(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

(07-30-2020 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It would be more appropriate to change your "Laws" category to "Politics". There aren't really explicit laws preventing conference realignment, but political pressure is critical.

Also, I disagree with the inclusion of the Big Ten rules - those have ALWAYS been urban legends and I've been trying to dispel those since I started writing about conference realignment over a decade ago. The Big Ten would clearly take Notre Dame (a non-AAU school) and Texas (a non-contiguous school) as their top 2 draft picks if they could take anyone in conference realignment, so those two examples alone would blow up those rules. Now, if you want to state that the Big Ten has a de facto academic threshold (whether that's explicitly recognized by AAU status or being a widely acknowledged "elite" academic school in the way that Notre Dame is), then that's certainly fair to state. I legitimately don't think the Big Ten cares about geographic continuity at all as long as the money is right and the "right" type of academic institution is involved - they'd gladly take, say, Georgia Tech or UCLA over a whole host of contiguous schools.

(07-31-2020 02:22 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Rules are written after the fact. At least for the NCAA.

The biggest rule is money rules.

(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

(07-31-2020 08:10 AM)chess Wrote:  The assertion that West Virginia is not a candidate for ACC membership because Notre Dame refuses to play in Morgantown is incorrect.

West Virginia is not a member of the ACC because the ACC does not want West Virginia as a member. The ACC was founded and chose not to include WVU.

Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, and South Carolina formed the conference. Virginia was added a year later. The conference lost South Carolina, gained Georgia Tech, and, then, Florida State. For expansion, the ACC targeted Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. When that fell through, the ACC gained Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh and Syracuse joined at a later time. Maryland left. Louisville joined. If the ACC wished to add West Virginia at any time, the school would be a member.

(07-31-2020 09:05 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 08:10 AM)chess Wrote:  The assertion that West Virginia is not a candidate for ACC membership because Notre Dame refuses to play in Morgantown is incorrect.

West Virginia is not a member of the ACC because the ACC does not want West Virginia as a member. The ACC was founded and chose not to include WVU.

Maryland, Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Wake Forest, Clemson, and South Carolina formed the conference. Virginia was added a year later. The conference lost South Carolina, gained Georgia Tech, and, then, Florida State. For expansion, the ACC targeted Syracuse, Boston College, and Miami. When that fell through, the ACC gained Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech. Pittsburgh and Syracuse joined at a later time. Maryland left. Louisville joined. If the ACC wished to add West Virginia at any time, the school would be a member.

I don't think anyone is making that assertion, just pointing out a fact.

ND has not played football in Morgantown since 2000 and vowed to never do so.

I agree with you. The ACC has rejected WVU for decades.

(07-31-2020 07:01 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-30-2020 01:54 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  When it comes to realignment, relationships are very, very important. Who schools and conferences will and won't align with brings reality into check. It may be good to keep a running list of these. Please provide additions, modifications, and corrections to these lists.

Grudges

To qualify here, a school will need to have said "we refuse to play this other school." Recently, I read on here that Notre Dame *refuses* to play at Morgantown. This would all but guarantee that at least until 2036 (the end of the ACC GoR), West Virginia will not be a member of the ACC. Another example: after the bleacher debacle when Texas visited Houston last, the Longhorns have refused to schedule the Cougars. Anything else come to mind? Are these wrong?

- Notre Dame refuses to play West Virginia; West Virginia not an ACC candidate
- Texas refuses to play Houston; Houston not a XII candidate

Laws

To qualify here, a state law or university system requirement must say that two or more schools must be in the same conference or must all be in power conferences if not together. I've heard rumors about Oklahoma/Oklahoma St, Kansas/Kansas St, and Virginia/Virginia Tech - but haven't heard anything definitive. I've also heard that North Carolina St cannot move, for example, to the SEC without North Carolina's blessing. Are these true? What else is out there?

- Oklahoma / Oklahoma St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Kansas/ Kansas St must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- Virginia / Virginia Tech must both be in the same conference or both in separate power conferences
- North Carolina St moving conferences is at the approval of North Carolina

"Rules"

These would be conference requirements, written or unwritten, for a school to join as a member. Some examples: the PAC will not accept an actively religious institution (sorry, BYU) and the B1G strongly prefers (borderline requires) AAU status and the school to be in a state within or contiguous with the current geography. Any changes or additions?

- PAC: no actively religious institutions
- B1G: AAU status; within or contiguous to current geography

FWIW - I would rename your three criteria as:
1) Relationships
2) Politics
3) Biases

Each conference and individual schools have them. The broader category is intangible selection factors.

