(11-27-2015 01:57 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/di...eep-844007

The time/money pressure theory seems to apply here. If this trend accelerates, which is possible, we could have a situation where Disney would find it impossible to hold on to the properties they have now. Already they've let go of the motorsports rights to other companies.

To me, they grossly overestimated their market power when it comes to using the cable/satellite model to exact greater profits. The contracts for MLB and Monday Night Football continue to baffle me. College sports are relatively cheap compared to those two but even there there may be a real need to make cuts or ship off a few rights to other venues.

The Big Ten rights will be a major test of this new emerging reality. Does Disney decide to pull back or reduce themselves to only the marquee games to save money? Do they start subleasing more football games like they do with basketball?

Whatever happens there might be repercussions to the conferences years down the road. Knowing how political college administrators are they may tell AD's that there won't be as much of an increase in funds as in the past. Less money in increases may mean a deflationary effect on salaries. At least in theory. Human doesn't follow theory. College sports have a mind of its own. No where else would there be a booster campaign to pay a man $20 million to not coach a team.

Still, there may be more programs in the future looking to cut salaries than raise them if the media trends hold. That will surely going to have a great effect on the composition of CFB.

What you are saying is the reality. There is a winnowing of those schools who cannot afford the competition coming in the not so distant future. Almost three years ago I tried to tell this board that in the end these movement would have implications upon not only the athletic departments of these schools but eventually upon the academic mission of the schools themselves.

Forget football for a moment. There are fewer general job skills needed now than 10 years ago and that trend will only get stronger. The skills that are needed are quite specific and not entirely included in the larger set of general knowledge areas that universities purposefully require to round out the knowledge base of students.

There is even a movement nationally to standardize high school education through the teaching of online courses. Georgia has been a test market for this concept for the past few years. A group of about 5-6 thousand high school students have been attending class at home on line. This saves a struggling education system the requirement to provide transportation for them, food for them, and the potential overhead of classroom space as a whole. Those students learning at home have been exceeding the material covered in the traditional classroom settings. They attend functions at the local high school for music, sports, and club level events but the transportation is provided by parents. The vision is that if this proves itself to be beneficial to the students, as well as the school system, then redundant high schools within a district can be closed. Students with learning issues will attend one school. All of the others will receive online education. In many districts this can reduce the overhead of the school system and the burden to the taxpayer by as much as 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the present expense. Needless to say the need for teachers in the classroom will be replaced by the very best lecturers being available on dvd. Books can be obtained for Kindle or traditionally.

So Transyc the point I'm making is that the future of Universities might well follow this path for non lab non research courses. Directional state schools might well wind up being focused upon specific disciplines for which job skills or professional proficiency was need. The result of this kind of change will mean probably no more than 1 or 2 state universities in most states and many converted smaller schools to specified training.

The realignment going on right now has much greater significance than just sports. Small privates will be on their own as universities. The largest and most research intensive of these will become like quasi publics (kind of the reverse of Pitt). Inclusion in the P5 or P4 will not only mean big time athletics, but in all likelihood inclusion in more joint research projects, and most professional disciplines.

Philosophy, Social Science, History, Languages, etc. will become the domain of the DVD courses required for some rounding in the first two years. Classroom space, and live course instructors will be for research courses, and professional disciplines (engineering, law, medicine, and even agriculture).

I also said a couple of years ago that the money would go up until the networks had what they wanted and that then it would start to go down. I didn't consider the end of bundling which is upon us. In the end the top 65 or so schools will wind up with less sports revenue. Loss of upward mobility for young people, rising costs of food and land due to increased population, will all contribute to less disposable income for even some of the brightest. Coaches salaries will fall. But so will the holy grail of professional sports. People simply won't be able to afford the tickets and with the leverage existing with the networks they will simply pay less because advertising values will be going down as well.

