JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

(01-15-2020 08:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 06:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 05:28 PM)Wedge Wrote:  OK, let's take a few of these.


It is a difference. Try telling longtime Auburn fans. "You won't play Bama or Georgia ever again, but don't worry, we'll give you Michigan and Penn State instead."


That works in a few instances but doesn't work in many others.

Example: A lot of old-school fans in the west would like to have the Pac-8 back, but try telling Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and Utah that even though they draw most of their out-of-state students from the west coast and send donating alumni back there, they won't be there any more and have to be in a "Great Plains Division" instead. Can't expand if those four schools vote no.

Or, try telling Virginia and Va Tech supporters that they should be happy to be in a "Yankee Division" of the ACC.

Also the example I mentioned above -- try convincing Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, etc. that they should be happy playing Ohio State at home in football once every 10 years. Minnesota's athletic budget is $125 million/year. Iowa's is $137 million/year. Those Big Ten schools already have so much TV money that they have very little incentive to vote for further expansion.


It doesn't bother me if every SEC team gets a check for $1 billion every year. I don't need Pac-12 teams to have that either, because I don't get a penny of that money. The schools don't distribute TV money to alumni.

I do think that the decisionmakers, including the TV networks, look at these things differently. Among other things, the TV guys don't want conferences to acquire more of what you call "contractual leverage", so it's unlikely that they will encourage it. In fact, they can discourage it by offering UT and OU enough money that they'd rather stay put. They did that in 2010, they can easily do it again in two years or whenever they negotiate the next round of contracts.

1. We are a little smarter than that. "And try telling Auburn you won't ever play Bama again?" Really weak on your part. Hyperbole run amok on your part. The point is we will play everyone every four years and group rivals together.

2. That's a valid point, but one conferences need to be aware of solving when they make additions. But I do realize not all conferences can solve this easily.

3. Your own was referencing your conference, but I think you know that and just chose to play obtuse.

4. Networks might not want more leverage, but they may want the content additions more than they fear leverage. This aspect is a give and take.

TV doesn't want the conferences to have more leverage. I think that's important to them, especially ESPN.

The TV guys absolutely hate the leverage that the NFL has over them. It's as if the NFL is an organized crime syndicate and each network is a mom-and-pop convenience store. The NFL just sends over a wise guy to shake 'em down for more money any time the NFL feels like it. Look at what they do to ESPN, who pays the NFL almost $2 billion/year and, in return, gets one of the worst games every week for Monday night, plus the least valuable first-round playoff game. The TV networks don't ever want any college conference, or any other pro sport for that matter, to have that kind of leverage.

That is one of the reasons ESPN worked so hard to break up the Pac 16 proposal. They did not want the colleges to have more leverage. They don't want what you suggest they are promoting.

And if you demote anyone out of the P5 it lowers their value. With the conference networks in place, ESPN really needs virtually all the current P5 inventory to remain "P5."

And they will all remain P5 one way or the other. The only question will be who controls their rights.

Temple, Cincinnati, UConn and USF got demoted.
Houston, Rice, SMU and temporarily, TCU got demoted.

(01-15-2020 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 06:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 05:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. We are a little smarter than that. "And try telling Auburn you won't ever play Bama again?" Really weak on your part. Hyperbole run amok on your part. The point is we will play everyone every four years and group rivals together.

2. That's a valid point, but one conferences need to be aware of solving when they make additions. But I do realize not all conferences can solve this easily.

3. Your own was referencing your conference, but I think you know that and just chose to play obtuse.

4. Networks might not want more leverage, but they may want the content additions more than they fear leverage. This aspect is a give and take.

TV doesn't want the conferences to have more leverage. I think that's important to them, especially ESPN.

The TV guys absolutely hate the leverage that the NFL has over them. It's as if the NFL is an organized crime syndicate and each network is a mom-and-pop convenience store. The NFL just sends over a wise guy to shake 'em down for more money any time the NFL feels like it. Look at what they do to ESPN, who pays the NFL almost $2 billion/year and, in return, gets one of the worst games every week for Monday night, plus the least valuable first-round playoff game. The TV networks don't ever want any college conference, or any other pro sport for that matter, to have that kind of leverage.

That is one of the reasons ESPN worked so hard to break up the Pac 16 proposal. They did not want the colleges to have more leverage. They don't want what you suggest they are promoting.

And if you demote anyone out of the P5 it lowers their value. With the conference networks in place, ESPN really needs virtually all the current P5 inventory to remain "P5."

And they will all remain P5 one way or the other. The only question will be who controls their rights.

