Big 12 that would excite the Big 10. They need a football stud for the West. Would the SEC consider Kansas? And if so who with? Baylor and T.C.U. would still be there. Would that interest the ACC? Would the SEC finally look at W.V.U? That's the monkey in the machine.

I think ESPN would have to get a lot in exchange for facilitating that deal.

The PAC would have to sell their network and might even have to give exclusive rights to ESPN for their 1st and 2nd tiers. Depends on how desperate the PAC is, I suppose.

In the long term, the ACC would be vulnerable to both the SEC and Big Ten if all the key pieces in the West are not available. I suppose ESPN could be ok with that, but it would have to be a certainty that they would profit big time from that sort of maneuver.

EDIT: I think in that scenario, we might be better off taking growth properties from the G5 rather than picking over the Big 12.

Here's the under discussed issue for the PAC. There's a reason why FOX and ESPN leased 50% of the PAC's rights each. There are usually only 2 or 3 games a week from the PAC that might have more of a national interest. So by splitting the rights within that time zone ESPN and FOX both got a fairly good late night Saturday game out of the deal and were usually able to work in a few slots for that ESPN2 slot FX2 slot at 7 Eastern. While not the quality of game the late ones would be they were still good enough. The PACN generally had one in two different time slots on a Saturday across different channels if I remember correctly.

So why would ESPN or FOX want to invest more in the PAC now? Texas and Oklahoma are much more valuable against the SEC/B1G/and top of the ACC schools than they are stuck up against PAC match ups.

I'm not sure there is a desire to have a piece of the PACN at all by either network. I think they are the most likely to sell to a FAANG company which to me means that ESPN is all the more likely to try to absorb the best of the Big 12 and that would mean at least the two best remaining P5 state schools. Having them in the SEC makes a great deal of sense for the Spanish language versions of the SECN especially if the LHN is rolled over into it. And that would be extremely easy to do.

If ESPN has that they may not be that concerned with the small market states of Oklahoma, Iowa, or Kansas. Between them there is only 10 million people who reside in rather strapped economies and two of the three have some serious state debt issues. I like Texas / Kansas as a pair for the SEC and even though Kansas has more value than Texas Tech, Tech would give us a third must see game in a state of 28 million every week and those numbers would peg out on the weeks when A&M/Tech/or UT paired off. Couple those with any of those three playing Arkansas or L.S.U. and the ratings peg out again. It's money for the SEC and money for ESPN. And if both Texas and Tech are in the SEC with A&M it severely hamstrings the value of Oklahoma to the Big 10.

(07-23-2018 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The way things are shaping up, and the talking points being pushed for certain schools to certain conferences are shaping up I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC, T.C.U. and Baylor/Houston to the ACC, and Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 10.

Depends on whether CFB goes to a champs-only format. If that is the case it may well be TCU and (((that school in South Bend))) to the ACC.

Otherwise, I could see that outcome you listed happening.

Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.

(07-24-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.

Most schools in the SEC-East may like a scheduling agreement between the SEC & the ACC. Since some in the SEC are playing one, sometimes two, ACC games per year, it seems sort of natural. For the SEC-West, not so much.

(07-25-2018 05:41 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 03:23 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Getting Notre Dame and Texas to move from their respective status quo will take profound activating events.

:That may happen, but the ACC has proven to be a big enabler. The BIG would be also to a much more constrained level. I am not so confident these two will just fall into perceived obvious places.

The interesting facet of all realignment heretofore is that it is a process where the eroding away of the smaller pieces have been building the slope down which the larger will slide, and slide in perhaps a more predictable way than they would if confronted with a decision that simply impacted them.

A move by the Big 10 to 8 conference games, with a scheduling agreement with the PAC would likely create an easier path for the gravity pulling on Notre Dame than the path the ACC has constructed for them.

The pull of gravity created by the SEC for Texas is much better defined. We've taken Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri in order to make their slide a slower and more comfortable and familiar one.

Could both buck this on their own power? Yes. But would the energy expended be worth the experience of a different path? Most likely not.

So you might say these potential moves have been being shaped by extraneous forces acting upon their trajectory for over 25 years.

Most schools in the SEC-East may like a scheduling agreement between the SEC & the ACC. Since some in the SEC are playing one, sometimes two, ACC games per year, it seems sort of natural. For the SEC-West, not so much.

Yes. And once the Big 12 is gone that makes a great deal of sense. But really one exists already, it's just not formalized per se. Getting Texas and or Oklahoma seals our expansion westward. It also shores up our boundaries. Nothing West of that area is going to impose upon us, and if the Big 10 stops at Kansas or even Oklahoma the only thing the SEC needs to do at that point is to assist the ACC to keep them as a buffer.