Add to that the growing concussion issue and the total life of most contact sports will be about 8 years of competition anyway. I look for even less violent competition in football, soccer, lacrosse and other sports of their nature. I can foresee peewee and junior high ball being low contact events that stress once again the fundamentals of the sport and team play. High School sports and College sports won't change much. Professional sports may wind up being more cheaply replaced by college sports.

The cost of liability, the stadia, the transportation, and the front office expenses in many cases by local tax dollars will come to an end. I'm ahead of myself I know but I see this as a likelihood by mid century, long past my time here.

So what you are saying will come. If schools like North Carolina and Texas care about their little brothers they will need to make this happen sooner rather than later. If not, we wait 5 - 6 years and watch the name brand top research schools get picked off for P4 expansion and watch their less viable names and lesser research schools relegated to specific tasks for job preparation by the less than professional disciplines. Along with that transition will be the likely loss of major sports.

That's what I see coming.

54:

Three 18 school conferences is possible if not likely. Three 20 team conferences is also a possibility. We'll see. If we move now we get the field of 64 or 65. If we wait there will be simply no reason to pay for the inclusion of those who do not profit the whole.

I could see a future where MLB, NBA, NHL and maybe even NFL go direct-to-consumer or streaming plus network exposure (if the OTA networks still exist then). That would take the pro sports hammer away from the networks and could save the position of college sports. But with those other factors you mentioned it may not matter as much.

(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

Going by the numbers listed in this post:



Southeastern Conference

01.) The University of Alabama - $150,620,199
02.) Louisiana State University - $138,914,636
03.) University of Florida - $130,772,416
04.) Auburn University - $126,647,970
05.) The University of Tennessee-Knoxville - $121,837,383
06.) Florida State University - $121,319,469
07.) University of Arkansas - $116,166,428
08.) University of Georgia - $116,151,279
09.) University of South Carolina-Columbia - $113,172,545
10.) University of Kentucky - $110,450,933
11.) Texas A & M University-College Station - $110,004,867
12.) University of Missouri-Columbia - $83,943,459
13.) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - $81,298,133
14.) University of Mississippi - $81,024,639
15.) Clemson University - $76,979,261
16.) North Carolina State University at Raleigh - $76,839,435
17.) Vanderbilt University - $70,661,736
18.) Mississippi State University - $68,150,018


Big Ten Conference

01.) Ohio State University - $170,903,135
02.) University of Michigan-Ann Arbor - $132,336,025
03.) Pennsylvania State University - $127,930,142
04.) University of Wisconsin-Madison - $125,790,567
05.) University of Notre Dame - $121,260,381
06.) University of Iowa - $107,404,210
07.) University of Minnesota-Twin Cities - $105,561,601
08.) University of Nebraska-Lincoln - $103,763,277
09.) Michigan State University - $93,878,291
10.) Indiana University-Bloomington - $87,265,729
11.) University of Virginia - $87,059,237
12.) University of Maryland-College Park - $86,863,794
13.) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - $85,288,270
14.) Purdue University - $75,474,370
15.) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - $74,469,976
16.) Northwestern University - $70,028,074
17.) Georgia Institute of Technology - $65,304,486
18.) Rutgers University-New Brunswick - $65,125,833


Pacific-12 Conference

01.) The University of Texas at Austin - $179,555,311
02.) University of Oklahoma-Norman - $135,660,070
03.) Stanford University - $109,670,730
04.) University of Southern California - $105,919,366
05.) University of Washington-Seattle - $103,540,117
06.) University of Kansas - $103,326,170
07.) University of California-Los Angeles - $96,912,767
08.) University of Oregon - $85,823,502
09.) Oklahoma State University - $85,645,208
10.) University of California-Berkeley - $85,539,904
11.) University of Arizona - $85,370,219
12.) Arizona State University-Tempe - $83,706,393
13.) Kansas State University - $76,245,188
14.) Oregon State University - $72,133,762
15.) Texas Tech University - $69,858,256
16.) University of Colorado Boulder - $67,852,236
17.) Washington State University - $66,143,776
18.) University of Utah - $64,629,551


