(06-18-2022 03:52 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 03:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:48 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:26 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 02:10 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  Truth. I'm on record saying this exact same thing for over ten years. A SEC24 10 game season would be sweet; however, I do not think Kansas or Duke make a SEC24 and it's one of the reasons why I think we might see a SEC28. Same concept but 6 division opponents, 3 permanent cross division opponents and 6 rotating cross division opponents totalling 15 conference games. Think bigger. When the SEC announced they are considering dropping scholarship limits that is why. Same with increasing the number of coaches. Players are paid now and are about to be paid more, and the NFL has already determined how long a regular season go and protect the sport.

That's an efficient 20 designed to cover all major men's and women's sports. While the NFL has a solid model, they don't offer an education, aren't bound by Title IX, and don't play an array of sports. So, I approach building a college conference holistically. How do you build a regional conference which covers championship quality for all major men's sports and women's sports, keep it highly profitable (branding) and do it efficiently (20)?

Football: amply covered, Basketball: The 4 winningest programs of all time and other historically solid programs, Baseball: Obviously highly competitive nationally, Softball: Dominant, Women's Basketball: Highly competitive, Gymnastics: Highly competitive to dominant.

And Branding? As dominant as any 20 schools regionally aligned can be.

The SEC must get VT. It is one of the most valuable pieces on the board. I think the chances of both Virginia schools getting invites is greater that just UVA. Neither can get left behind. VT is a must get. They dominate the State of Virginia. NCS cannot get left behind for political reasons and overall long term value. Duke actually can get left behind in a SEC24 because UNC and NCS only has to play Duke, not be conference members with them. Duke’s branding is tremendous, but not guaranteed to be permanent, and it's small size could be disqualifying in the final analysis.

1. Duke is a UNC requirement and a B1G stopper. They aren't negotiable. They also have money, and generate solid revenue numbers while hoops are still NCAA handicapped.

2. Virginia essentially stops any path into the SE when taken with Duke and UNC. Georgia Tech doesn't generate enough revenue to be taken on an island. So these 3 are strategic. If basketball is freed revenue for that sport will increase times 2.25 and every conference wants eyes on their winter sports. N.C. State and Va Tech don't deliver eyes throughout the year like UNC and UVa. They solidly deliver in the Fall.

3. You want 24. Okay. So if Kansas, Duke, UNC, and UVa take the SEC to 20, they balance out all of our sports with top branding (and academics as presidents vote on these moves). Your move to 24 is then simple: Clemson, FSU, N.C. State and Virginia Tech.

The issue is this leaves ESPN with not much to build value for conference #2 and to make these moves early 2 things need to happen. The second conference needs to be able to make money, remain appealing enough to ND for ESPN to hold them in place, and generate enough to permit a payoff large enough to eclipse ACC and B12 payouts which frees the movement for all.

This is why 20 schools work best for ESPN. The new conference is a solidly improved one football wise. Keeping those schools intact within the ESPN ensures season ending cross conference rivalries are maintained, a guarantee needed by schools in both the SEC and new conference, and most importantly it locks up the advertising for everything including and South of Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas. And by keeping Notre Dame and having Texas Tech and BYU ESPN has an entrance to Big 10 cities for marketing and West Coast time zone slots to cover. And should they go after USC's rights as an independent ESPN locks up even more and owns USC/ND.

Anyway while 24 could happen, I see more reasons why 20 would be better for the Network. And why would ESPN pay Duke and UVA more and elevate Kansas? Because Duke and UVa would be defensive moves which are absolutely necessary and Kansas has been valuable enough to ESPN to get special T3 deals. And inside the SEC Kansas could be a dynamic value escalator for hoops, especially if Duke and UNC come along. ESPN is thinking about swiping BB headliners which have football programs which balance a top heavy talent pool and elevate hoops and appease the academics. It's a win win win.

JR, we agree on most, but where we disagree is I believe when it comes to conference realignment 1) money matters and money matters and nothing else really matters; and 2) with the changes that are coming to college football and probably basketball preserving the ACC is not a primary concern for ESPN. That does not mean it does not value each property it owns and would live to find a home for them all the while making money from each. It's just not the primary concern. See number one above as to what the primary concern is.

They primary value of ESPN's ACC deal is that it gives them control over these properties just like the LHN gave ESPN leverage over UT's decisions. That is why the contract is so long. Of course they make money under the current setup, but ESPN sees the future of college football and its primary concern is to maximize it's revenue by owning all of the media rights to one half of the new top tier and at least one half of the media rights of the other half. Just like it always have; but making more money.

I understand your point of view. I simply don't think the solution will be as monolithic as money. And finding a solution which appeases those which would have options should 2035 arrive without a solution, and isolating competition, and still selling the moves to presidents at Florida, Vanderbilt, Missouri, A&M, and Texas as well as those at Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma will be essential. Now add to that mix the Head Coaches who think we may be getting too strong and you find harmony outside of just money.

Who is it that blocks the most reasonable football additions in the ACC? Which ACC schools tout elitism? You remove the obstacle with cash and other elite associations which don't require abandonment of rivalries and regional culture and which do not pose a major threat to their key sport.

With Duke along UNC keeps NC State OOC in football and Wake easily in hoops. And UNC elevates themselves even more over both. It's all in the "Art of the Deal". ESPN keeps what they want, regional advertising dominance. They hold all the product they've built. They have room left for major steals of dissatisfied properties in other conferences.