I am absolutely biased in terms of what I want to happen but my bias isn't about any particular University or Conference. What my bias portends to is the overall situation and where I would like to see College Football go. It just so happens that it is my opinion that the Networks share my opinion. I also think the Presidents would like to get to the same place so we can get to a position of Order. The Pressure for this movement will not cease until it happens. So why wait, they need to just get it done.

What is happening in January provides the perfect opportunity for it to happen. By opportunity, I really mean "Excuse".

The big problem I see with that is now you have television dictating the future of education in our country. That doesn't sound like a winning argument for the future of education in the country. The average test scores for college entrance exams during the time span that television has begun dictating who does what back my opinion here...

The nation keeps getting more and more stupid, and TV is a big contributing factor...

(10-01-2013 09:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The big problem I see with that is now you have television dictating the future of education in our country. That doesn't sound like a winning argument for the future of education in the country. The average test scores for college entrance exams during the time span that television has begun dictating who does what back my opinion here...

The nation keeps getting more and more stupid, and TV is a big contributing factor...

You may have a point but I do not take that into consideration when it comes to theorizing. I don't see how Television is dictating the education. It may be dictating the direction these Educational Universities go in terms of their Athletic Programs. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with the educational and academic aspect of these Universities.

I think you're underestimating the power and influence that the conferences are giving to TV. But that's just my opinion on the matter...

(10-01-2013 09:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am absolutely biased in terms of what I want to happen but my bias isn't about any particular University or Conference. What my bias portends to is the overall situation and where I would like to see College Football go. It just so happens that it is my opinion that the Networks share my opinion. I also think the Presidents would like to get to the same place so we can get to a position of Order. The Pressure for this movement will not cease until it happens. So why wait, they need to just get it done.

What is happening in January provides the perfect opportunity for it to happen. By opportunity, I really mean "Excuse".

Well it was pretty clear ESPN was one of the "invisible forces" that didn't want the Pac 16 to happen. They as much as said so. And they said they didn't like this last round of expansion. Swofford also was working the phones trying to convince people not to do it. He wanted the Big 12 to survive.

Fewer entities means more power for the conferences. The networks don't want their negotiating partners power consolidated.

So what makes you believe the networks actually want it?

(10-01-2013 10:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 09:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I am absolutely biased in terms of what I want to happen but my bias isn't about any particular University or Conference. What my bias portends to is the overall situation and where I would like to see College Football go. It just so happens that it is my opinion that the Networks share my opinion. I also think the Presidents would like to get to the same place so we can get to a position of Order. The Pressure for this movement will not cease until it happens. So why wait, they need to just get it done.

What is happening in January provides the perfect opportunity for it to happen. By opportunity, I really mean "Excuse".

Well it was pretty clear ESPN was one of the "invisible forces" that didn't want the Pac 16 to happen. They as much as said so. And they said they didn't like this last round of expansion. Swofford also was working the phones trying to convince people not to do it. He wanted the Big 12 to survive.

Fewer entities means more power for the conferences. The networks don't want their negotiating partners power consolidated.

So what makes you believe the networks actually want it?

Very good post and question. I wish we could still give rep for posts. But anyways.

I don't actually think the Networks want further realignment. Some ESPN execs have said as much in very direct fashion. What they have also said though is that they will try to guide the movement that is inevitable so that their Networks take as little of a hit as possible.

For me, that particular statement by an ESPN exec tells me that they will protect the ACC. Their actions also support that. ESPN has definitely held up the ACC. The Big 12 really doesn't have an equivalent champion. Fox does not get the Big 12 the same ratings that everyone else is getting on ESPN and ESPN is really being quite obvious in making it known that the Big 12 is their fifth choice when it comes to what programming makes it on TV.

So, if the Big 2 conferences still want to expand then they have the power to do that. ESPN will always have strong ties to the SEC and Big Ten. All this talk that the Big Ten is Fox territory is just silly. ESPN knows what they want and if it means expansion then ESPN is going to do what they can to insure they take as little of a hit as possible. The Big 12 is the solution to that problem for ESPN.

So I hope that somehow the above answered the question. It isn't that they Want expansion but they want to make sure that what expansion does happen works out the best for themselves.

Conference playoffs and an expanded national tournament will bring in massive money and fan interest. That will trickle down to the rest of the regular season as well. Expansion thus far has been costly to the Networks, they are ready for the pay off.

Generally I think the networks want things to stay the same. Anytime something big goes down they probably have a team of lawyers overseeing what goes on the air to keep their noses clean of tortious interference. That is, they simply can't be seen as supporting a gain for one conference that costs another, given that in most every case they have a contract on both sides of the table.

