(01-23-2023 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  The top 20. 20 schools have all the AP titles except 2 (Pitt 76, BYU 84) going back 55 years to 1968 (and all from 1961-1967 as well). I've posted this data before, but I've updated with TCU's 2nd place finish which puts them in rather elite company, but they still don't rate top 20.

All of these schools but Oregon and Washington have AP titles. Washington has a coaches title.
All of these schools have at least 5 top 5 finishes. Nobody else has more than 3 and only TCU, Pitt and Arizona St. have 3.
All of these schools have at least 2 top 3 finishes. All but Tennessee have at least 3. Outside the group only TCU has 3 (all in the last dozen years) and only Pitt has 2.

I see a recurring theme here. Perhaps room should be made for Pitt and TCU, eh?

(01-23-2023 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:16 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  You need brand identity and cohesion. If you get too large you lose it..

The SEC isn't going to need any more football heavyweights in redundant footprints in a decade. The SEC will be perfectly fine targeting UVA and North Carolina to sell basketball Subscriptions for SEC+ at that point.

The SEC has a definite need of a second Florida school, for no other reason than this is an issue for schools in the conference frustrated because they don't have games in Florida.

My suggestion to your observation is that the SEC take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State, and Kansas. That's 3 new states, 3 of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time when added to Kentucky, and an extra 4 games a year with which to schedule Florida trips for members.

Let them eat cake JR, those complainers can just go play in Texas.

(01-24-2023 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  The top 20. 20 schools have all the AP titles except 2 (Pitt 76, BYU 84) going back 55 years to 1968 (and all from 1961-1967 as well). I've posted this data before, but I've updated with TCU's 2nd place finish which puts them in rather elite company, but they still don't rate top 20.

All of these schools but Oregon and Washington have AP titles. Washington has a coaches title.
All of these schools have at least 5 top 5 finishes. Nobody else has more than 3 and only TCU, Pitt and Arizona St. have 3.
All of these schools have at least 2 top 3 finishes. All but Tennessee have at least 3. Outside the group only TCU has 3 (all in the last dozen years) and only Pitt has 2.

I see a recurring theme here. Perhaps room should be made for Pitt and TCU, eh?

In 1960, Minnesota was a power, but they faded after the Vikings arrived. Pitt's glory days were 75-83. Being ranked the last two years increased the number of years they have been ranked since 1983 to 6 and they haven't made the top 10 since 1982.

And neither TCU or Pitt have gotten to the 5 top 5 finishes that the other 20 schools have. Remains to be seen if TCU can continue or if they only have a dozen or so glory years like Pitt did.

(01-24-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:16 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  You need brand identity and cohesion. If you get too large you lose it..

The SEC isn't going to need any more football heavyweights in redundant footprints in a decade. The SEC will be perfectly fine targeting UVA and North Carolina to sell basketball Subscriptions for SEC+ at that point.

The SEC has a definite need of a second Florida school, for no other reason than this is an issue for schools in the conference frustrated because they don't have games in Florida.

My suggestion to your observation is that the SEC take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State, and Kansas. That's 3 new states, 3 of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time when added to Kentucky, and an extra 4 games a year with which to schedule Florida trips for members.

Let them eat cake JR, those complainers can just go play in Texas.

I think you know how I feel X. I would add South Florida and build their brand. Networks don't think that way. But USF compliments UF very well and Tampa/St. Pete is a trip SEC fans would make. But alas, right now they don't have the product or the ratings, though with SEC revenue they could get there quickly.

(01-24-2023 02:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  The top 20. 20 schools have all the AP titles except 2 (Pitt 76, BYU 84) going back 55 years to 1968 (and all from 1961-1967 as well). I've posted this data before, but I've updated with TCU's 2nd place finish which puts them in rather elite company, but they still don't rate top 20.

All of these schools but Oregon and Washington have AP titles. Washington has a coaches title.
All of these schools have at least 5 top 5 finishes. Nobody else has more than 3 and only TCU, Pitt and Arizona St. have 3.
All of these schools have at least 2 top 3 finishes. All but Tennessee have at least 3. Outside the group only TCU has 3 (all in the last dozen years) and only Pitt has 2.

I see a recurring theme here. Perhaps room should be made for Pitt and TCU, eh?

In 1960, Minnesota was a power, but they faded after the Vikings arrived. Pitt's glory days were 75-83. Being ranked the last two years increased the number of years they have been ranked since 1983 to 6 and they haven't made the top 10 since 1982.