(07-31-2020 09:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  SEC “Gentleman’s agreement” to not approve membership of Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville Georgia Tech or any other program in a state where they already have a school.

(07-31-2020 01:20 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 09:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  SEC “Gentleman’s agreement” to not approve membership of Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Louisville Georgia Tech or any other program in a state where they already have a school.

Of course, the SEC was built on two teams per state:

LA: LSU, Tulane
MS: Ole Miss, Miss. St.
AL: Alabama. Auburn
GA: Georgia, Georgia Tech
TN: Tennessee, Vanderbilt

(07-31-2020 02:19 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I was radically opposed to it for a long time but I could live with Clemson as an SEC member at this point. It would knock them down a peg and perhaps with them in the fold the powers that be would actually start caring about that game and South Carolina

(07-31-2020 02:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-31-2020 02:19 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I was radically opposed to it for a long time but I could live with Clemson as an SEC member at this point. It would knock them down a peg and perhaps with them in the fold the powers that be would actually start caring about that game and South Carolina

Gamecock, ESPN put that clause in the SEC's media contract because they feared the luring away of Clemson and F.S.U. from the ACC, a league that ESPN created for a low cost high profit control of schools that they could use as leverage with the Big 10 and SEC. And I'm not talking about realignment leverage, I'm talking about other ways into the SEC's and Big 10's footprints for advertising. As long as F.S.U. was not in the SEC then the SEC couldn't make full rates for advertising in the Sunshine state, although ESPN could owning rights to FSU and Miami from the ACC and then South Florida and Central Florida from the AAC.

This is why I cautioned some against pandering to the networks wishes for the Footprint Subscription Fee model which was destined to be replaced by the only factor that ever mattered in broadcasting, actual viewers.

The footprint model was designed to break up large population states between various conferences so that the networks didn't have to pay premium advertising profits to the conferences. It is why Notre Dame is so very important to ESPN. Notre Dame is the back door into a majority of Northern Midwestern Cities otherwise controlled by the Big 10. It is why Florida State was crucial for ESPN to land in the ACC (a property they were eyeballing at the time) and to keep them out of the SEC. It is why Texas was so pissed off at A&M leaving for the SEC. It screwed up the Big 12's leverage in Texas with regard to monopolizing ad rates.
And it is why Chapel Hill was so adamantly opposed to N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC. Had ESPN pulled off that ploy then all of the large Southeastern and Southwestern states where football is a religion would have been split between various conferences, ad rates would not have been expected to bolster contract values, but ESPN would still have owned the rights to everyone giving them the lock on the ad rates.

The renegotiation clause was in the SEC contract to keep the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida and South Carolina. It wasn't needed in Georgia where the Dawgs hold about an 85-15 advantage over Tech in state viewership.

There was never an institutional blackball of anyone. There was only network manipulations to try to keep conferences from gaining leverage, and trying to break up the leverage that some had already.

Taking the Big East schools of note into the ACC was withholding presence in New England from the Big 10 who was already there with Penn State. The SEC was encouraged to grow Westward because ESPN wanted some of those properties and didn't want the SEC's eyes on the East and the ACC.

Way too many people think this is all about conferences and their desires. It's not. The conferences merely seek to acquire the schools the networks tell them they will pay them more to get.

We have long needed commissioners who worked for the conferences more than the networks. But most of the early conference commissioners of the post '92 era have been contract lawyers who worked in sports contracts for the networks before they were hired by the conferences. While that may seem wise to some it does question whether they see themselves as arbitrators for the conference and networks combined, or see themselves as advocates for the conference. It's been a very mixed bag.

With the advent of streaming and the conference network structure requiring production facilities at each school, the germane question is why do network deals at all when we can produce and market our own product and keep all of the ad revenue? Conservative estimates put the per school payout with that kind of system in 300 million range per year for the top schools. Right now we are letting them rent our product, make us pay for onsite production and let them give us 50% of the so called profits after their accountants discount everything under the sun to get the profit ledger down and the bring it down a lot. One example would be the cost of your play by play guys at S.C. is baked into our budget. If we produced and sold our own games each school would use their own play by play people. ESPN wouldn't get to deduct the high dollar salaries of their play by play people (who seldom know the teams and chronically talk over the plays about crap that has nothing to do with the game we are watching) and deduct that cost from our shared profit totals.

This practice allows them to keep way more than just 50% of the NET profits. Now I ask you how stupid is that of the ACC and SEC?

(07-31-2020 10:01 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Liars will not be rewarded for their actions.