(01-30-2020 10:44 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: Interesting , when Delaney started B10 network, everyone said that’s where the money would be.
And it was at the time. There is a somewhat complicated process that has been going on with each realignment as each one has had different carrots dangled.
In 1989-92 the whole concept of having to have a strong regional draw and the footprint size of the conference being important to revenue got the ball rolling. It was what he networks had to work with since the OU/UGa lawsuit opened it up. Nobody but ABC had had any experience with how the ratings would work and even then ABC just had the only game every week so there was nothing to measure marketing against. Size of a conferences seemed to be as good as any so that's what they decided to base revenue upon.
Because of that everyone looked to push out their boundaries and with the SWC dying (2 state footprint and SMU on the death penalty) Arkansas was ready for a move to the SEC. The Big 8 and 4 from the SWC hoped expanding a 5 state footprint into 6 with Texas would be enough. It wasn't. The ACC had taken Ga Tech in '78 just because they were a good fit and added Florida State for entrance into a growing market. Penn State was solid for the Big 10 and the Arizona schools had been a good add for the PAC.
In 2010 the networks had a lot more data and saw a way to use it to their advantage so they stressed spreading the footprint again, but mostly to break up schools within large states so that they could break the leverage that a single conference might have with such holdings. It worked out to keep Florida State away from the SEC so next they went after North Carolina, Virginia, and Texas. The big plans were for A&M, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to grow the footprint of the SEC, but in each case it would be breaking leverage 1 conference had over a group of schools in a conference. That way the ad revenue paid out to the conferences could justifiably be less than the network was actually getting for holding all of the properties in a state but not having 1 conference also holding the same leverage.
Carolina and Virginia resisted. A&M came on board giving ESPN another in with Texas. Colorado, Missouri and Nebraska left for more stable pastures. Conference networks were the reward for the expansion.
Now they are using national rankings and high content games as the lure for expansion in order to collect brands within a particular conference. It is why FOX will go after Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 10 and ESPN will do the same for the SEC.
If successful the networks would probably push for a couple of leagues instead of 5 P conferences. Conferences will resist but with few national football brands in the ACC and Big 12 and with the PAC isolated without a healthy big brand the pay gap is about to jump to a chasm. Those who choose not move by 2025 will be forced to spend about a decade before they get another chance. It will be a decade where the recalcitrant will lose between 200 million to 300 million if they don't move. That's a huge amount to resist.
If the networks were forward thinking they would make two healthy and competitive conferences out of the smaller three and make some niche moves to finish out the Big 10 and SEC. I just sincerely doubt that it works out that way.