(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

I think we'll see a somewhat significant rise in the number of independents before we'll see Notre Dame join a conference in football.

(02-29-2020 11:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 08:25 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-29-2020 11:44 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Also, the Big 8 wanted to add just UT and TAMU. Baylor and Texas Tech were included only because of strong-arming by politicians, not because the Horns wanted more away football games in-state.

And today was poetic justice for TCU when they beat Baylor and stormed the court on them. It wasn't just a win, it was personal. Baylor had no business being in the Big 12 back then, they probably had the least right to be in. If Texas politicians want to help out a state funded school like Texas Tech, that's one thing. Why didn't they do the same for Houston? You don't do things for private schools. And if any private school deserved to be in, SMU and TCU are in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and Rice is in Houston. Why help a school in some irrelevant town only known for Baylor and Dr. Pepper?

Baylor was easily the 4th strongest program in the SWC at the time (1994). UH was in a slump. TCU, SMU and Rice were all pretty bad. Baylor had far better attendance than the other 4.

I'm not a Baylor apologist by any stretch of the imagination. I'm a lifelong Baptist and I have serious issues with Baylor. :-)

With that said, Baylor had two high-placed allies in TX government when the Big 12 was formed. This worked in their favor.

Yes, Baylor is in Waco, and there are much better places in Texas than Waco. However, Baylor is well-respected in the state of Texas. For instance, Baylor has highly respected schools of law and business. Their alums are well placed in both the private and public sectors in Texas. They view UT and A&M as peers as much as they do TCU and SMU.

Though it is in a much smaller metro area, Baylor is a slightly larger school than TCU and SMU. It has more students and more alums.

I was living in Fort Worth at the time the Big 12 was formed. I have several friends that are alums of TCU. They were right to feel slighted when they were left out of the Big 12 in the first go-round. However, their football program was coming off probation and in bad shape, and their facilities were run down. SMU was coming off the death penalty and was a non-factor. Baylor had the best combination of fan support and results on the field. The Baylor program did not go into the tank until after they joined the Big 12.

Yes, Houston had a case for inclusion in the Big 12, as well. There were a lot of political considerations at the time, and Baylor got the nod.

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

Notre Dame's future is secure for the next 20 years as a semi-independent, unless the school itself chooses to join as a full time member.

(03-03-2020 12:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

Notre Dame's future is secure for the next 20 years as a semi-independent, unless the school itself chooses to join as a full time member.

Did I just win an eight year old bet?

(03-03-2020 12:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

Notre Dame's future is secure for the next 20 years as a semi-independent, unless the school itself chooses to join as a full time member.

If you want Notre Dame to join a conference,

First thing first is to tell NBC to take away that exclusive contract.

Second thing is to tell the ACC to grow a backbone and make demands on Notre Dame. Right now the Irish can have their cake and eat it too. Make it harder for them. The problem now is ACC football is not in a position of strength. If they get more popular, then they can push Notre Dame around. Right now the GOR probably protects Notre Dame as much as it protects the rest of the ACC and Notre Dame is safe until 2036. But after that, hopefully the ACC will be in a position of strength.

(03-03-2020 04:14 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 12:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But so far nobody has carried it as far as the Federal Courts because both sides are skeptical of the outcome and settling on an exit fee seems like the surer thing for both sides.

Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

Notre Dame's future is secure for the next 20 years as a semi-independent, unless the school itself chooses to join as a full time member.

If you want Notre Dame to join a conference,

First thing first is to tell NBC to take away that exclusive contract.

Second thing is to tell the ACC to grow a backbone and make demands on Notre Dame. Right now the Irish can have their cake and eat it too. Make it harder for them. The problem now is ACC football is not in a position of strength. If they get more popular, then they can push Notre Dame around. Right now the GOR probably protects Notre Dame as much as it protects the rest of the ACC and Notre Dame is safe until 2036. But after that, hopefully the ACC will be in a position of strength.

Neither has a remote chance of happening any time soon.

2036 is too far out to worry about.

Nobody is going to be doing all of this "telling".

Those are message board fantasies.

How does ND have it's cake so to speak?

ACC schools get 2-3 national NBC broadcasts a year. How many exclusive national broadcasts would BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, WF, and Duke get in a normal circumstance? Now Clemson can get them. FSU used to get them. Miami and VT have been able to get them in the distant past.

This notion that the ACC is being abused by ND is not accurate

Why kill what makes ND special?

(03-03-2020 09:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  How does ND have it's cake so to speak?

ACC schools get 2-3 national NBC broadcasts a year. How many exclusive national broadcasts would BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, WF, and Duke get in a normal circumstance? Now Clemson can get them. FSU used to get them. Miami and VT have been able to get them in the distant past.

This notion that the ACC is being abused by ND is not accurate

Why kill what makes ND special?