Totals

SEC - $1,894,954,806

B1G - $1,785,707,398

PAC - $1,677,532,526


Average

SEC - $105,275,267.00

B1G - $99,205,966.56

PAC - $93,196,251.44


Median

SEC - $111,811,739

B1G - $90,572,010

PAC - $85,592,556


Thoughts:

The SEC could gain even more under this scenario, assuming that the numbers for FSU and Clemson increase with a more energized fanbase. Virginia Tech's #s should also rise with an SEC association. Not so much NCSU with its focus on basketball but any port in a storm, right?

Georgia Tech's numbers look pretty low and could explain the rumors about them looking elsewhere about two years ago. Putting them in a division with old ACC rivals and Notre Dame would help those numbers, plus OOC with FSU or Clemson every year.

The PAC/B12 looks pretty much even, with the Texsa/OU numbers being the most prominent. However, the numbers for the bottom PAC schools appear to act as a drag on the rest of the group.

(11-28-2015 02:06 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 07:20 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Think in terms of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State to the PAC; Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson to the SEC; North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Notre Dame to the Big 10.

Going by the numbers listed in this post:



Southeastern Conference

01.) The University of Alabama - $150,620,199
02.) Louisiana State University - $138,914,636
03.) University of Florida - $130,772,416
04.) Auburn University - $126,647,970
05.) The University of Tennessee-Knoxville - $121,837,383
06.) Florida State University - $121,319,469
07.) University of Arkansas - $116,166,428
08.) University of Georgia - $116,151,279
09.) University of South Carolina-Columbia - $113,172,545
10.) University of Kentucky - $110,450,933
11.) Texas A & M University-College Station - $110,004,867
12.) University of Missouri-Columbia - $83,943,459
13.) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - $81,298,133
14.) University of Mississippi - $81,024,639
15.) Clemson University - $76,979,261
16.) North Carolina State University at Raleigh - $76,839,435
17.) Vanderbilt University - $70,661,736
18.) Mississippi State University - $68,150,018


Big Ten Conference

01.) Ohio State University - $170,903,135
02.) University of Michigan-Ann Arbor - $132,336,025
03.) Pennsylvania State University - $127,930,142
04.) University of Wisconsin-Madison - $125,790,567
05.) University of Notre Dame - $121,260,381
06.) University of Iowa - $107,404,210
07.) University of Minnesota-Twin Cities - $105,561,601
08.) University of Nebraska-Lincoln - $103,763,277
09.) Michigan State University - $93,878,291
10.) Indiana University-Bloomington - $87,265,729
11.) University of Virginia - $87,059,237
12.) University of Maryland-College Park - $86,863,794
13.) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill - $85,288,270
14.) Purdue University - $75,474,370
15.) University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - $74,469,976
16.) Northwestern University - $70,028,074
17.) Georgia Institute of Technology - $65,304,486
18.) Rutgers University-New Brunswick - $65,125,833


Pacific-12 Conference

01.) The University of Texas at Austin - $179,555,311
02.) University of Oklahoma-Norman - $135,660,070
03.) Stanford University - $109,670,730
04.) University of Southern California - $105,919,366
05.) University of Washington-Seattle - $103,540,117
06.) University of Kansas - $103,326,170
07.) University of California-Los Angeles - $96,912,767
08.) University of Oregon - $85,823,502
09.) Oklahoma State University - $85,645,208
10.) University of California-Berkeley - $85,539,904
11.) University of Arizona - $85,370,219
12.) Arizona State University-Tempe - $83,706,393
13.) Kansas State University - $76,245,188
14.) Oregon State University - $72,133,762
15.) Texas Tech University - $69,858,256
16.) University of Colorado Boulder - $67,852,236
17.) Washington State University - $66,143,776
18.) University of Utah - $64,629,551


Totals

SEC - $1,894,954,806

B1G - $1,785,707,398

PAC - $1,677,532,526


Average

SEC - $105,275,267.00

B1G - $99,205,966.56

PAC - $93,196,251.44


Median

SEC - $111,811,739

B1G - $90,572,010

PAC - $85,592,556


Thoughts:

The SEC could gain even more under this scenario, assuming that the numbers for FSU and Clemson increase with a more energized fanbase. Virginia Tech's #s should also rise with an SEC association. Not so much NCSU with its focus on basketball but any port in a storm, right?