Temple, Cincinnati, UConn and USF got demoted.
Houston, Rice, SMU and temporarily, TCU got demoted.

That's a Big East .2 and a SWC problem, and hardly relevant to the present P5.

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

SEC West: Texas, TTU, TAMU, Ark, LSU, Mizzou
SEC Central: Ole Miss, Miss St, Alabama, Tenn, UK, Vandy
SEC East: Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Florida St, SC, Clemson

Iron Bowl is a protected rivalry.

Big Ten West: Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Big Ten Central: Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, ND, Mich, Mich St
Big Ten East: Indiana, Ohio St, Penn St, M’land, Rutgers, #16

Protected rivalries: Ohio St vs Mich, Ind vs Purdue

(01-15-2020 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 06:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TV doesn't want the conferences to have more leverage. I think that's important to them, especially ESPN.

The TV guys absolutely hate the leverage that the NFL has over them. It's as if the NFL is an organized crime syndicate and each network is a mom-and-pop convenience store. The NFL just sends over a wise guy to shake 'em down for more money any time the NFL feels like it. Look at what they do to ESPN, who pays the NFL almost $2 billion/year and, in return, gets one of the worst games every week for Monday night, plus the least valuable first-round playoff game. The TV networks don't ever want any college conference, or any other pro sport for that matter, to have that kind of leverage.

That is one of the reasons ESPN worked so hard to break up the Pac 16 proposal. They did not want the colleges to have more leverage. They don't want what you suggest they are promoting.

And if you demote anyone out of the P5 it lowers their value. With the conference networks in place, ESPN really needs virtually all the current P5 inventory to remain "P5."

And they will all remain P5 one way or the other. The only question will be who controls their rights.

Temple, Cincinnati, UConn and USF got demoted.
Houston, Rice, SMU and temporarily, TCU got demoted.

That's a Big East .2 and a SWC problem, and hardly relevant to the present P5.

Its very relevant to the type of conference raids you are discussing, much like the ACC attack on the Big East and the Big 8 merging with the cream of the SWC.

(01-15-2020 09:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  That is one of the reasons ESPN worked so hard to break up the Pac 16 proposal. They did not want the colleges to have more leverage. They don't want what you suggest they are promoting.

And if you demote anyone out of the P5 it lowers their value. With the conference networks in place, ESPN really needs virtually all the current P5 inventory to remain "P5."

And they will all remain P5 one way or the other. The only question will be who controls their rights.

Temple, Cincinnati, UConn and USF got demoted.
Houston, Rice, SMU and temporarily, TCU got demoted.

That's a Big East .2 and a SWC problem, and hardly relevant to the present P5.

Its very relevant to the type of conference raids you are discussing, much like the ACC attack on the Big East and the Big 8 merging with the cream of the SWC.

No program was demoted.

If a guy is an accountant at Accounting Firm X, and most of his coworkers leave to join Accounting Firm Y, and he doesn't get an offer from Firm Y, he wasn't demoted. Not even if Accounting Firm X is no longer one of the "Big Five" (or however they rank accounting firms these days) after the other folks leave.

Not going to a different company, or not joining your old conference mates in the Big 8/12 or ACC, is not the same as being demoted. Maybe it's "losing status because you didn't get an offer or an invitation" from the "other place".

(01-15-2020 10:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 09:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And they will all remain P5 one way or the other. The only question will be who controls their rights.

Temple, Cincinnati, UConn and USF got demoted.
Houston, Rice, SMU and temporarily, TCU got demoted.

That's a Big East .2 and a SWC problem, and hardly relevant to the present P5.

Its very relevant to the type of conference raids you are discussing, much like the ACC attack on the Big East and the Big 8 merging with the cream of the SWC.

No program was demoted.

If a guy is an accountant at Accounting Firm X, and most of his coworkers leave to join Accounting Firm Y, and he doesn't get an offer from Firm Y, he wasn't demoted. Not even if Accounting Firm X is no longer one of the "Big Five" (or however they rank accounting firms these days) after the other folks leave.

Not going to a different company, or not joining your old conference mates in the Big 8/12 or ACC, is not the same as being demoted. Maybe it's "losing status because you didn't get an offer or an invitation" from the "other place".

From the eyes of the public (and we are talking about TV viewing and what ESPN wants), its a demotion. They were relegated from a power conference to something less. If after Arthur Andersen dissolved and your office got ignored by the remaining Big 5 and became part of Grant Thornton, you have been knocked out of the "Big" group.

The SWC was like AA, one of the Big 5. Grant Thornton, BDO, etc. were like CUSA 1.0 and the WAC 16, a good place, but not a BCS conference. It was in the next tier, both in perception and value.