And neither TCU or Pitt have gotten to the 5 top 5 finishes that the other 20 schools have. Remains to be seen if TCU can continue or if they only have a dozen or so glory years like Pitt did.

Even Duke was a football power. During Wallace Wade's first coaching stint in Durham, in the 11 years between 1931 and the 1941 season Duke went 85-19-3 and played in two Rose Bowl Games.
His 1941 squad was undefeated and UN-SCORED UPON until the loss to Oregon State in the 1942 Rose Bowl, which was played in Durham instead of Pasadena because of Pearl Harbor.

(01-24-2023 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:16 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  You need brand identity and cohesion. If you get too large you lose it..

The SEC isn't going to need any more football heavyweights in redundant footprints in a decade. The SEC will be perfectly fine targeting UVA and North Carolina to sell basketball Subscriptions for SEC+ at that point.

The SEC has a definite need of a second Florida school, for no other reason than this is an issue for schools in the conference frustrated because they don't have games in Florida.

My suggestion to your observation is that the SEC take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State, and Kansas. That's 3 new states, 3 of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time when added to Kentucky, and an extra 4 games a year with which to schedule Florida trips for members.

Let them eat cake JR, those complainers can just go play in Texas.

I think you know how I feel X. I would add South Florida and build their brand. Networks don't think that way. But USF compliments UF very well and Tampa/St. Pete is a trip SEC fans would make. But alas, right now they don't have the product or the ratings, though with SEC revenue they could get there quickly.

Just send us Vanderbilt, JR.
We get a school that fits, in a new state. You get rid of your weakest link and you can add USF to have a second school in Florida.
Vanderbilt will be able to keep from spending all of the SEC media money on conference mandated upgrades and have their athletes compete against academic peers.
It's a win-win for everybody.

(01-24-2023 02:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:16 PM)CFBLurker Wrote:  You need brand identity and cohesion. If you get too large you lose it..

The SEC isn't going to need any more football heavyweights in redundant footprints in a decade. The SEC will be perfectly fine targeting UVA and North Carolina to sell basketball Subscriptions for SEC+ at that point.

The SEC has a definite need of a second Florida school, for no other reason than this is an issue for schools in the conference frustrated because they don't have games in Florida.

My suggestion to your observation is that the SEC take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State, and Kansas. That's 3 new states, 3 of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time when added to Kentucky, and an extra 4 games a year with which to schedule Florida trips for members.

Let them eat cake JR, those complainers can just go play in Texas.

I think you know how I feel X. I would add South Florida and build their brand. Networks don't think that way. But USF compliments UF very well and Tampa/St. Pete is a trip SEC fans would make. But alas, right now they don't have the product or the ratings, though with SEC revenue they could get there quickly.

Just send us Vanderbilt, JR.
We get a school that fits, in a new state. You get rid of your weakest link and you can add USF to have a second school in Florida.
Vanderbilt will be able to keep from spending all of the SEC media money on conference mandated upgrades and have their athletes compete against academic peers.
It's a win-win for everybody.

I'll take a merger with the ACC, and you can go root for your beloved Boilermakers, XLance!!!

(01-24-2023 02:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 02:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 08:44 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 12:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  The top 20. 20 schools have all the AP titles except 2 (Pitt 76, BYU 84) going back 55 years to 1968 (and all from 1961-1967 as well). I've posted this data before, but I've updated with TCU's 2nd place finish which puts them in rather elite company, but they still don't rate top 20.

All of these schools but Oregon and Washington have AP titles. Washington has a coaches title.
All of these schools have at least 5 top 5 finishes. Nobody else has more than 3 and only TCU, Pitt and Arizona St. have 3.
All of these schools have at least 2 top 3 finishes. All but Tennessee have at least 3. Outside the group only TCU has 3 (all in the last dozen years) and only Pitt has 2.

I see a recurring theme here. Perhaps room should be made for Pitt and TCU, eh?

In 1960, Minnesota was a power, but they faded after the Vikings arrived. Pitt's glory days were 75-83. Being ranked the last two years increased the number of years they have been ranked since 1983 to 6 and they haven't made the top 10 since 1982.

And neither TCU or Pitt have gotten to the 5 top 5 finishes that the other 20 schools have. Remains to be seen if TCU can continue or if they only have a dozen or so glory years like Pitt did.