Georgia Tech's numbers look pretty low and could explain the rumors about them looking elsewhere about two years ago. Putting them in a division with old ACC rivals and Notre Dame would help those numbers, plus OOC with FSU or Clemson every year.

The PAC/B12 looks pretty much even, with the Texsa/OU numbers being the most prominent. However, the numbers for the bottom PAC schools appear to act as a drag on the rest of the group.

1. I agree that in a P3 that N.D. is forced to join and that the Big 10 would be their only legitimate choice if North Carolina and Virginia were there as well.

2. The cultural fits are better in this scenario, not just the financial fits.

3. The only other thing to remember is that those schools joining the SEC and Big 10 would likely see 20 million a year more in revenue in either of those two conferences. So their placement with regard to the static members of those two conferences would be slightly higher than their placement based upon current earnings.


And per our earlier posts the biggest upside in profits for networks would be with college sports, and in an economy controlled by corporate interests professional sports would suffer. They would suffer because disposable income for the working class would go down, and because being corporately controlled entities those in power would see little need in keeping the present salary structure because there would be many willing to play for less.

JR, it would make sense to replace Vanderbilt in the SEC with Louisville (or West Virginia)and Northwestern in the B1G with Iowa State (or Louisville/West Virginia)
The "out" conference could build with Navy, Houston, UConn, Tulane, SMU etc. to form a really decent league

I think there is room for 20 in each league.

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State to the PAC

Florida State, Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pitt to the SEC

North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, Notre Dame to the B1G

If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

(11-28-2015 10:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 10:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

(11-29-2015 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 10:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

Well first of all I don't disagree with your assessment and I still think that the Big 12 is geographically positioned to make this kind of parsing more probable and that a P4 is more likely. But assuming that the PAC, SEC and Big 10 survive in this scenario then the schools you mention dropping would likely be grandfathered in meaning that only the weakest of the Big 12 and ACC would be cut. But that is for the parameters of this thread.

Cutting the schools you mention in all conferences could only take place with the establishment of a higher bar of participation and with some kind of new association being formed. Could that eventually happen? Sure. But, right now the P4 solves the most issues, guarantees the greatest number of total members, and therefore provides those used to winning the greater total of wins and the higher % of wins versus total games played. In a pool of 54 the biggest issue would be brands that are accustomed to 8 or 9 wins being an average season would be looking at 6 wins as being an average season and that would be a heckuva tough adjustment for them and their fans.

Right now the best way out of this mess is what everyone assumed over two years ago:
Big 10: Kansas & Iowa State
ACC: West Virginia
SEC: Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U., or Texas Tech
PAC: Texas, Kansas State and two of (Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., and Texas Tech)

That places 9 and no existing members of the PAC, Big 10, ACC, or SEC are required to move.

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

In the event it's purely about profit, I don't see all the conferences ending up with the same number. The valuations would be different for each league.

For the PAC, I could see them taking Texas and Oklahoma with Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as the price. I don't see anyone wanting Kansas State and I don't think the politicos will harm Kansas by forcing them to stay together. That market is too small to take both of those programs in a pure profit valuation. The PAC could take Iowa State as their final new market. 18 for the PAC.

I could still see the SEC going to 20 with the right combo. Let's say FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, and Pitt. Two brands in existing markets, NC and VA schools, and tapping the PA market to round things out. If it's purely about money, I think the PA market is too big to be left off the table for the SEC. Pitt wouldn't add anything to the B1G by contrast.

