(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  Revenue distribution is the 800 pound gorilla all P5 schools and conferences must come to terms with in order to rationalize alignment and playoff strategy. The B1G and the SEC currently have a huge financial advantage they don't want to give up (and IMO they shouldn't have to) and that drives their positions regarding playoff formats. Here's a suggested solution. Spoiler alert: ACC fans may not be happy with this.

Either as a separate subdivision within the NCAA D-I or entirely independent of the NCAA, the five autonomous conferences and Notre Dame could rationally realign into four conferences within what I call the National College Football League. In the process, three additional G5 schools would win the last golden tickets, bringing the number of schools in this new league to 72. Unlike other proposals, however, I have not sought symmetry within and among conferences.

I suggest the B1G and SEC further expand by adding valuable properties from the ACC that are reasonably culturally and academically compatible. They would each end up with 21 members, organized into three 7 team divisions. The four ACC schools not taken by these two conferences would go to the Big 12, along with three additional AAC schools not already committed to join that league. This new Big 18 would be grouped in three 6 team divisions. The PAC would remain unchanged. One Big 12 member, Kansas, would be invited to the B1G.

Here is where it gets radical, in order to allow the B1G and SEC to maximize their post regular season revenues. Instead of a single CCG, each of these behemoths stage a 6 team conference championship tournament (CCT) for which they don't have to share revenues with anyone else. Participants are the two highest ranked division champs who get a first round bye plus the third highest ranked division champ and three at large teams. The third division champ and the highest ranked at large host first round games on their home field. The winners travel to the two champs with byes. The CCT championship is played at a neutral site (probably Indianapolis for the B1G and Atlanta for the SEC).

The Big 18 and PAC each have a 4 team CCT, with first round games hosted by the highest ranked division champs.

On New Year's day the B1G champ lays the PAC champ in the Rose Bowl and the SEC champ plays the Big 18 champ at the Sugar Bowl. The two winners then meet for the League Championship at Jerry World.

These are my suggested divisions:

B1G:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Rutgers
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois and Kansas
Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia

SEC:
Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Kentucky
Clemson, Florida St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt

Big 18:
Oklahoma St, Baylor, Kansas St, BYU, Texas Tech and Iowa State
TCU, UCF, Houston, Memphis, USF and SMU
West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Cincinnati, Boston College and Syracuse

PAC's two divisions remain unchanged

The regular season for these four conferences begins in what is now Week Zero. The four CCTs begin on Thanksgiving weekend to maximize exposure for those 8 first round games (2 games per conference). The B1G and SEC semis and the PAC and Big 18 finals are the following Saturday. A week later, the B1G championship is played at 12:00, the Army-Navy game at 4:00 and the SEC championship at 8:00PM

After compensating participating teams for their travel expenses, net revenues from the Four Team playoff in January are divided equally among the 72 schools in the league. Each of the four conferences in the League negotiate their own media contracts separately for their regular season and CCT games. No school should be worse off financially than they are currently, though some who are added to the B1G and SEC will get a significant pay raise. Most likely every one of the 72 schools should see a pay bump.

The fate of FBS schools not included in this new League, as well as the New Year's Bowls other than the Rose and Sugar, will be left to market forces to sort out.

At the end of the day, this arrangement results in 19 single elimination games after the 12 game regular season (16 CCT games, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship), compared to 8 games in the present system (5 GGGs, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship). The regular season, including CCTs, is completed by the second Saturday in December, and the CFP keeps its current schedule, assuring an early January end to the season.

The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

I can see the argument for Wake to the SEC, just that I'm not sure their valuation would be enough for the 4-letter network.

Here's another possibility (crazy as it seems): UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, Miami, GT and ND to Big Ten.

Yes, an R2 small private like Wake to Big Ten sounds crazy but then last July I saw this:

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

My responses to bold in color

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  Revenue distribution is the 800 pound gorilla all P5 schools and conferences must come to terms with in order to rationalize alignment and playoff strategy. The B1G and the SEC currently have a huge financial advantage they don't want to give up (and IMO they shouldn't have to) and that drives their positions regarding playoff formats. Here's a suggested solution. Spoiler alert: ACC fans may not be happy with this.

Either as a separate subdivision within the NCAA D-I or entirely independent of the NCAA, the five autonomous conferences and Notre Dame could rationally realign into four conferences within what I call the National College Football League. In the process, three additional G5 schools would win the last golden tickets, bringing the number of schools in this new league to 72. Unlike other proposals, however, I have not sought symmetry within and among conferences.

I suggest the B1G and SEC further expand by adding valuable properties from the ACC that are reasonably culturally and academically compatible. They would each end up with 21 members, organized into three 7 team divisions. The four ACC schools not taken by these two conferences would go to the Big 12, along with three additional AAC schools not already committed to join that league. This new Big 18 would be grouped in three 6 team divisions. The PAC would remain unchanged. One Big 12 member, Kansas, would be invited to the B1G.

Here is where it gets radical, in order to allow the B1G and SEC to maximize their post regular season revenues. Instead of a single CCG, each of these behemoths stage a 6 team conference championship tournament (CCT) for which they don't have to share revenues with anyone else. Participants are the two highest ranked division champs who get a first round bye plus the third highest ranked division champ and three at large teams. The third division champ and the highest ranked at large host first round games on their home field. The winners travel to the two champs with byes. The CCT championship is played at a neutral site (probably Indianapolis for the B1G and Atlanta for the SEC).