Last year Clemson played on ABC vs. Syracuse, North Carolina, Florida State, Louisville, NC State, and Wake Forest. Miami at Florida State also made the alphabet network. As long as Clemson is competing for national championships they will make appearances on ABC and Clemson has to play somebody in the ACC. Remember that the SEC's off limits to ABC until the next contract.

Clemson-North Carolina got 4.40M viewers, higher than any Notre Dame home game last year (highest was USC-ND at 3.16M and highest ND-ACC game was VaT-ND at 2.95M). So did Clemson-Syracuse (3.62M). Unfortunately Clemson played no team on ABC than Notre Dame played on NBC, that would have been a good head to head comparison.

(03-03-2020 07:01 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 04:14 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:23 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 11:10 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-02-2020 01:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another factor is that no major conference wants to permanently have members in the league who are being held there against their wishes. A school that is unhappy about being forced to remain in a conference could be very disruptive -- just for starters, they could block things that the rest of the conference wants to do, make it difficult for conference TV partners and sponsors, and leak conference confidential information and documents to the media.

If a school wants to leave badly enough, the best course for the conference is almost always going to be just extracting as much money as you can from them when they leave.

On the flip side, I think about that every time someone touts forcing ND football into a conference.

Notre Dame's future is secure for the next 20 years as a semi-independent, unless the school itself chooses to join as a full time member.

If you want Notre Dame to join a conference,

First thing first is to tell NBC to take away that exclusive contract.

Second thing is to tell the ACC to grow a backbone and make demands on Notre Dame. Right now the Irish can have their cake and eat it too. Make it harder for them. The problem now is ACC football is not in a position of strength. If they get more popular, then they can push Notre Dame around. Right now the GOR probably protects Notre Dame as much as it protects the rest of the ACC and Notre Dame is safe until 2036. But after that, hopefully the ACC will be in a position of strength.

Neither has a remote chance of happening any time soon.

2036 is too far out to worry about.

Nobody is going to be doing all of this "telling".

Those are message board fantasies.

I suspect there will be no significant movement until the mid 30s when the ACC GOR comes up. Not so much that the ACC GOR is up and ND's security blanket could be gone, but because I don't see media changing THAT much in the next 2-3 years when the Big 10, Pac 12 and Big 12 contracts come up. But by the mid-30s, all bets are off. Especially with the potential of pay to play stirring things up.

(03-03-2020 09:39 PM)Statefan Wrote:  How does ND have it's cake so to speak?

ACC schools get 2-3 national NBC broadcasts a year. How many exclusive national broadcasts would BC, Syracuse, Pitt, UVa, WF, and Duke get in a normal circumstance? Now Clemson can get them. FSU used to get them. Miami and VT have been able to get them in the distant past.

This notion that the ACC is being abused by ND is not accurate

Why kill what makes ND special?

Both sides benefit. The Big 12 was willing to do a 6 game deal. But Notre Dame is getting a half in/half out deal on the biggest revenue sport that noone else has. And no other P5 conference would give to anyone else. No G5 would give that deal to any G5 school.

Staples: Now’s the time, Big 12, to go after the Pac-12’s biggest and best

https://theathletic.com/1652568/2020/03/...ed-article

(03-04-2020 10:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Staples: Now’s the time, Big 12, to go after the Pac-12’s biggest and best

https://theathletic.com/1652568/2020/03/...ed-article

Ironically, I published something very similar on ACCFootballRx this morning at 6:00 AM - one hour before Andy's article was posted.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...ac-12.html

I wonder which will get the most views? (yeah)

I suggested the Big XII would take USC, UCLA, Colorado, and possibly the two Arizona schools or one of them plus either Utah, Stanford or Oregon... all while negotiating with ESPN to move West Virginia to the ACC.

I think the biggest questions out there are:

Who does USC value?

Who does Texas value?

I don’t see either conference she’ll being an ideal home for a conference trying to keep up the arms race with the SEC and Big 10.

A better format for the big players is to blow up both leagues and build a new 14-16 team league.

I see Texas wanting Oklahoma, TTU, Okla St, and Kansas from the Big 12

I see USC wanting as many as 10 of the 12 PAC 12 schools (sorry Ore St and Wash St)

(03-04-2020 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the biggest questions out there are:

Who does USC value?

Who does Texas value?

I don’t see either conference she’ll being an ideal home for a conference trying to keep up the arms race with the SEC and Big 10.

A better format for the big players is to blow up both leagues and build a new 14-16 team league.

As others have pointed out, P5 programs can feel free to start a brand new conference without worrying about the March Madness autobids. Pretty much any combination of teams from those two conferences (or any other P5 conferences) would get plenty of NCAA tournament invitations with or without autobids.

(03-04-2020 01:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think the biggest questions out there are:

Who does USC value?

Who does Texas value?

I don’t see either conference she’ll being an ideal home for a conference trying to keep up the arms race with the SEC and Big 10.

A better format for the big players is to blow up both leagues and build a new 14-16 team league.