The B1G could add value with 20 as well with Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, and Boston College.

(11-29-2015 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 10:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

Well first of all I don't disagree with your assessment and I still think that the Big 12 is geographically positioned to make this kind of parsing more probable and that a P4 is more likely. But assuming that the PAC, SEC and Big 10 survive in this scenario then the schools you mention dropping would likely be grandfathered in meaning that only the weakest of the Big 12 and ACC would be cut. But that is for the parameters of this thread.

Cutting the schools you mention in all conferences could only take place with the establishment of a higher bar of participation and with some kind of new association being formed. Could that eventually happen? Sure. But, right now the P4 solves the most issues, guarantees the greatest number of total members, and therefore provides those used to winning the greater total of wins and the higher % of wins versus total games played. In a pool of 54 the biggest issue would be brands that are accustomed to 8 or 9 wins being an average season would be looking at 6 wins as being an average season and that would be a heckuva tough adjustment for them and their fans.

Right now the best way out of this mess is what everyone assumed over two years ago:
Big 10: Kansas & Iowa State
ACC: West Virginia
SEC: Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U., or Texas Tech
PAC: Texas, Kansas State and two of (Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., and Texas Tech)

That places 9 and no existing members of the PAC, Big 10, ACC, or SEC are required to move.

The way I have always understood it JR was the ACC would end up with West Virginia and South Carolina.
The SEC would get Oklahoma, Oklahoma State/Kansas State and Baylor and the PAC would acquire Texas, Texas Tech, TCU and the other one of the pair (Oklahoma State/Kansas State) and the no one gets left out.

Lex parsimoniae.

(11-29-2015 04:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 10:04 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to take a third Texas program I think UH presents a greater growth opportunity than TCU. That's just an educated guess. The RRR alone could cover DFW. Play a few more games in Jerry's Stadium OOC to get maximum exposure there. Houston is where there would need to have a more concerted effort due to more competition there.

Could UConn become more valuable than Syracuse if 20 is the final number?

Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

Well first of all I don't disagree with your assessment and I still think that the Big 12 is geographically positioned to make this kind of parsing more probable and that a P4 is more likely. But assuming that the PAC, SEC and Big 10 survive in this scenario then the schools you mention dropping would likely be grandfathered in meaning that only the weakest of the Big 12 and ACC would be cut. But that is for the parameters of this thread.

Cutting the schools you mention in all conferences could only take place with the establishment of a higher bar of participation and with some kind of new association being formed. Could that eventually happen? Sure. But, right now the P4 solves the most issues, guarantees the greatest number of total members, and therefore provides those used to winning the greater total of wins and the higher % of wins versus total games played. In a pool of 54 the biggest issue would be brands that are accustomed to 8 or 9 wins being an average season would be looking at 6 wins as being an average season and that would be a heckuva tough adjustment for them and their fans.

Right now the best way out of this mess is what everyone assumed over two years ago:
Big 10: Kansas & Iowa State
ACC: West Virginia
SEC: Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U., or Texas Tech
PAC: Texas, Kansas State and two of (Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., and Texas Tech)

That places 9 and no existing members of the PAC, Big 10, ACC, or SEC are required to move.

The way I have always understood it JR was the ACC would end up with West Virginia and South Carolina.
The SEC would get Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (or Kansas State) and Baylor and the PAC would acquire Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Kansas State (or Oklahoma State) and the no one gets left out.

Lex parsimoniae.

Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-28-2015 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Remember the title of the thread guys. Time, Money, and No Brokering is the title.

The monetary disparity is the pressure for further movement.
The time is waiting out the GOR's which means that no brokering would be required to land the desired schools. That means that only value additions would be taken and that the networks and conferences could maximize revenue without fear of lawsuits by those they do not select.

This is why a 54 school model is laid out in this thread. At 60 or a 3 x 20 you have schools getting in that don't add to the bottom lines of the remaining P3 conferences.