The Big 18 and PAC each have a 4 team CCT, with first round games hosted by the highest ranked division champs.

On New Year's day the B1G champ lays the PAC champ in the Rose Bowl and the SEC champ plays the Big 18 champ at the Sugar Bowl. The two winners then meet for the League Championship at Jerry World.

These are my suggested divisions:

B1G:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Rutgers
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois and Kansas
Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia

SEC:
Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Kentucky
Clemson, Florida St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt

Big 18:
Oklahoma St, Baylor, Kansas St, BYU, Texas Tech and Iowa State
TCU, UCF, Houston, Memphis, USF and SMU
West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Cincinnati, Boston College and Syracuse

PAC's two divisions remain unchanged

The regular season for these four conferences begins in what is now Week Zero. The four CCTs begin on Thanksgiving weekend to maximize exposure for those 8 first round games (2 games per conference). The B1G and SEC semis and the PAC and Big 18 finals are the following Saturday. A week later, the B1G championship is played at 12:00, the Army-Navy game at 4:00 and the SEC championship at 8:00PM

After compensating participating teams for their travel expenses, net revenues from the Four Team playoff in January are divided equally among the 72 schools in the league. Each of the four conferences in the League negotiate their own media contracts separately for their regular season and CCT games. No school should be worse off financially than they are currently, though some who are added to the B1G and SEC will get a significant pay raise. Most likely every one of the 72 schools should see a pay bump.

The fate of FBS schools not included in this new League, as well as the New Year's Bowls other than the Rose and Sugar, will be left to market forces to sort out.

At the end of the day, this arrangement results in 19 single elimination games after the 12 game regular season (16 CCT games, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship), compared to 8 games in the present system (5 GGGs, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship). The regular season, including CCTs, is completed by the second Saturday in December, and the CFP keeps its current schedule, assuring an early January end to the season.

The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

I can see the argument for Wake to the SEC, just that I'm not sure their valuation would be enough for the 4-letter network.

Here's another possibility (crazy as it seems): UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, Miami, GT and ND to Big Ten.

Yes, an R2 small private like Wake to Big Ten sounds crazy but then last July I saw this:

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

Yep, and those programs who aren't necessarily football megapowers or merely past powers should doubly pay attention. It's likely that in the new paradigm those programs who would have more branding power would also gain even more leverage against others currently associated with them. It's nice to talk about "fit", "integrity" and the "honors system" but if that means the potential risk of being left behind in the quest for exposure (which is the real reason why any college would offer varsity sports in the first place) then they would rue the day that they failed to adapt to new realities. And if not them than those immediate peers who also get left behind would constantly remind them of what they failed to do. Any major conference that gets broken up from here on becomes like Humpty Dumpty: they may live on as pieces of something else but never to be put back together the way they were. The old Big East, the old Southern Conference and the Big 8/Big 12 are prime examples of these.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

For a modern day example there's the titular head of the federal executive branch, who also happens to be a graduate of a current ACC program.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(03-04-2022 11:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  Revenue distribution is the 800 pound gorilla all P5 schools and conferences must come to terms with in order to rationalize alignment and playoff strategy. The B1G and the SEC currently have a huge financial advantage they don't want to give up (and IMO they shouldn't have to) and that drives their positions regarding playoff formats. Here's a suggested solution. Spoiler alert: ACC fans may not be happy with this.

Either as a separate subdivision within the NCAA D-I or entirely independent of the NCAA, the five autonomous conferences and Notre Dame could rationally realign into four conferences within what I call the National College Football League. In the process, three additional G5 schools would win the last golden tickets, bringing the number of schools in this new league to 72. Unlike other proposals, however, I have not sought symmetry within and among conferences.

I suggest the B1G and SEC further expand by adding valuable properties from the ACC that are reasonably culturally and academically compatible. They would each end up with 21 members, organized into three 7 team divisions. The four ACC schools not taken by these two conferences would go to the Big 12, along with three additional AAC schools not already committed to join that league. This new Big 18 would be grouped in three 6 team divisions. The PAC would remain unchanged. One Big 12 member, Kansas, would be invited to the B1G.

Here is where it gets radical, in order to allow the B1G and SEC to maximize their post regular season revenues. Instead of a single CCG, each of these behemoths stage a 6 team conference championship tournament (CCT) for which they don't have to share revenues with anyone else. Participants are the two highest ranked division champs who get a first round bye plus the third highest ranked division champ and three at large teams. The third division champ and the highest ranked at large host first round games on their home field. The winners travel to the two champs with byes. The CCT championship is played at a neutral site (probably Indianapolis for the B1G and Atlanta for the SEC).

The Big 18 and PAC each have a 4 team CCT, with first round games hosted by the highest ranked division champs.

On New Year's day the B1G champ lays the PAC champ in the Rose Bowl and the SEC champ plays the Big 18 champ at the Sugar Bowl. The two winners then meet for the League Championship at Jerry World.