So what happened with rep points?

(10-02-2013 06:57 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Generally I think the networks want things to stay the same. Anytime something big goes down they probably have a team of lawyers overseeing what goes on the air to keep their noses clean of tortious interference. That is, they simply can't be seen as supporting a gain for one conference that costs another, given that in most every case they have a contract on both sides of the table.

So what happened with rep points?

You can only give someone rep by going to their profile and rating them.

In terms of Network Execs staying out of it...you should read that recent New York Times article on the subject. They got some very candid comments from some ESPN execs. Basically they admitted to telling the conferences who would be and wouldn't be good for expansion without telling the conferences what to do. They walk the fine line but they definitely do not stay out of it and that is by their own admission.

So an interesting question would be... What would it take for a conference to sue a network? Or really is that simply a place they don't want to go except in extreme cases -- "biting the hand that feeds you".

(10-02-2013 09:28 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So an interesting question would be... What would it take for a conference to sue a network? Or really is that simply a place they don't want to go except in extreme cases -- "biting the hand that feeds you".

Bingo. The only real issue the networks have left is who has control of which sports properties. Initially they didn't want consolidation because the means existed for conferences to produce and market their own product by buying satellite space. That loophole will be closed by the time the next round of contracts expire. Regulations will be in place to curtail such use by non profits. The latter is my opinion, but it is based on the length of the existing contracts in spite of the uncertain economic times. When that loophole is closed the networks need no longer fear collective bargaining. Why? The networks will be the only way to deliver the product and therefore the power will shift to the networks which will be able to cautiously control their offers so that all of them have lower overhead. Proving that kind of collusion will be very difficult. Both the Big 10 and PAC were wise in their initial moves to secure the means to deliver their products, but both have succumbed to the foot dragging and failure to attain distribution. They could have made a move to deliver their product directly bypassing the networks but either considered that route too risky, or too costly to pursue. But it was that potential threat that, again in my opinion, led to the large contracts for a decade plus. Next time around it won't be so great and could be less.

In the meantime dangling cash behind the scenes and denying their desire for more realignment publicly will allow them to shape the structure of college football and its playoffs to maximize national viewing right up until the semi-finals thereby maximizing their profits. Anyone who fails to acknowledge this as a real eventuality doesn't pay attention to what happens to once valued companies when a hostile takeover occurs.

The process always follows two steps. Segregate the most profitable product line to maximize its appeal. Sell off the minor or less productive product lines to jettison the dead weight.

Four conferences is a structure that can keep the four largest regions of the country energized. A logical format producing an on field champion is the most popular form for deciding a champion.

Minor product is being relegated to non prime time slots for much less money. And until realignment is complete less desired games will be sublet to local networks for distribution to cut overhead. Just look at what ESPN has done with Raycom which in turn sublet to FOX. The most popular product is being consolidated. The networks realized that the current college product was still undervalued, they calculated what they had to do to gain control, they executed the plan, they maintain their distance to deflect hostility from their corporate brand, they focus the hostility on the institution of college football itself, and they maximize their profits off of someone else's product. A product that I might add has the lowest production cost of any prime time popular programming. If folks don't get this, then oh well!

(10-02-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The process always follows two steps. Segregate the most profitable product line to maximize its appeal. Sell off the minor or less productive product lines to jettison the dead weight.

So lets say a school gets left at the alter. Hypothetically, a school in Texas with a law school and a lot of money.

Their conference disintegrates as 8 members bolt for 2 conferences. It's obvious that TV had a hand in making sure there was enough money to keep everyone happy in the destination conferences while at the same time claiming they will pay the former conference a "fair market value".

Does the school in Texas have a case against the networks? One that they would pursue.

(10-03-2013 06:48 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The process always follows two steps. Segregate the most profitable product line to maximize its appeal. Sell off the minor or less productive product lines to jettison the dead weight.

So lets say a school gets left at the alter. Hypothetically, a school in Texas with a law school and a lot of money.

Their conference disintegrates as 8 members bolt for 2 conferences. It's obvious that TV had a hand in making sure there was enough money to keep everyone happy in the destination conferences while at the same time claiming they will pay the former conference a "fair market value".

Does the school in Texas have a case against the networks? One that they would pursue.

It's one thing to know something in your heart, but it is another thing to prove it. Their only real chance would be if there was an insider within the networks who was willing to sacrifice their career by securing internal documents proving that the networks had indeed offered the sum prior to the conference which was expanding issuing the invitation. Then they might have a case. Otherwise they are just SOL. Since most conferences don't extend an invitation until they have a written inquiry (a method of avoiding a tortuous interference case) and since most networks wont discuss fair value until the written inquiry is in the hands of a conference which then inquires as to the market value of the school and since this places all of the potential liability upon the school submitting the official inquiry whose liability is limited by the protocol of the conference they are leaving, and since that conference's bylaws permit dissolution with the votes of 75% of the members to do so, and since an inquiry is considered due diligence among athletic departments to determine their potential market value, the answer is "No."