As others have pointed out, P5 programs can feel free to start a brand new conference without worrying about the March Madness autobids. Pretty much any combination of teams from those two conferences (or any other P5 conferences) would get plenty of NCAA tournament invitations with or without autobids.

Not that it is likely but both have an opportunity to get rid of drags on their revenue which would be retained if one conference raided the other if they simply allowed their respective GOR's to expire and reformed a new conference.

Oregon, Washington, California, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State.

There is a conference of 16 with 12 AAU schools.

Gone are Oregon State and Washington State which are financially at the tail end of the PAC. Gone are Kansas State, West Virginia, Baylor, and T.C.U..

I don't think this will happen because revenue advantages in the SEC and Big 10 where viewership is stronger and the economic foundations more certain are more likely to lure away some of the key components of this concept, but if it did happen it forms a solid enough conference to last. And then the pressure will shift with the new contracts of the SEC and Big 10 widening the revenue gap to the ACC's top product.

If you wanted to play it out for giggles (not that any of this is likely) then let's assume that Missouri and Nebraska head West to be part of the new conference in hopes of reviving their programs by reuniting with old rivals.

That would take the PAC/Big12 to 18. The SEC and Big 10 would stand at 13. The Big 10 might be happy with North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame and Duke with say Pitt tossed in for good academic measure.

The SEC might feel fairly secure with N.C. State, Virginia Tech (for markets), and Clemson and Florida State (content brands) and Georgia Tech (to keep the Big 10 from moving into Atlanta).

Now you have a P3 of 18 schools each reducing the pie by 11 shares and strengthening markets and brands for all.

My question would be, "Is this not a system that the networks would like?" It gives them 3 conference champs and a chance to pick an at large for the CFP which holds interest. It covers all of the key viewing regions and sets up cross conference rivalries. And it reduces the number of teams they have to pay top money for by 1/5th. So yeah something like this might be appealing to those who dole out the cash. But are the fans ready for it?

PAC/Big12

Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Nebraska
Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah
California, U.C.L.A., Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

Big10

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Virginia
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Wisconsin

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

If you think about it those 54 really cover the same territory and markets with minor exceptions of the present 65.

I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

(03-04-2020 02:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sure how Utah and Colorado would feel about being moved to the Big 12 division but getting included is better than being left out.

I see this as an 8 conference game league, particularly because the CTZ schools are going to want to schedule OOC in Texas.

Anyone know when the PAC 12 GOR is up? Does this even matter if 10 of 12 members vote to dissolve?

Where do you all think the revenue will stack up compared to say, what Texas or Oklahoma could make in the Big Ten or SEC?

Of course we know. It is just a matter of a google. They both expire in 2025. If the new conference is paid in the 60's and the Big 10 and SEC in the 70's would that not be enough for Texas and Oklahoma to want to keep most of the gang together and for Texas to rub elbows with the Cali schools? Probably

The issue however Muskie is that self interest drives all of this for Networks, Conferences and Schools and that prevents any comprehensive rational division of properties.

(03-04-2020 01:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Staples: Now’s the time, Big 12, to go after the Pac-12’s biggest and best

https://theathletic.com/1652568/2020/03/...ed-article

Ironically, I published something very similar on ACCFootballRx this morning at 6:00 AM - one hour before Andy's article was posted.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...ac-12.html

I wonder which will get the most views? (yeah)

I suggested the Big XII would take USC, UCLA, Colorado, and possibly the two Arizona schools or one of them plus either Utah, Stanford or Oregon... all while negotiating with ESPN to move West Virginia to the ACC.

West Virginia is not going to be invited to the ACC unless half of the ACC leaves. Right now they bring nothing athletically or financially and we all know how they are academically.

(03-04-2020 01:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-04-2020 10:41 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Staples: Now’s the time, Big 12, to go after the Pac-12’s biggest and best

https://theathletic.com/1652568/2020/03/...ed-article

Ironically, I published something very similar on ACCFootballRx this morning at 6:00 AM - one hour before Andy's article was posted.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...ac-12.html

I wonder which will get the most views? (yeah)

I suggested the Big XII would take USC, UCLA, Colorado, and possibly the two Arizona schools or one of them plus either Utah, Stanford or Oregon... all while negotiating with ESPN to move West Virginia to the ACC.

Is your real name Andy?

I read his piece and it's reasonable. I would also add Utah and BYU to that collection. I think they would enhance the Big 12 brand as a whole.

West Virginia really would need to be moved out. The issue is I'm not sure where because the SEC has no incentive to take them right now. Meanwhile, the ACC is not paying nearly as much as the Big 12. That means the Mountaineers aren't moving voluntarily.

Maybe a compromise could be worked out if the SEC is allowed to take certain schools...I'm thinking TCU to get access to DFW. Throw West Virginia in and then a few from the ACC to round out the region.

That's all assuming the powers that be are willing to open up those contracts.