So understand the parameters here. I purposefully initiated this thread to show that if the Oklahoma's and Texas's of the world really care about their little brothers then they had better move prior to the end of the GOR's or nobody will bite on the less profitable schools. The same is true of the ACC. So there you have it. There would be no motivation whatsoever to move to 20 each because the money is much better at 18 in this scenario.

Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

Well first of all I don't disagree with your assessment and I still think that the Big 12 is geographically positioned to make this kind of parsing more probable and that a P4 is more likely. But assuming that the PAC, SEC and Big 10 survive in this scenario then the schools you mention dropping would likely be grandfathered in meaning that only the weakest of the Big 12 and ACC would be cut. But that is for the parameters of this thread.

Cutting the schools you mention in all conferences could only take place with the establishment of a higher bar of participation and with some kind of new association being formed. Could that eventually happen? Sure. But, right now the P4 solves the most issues, guarantees the greatest number of total members, and therefore provides those used to winning the greater total of wins and the higher % of wins versus total games played. In a pool of 54 the biggest issue would be brands that are accustomed to 8 or 9 wins being an average season would be looking at 6 wins as being an average season and that would be a heckuva tough adjustment for them and their fans.

Right now the best way out of this mess is what everyone assumed over two years ago:
Big 10: Kansas & Iowa State
ACC: West Virginia
SEC: Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U., or Texas Tech
PAC: Texas, Kansas State and two of (Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., and Texas Tech)

That places 9 and no existing members of the PAC, Big 10, ACC, or SEC are required to move.

The way I have always understood it JR was the ACC would end up with West Virginia and South Carolina.
The SEC would get Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (or Kansas State) and Baylor and the PAC would acquire Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Kansas State (or Oklahoma State) and the no one gets left out.

Lex parsimoniae.

Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

*A&M can not carry Texas for the SEC even with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

South Carolina helps balance the ACC north to south.
Keeps Clemson happy.
Provides Georgia Tech with a close rival with a good traveling fan base.
Everybody in the league already dislikes them.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

(11-29-2015 04:35 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:08 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 11:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  Which is why it make no sense that you left some of the weak links in the PAC (Washington State, Utah), SEC (Vanderbilt, Mississippi State) and the B1G (Purdue, Rutgers, Northwestern) on your list of keepers. You even included Georgia Tech as a keeper (I suppose for location), but excluded Louisville and Dook which have much larger budgets.
Every conference has weak links. If it really is only about money why not pare down to 32 like the NFL? I suspect that to keep fan interest and promote regional "water cooler competition" the entire 65 will have to be kept and a way found for the richer to share to keep their less fortunate competitors financially afloat.

Well first of all I don't disagree with your assessment and I still think that the Big 12 is geographically positioned to make this kind of parsing more probable and that a P4 is more likely. But assuming that the PAC, SEC and Big 10 survive in this scenario then the schools you mention dropping would likely be grandfathered in meaning that only the weakest of the Big 12 and ACC would be cut. But that is for the parameters of this thread.

Cutting the schools you mention in all conferences could only take place with the establishment of a higher bar of participation and with some kind of new association being formed. Could that eventually happen? Sure. But, right now the P4 solves the most issues, guarantees the greatest number of total members, and therefore provides those used to winning the greater total of wins and the higher % of wins versus total games played. In a pool of 54 the biggest issue would be brands that are accustomed to 8 or 9 wins being an average season would be looking at 6 wins as being an average season and that would be a heckuva tough adjustment for them and their fans.

Right now the best way out of this mess is what everyone assumed over two years ago:
Big 10: Kansas & Iowa State
ACC: West Virginia
SEC: Oklahoma and either Oklahoma State, Baylor, T.C.U., or Texas Tech
PAC: Texas, Kansas State and two of (Baylor, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., and Texas Tech)

That places 9 and no existing members of the PAC, Big 10, ACC, or SEC are required to move.

