(08-07-2017 02:11 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-06-2017 08:19 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well ATU did some of the look up so thanks to him as well, but from a discussion on another board I had learned that those three were within a year of one another. But you are welcome. This is another reason that I believe movement will happen sometime between 2019 & 2021.

The 8 Big 12 schools not named Texas and Oklahoma need leverage. Since the Big 12 has decided not to extend it's current GOR that means those 8 are on the clock, not the other way around. They have more to gain by agreeing to early movement for some concessions than they have by waiting for the end of the GOR. When the GOR is up in the 2024 season neither the networks, nor the departing schools will have any reason to surrender damages for an exhausted G.O.R., nor will will they have any reason to enter into scheduling arrangements with any of the other 8, nor will they owe any exit fees.

Therefore, if they are to gain any consideration the sooner they agree to let the bigger brands move the more they will get. Why? Because if the bigger brands stand to make more money with their moves (and they will) then the more they make and the longer they can make it, means the better positioned they will be to leave the 2 years worth of exit fees, agree to scheduling arrangements which may be key to the ticket priorities of the schools left behind, and possibly even leave a negotiated sum for the GOR damages. And if the bigger brands make money that means the networks will be making money sooner as well. That could be parlayed into network help in rebuilding a nice new Big 12 or in transitioning to another G5 conference with a nice war chest. If they wait, or force everyone else to wait they get nothing.

Now as for the networks, right now because the time frame on the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and PAC are all converging and because ESPN holds the T2 & T3 of the SEC and all of the ACC rights, the two networks are better positioned for cooperation than ever before. I suppose it would not be out of the realm of possibility for the PAC to be parsed between the Big 10 and Big 12, and placement of the Big 12 properties is easier to accomplish prior to the new contracts in 2025. So the networks have options. And since FOX and ESPN hold rights in the PAC, Big 10 and Big 12 jointly any movement between those three is theoretically possible.

In other words if we are ever to move to a P4 the time is upon us. And if the networks want to do it without interference from streaming entities it is in their self interest to work together to get it done early.

The current silence on the subject of realignment by the Big 10, PAC, Big 12 and SEC could easily be indicative of the silence that NDA's place on the process until contracts are signed.

What has made me suspicious that things may be farther along than many realize is that Sankey publicly shut down a Finebaum question about possible additions during SEC media days by saying to Paul, "we aren't going to talk about that." He didn't say the usual "we are fine at 14 but if a real jewel was interested we would listen" schtick. And then the only press releases out of the Spring meetings were a denial that Auburn moving to the East would be discussed (2 year old dead news) and that a vote would be held on the graduate transfer rules to allow the N.D. QB to transfer to Florida (took about 15 minutes to approve). Three days of meetings produced no more than that.

Boren leaves the Big 12 media days saying everything was looking up (even though none of his demands had been met).

It's been crickets out of the Big 10 meeting other than to state the obvious that Hulu will carry Big 10 games (since FOX / ESPN both are stakeholders in Hulu why is this news?).

And the PAC only discussed minutia.

So I ask you this, if nothing is going on why all of the Spring meetings without enough news in 3 days to fill the first half hour on an agenda? Why not some worry and acrimony out of the Big 12? Something's afoot.

There's too much at stake for the networks, brands, and conferences moving toward 2024 for nothing to be happening, and too much silence for too many hours of closed door meetings with the presidents of the major conferences for the news we've gotten.

I think we are in the information blackout period that occurs after a vote of acceptance for membership has occurred and before the attorneys hammer out all of the details for the new conference contracts to be signed. FOX and ESPN can extend present contracts after moves and renegotiation and cut their future competition out while each buys time to see where the market is heading on football and cable and that gives them time to prepare more effectively for the coming transition.

Who goes where, and what concessions have been given and received to accomplish it I don't know. But it seems clear that motive and opportunity exist and the absence of news and chatter seem to indicate that the legal phase is underway.

Now whether that is the absorption of the Big 12, or something more unforeseen pertaining to the PAC remains to be seen. But by the end of this football season things may get very interesting for all of us. We'll see.

It's hard to argue with your logic.

I was having a discussion with a friend just yesterday about the new streaming options available. He just signed up for DirecTV Now. He's getting everything he wants for about $50 a month although he still has to purchase internet service. When DirecTV and AT&T got together, I guess this was their brainchild.

Makes sense that the cable companies themselves and not just media companies will start transitioning to streaming. Rumor is that Comcast is developing one of their own. They're a big internet provider too so they could probably really cash in on the new technology.

If I'm ESPN and FOX then I would probably prefer the cable companies be the streaming providers so that there's less disruption to the system.

Anyway, if I'm the networks then it does make sense to transition to the new model of college athletics as soon as possible so that new competitors can't enter the market.

The only thing I can't wrap my head around is the idea of certain conferences taking schools that don't really help their bottom line. If there were plenty of valuable properties to go around then you could easily bribe a league into taking someone they didn't really want so they could land the school that padded their profit margin. The Big 12 doesn't seem to have enough valuable pieces to make that a viable option for more than one or two leagues.

The only answer to that dilemma is that the networks would have to make some of those lesser schools worth our while.

Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State to the PAC is not wholly unreasonable.

West Virginia to the ACC is not unreasonable.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC are not unreasonable.

Kansas to the Big 10 is not unreasonable either. Does UConn go with them?

That's everybody but T.C.U. and Baylor. You could argue that T.C.U. goes to the PAC instead of Kansas State because of Dallas. If only Kansas State and Baylor are left out and 8 is enough to dissolve the conference what have you lost? A toxic program that currently nobody would want and a school with the worst all time football record in the FBS if you take away Snyder's years.

But let's look at something else which is actually much simpler:
Kansas, Kansas State, Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC.
Iowa State and West Virginia to the ACC and N.D. remains an independent.

Why Iowa State? They add to ESPN's penetration into the Big 10 markets. Notre Dame delivers large cities such as Cincinnati, Chicago, Indianapolis, and part of N.Y. City.

What about T.C.U. instead? I don't know if the ACC would go for this but having a school in Dallas / Ft. Worth would be huge for their new network launch. So maybe it's T.C.U. and West Virginia for them instead.

We can call the new Texas/Kansas foursome Bevo-hawk instead of Texa-homa and I think the PAC would go for it.

So tell me why the PAC would go for two brands and their brothers?

I think the SEC could do much worse than the pair of Oklahoma schools.

And the ACC adding West Virginia for branding and T.C.U. for markets, or Iowa State for academics is not wholly unrealistic either.

Is their a football first school in the ACC that wouldn't like to have some exposure in DFW? I don't think so.

So as long as 8 is not unreasonable dissolution is possible.