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

(01-20-2020 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

Depends on how long Chris Del Conte is the AD @ Texas, IMO. If he's still there when realignment goes down, I can see TCU getting a shot. FYI, Chris Del Conte is also a former TCU AD.

(01-20-2020 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

Depends on how long Chris Del Conte is the AD @ Texas, IMO. If he's still there when realignment goes down, I can see TCU getting a shot. FYI, Chris Del Conte is also a former TCU AD.

(01-20-2020 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

Texas must not hold Texas Tech in very high regard, they won't even spend the money to send their band to Lubbock anymore.

BTW, Texas has played Texas Tech 69 times, TCU 90 times and Baylor 109 times.

(01-20-2020 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

Texas must not hold Texas Tech in very high regard, they won't even spend the money to send their band to Lubbock anymore.

BTW, Texas has played Texas Tech 69 times, TCU 90 times and Baylor 109 times.

Well that's about 65 more times than they've played anyone from the ACC!

(01-20-2020 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 02:05 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 06:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

Interesting take.
However when you look at the schools you have listed for 2024 and 2037:

Texas
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Kansas
Florida State
Clemson
Notre Dame
?

two (and perhaps three) really stand out like sore thumbs as not being a "fit" in elite football conferences.
And if adding cannon fodder is the goal, wouldn't it make more sense to add TCU instead of Texas Tech just to have a presence in the Dallas/Fort Worth market instead of Lubbock?

Generally, I would think so but if you want Texas then you may have to concede on bringing a school of their choice. Texas Tech is likely that school.

Texas must not hold Texas Tech in very high regard, they won't even spend the money to send their band to Lubbock anymore.

BTW, Texas has played Texas Tech 69 times, TCU 90 times and Baylor 109 times.

Texas Tech was a late member to the Southwest Conference. That aside, Texas Tech was included in the potential PAC-16 when neither Baylor nor TCU were.

People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

(01-20-2020 05:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  People still look at Texas politics through the lens of the early 90s when the B12 was formed.

But things have changed.

West Texas Populism is no longer a political force and Bob Bullock and Anne Richards aren’t in charge anymore. A UT grad lives in the governors mansion and the LTG is a Maryland Native who went to UMBC so he doesn’t care at all about Texas college football.

Given that truth, the idea that UT HAS to take a certain school with them to avoid political reprisals is simply not true anymore even if their fans are clinging to it as a last desperate hope (and why wouldn’t they? What other choice do they have?)

Truth is, if UT felt free to demand anyone tag along it would be Rice. A historic opponent with great academics and of course a free recruiting trip to Houston every other year against an opponent that will never beat them in anything except baseball and D&D.

Thanks for the insight.
BTW Rice and Wake Forest are about the same size.

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

From a Big Ten perspective it's an open question whether they'd be willing to wait an extra thirteen years for a program that has rejected their overtures in the past and, due to the way they recruit, may potentially suffer a Nebraska-like decline, when they might have a chance to win over two brands, a basketball brand and a +1 in a growing area of the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a full-court press behind the scenes to win over all of UT, TT, OU and KU. While getting to 18 in one shot would be awkward, the risk of waiting additional years for something that may not pan out might be even greater.

Just my humble opinion.

(01-20-2020 09:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

From a Big Ten perspective it's an open question whether they'd be willing to wait an extra thirteen years for a program that has rejected their overtures in the past and, due to the way they recruit, may potentially suffer a Nebraska-like decline, when they might have a chance to win over two brands, a basketball brand and a +1 in a growing area of the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a full-court press behind the scenes to win over all of UT, TT, OU and KU. While getting to 18 in one shot would be awkward, the risk of waiting additional years for something that may not pan out might be even greater.

Just my humble opinion.

And that's where it gets interesting. That's where an OU/OSU, UT/TTU offer comes into play for the SEC. ESPN if they want those brands to complete their hold on Texas will commit the resources.

Football prowess has nothing to do with why the Big Ten would consider Kansas. It has everything to do with being a midwestern AAU school and a basketball blueblood.

Maybe times have changed but I have to think their would be political backlash at the polls in west Texas for any incumbent politician that didn’t fight to keep TTU at an elite level. Someone is likely to accompany Texas if/when they leave and TTU seems like the one most likely to cling on in my mind.

I don’t see Oklahoma declining in the Big Ten. You have to think that if the Big 12 gets gutted, probably 6 schools are effectively demoted and top recruits that might typically be headed to those programs are going to get grabbed up by programs like Oklahoma.