These are my suggested divisions:

B1G:
Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Rutgers
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois and Kansas
Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Duke and Virginia

SEC:
Oklahoma, LSU, Texas A&M, Mississippi St, Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas
Alabama, Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Kentucky
Clemson, Florida St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, NC State, Wake Forest and Vanderbilt

Big 18:
Oklahoma St, Baylor, Kansas St, BYU, Texas Tech and Iowa State
TCU, UCF, Houston, Memphis, USF and SMU
West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, Cincinnati, Boston College and Syracuse

PAC's two divisions remain unchanged

The regular season for these four conferences begins in what is now Week Zero. The four CCTs begin on Thanksgiving weekend to maximize exposure for those 8 first round games (2 games per conference). The B1G and SEC semis and the PAC and Big 18 finals are the following Saturday. A week later, the B1G championship is played at 12:00, the Army-Navy game at 4:00 and the SEC championship at 8:00PM

After compensating participating teams for their travel expenses, net revenues from the Four Team playoff in January are divided equally among the 72 schools in the league. Each of the four conferences in the League negotiate their own media contracts separately for their regular season and CCT games. No school should be worse off financially than they are currently, though some who are added to the B1G and SEC will get a significant pay raise. Most likely every one of the 72 schools should see a pay bump.

The fate of FBS schools not included in this new League, as well as the New Year's Bowls other than the Rose and Sugar, will be left to market forces to sort out.

At the end of the day, this arrangement results in 19 single elimination games after the 12 game regular season (16 CCT games, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship), compared to 8 games in the present system (5 GGGs, 2 CFP semis and a CFP championship). The regular season, including CCTs, is completed by the second Saturday in December, and the CFP keeps its current schedule, assuring an early January end to the season.

The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

I can see the argument for Wake to the SEC, just that I'm not sure their valuation would be enough for the 4-letter network.

Here's another possibility (crazy as it seems): UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, Miami, GT and ND to Big Ten.

Yes, an R2 small private like Wake to Big Ten sounds crazy but then last July I saw this:

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

So, that being said, could you see the SEC pulling off something as bold as that new division and an 8 team CCT?

(03-08-2022 08:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

I can see the argument for Wake to the SEC, just that I'm not sure their valuation would be enough for the 4-letter network.

Here's another possibility (crazy as it seems): UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, Miami, GT and ND to Big Ten.

Yes, an R2 small private like Wake to Big Ten sounds crazy but then last July I saw this:

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

So, that being said, could you see the SEC pulling off something as bold as that new division and an 8 team CCT?

Ken the defensive strategy is exactly that to the SEC, defensive. So, if anything breaks the ACC only then will it act. The problem is the financial gap destabilizes the ACC. When schools from that conference reach out to you because of it the threat obviously exists. Two definitely have and a third was spoken for by one of them, and each with enough value to cause a greater movement. Therefore, I am not speaking hypothetically. The SEC was quite happy at 16, but the announcement of it set other things in motion including the killing of ESPN's playoff expansion and the alliance.

IMO, the P5 is fractured and everyone in the SEC and B1G has to be thinking defensively. I can see the SEC taking 8, but only if ESPN paid pro rata or better. I don't think they will. I can see them using the SEC to hold onto their most valuable ACC assets and essentially merging the New B12 with the lesser valued at a pay figure which keeps any of them from suffering damage financially. I also see a school or two opting out of pay for play.

If the SEC jumped to 8 they would not likely come anywhere but from the ACC. Which is why I think ESPN would shelter market values and brands in the ACC which would create synergistic and market value for them, and which coincidentally would be schools which could be lured by B1G money. Duke, UNC, Virginia/Tech, & FSU/Miami. If a school from the SEC drops down or leaves then maybe Clemson.

ESPN will be looking to create value in the NB12 and FSU and Clemson might be more valuable to them there. ND is a wild card.

My thoughts are based in the information that some key players in the ACC have reached out, did so in July, and are therefore likely talking to the B1G and ESPN knows it. The rest is my speculation.

However, if ESPN were to move 4 national brands, hoops or football or both to the SEC then that conference could become a lure for 4 more national brands, which ESPN, not necessarily the SEC, might want.

Your 8 would be a concept one step removed from what I anticipate the next one to be.

(03-08-2022 11:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 08:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

So, that being said, could you see the SEC pulling off something as bold as that new division and an 8 team CCT?

Ken the defensive strategy is exactly that to the SEC, defensive. So, if anything breaks the ACC only then will it act. The problem is the financial gap destabilizes the ACC. When schools from that conference reach out to you because of it the threat obviously exists. Two definitely have and a third was spoken for by one of them, and each with enough value to cause a greater movement. Therefore, I am not speaking hypothetically. The SEC was quite happy at 16, but the announcement of it set other things in motion including the killing of ESPN's playoff expansion and the alliance.

IMO, the P5 is fractured and everyone in the SEC and B1G has to be thinking defensively. I can see the SEC taking 8, but only if ESPN paid pro rata or better. I don't think they will. I can see them using the SEC to hold onto their most valuable ACC assets and essentially merging the New B12 with the lesser valued at a pay figure which keeps any of them from suffering damage financially. I also see a school or two opting out of pay for play.