Even Duke was a football power. During Wallace Wade's first coaching stint in Durham, in the 11 years between 1931 and the 1941 season Duke went 85-19-3 and played in two Rose Bowl Games.
His 1941 squad was undefeated and UN-SCORED UPON until the loss to Oregon State in the 1942 Rose Bowl, which was played in Durham instead of Pasadena because of Pearl Harbor.

Which would have been played in Austin, but Texas refused to cancel its last game against Oregon who had almost defeated Oregon St (7-12). They were afraid Texas would lose. Texas won 71-7.

(01-24-2023 04:58 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 02:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 02:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2023 01:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2023 07:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC has a definite need of a second Florida school, for no other reason than this is an issue for schools in the conference frustrated because they don't have games in Florida.

My suggestion to your observation is that the SEC take North Carolina, Virginia, Florida State, and Kansas. That's 3 new states, 3 of the 4 winningest hoops programs of all time when added to Kentucky, and an extra 4 games a year with which to schedule Florida trips for members.

Let them eat cake JR, those complainers can just go play in Texas.

I think you know how I feel X. I would add South Florida and build their brand. Networks don't think that way. But USF compliments UF very well and Tampa/St. Pete is a trip SEC fans would make. But alas, right now they don't have the product or the ratings, though with SEC revenue they could get there quickly.

Just send us Vanderbilt, JR.
We get a school that fits, in a new state. You get rid of your weakest link and you can add USF to have a second school in Florida.
Vanderbilt will be able to keep from spending all of the SEC media money on conference mandated upgrades and have their athletes compete against academic peers.
It's a win-win for everybody.

I'll take a merger with the ACC, and you can go root for your beloved Boilermakers, XLance!!!

Beloved Boilermakers?
I'm not positive where your loyalties lie, but I am a proud graduate of the University of North Carolina.

I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

(01-28-2023 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

If the ACC GoR isn't an issue for the Big10, then ok, I'll bite : )

SEC - FSU, Clemson, VT, GT

B10 - Kansas, VA, NC, Duke

No reason to go after PAC schools yet, and deal with that fallout, if ACC schools are available now.

(01-28-2023 03:45 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

If the ACC GoR isn't an issue for the Big10, then ok, I'll bite : )

SEC - FSU, Clemson, VT, GT

B10 - Kansas, VA, NC, Duke

No reason to go after PAC schools yet, and deal with that fallout, if ACC schools are available now.

You must see a monetized future for basketball. I do.

(01-28-2023 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:45 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

If the ACC GoR isn't an issue for the Big10, then ok, I'll bite : )

SEC - FSU, Clemson, VT, GT

B10 - Kansas, VA, NC, Duke

No reason to go after PAC schools yet, and deal with that fallout, if ACC schools are available now.

You must see a monetized future for basketball. I do.

I'm not really worried about whether if bball money stays in the NCAA. It pays for it. If it didn't, some other way would need to be found to pay for it. And regardless, bball and academics remain a priority for the B10.

And I won't say it's unanimous, but those 4 schools seem to be top or near top of every SEC wish list.

Same with those 3 ACC schools for the B10. The 4th varies a lot. And I haven't been shy about saying why I think Kansas should be added to the B10 asap.

Unlike the PAC schools which will be there tomorrow for an invite, that window is closing on Kansas. The SEC could easily invite them today. Kansas plus Texas Tech would be a very smart move for the SEC as a lead up to poaching the ACC. So it's just simple logic.

(01-28-2023 04:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:45 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

If the ACC GoR isn't an issue for the Big10, then ok, I'll bite : )

SEC - FSU, Clemson, VT, GT

B10 - Kansas, VA, NC, Duke

No reason to go after PAC schools yet, and deal with that fallout, if ACC schools are available now.

You must see a monetized future for basketball. I do.

I'm not really worried about whether if bball money stays in the NCAA. It pays for it. If it didn't, some other way would need to be found to pay for it. And regardless, bball and academics remain a priority for the B10.

And I won't say it's unanimous, but those 4 schools seem to be top or near top of every SEC wish list.

Same with those 3 ACC schools for the B10. The 4th varies a lot. And I haven't been shy about saying why I think Kansas should be added to the B10 asap.

Unlike the PAC schools which will be there tomorrow for an invite, that window is closing on Kansas. The SEC could easily invite them today. Kansas plus Texas Tech would be a very smart move for the SEC as a lead up to poaching the ACC. So it's just simple logic.