The way I have always understood it JR was the ACC would end up with West Virginia and South Carolina.
The SEC would get Oklahoma, Oklahoma State (or Kansas State) and Baylor and the PAC would acquire Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and Kansas State (or Oklahoma State) and the no one gets left out.

Lex parsimoniae.

Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

*A&M can not carry Texas for the SEC even with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

South Carolina helps balance the ACC north to south.
Keeps Clemson happy.
Provides Georgia Tech with a close rival with a good traveling fan base.
Everybody in the league already dislikes them.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Are you calling West Virginia and Connecticut the DEVIL again??? And as far as A&M goes they get us paid for the whole state. It doesn't matter if they actually carry all of it or not.

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

OU, OSU, Baylor, and Kansas/West Virginia?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. OU is the key piece. As long as we get them then I can live with a lot.

(11-29-2015 08:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

OU, OSU, Baylor, and Kansas/West Virginia?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. OU is the key piece. As long as we get them then I can live with a lot.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on your suggestions but I think we go to just 16 and stay there a while before ever moving on to 18 or 20. Right now there are only 4 schools that add to the bottom line in any kind of significant way. If we could get all 4 then 18 would be doable. But if we must only take 2, or work around to no more than 16, then I just don't see the financial incentive at this point (uncertainty of the cable mode) to grow even larger.

(11-29-2015 08:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

OU, OSU, Baylor, and Kansas/West Virginia?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. OU is the key piece. As long as we get them then I can live with a lot.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on your suggestions but I think we go to just 16 and stay there a while before ever moving on to 18 or 20. Right now there are only 4 schools that add to the bottom line in any kind of significant way. If we could get all 4 then 18 would be doable. But if we must only take 2, or work around to no more than 16, then I just don't see the financial incentive at this point (uncertainty of the cable mode) to grow even larger.

I've been hoping against hope that all of this would end with the next round. I'm ready to get to the final product and quit worrying about this stuff.

(11-29-2015 08:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

OU, OSU, Baylor, and Kansas/West Virginia?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. OU is the key piece. As long as we get them then I can live with a lot.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on your suggestions but I think we go to just 16 and stay there a while before ever moving on to 18 or 20. Right now there are only 4 schools that add to the bottom line in any kind of significant way. If we could get all 4 then 18 would be doable. But if we must only take 2, or work around to no more than 16, then I just don't see the financial incentive at this point (uncertainty of the cable mode) to grow even larger.

I've been hoping against hope that all of this would end with the next round. I'm ready to get to the final product and quit worrying about this stuff.

I totally understand and agree with that sentiment.

(11-29-2015 08:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:38 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 08:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 04:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Parsimony could apply here. We'll see. I just don't know why the ACC would want South Carolina since you have Clemson and why South Carolina who enjoys a financial windfall over their instate rival would want to go.

What would make sense out of your scenario is Oklahoma and Oklahoma State wanting the SEC to pick up a second Texas school. That way they are physically present in Texas every year by rotating home and away between Texas A&M and Baylor. OU would be in Dallas probably twice a year with scheduling arrangements to play Baylor and A&M there and with the RRR.

OU, OSU, Baylor, and Kansas/West Virginia?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. OU is the key piece. As long as we get them then I can live with a lot.

I'm not trying to throw cold water on your suggestions but I think we go to just 16 and stay there a while before ever moving on to 18 or 20. Right now there are only 4 schools that add to the bottom line in any kind of significant way. If we could get all 4 then 18 would be doable. But if we must only take 2, or work around to no more than 16, then I just don't see the financial incentive at this point (uncertainty of the cable mode) to grow even larger.

I've been hoping against hope that all of this would end with the next round. I'm ready to get to the final product and quit worrying about this stuff.

I totally understand and agree with that sentiment.

To a point that you have made more than once JR, this mess needs to be over and soon for the good of college football. The average and above average fan is tired of the unsettling nature of the entire realignment process and more than anything wants stability and a clear path forward.