If the SEC jumped to 8 they would not likely come anywhere but from the ACC. Which is why I think ESPN would shelter market values and brands in the ACC which would create synergistic and market value for them, and which coincidentally would be schools which could be lured by B1G money. Duke, UNC, Virginia/Tech, & FSU/Miami. If a school from the SEC drops down or leaves then maybe Clemson.

ESPN will be looking to create value in the NB12 and FSU and Clemson might be more valuable to them there. ND is a wild card.

My thoughts are based in the information that some key players in the ACC have reached out, did so in July, and are therefore likely talking to the B1G and ESPN knows it. The rest is my speculation.

However, if ESPN were to move 4 national brands, hoops or football or both to the SEC then that conference could become a lure for 4 more national brands, which ESPN, not necessarily the SEC, might want.

Your 8 would be a concept one step removed from what I anticipate the next one to be.

Which is why I characterized it as a bold move. And even that might have been understating it - it would be a game changing move. As in, Game Over. SEC would be the undisputed winner in realignment, with no more moves left for anybody else, and the B1G reduced to just another second tier conference, both competitively and financially.

(03-08-2022 01:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 11:36 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-08-2022 08:57 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

So, that being said, could you see the SEC pulling off something as bold as that new division and an 8 team CCT?

Ken the defensive strategy is exactly that to the SEC, defensive. So, if anything breaks the ACC only then will it act. The problem is the financial gap destabilizes the ACC. When schools from that conference reach out to you because of it the threat obviously exists. Two definitely have and a third was spoken for by one of them, and each with enough value to cause a greater movement. Therefore, I am not speaking hypothetically. The SEC was quite happy at 16, but the announcement of it set other things in motion including the killing of ESPN's playoff expansion and the alliance.

IMO, the P5 is fractured and everyone in the SEC and B1G has to be thinking defensively. I can see the SEC taking 8, but only if ESPN paid pro rata or better. I don't think they will. I can see them using the SEC to hold onto their most valuable ACC assets and essentially merging the New B12 with the lesser valued at a pay figure which keeps any of them from suffering damage financially. I also see a school or two opting out of pay for play.

If the SEC jumped to 8 they would not likely come anywhere but from the ACC. Which is why I think ESPN would shelter market values and brands in the ACC which would create synergistic and market value for them, and which coincidentally would be schools which could be lured by B1G money. Duke, UNC, Virginia/Tech, & FSU/Miami. If a school from the SEC drops down or leaves then maybe Clemson.

ESPN will be looking to create value in the NB12 and FSU and Clemson might be more valuable to them there. ND is a wild card.

My thoughts are based in the information that some key players in the ACC have reached out, did so in July, and are therefore likely talking to the B1G and ESPN knows it. The rest is my speculation.

However, if ESPN were to move 4 national brands, hoops or football or both to the SEC then that conference could become a lure for 4 more national brands, which ESPN, not necessarily the SEC, might want.

Your 8 would be a concept one step removed from what I anticipate the next one to be.

Which is why I characterized it as a bold move. And even that might have been understating it - it would be a game changing move. As in, Game Over. SEC would be the undisputed winner in realignment, with no more moves left for anybody else, and the B1G reduced to just another second tier conference, both competitively and financially.

And you still miss the point! The SEC is already uncatchable in Gross Revenue, Content Value, Winning percentage, Viewership, etc,, with the additions of just OU and UT.

If a super tier is formed it won't be the SEC anymore but ESPN's premier league. THE SEC is HAPPY at 16! The instability created by the OU and UT move can only be used by ESPN to accomplish something on a grand scale. Whatever that is would also consume the SEC as we know it and even if it uses the SEC brand, would be wholly other. Texas and Oklahoma will blend well in this conference. We don't need anyone else. Their additions, however, have destabilized the rest.

The SEC could move to 20 with the 4 I mentioned, or some semblance of it, and still be the SEC, if ESPN uses the B12 or ACC for the rest. If the SEC took Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan the Big 10 would be dead and the SEC would be dead and we together would be other. That may look wonderful to ESPN, I don't know. But it damn sure isn't wonderful to the SEC which simply wants dominance within the greater South.

It will be an interesting exercise to see if the singularity created by UT and OU in the SEC can be contained to that parameter or if it coalesces into a premier league. Containment is desired by the SEC, a new entity might be desirable to ESPN. It will be an interesting few years should we not be massively impacted by world events.

Don't confuse what I see happening and post about with my personal desires. I'm a realist and see the glass as it is and how forces around it are acting upon it. Generally, there are the optimists "The glass will always be full", the pessimists "It will always be empty", and those who just love to complain "The damn glass is dirty" and none of them see reality, only a projection of inner desire. The glass just is, as well as any contents. Nature will act upon it. Those forces in this case are the financial disparity or excess supply, time, and a changing political milieu and a demographic shift. Add ESPN and we have one helluva a volatile mix which could blow up on any of us if not handled with care.

(03-08-2022 12:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  My responses to bold in color

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

I can see the argument for Wake to the SEC, just that I'm not sure their valuation would be enough for the 4-letter network.

Here's another possibility (crazy as it seems): UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, Miami, GT and ND to Big Ten.