Whether Texas Tech gets an invitation or not depends in large part upon what Texas and Texas A&M want. Kansas is simply a perfect foil for Kentucky and a solid rival of Missouri's.

UNC will remain on the SEC target list. Virginia isn't as much of one, and with UNC perhaps neither is Duke.

UNC, Kansas, Virginia Tech and Florida State would do nicely. It's just UNC will likely get to pick one traveling companion provided they add and Virginia would.

Oh well, old turf covered again. But my point is hypothetically the Big 10 could add Notre Dame and Kansas and pick up Duke to go with Washington.

Because football is going to drive the bus either way, Washington, Oregon, FSU and Clemson would be in any group of 8. Notre Dame also if they are willing. And because of population, North Carolina. 7 and 8 are the questions. Miami is likely in the group because they have a brand name and have had enormous football success. But they aren't a certainty.

Well, let's consider a few things we know.

1. The SEC and ACC will be pit against each other in a basketball challenge for the foreseeable future. That actually tends to undermine the idea that there could be a merger between the 2 although, by itself, doesn't rule it out. My reasoning would be, why go to the trouble of creating a made for TV event if it would have no niche to play to? If they're all in the same conference, the branding of it doesn't mean much.

2. We know Big Ten leadership is reluctant to move into more locales in the West. In fact, we'll see if the additions of USC and UCLA are a boon for anything other than the TV contract. I'm a bit skeptical myself.

3. We know the PAC 12 is in shambles and it's going to take more than good leadership at the conference office to keep this thing together. Regardless of the fact that Oregon and Washington might want to go to the Big Ten, that doesn't mean there's a well-founded stability if that's not an option in the short term. If they're going to find a way to leave in the long term then others could move quicker given an opportunity.

4. The Big 12 seems to be in a comfortable spot. Both ESPN and Fox have motivation to protect their interests. Looking at the financial outlook of the league as a whole, you don't find a top-heavy dynamic that is a clear indicator of weakness anytime it rears its head within a conference. These 12 programs aren't that far apart from top to bottom. Looks like they're going to get paid pretty well and neither the SEC nor Big Ten is probably interested in raiding them again. You could certainly make an argument for Kansas, but they're not going to move by themselves. You need another heavy hitter to really make another movement possible.

So where does all that leave us?

Well, I don't think it's necessarily a stable place even if there's no patently obvious moves on the board. The moves of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC created a big power shift. The moves of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten also created a power shift, but what is interesting to me about that expansion is that it wasn't as natural as the SEC's.

USC and UCLA will be doing a heck of a lot of traveling. Their closest conference mates in the Big Ten will make some pretty long trips and that's before you consider the schools in the Eastern time zone.

Furthermore, there's been some thought that USC did not want the likes of Oregon and Washington to follow them. You can imagine why...solidified recruiting advantages, money advantages, exposure advantages. There aren't many programs on the West Coast that pose a threat to USC's prominence(despite their recent lack of success), but Oregon and Washington threaten the hegemony. Much like there was thought that Texas wanted to escape all those other in-state schools to separate themselves. It remains to be seen if that was in fact an aspect of USC's overture to the Big Ten. I guess we'll see.

Either way, USC and UCLA are not natural fits in the Big Ten. Talk to me all you want about the relationship between the Big Ten and the PAC historically, talk to me about academic alignments, and talk to me about the TV money...I don't really care. Something is amiss here.

It's not just the statements from officials that rebuffed Keven Warren's vision to expand West. It's not just the fact that Warren left only a few months after putting the moves together. It's not just the chaos that Covid put into the atmosphere of college athletics. It's not just the changing dynamics of NIL and pay-for-play. It's not just the significant travel distances for a multitude of athletic teams. It's not just the cultural difference between Southern California and the Midwest. It's not just the waning fandom of college sports in CA...

There's something about this move that feels like a reach, like it's going to take a perfect storm to work out to everyone's benefit. I guess we'll see.

What's next?

It feels like something has to be brewing, but I don't know what.

(01-28-2023 07:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, let's consider a few things we know.

1. The SEC and ACC will be pit against each other in a basketball challenge for the foreseeable future. That actually tends to undermine the idea that there could be a merger between the 2 although, by itself, doesn't rule it out. My reasoning would be, why go to the trouble of creating a made for TV event if it would have no niche to play to? If they're all in the same conference, the branding of it doesn't mean much.