All schools voting for dissolution would only be in the inquiry phase. Once dissolution is obtained then they would formally submit applications which would then be received by a vote of acceptance by the members of the new conference which would then renegotiate their television contracts in which the networks would then submit actual figures of fair value for the additions of the new teams and none of that would be illegal.

But, should there be dissolution for the Big 12 the safest way to handle the breakup is simply to make sure all 10 find palatable new homes.

It would be pretty hard for all 10 big 12 school's to find viable homes if they dissolved. I think it would take a pac 20 concept, ship everybody in the big 12 but Kansas and WVU to the pac 12, than put KU in the big 10 and wvu in big 10, sec, or acc. Yet, i don't see the pac 12 interested in that lineup but if the networks forced it, who knows. I did see on the OU board, a strange rumor that about the big 12. They want to expand to 12 with 2 possible situations

1) wvu is unhappy and will try to get into the acc. In this case, the big 12 adds smu, tulsa and houston
2) big 12 will add Cincy and 1 of the 3 from smu, tulsa, and houston.

I could see wvu not like being on an island in the big 12 but i don't know how they get off. Of course, if i were running the acc and big 12 would let me take wvu, i would add them instantly to get to 16, so i would try to work out that deal. After wvu joined, the acc could go to navy or byu for a a football only pairing. OR jump to 18 with uconn or cincy to go with gtown. As for the big 12 adding smu, tulsa, and houston, that's crazy. The only way that makes sense is if its a short term move by texas and OU in hopes of eventually being able to ditch everybody. Bring in those school's to stabilize/regionalize the big 12, than in a few years, say the swc part 2 doesn't work, so texas and OU leave the kids in the big 12 and maybe join the big 10. I think the big 12 should add colorado state and byu football only. If wvu can get into the acc, than the big 12 should add usf or ucf.

Let Me ask a hypothetical question. Say WVU is freed from the island and Louisville is one of the schools that support, which I'm sure would be the case, for WVU's ACC admission. Would that help mend some of the animosity the WVU officials and fans posted against Louisville over the Big 12 invite a few years ago.

BYU and WVU to the ACC? What are you smoking dude? WVU has zero leverage right now. Their program has went into the crappers. The southern ACC schools are regaining their prowess. No need for WVU or BYU. ACC isn't going to add anyone for 16, unless ND comes in full time. Same with the Big 12. Tulsa? Seriously?

(10-03-2013 03:27 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Let Me ask a hypothetical question. Say WVU is freed from the island and Louisville is one of the schools that support, which I'm sure would be the case, for WVU's ACC admission. Would that help mend some of the animosity the WVU officials and fans posted against Louisville over the Big 12 invite a few years ago.

The majority of WVU fans have already forgotten it. IMO the only person who hasn't is Joe Manchin, who still has it in for Mitch...

(10-03-2013 03:42 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 03:27 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Let Me ask a hypothetical question. Say WVU is freed from the island and Louisville is one of the schools that support, which I'm sure would be the case, for WVU's ACC admission. Would that help mend some of the animosity the WVU officials and fans posted against Louisville over the Big 12 invite a few years ago.

The majority of WVU fans have already forgotten it. IMO the only person who hasn't is Joe Manchin, who still has it in for Mitch...

Yeah, I would hope so as we've also moved on and the Two schools had a decent relationship over the years.

(10-03-2013 04:20 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 03:42 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 03:27 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Let Me ask a hypothetical question. Say WVU is freed from the island and Louisville is one of the schools that support, which I'm sure would be the case, for WVU's ACC admission. Would that help mend some of the animosity the WVU officials and fans posted against Louisville over the Big 12 invite a few years ago.

The majority of WVU fans have already forgotten it. IMO the only person who hasn't is Joe Manchin, who still has it in for Mitch...

Yeah, I would hope so as we've also moved on and the Two schools had a decent relationship over the years.

The best BE football games after Louisville joined were the first few WVU-UofL games. We had some pretty good basketball games too, especially those last few games...

They were all down to the last minute affairs...

(10-01-2013 03:57 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I love idiots who think Jurich is leaving. It's evident they know not of what they speak. :-)

cool story bro

Thank you for proving my point, bub. Seriously, are Cincinnati fans that insecure these days? Why don't you focus on trying to mimic our success instead of wishing it was all somehow gone.