Yes, an R2 small private like Wake to Big Ten sounds crazy but then last July I saw this:

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

Yep, and those programs who aren't necessarily football megapowers or merely past powers should doubly pay attention. It's likely that in the new paradigm those programs who would have more branding power would also gain even more leverage against others currently associated with them. It's nice to talk about "fit", "integrity" and the "honors system" but if that means the potential risk of being left behind in the quest for exposure (which is the real reason why any college would offer varsity sports in the first place) then they would rue the day that they failed to adapt to new realities. And if not them than those immediate peers who also get left behind would constantly remind them of what they failed to do. Any major conference that gets broken up from here on becomes like Humpty Dumpty: they may live on as pieces of something else but never to be put back together the way they were. The old Big East, the old Southern Conference and the Big 8/Big 12 are prime examples of these.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

For a modern day example there's the titular head of the federal executive branch, who also happens to be a graduate of a current ACC program.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

Biden graduated from an ACC school??? Ouch!!!!!!

(03-08-2022 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And you still miss the point! The SEC is already uncatchable in Gross Revenue, Content Value, Winning percentage, Viewership, etc,, with the additions of just OU and UT.

If a super tier is formed it won't be the SEC anymore but ESPN's premier league. THE SEC is HAPPY at 16! The instability created by the OU and UT move can only be used by ESPN to accomplish something on a grand scale. Whatever that is would also consume the SEC as we know it and even if it uses the SEC brand, would be wholly other. Texas and Oklahoma will blend well in this conference. We don't need anyone else. Their additions, however, have destabilized the rest.

The SEC could move to 20 with the 4 I mentioned, or some semblance of it, and still be the SEC, if ESPN uses the B12 or ACC for the rest. If the SEC took Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, and Michigan the Big 10 would be dead and the SEC would be dead and we together would be other. That may look wonderful to ESPN, I don't know. But it damn sure isn't wonderful to the SEC which simply wants dominance within the greater South.

It will be an interesting exercise to see if the singularity created by UT and OU in the SEC can be contained to that parameter or if it coalesces into a premier league. Containment is desired by the SEC, a new entity might be desirable to ESPN. It will be an interesting few years should we not be massively impacted by world events.

Don't confuse what I see happening and post about with my personal desires. I'm a realist and see the glass as it is and how forces around it are acting upon it. Generally, there are the optimists "The glass will always be full", the pessimists "It will always be empty", and those who just love to complain "The damn glass is dirty" and none of them see reality, only a projection of inner desire. The glass just is, as well as any contents. Nature will act upon it. Those forces in this case are the financial disparity or excess supply, time, and a changing political milieu and a demographic shift. Add ESPN and we have one helluva a volatile mix which could blow up on any of us if not handled with care.

The SEC already has dominance within the greater South. I don't see ESPN paying pro rata for any combination of ACC schools that the SEC might covet for defensive reasons against a B1G incursion. I also don't believe there is anybody in the ACC the B1G would want that could threaten the SEC's dominance in any way.

I could see one "small ball" change that could work strategically for either the B1G or the SEC. Either conference would benefit a little by adding North Carolina and Virginia as a pair. But only a little, and not enough to make either of those schools willing to leave the ACC.

So, absent some external game changer, the status quo seems the most likely future.

Let's get real.
The current state of realignment is at a standstill.

In the next few years the B1G, Big 12 and the PAC all renegotiate media contracts. We know that Texas and Oklahoma are leaving the Big 12 for the SEC. This by any account is the biggest realignment move...ever. The longer it takes for that pair to separate from the Big 12, the worse it is for any future B1G expansion with schools from the ACC, because it shows that it's not worth the legal trouble/expense to challenge a GOR in court.

The trouble for the SEC is that it's going to take a really long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma. This isn't that same as South Carolina/Arkansas or A&M/Missouri. There is a real danger for the SEC that Texas and Oklahoma might be too much to swallow in one sitting and that that pair may fundamentally change the SEC. That remains to be seen.
If the ACC's GOR is enough of a deterrent to keep the B1G at bay for a while, their expansion opportunities are very limited. According to JR's list there is no more football value in the Big 12 (and only Kansas with significant basketball value) and only 5 schools to chose from way out west in the PAC. If they raid the PAC for two schools of significant football value, does that league collapse? Taking any school from the PAC is going to be complicated because of the way their network is structured (6 mini networks woven into one broadcast entity).
If anything is going to be done with PAC schools, their network dilemma needs to be settled first.
So what's the B1G to do? At this point........ absolutely nothing!

Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

(03-09-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

Of course the same hold true for the PAC and the Big 12 and there is not much that can be done about it.
If the networks are happy with the line ups in the B1G and the SEC as they now exist (which is entirely possible), there won't be any further realignment.
With ESPN paying out almost $80 million per school to the SEC any additions would have to be worth that much or more to ESPN or else the existing schools might have to chip in a few million each in order to invite a buddy or two.
Looking and being selected by ESPN are not the same thing.
And then there are those that might decide they are comfortable with their current station and decline an opportunity if offered.