2. We know Big Ten leadership is reluctant to move into more locales in the West. In fact, we'll see if the additions of USC and UCLA are a boon for anything other than the TV contract. I'm a bit skeptical myself.

3. We know the PAC 12 is in shambles and it's going to take more than good leadership at the conference office to keep this thing together. Regardless of the fact that Oregon and Washington might want to go to the Big Ten, that doesn't mean there's a well-founded stability if that's not an option in the short term. If they're going to find a way to leave in the long term then others could move quicker given an opportunity.

4. The Big 12 seems to be in a comfortable spot. Both ESPN and Fox have motivation to protect their interests. Looking at the financial outlook of the league as a whole, you don't find a top-heavy dynamic that is a clear indicator of weakness anytime it rears its head within a conference. These 12 programs aren't that far apart from top to bottom. Looks like they're going to get paid pretty well and neither the SEC nor Big Ten is probably interested in raiding them again. You could certainly make an argument for Kansas, but they're not going to move by themselves. You need another heavy hitter to really make another movement possible.

So where does all that leave us?

Well, I don't think it's necessarily a stable place even if there's no patently obvious moves on the board. The moves of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC created a big power shift. The moves of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten also created a power shift, but what is interesting to me about that expansion is that it wasn't as natural as the SEC's.

USC and UCLA will be doing a heck of a lot of traveling. Their closest conference mates in the Big Ten will make some pretty long trips and that's before you consider the schools in the Eastern time zone.

Furthermore, there's been some thought that USC did not want the likes of Oregon and Washington to follow them. You can imagine why...solidified recruiting advantages, money advantages, exposure advantages. There aren't many programs on the West Coast that pose a threat to USC's prominence(despite their recent lack of success), but Oregon and Washington threaten the hegemony. Much like there was thought that Texas wanted to escape all those other in-state schools to separate themselves. It remains to be seen if that was in fact an aspect of USC's overture to the Big Ten. I guess we'll see.

Either way, USC and UCLA are not natural fits in the Big Ten. Talk to me all you want about the relationship between the Big Ten and the PAC historically, talk to me about academic alignments, and talk to me about the TV money...I don't really care. Something is amiss here.

It's not just the statements from officials that rebuffed Keven Warren's vision to expand West. It's not just the fact that Warren left only a few months after putting the moves together. It's not just the chaos that Covid put into the atmosphere of college athletics. It's not just the changing dynamics of NIL and pay-for-play. It's not just the significant travel distances for a multitude of athletic teams. It's not just the cultural difference between Southern California and the Midwest. It's not just the waning fandom of college sports in CA...

There's something about this move that feels like a reach, like it's going to take a perfect storm to work out to everyone's benefit. I guess we'll see.

What's next?

It feels like something has to be brewing, but I don't know what.

Oddly the SEC taking Texas and Oklahoma drove up the value of the Big 10. How? They were the only viable option left and FOX and "friends" could not afford to let ESPN have any part of them. The money keeps them competitive in a world where the SEC now has the lion's share of advantages.

The only way USC & UCLA pay off over the long run is if Washington and Oregon are added as well, and likely Cal and Stanford. But the Big 10 MEAN will not be reached. The only way this happens is with actual value additions which means unequal revenue sharing. That move would allow the Big 10 to seriously consider taking Utah, Arizona and Colorado and possibly Notre Dame to 24. Kansas is there if ND isn't interested.

The SEC needs the same. We could add UNC and FSU as natural fits and at least meet the MEAN. Clemson possibly. Virginia or Virginia Tech would need to be at actual value which means ...unequal revenue sharing. Do that and Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Duke or the other Virginia become possible to 24 and regional dominance.

Or merger becomes possible.

What we are waiting upon is the first set of schools which find more value in either the Big 10 or SEC than in staying where they are and are therefore willing to join for their actual value to the conference and not an equal share.

That's the eerie silence in which we now exist. Those which don't make sense at a reduced rate will help form a consolidated Big 12, IMO.

If we go to a P3, a breakaway will be likely. There is much to do in this silence.