(01-20-2020 09:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 09:13 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 08:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JR is one of the most knowledgeable posters on here and he is absolutely right that the SEC and Big Ten will continue to add high value inventory at the expense of the other 3.

Having more of the big value programs consolidated in a smaller number of conferences absolutely increases their leveraging power against the networks. If you want college football content that is actually going to draw viewers you are going to have to go through one of them.

Phase one will occur in 2024, when the assets off the Big 12 are divided. I surmise that it will be Texas and TTU to the SEC and Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten.

In 2037 phase two will occur. Florida St and Clemson join the SEC and ND and a tbd school join the Big Ten. The move to 18 apiece will lead to both the SEC and Big Ten to go for a 3 divisions of 6 alignment and the 3 division winners and a wildcard will compete in a conference playoff.

From a Big Ten perspective it's an open question whether they'd be willing to wait an extra thirteen years for a program that has rejected their overtures in the past and, due to the way they recruit, may potentially suffer a Nebraska-like decline, when they might have a chance to win over two brands, a basketball brand and a +1 in a growing area of the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a full-court press behind the scenes to win over all of UT, TT, OU and KU. While getting to 18 in one shot would be awkward, the risk of waiting additional years for something that may not pan out might be even greater.

Just my humble opinion.

And that's where it gets interesting. That's where an OU/OSU, UT/TTU offer comes into play for the SEC. ESPN if they want those brands to complete their hold on Texas will commit the resources.

I would think if ESPN placed TT/UT/OU/OSU into the SEC and went to 18 that they would place TCU, Kansas and one other in the ACC for two conferences with three divisions of six.

SEC West - TT, Texas, OU, OSU, Arkansas, Mizzou
SEC Gulf TAMU, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, TN Bama
SEC East Florida, UGA, Auburn, SC, Vandy, Kentucky

Two rivals, and they can come from the ACC.

Bama - Vandy, Auburn
UGa - GT, LSU
Florida - FSU, Mizzou
Texas - TAMU, LSU (Texas gets TAMU, LSU, OU, TT, OSU, Arkansas, and Mizzou and two rotations)
Kentucky - Lousivlle, TN
TN - Vandy, Kentucky
LSU - Texas, Arkansas
Oklahoma - Ole Miss, Nebraska OU gets Nebraska, Ole Miss, Texas, TT, OSU, Arkansas, and Mizzou and two rotations)
Vandy - Bama, TN
Ole Miss - OU, Mizzou
MSU - , Auburn, TT
TT - Ole Miss, MSU
Auburn - Alabama, MSU
Mizzou - FLorida, Ole Miss
TAMU - Texas, SC
SC - Clemson, TAMU
OSU - Arkansas
Arkansas - LSU, OSU

What you are doing is giving reciprocity for up to one game from an equal league based on past history. Each division gets a champ, there is one wild card and they make for a 4 school playoff.

ACC North - ND, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Miami, Navy
ACC West - Kansas, TCU, GT, FSU, Louisville, Clemson
ACC Atlantic - VT, UVa, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF

Like the SEC, the ACC gets two rival:

GT - Duke and Georgia
Miami - FSU and Syracuse
FSU - Florida and VT (FSU gets Florida, VT, Clemson, TCU, GT, Lousville, and Kansas, plus two rotations)
ND - USC and UVa (Regular schedule of USC, Navy, UVa, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, and Miami and 2 rotations)
UNC - Kansas and Navy
Navy - UVa and UNC
Pitt - VT and NCSU
NCSU - Pitt and Clemson
Clemson - NCSU and South Carolina (Clemson gets South Carolina, NC State, FSU, GT, TCU, Kansas, and Lousville, plus 3 rotations)
VT - Pitt and FSU
WF - BC and TCU
TCU - WF and BC
Syracuse - Miami and Duke
Duke - GT and Syracuse
Louisville - KY and Kansas
Kansas - Louisville and UNC
BC - WF and TCU
UVa - Navy and ND

All 36 schools have 9 conference games but their former out of conference rivals are allowed into the standings in the case of ND/USC, Clemson/SC, FSU/UF, Louisville/UK, GT/UGa, Texas/TAMU, ND/Navy,

Ideally you agree to schedule another P-5, then you can have two chumps but if your other P-5 is one of the 36, that game gets to count.

Using last years results in the SEC LSU would host wild card Bama and Georgia would host OU. In the ACC Clemson would host Navy, and ND would host UVa.

LSU/Georgia and Clemson/ND

Our 36 could break away and make an offer to the P12, Big East, and AAC to join a basktball agreement with out. That makes about 70 for basketball