(03-09-2022 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

Of course the same hold true for the PAC and the Big 12 and there is not much that can be done about it.
If the networks are happy with the line ups in the B1G and the SEC as they now exist (which is entirely possible), there won't be any further realignment.
With ESPN paying out almost $80 million per school to the SEC and additions would have to be worth that much or more to ESPN or else the existing schools might have to chip in a few million each in order to invite a buddy or two.
Looking and being selected by ESPN are not the same thing.
And then there are those that might decide they are comfortable with their current station and decline an opportunity if offered.

That's possible, but not probable. I can't see the B1G sticking at 14. But if they do it's possible.

(03-09-2022 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

Of course the same hold true for the PAC and the Big 12 and there is not much that can be done about it.
If the networks are happy with the line ups in the B1G and the SEC as they now exist (which is entirely possible), there won't be any further realignment.
With ESPN paying out almost $80 million per school to the SEC and additions would have to be worth that much or more to ESPN or else the existing schools might have to chip in a few million each in order to invite a buddy or two.
Looking and being selected by ESPN are not the same thing.
And then there are those that might decide they are comfortable with their current station and decline an opportunity if offered.

That's possible, but not probable. I can't see the B1G sticking at 14. But if they do it's possible.

And where do they go to get top line football product for 15 and 16?

Let's see the ACC candidates are Miami, Clemson and Florida State.
The PAC can offer up: Washington, USC, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford.
Then there is always Notre Dame, and the Big 12 admits they have nothing to offer.

(03-09-2022 01:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

Of course the same hold true for the PAC and the Big 12 and there is not much that can be done about it.
If the networks are happy with the line ups in the B1G and the SEC as they now exist (which is entirely possible), there won't be any further realignment.
With ESPN paying out almost $80 million per school to the SEC and additions would have to be worth that much or more to ESPN or else the existing schools might have to chip in a few million each in order to invite a buddy or two.
Looking and being selected by ESPN are not the same thing.
And then there are those that might decide they are comfortable with their current station and decline an opportunity if offered.

That's possible, but not probable. I can't see the B1G sticking at 14. But if they do it's possible.

And where do they go to get top line football product for 15 and 16?

Let's see the ACC candidates are Miami, Clemson and Florida State.
The PAC can offer up: Washington, USC, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford.
Then there is always Notre Dame, and the Big 12 admits they have nothing to offer.

Court ruled pay for play will force hoops out of the NCAA. Double hoops values and Kansas and ND would be ideal for them. That pair could end it. But it won't guarantee others in the PAC or ACC will stop wanting out. FSU, Louisville, & N. Carolina & Duke all hold enough value to be of interest under these circumstances. Half a billion a decade is a lot of money to turn down.

(03-09-2022 02:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:45 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Yes, let's get real.

1. The ACC is about to be 40 million behind in sports media revenue to both the SEC and B1G.

2. A change to Pay for Play by the SCOTUS, a ruling expected in a little over a year has legal precedent to require all conferences to sign new contracts and GORs and legally creates a window for all schools to act in their self-interest.

3. Those 2 factors counter indicate stasis within college sports.

4. 2 ACC schools and at least a third through those 2 started looking around in July 2021.

All of this suggests other than happy families for the ACC.

Of course the same hold true for the PAC and the Big 12 and there is not much that can be done about it.
If the networks are happy with the line ups in the B1G and the SEC as they now exist (which is entirely possible), there won't be any further realignment.
With ESPN paying out almost $80 million per school to the SEC and additions would have to be worth that much or more to ESPN or else the existing schools might have to chip in a few million each in order to invite a buddy or two.
Looking and being selected by ESPN are not the same thing.
And then there are those that might decide they are comfortable with their current station and decline an opportunity if offered.

That's possible, but not probable. I can't see the B1G sticking at 14. But if they do it's possible.

And where do they go to get top line football product for 15 and 16?

Let's see the ACC candidates are Miami, Clemson and Florida State.
The PAC can offer up: Washington, USC, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford.
Then there is always Notre Dame, and the Big 12 admits they have nothing to offer.

Court ruled pay for play will force hoops out of the NCAA. Double hoops values and Kansas and ND would be ideal for them. That pair could end it. But it won't guarantee others in the PAC or ACC will stop wanting out. FSU, Louisville, & N. Carolina & Duke all hold enough value to be of interest under these circumstances. Half a billion a decade is a lot of money to turn down.

Kansas and ND would be ideal for the B1G.
It's possible you could eventually see a Louisville for Vanderbilt swap.

(03-09-2022 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  Kansas and ND would be ideal for the B1G.
It's possible you could eventually see a Louisville for Vanderbilt swap.

IMO I doubt there will ever be any horse trading like that. Now I could absolutely see Vanderbilt not interested in being a part of "Pay for Play" but I would be shocked if the SEC just booted them for another school.

(03-09-2022 10:27 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  Kansas and ND would be ideal for the B1G.
It's possible you could eventually see a Louisville for Vanderbilt swap.

IMO I doubt there will ever be any horse trading like that. Now I could absolutely see Vanderbilt not interested in being a part of "Pay for Play" but I would be shocked if the SEC just booted them for another school.

The ACC is not going to boot Louisville out of the conference, nor is the SEC going to ask Vanderbilt to leave.

Horse trading...no.
It's more like both schools would see more value in being somewhere else.