(01-28-2023 05:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 04:34 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 03:45 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 08:21 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I like the OP’s 8:

SEC—UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU
BIG 10—Washington, Oregon, Notre Dame, Miami

We then get some consolidation moves among the ACC (9), Big 12 (12) and PAC 10 (8)

If the ACC GoR isn't an issue for the Big10, then ok, I'll bite : )

SEC - FSU, Clemson, VT, GT

B10 - Kansas, VA, NC, Duke

No reason to go after PAC schools yet, and deal with that fallout, if ACC schools are available now.

You must see a monetized future for basketball. I do.

I'm not really worried about whether if bball money stays in the NCAA. It pays for it. If it didn't, some other way would need to be found to pay for it. And regardless, bball and academics remain a priority for the B10.

And I won't say it's unanimous, but those 4 schools seem to be top or near top of every SEC wish list.

Same with those 3 ACC schools for the B10. The 4th varies a lot. And I haven't been shy about saying why I think Kansas should be added to the B10 asap.

Unlike the PAC schools which will be there tomorrow for an invite, that window is closing on Kansas. The SEC could easily invite them today. Kansas plus Texas Tech would be a very smart move for the SEC as a lead up to poaching the ACC. So it's just simple logic.

Whether Texas Tech gets an invitation or not depends in large part upon what Texas and Texas A&M want. Kansas is simply a perfect foil for Kentucky and a solid rival of Missouri's.

UNC will remain on the SEC target list. Virginia isn't as much of one, and with UNC perhaps neither is Duke.

UNC, Kansas, Virginia Tech and Florida State would do nicely. It's just UNC will likely get to pick one traveling companion provided they add and Virginia would.

Oh well, old turf covered again. But my point is hypothetically the Big 10 could add Notre Dame and Kansas and pick up Duke to go with Washington.

I think a third texas team would be smart (as would 3 Florida teams), for the SEC. You and I have talked about (agreed about) this before : )

I think Texas Tech over TCU, etc. simply due to rivalry, and west Texas coverage.

Yes -I almost didn't add NC to the B10 list. I really think NC is at the center of choices. Do they stay in the ACC, do they go to one of the P2? If they can wrangle Va and Duke (and NC state) to stay with them in the ACC, I still think that that is their smartest move - but they really need to get that media deal updated. Which means a change to the roster - either add more, or accept losses and maintain the deal for more money per school.

I was in favor of VA, Duke, Kansas, and Stanford, but the more rumor that we're hearing about Stanford, the less I think they would accept a B10 invite, and even if they did, USC and UCLA seem to not want other west coast teams to join them in the B10.

Maybe swap in Colorado - who'd be thrilled to join them in the B10, I would presume.

For the SEC, taking FSU and GT (and NC) are moves to hedge out the B10, of course. Clemson and VT just complete the package.

As for ND. The B10 should offer them a deal similar to what they have at the ACC. ND football being independent actually makes them more valuable to the B10, than if they fully joined. Marketing is a thing.

(01-28-2023 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 07:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, let's consider a few things we know.

1. The SEC and ACC will be pit against each other in a basketball challenge for the foreseeable future. That actually tends to undermine the idea that there could be a merger between the 2 although, by itself, doesn't rule it out. My reasoning would be, why go to the trouble of creating a made for TV event if it would have no niche to play to? If they're all in the same conference, the branding of it doesn't mean much.

2. We know Big Ten leadership is reluctant to move into more locales in the West. In fact, we'll see if the additions of USC and UCLA are a boon for anything other than the TV contract. I'm a bit skeptical myself.

3. We know the PAC 12 is in shambles and it's going to take more than good leadership at the conference office to keep this thing together. Regardless of the fact that Oregon and Washington might want to go to the Big Ten, that doesn't mean there's a well-founded stability if that's not an option in the short term. If they're going to find a way to leave in the long term then others could move quicker given an opportunity.

4. The Big 12 seems to be in a comfortable spot. Both ESPN and Fox have motivation to protect their interests. Looking at the financial outlook of the league as a whole, you don't find a top-heavy dynamic that is a clear indicator of weakness anytime it rears its head within a conference. These 12 programs aren't that far apart from top to bottom. Looks like they're going to get paid pretty well and neither the SEC nor Big Ten is probably interested in raiding them again. You could certainly make an argument for Kansas, but they're not going to move by themselves. You need another heavy hitter to really make another movement possible.

So where does all that leave us?

Well, I don't think it's necessarily a stable place even if there's no patently obvious moves on the board. The moves of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC created a big power shift. The moves of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten also created a power shift, but what is interesting to me about that expansion is that it wasn't as natural as the SEC's.

USC and UCLA will be doing a heck of a lot of traveling. Their closest conference mates in the Big Ten will make some pretty long trips and that's before you consider the schools in the Eastern time zone.

Furthermore, there's been some thought that USC did not want the likes of Oregon and Washington to follow them. You can imagine why...solidified recruiting advantages, money advantages, exposure advantages. There aren't many programs on the West Coast that pose a threat to USC's prominence(despite their recent lack of success), but Oregon and Washington threaten the hegemony. Much like there was thought that Texas wanted to escape all those other in-state schools to separate themselves. It remains to be seen if that was in fact an aspect of USC's overture to the Big Ten. I guess we'll see.

Either way, USC and UCLA are not natural fits in the Big Ten. Talk to me all you want about the relationship between the Big Ten and the PAC historically, talk to me about academic alignments, and talk to me about the TV money...I don't really care. Something is amiss here.

It's not just the statements from officials that rebuffed Keven Warren's vision to expand West. It's not just the fact that Warren left only a few months after putting the moves together. It's not just the chaos that Covid put into the atmosphere of college athletics. It's not just the changing dynamics of NIL and pay-for-play. It's not just the significant travel distances for a multitude of athletic teams. It's not just the cultural difference between Southern California and the Midwest. It's not just the waning fandom of college sports in CA...

There's something about this move that feels like a reach, like it's going to take a perfect storm to work out to everyone's benefit. I guess we'll see.

What's next?

It feels like something has to be brewing, but I don't know what.

Oddly the SEC taking Texas and Oklahoma drove up the value of the Big 10. How? They were the only viable option left and FOX and "friends" could not afford to let ESPN have any part of them. The money keeps them competitive in a world where the SEC now has the lion's share of advantages.

The only way USC & UCLA pay off over the long run is if Washington and Oregon are added as well, and likely Cal and Stanford. But the Big 10 MEAN will not be reached. The only way this happens is with actual value additions which means unequal revenue sharing. That move would allow the Big 10 to seriously consider taking Utah, Arizona and Colorado and possibly Notre Dame to 24. Kansas is there if ND isn't interested.

The SEC needs the same. We could add UNC and FSU as natural fits and at least meet the MEAN. Clemson possibly. Virginia or Virginia Tech would need to be at actual value which means ...unequal revenue sharing. Do that and Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Duke or the other Virginia become possible to 24 and regional dominance.

Or merger becomes possible.

What we are waiting upon is the first set of schools which find more value in either the Big 10 or SEC than in staying where they are and are therefore willing to join for their actual value to the conference and not an equal share.

That's the eerie silence in which we now exist. Those which don't make sense at a reduced rate will help form a consolidated Big 12, IMO.

If we go to a P3, a breakaway will be likely. There is much to do in this silence.

After March Madness is over, I think we'll either see some moves or some info leaks that give us a clearer picture.

To your point in the bolded part, I think that's the most interesting variable. Does a school really need to be offered more money to join the SEC or Big Ten? If you promised them they would make precisely the same amount of cash then I think they would still move. It's not just about profit and loss anymore, it's about the power of the association.

We have rather quickly reached a place where you're either in the circle or on the outside looking in. So does a school need the promise of immediate windfall in order to make a move? Doesn't seem like they do.

That's not to suggest any moves will keep the additions static with what they were making, just that the economics of it have made even that a reasonable outcome.

(01-28-2023 08:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 07:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-28-2023 07:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Well, let's consider a few things we know.

1. The SEC and ACC will be pit against each other in a basketball challenge for the foreseeable future. That actually tends to undermine the idea that there could be a merger between the 2 although, by itself, doesn't rule it out. My reasoning would be, why go to the trouble of creating a made for TV event if it would have no niche to play to? If they're all in the same conference, the branding of it doesn't mean much.

2. We know Big Ten leadership is reluctant to move into more locales in the West. In fact, we'll see if the additions of USC and UCLA are a boon for anything other than the TV contract. I'm a bit skeptical myself.

3. We know the PAC 12 is in shambles and it's going to take more than good leadership at the conference office to keep this thing together. Regardless of the fact that Oregon and Washington might want to go to the Big Ten, that doesn't mean there's a well-founded stability if that's not an option in the short term. If they're going to find a way to leave in the long term then others could move quicker given an opportunity.