(03-10-2022 05:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 10:27 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(03-09-2022 09:47 PM)XLance Wrote:  Kansas and ND would be ideal for the B1G.
It's possible you could eventually see a Louisville for Vanderbilt swap.

IMO I doubt there will ever be any horse trading like that. Now I could absolutely see Vanderbilt not interested in being a part of "Pay for Play" but I would be shocked if the SEC just booted them for another school.

The ACC is not going to boot Louisville out of the conference, nor is the SEC going to ask Vanderbilt to leave.

Horse trading...no.
It's more like both schools would see more value in being somewhere else.

I can see Louisville finding a lot rea$on$ to be interested in joining the $EC, But I don't see any reason Vandy would leave to the ACC. Less money, less exposure, not as similar from a cultural perspective... yeah I don't see that at all my friend

(03-08-2022 12:43 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  My responses to bold in color

(03-07-2022 11:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 10:31 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 01:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-07-2022 02:40 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The more I think about it the more compelling the lineups appear. One caveat I see is if Ohio State takes control of the expansion process for the Big Ten. Then I might see them try to snag FSU and leave Kansas to another conference. OTOH, Kansas and Notre Dame more than make up the value of FSU and Clemson to the SEC. Also, FSU fans may not take so kindly to the Big Ten. If push comes to shove, they'd prefer keeping their rivalry with UF over a Big Ten-bound Miami.

Another complication is where UNC would ultimately end up. At minimum the Big Ten needs to first convince both Duke and Virginia (and probably Georgia Tech in addition to these) to convince UNC to jump their way. In any case the core of the ACC like where they are now.

This was back when they were still talking about the Alliance. Ultimately, the scheduling portion of that idea didn't materialize because Ohio State put the kibosh on it but it gives you a sense of what has been going on behind the scenes. Whether UNC is valuable enough to be willing to take Wake as a tag-along is not clear. However, we are in new territory here. Old notions about how expansion works may be outdated in a new paradigm once SCOTUS rules on pay-for-play. With that said, the Big Ten can ill afford to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good when the next opportunity comes.

I suggest people read or re-read Jackie Sherrill's comments on the SEC's defensive expansion play for 1992. It will illustrate the lengths the SEC was willing to go to in order to protect its SE brand via expansion.

It is why I have mystified and these blog site pundits saying "they will never go past 16, ...20, ...24, etc. Of course, they were many of the same people who claimed it would never move past 12, that Texas and Oklahoma would never head to the SEC, and that academics would always seek better academic associations. Louisville to the ACC disproved the latter, but was a solid move.

Absent in most mega realignment scenarios is Louisville, as it is here. It's true that the Cardinals are likely the only school sharing a rivalry with an instate member of the SEC which isn't wanted by its SEC rival (except A&M fans, but not so much their administration). Georgia is tepid on Georgia Tech but their state legislature is not.

In 1992 the SEC was planning a move, purely defensive and wholly dependent upon a Big 10 move down the Eastern Seaboard, which would keep them out of the deep South. FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami cover the Deep South. Who then? The most valuable is Louisville, yeah Louisville, and it's not even close (ND excepted, and Kansas excluded since I'm talking schools in the ACC). Then it would be UNC, Duke, Virginia Tech, Virginia, N.C. State, Wake Forest and this is accounting for potential basketball independence from the NCAA.

So as I see it the SEC's defensive strategy would be:

1. Protect the Deep South. It takes 4 schools to do this: Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Miami. This would be feasible but only 1 adds value which wasn't true in 1990-2.

2. Add 8. The four Deep South Schools plus Duke, UNC, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The B1G likely doesn't move on just non AAU NC State, or Louisville.

3. Kill B1G Desire. Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia. Simply remove AAU schools from their path. At least this adss 20 million to the footprint and delivers dominance in Atlanta.

4. A modified kill of B1G Desire: Duke, Florida State, North Carolina, Virginia which takes the 3 best academic schools in 2 new states and the most valuable Florida School.

5. Coup de Grace the Big 10's Desire: Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia ending any value moves East and taking the next most valuable prize. How? Money and a division created just for them. Then offer Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Iowa the final 4 slots.

The most likely IMO opinion is #4. It adds the most value while stopping a B1G incursion.

If the SEC was just seeking value it would be in order: Notre Dame, Florida State, Louisville, and Clemson in that order. No Notre Dame and you add North Carolina (counting a full value for indy hoops).

Imagine this new 8 team division of the SEC:

Ohio St, Michigan, Notre Dame, Florida St, UNC, Georgia Tech, Duke and Virginia. It completely decapitates the B1G and strips them of most of their value. Do it before the B1G contract is renewed and the remnants are then only worth about what the ACC remnants, the PAC and the NB12 are, enabling ESPN to pay SEC money to the entire new division.

The SEC would then have 9 of the top 11 schools ranked by their five year MSR (mean Sagarin rating). They could justify using their autonomy to hold an 8 team CCT to determine their champion at the Sugar Bowl on New Year's Day. The other four P5 champs would play their own tournament with the winner determined at the Rose Bowl. The two bowl winners meet for the national championship. The SEC keeps all the revenue from from its 7 game tournament, plus half of the national championship game.