4. The Big 12 seems to be in a comfortable spot. Both ESPN and Fox have motivation to protect their interests. Looking at the financial outlook of the league as a whole, you don't find a top-heavy dynamic that is a clear indicator of weakness anytime it rears its head within a conference. These 12 programs aren't that far apart from top to bottom. Looks like they're going to get paid pretty well and neither the SEC nor Big Ten is probably interested in raiding them again. You could certainly make an argument for Kansas, but they're not going to move by themselves. You need another heavy hitter to really make another movement possible.

So where does all that leave us?

Well, I don't think it's necessarily a stable place even if there's no patently obvious moves on the board. The moves of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC created a big power shift. The moves of USC and UCLA to the Big Ten also created a power shift, but what is interesting to me about that expansion is that it wasn't as natural as the SEC's.

USC and UCLA will be doing a heck of a lot of traveling. Their closest conference mates in the Big Ten will make some pretty long trips and that's before you consider the schools in the Eastern time zone.

Furthermore, there's been some thought that USC did not want the likes of Oregon and Washington to follow them. You can imagine why...solidified recruiting advantages, money advantages, exposure advantages. There aren't many programs on the West Coast that pose a threat to USC's prominence(despite their recent lack of success), but Oregon and Washington threaten the hegemony. Much like there was thought that Texas wanted to escape all those other in-state schools to separate themselves. It remains to be seen if that was in fact an aspect of USC's overture to the Big Ten. I guess we'll see.

Either way, USC and UCLA are not natural fits in the Big Ten. Talk to me all you want about the relationship between the Big Ten and the PAC historically, talk to me about academic alignments, and talk to me about the TV money...I don't really care. Something is amiss here.

It's not just the statements from officials that rebuffed Keven Warren's vision to expand West. It's not just the fact that Warren left only a few months after putting the moves together. It's not just the chaos that Covid put into the atmosphere of college athletics. It's not just the changing dynamics of NIL and pay-for-play. It's not just the significant travel distances for a multitude of athletic teams. It's not just the cultural difference between Southern California and the Midwest. It's not just the waning fandom of college sports in CA...

There's something about this move that feels like a reach, like it's going to take a perfect storm to work out to everyone's benefit. I guess we'll see.

What's next?

It feels like something has to be brewing, but I don't know what.

Oddly the SEC taking Texas and Oklahoma drove up the value of the Big 10. How? They were the only viable option left and FOX and "friends" could not afford to let ESPN have any part of them. The money keeps them competitive in a world where the SEC now has the lion's share of advantages.

The only way USC & UCLA pay off over the long run is if Washington and Oregon are added as well, and likely Cal and Stanford. But the Big 10 MEAN will not be reached. The only way this happens is with actual value additions which means unequal revenue sharing. That move would allow the Big 10 to seriously consider taking Utah, Arizona and Colorado and possibly Notre Dame to 24. Kansas is there if ND isn't interested.

The SEC needs the same. We could add UNC and FSU as natural fits and at least meet the MEAN. Clemson possibly. Virginia or Virginia Tech would need to be at actual value which means ...unequal revenue sharing. Do that and Miami, Georgia Tech, N.C. State and Duke or the other Virginia become possible to 24 and regional dominance.

Or merger becomes possible.

What we are waiting upon is the first set of schools which find more value in either the Big 10 or SEC than in staying where they are and are therefore willing to join for their actual value to the conference and not an equal share.

That's the eerie silence in which we now exist. Those which don't make sense at a reduced rate will help form a consolidated Big 12, IMO.

If we go to a P3, a breakaway will be likely. There is much to do in this silence.

After March Madness is over, I think we'll either see some moves or some info leaks that give us a clearer picture.

To your point in the bolded part, I think that's the most interesting variable. Does a school really need to be offered more money to join the SEC or Big Ten? If you promised them they would make precisely the same amount of cash then I think they would still move. It's not just about profit and loss anymore, it's about the power of the association.

We have rather quickly reached a place where you're either in the circle or on the outside looking in. So does a school need the promise of immediate windfall in order to make a move? Doesn't seem like they do.

That's not to suggest any moves will keep the additions static with what they were making, just that the economics of it have made even that a reasonable outcome.

Just pay them the value they have in the new conference. It will help preserve relationships which are valuable, and it will strengthen the bargaining capacity of the conference. Preservation of regional interest should be a priority.