The only problem is that I doubt those 8 schools would be willing to join the SEC even if the GoR issues could be hammered out. But it's fun to speculate about it.

The conference average 5 year Sagarin ratings would be (with the number of Top 20 teams in parentheses):

SEC...81 (12)
ACC...77 (1)
PAC...75 (3)
B12...75 (2)
B1G...73 (2)

You are likely to be surprised how easily the GOR's will be handled by a SCOTUS ruling affirming Pay for Play.

It also doesn't matter if the 8 want to be in the SEC or B1G or neither. They'll follow the money and separate in order to keep exposure in a time of shrinking enrollment and higher ed cutbacks.

OU's professors were decidedly for the Big 10. The donors decidedly for the SEC. The same thing will happen at UNC. Academics mostly come from Ivy or B1G schools and they think of their credentials and of academic associations. They by and large are lousy businesspeople. State funding and COLAs tend to exacerbate that. I've witnessed it first hand in state schools in Alabama and in private AAU schools in other states.

This isn't a knock on academics. They pursue self interest from their own perspective, which is more or less unfocused on one aspect of a University. AD's and athletic coaches look at associations too, and also want the best credentialing. Donors are usually distinguished alums who want regional sports associations because the sky box social milieu is as much or less about sports as it is regional business interests. The regular fan just wants games they care about. When you find an option which satisfies the largest number of these groups and provides more revenue and exposure the choice is made. Voila, OU & UT to the SEC over the objections of faculty.

Yep, and those programs who aren't necessarily football megapowers or merely past powers should doubly pay attention. It's likely that in the new paradigm those programs who would have more branding power would also gain even more leverage against others currently associated with them. It's nice to talk about "fit", "integrity" and the "honors system" but if that means the potential risk of being left behind in the quest for exposure (which is the real reason why any college would offer varsity sports in the first place) then they would rue the day that they failed to adapt to new realities. And if not them than those immediate peers who also get left behind would constantly remind them of what they failed to do. Any major conference that gets broken up from here on becomes like Humpty Dumpty: they may live on as pieces of something else but never to be put back together the way they were. The old Big East, the old Southern Conference and the Big 8/Big 12 are prime examples of these.

If the ACC breaks up, you tell me where the majority of those diverse interests will want to play sports? It's a business decision. And now more than ever that decides the outcome. If academics were truly paramount we wouldn't have ACC grads, B1G grads, SEC grads, and others who couldn't effectively articulate thoughts, coherently explain positions, or who have no comprehension of how to use or cite research, and who can't do simple math in their heads. And spare me the explanations or denials because I graded their papers in a communication field in my graduate days.

For a modern day example there's the titular head of the federal executive branch, who also happens to be a graduate of a current ACC program.

I see the results in the workplace as well. So, let's stick to business because nobody can sell me on "academic associations" until I see appreciable differences. And apparently nobody is selling them to presidents and trustees either or things would already be aligned differently

I wanted to actually watch the Dan Patrick Show clip before I talked about this.

I could see an eventual B1G-Pac12 merger taking place, but not until two things happen, IMO:

1. Biden has no more majority in Congress. This is huge because Biden wants to eliminate fossil fuels-i.e. oil & gas, ASAP!!! Want to guess what fuels airplanes, kids??? And can anyone seriously even imagine an electric airplane??? Talk about a disaster just waiting to happen....
Regardless about how athletes feel about electric airplanes, I'm pretty sure that their parents will be 100% against that, regardless of how much they are touted to be just as good as regular airplanes.

B1G and Pac 12 teams won't be able to afford to travel to each other with extremely expensive fuel costs...and...hardly anyone trusting the mere concept of electric airplanes!!!

2. Gavin Newsome is finally defeated as governor of California, and the state of California legislature rescinds its law banning all state travel to non-vax states. If I'm not mistaken, there are a few states that Cal and UCLA wouldn't be able to travel to in the B1G.

(03-11-2022 01:28 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I could see an eventual B1G-Pac12 merger taking place, but not until two things happen, IMO:

1. Biden has no more majority in Congress. This is huge because Biden wants to eliminate fossil fuels-i.e. oil & gas, ASAP!!! Want to guess what fuels airplanes, kids??? And can anyone seriously even imagine an electric airplane??? Talk about a disaster just waiting to happen....
Regardless about how athletes feel about electric airplanes, I'm pretty sure that their parents will be 100% against that, regardless of how much they are touted to be just as good as regular airplanes.

B1G and Pac 12 teams won't be able to afford to travel to each other with extremely expensive fuel costs...and...hardly anyone trusting the mere concept of electric airplanes!!!

2. Gavin Newsome is finally defeated as governor of California, and the state of California legislature rescinds its law banning all state travel to non-vax states. If I'm not mistaken, there are a few states that Cal and UCLA wouldn't be able to travel to in the B1G.

I see the idea of a PAC-B1G merger as dependent on a "Break In Case Of Emergency"-type situation. This would happen if there is further consolidation in the South and East. At that point, the market power becomes too much for the Big Ten as is to compete against. As you've said, the distances between the programs is a lot to overcome without cheaper fuel. OTOH, the programs are so similar to each that it would be a natural pairing. The biggest benefit would be in the creation of a coast-to-coast entity that would be a national powerhouse.