(10-21-2015 09:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 09:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 09:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think anyone is getting kicked out of the P5. I don't think things will work out so neat and clean as to have a P4 with 16 teams each. I just don't see a reason it would work that way even though it's very symmetrical when looking down from above. Which brings me to a point, there's no central authority with the ability to make that happen.

ESPN is powerful, but not powerful enough to override every other player's interests. FOX has a say. Each league has a say. No one is on a leash to anyone else.

It has been messy thus far and I don't see a reason it won't be messy going forward.

16 will be messy because there will be casualties. At 18 there are only lucky tickets in and nobody in the present 65 gets left out. Seven get included. That's a big difference especially when the greatest economic break is at the 71st position. While some think 18 impractical it actually doesn't affect scheduling and everyone still plays everyone else in a conference in 3 years. But that's okay, I'll just sit back and watch how they pull this together politically. I don't think it will be 16, at least in the end.

When I say messy I mean that I don't necessarily see each league ending up with the same number. Think about what we've got now:

ACC: 15
SEC and B1G: 14
Pac 12: 12
Big 12: 10

How many good options does the PAC have? Does the ACC really add to their bottom line without ND and Texas joining fully? It will be hard for the SEC to grow beyond 16 or 18 without breaking into the ACC. The B1G has their snobbery so there aren't very many options for them. Could the Big 12 back-fill after a raid and end up with more than 10?

All interesting questions.

The ACC could stop at 15 with ND and go with divisionless play. 8 games with 2 permanent and 6 rotating takes 2 years to play everyone. I think everyone likes having divisions because it gives teams something to play for late in the year. That being said, if ND joined, I would imagine the football faction in the ACC could hold their nose and take UConn if it came to that (if Texas, WVU, Cincinnati and others were not available). Interesting hypothetical question: if the Big12 already took Houston and Cincinnati, would the football faction prefer Memphis over UConn in that case?

(10-21-2015 09:44 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 08:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 08:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 07:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-20-2015 09:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Agree that OU and okie at to the SEC is most likely. However, I am a believer in the GOR keeping the status quo for the next 10 years. I don't see anyone with an appetite to engage in that legal battle. Texas is ok with status quo, or so it seems. OU is not, but can't move until 7 others do. As long as Texas isn't one of them, it holds together.

First things first.
IF we indeed are moving to a 4 x 16, then the first question is going to be the toughest. What about Notre Dame?
If there is to be 4 x 16, then Notre Dame HAS to join a conference and at least one of the 65 P5 schools is going to be out, or we will have to "work around" with 3 x 16 and 1 x 16+1.
After the Notre Dame question can be answered, then and only then can we start to make projections.

Well then, let's play multiple choice:

Should the ACC...
1. Issue the Irish an official ultimatum.
2. Make Wake and Connecticut an everything but football member and move to 16 full football members with Notre Dame and two others (Texas and another Texas school).
3. Tell Louisville that their academics were worthy while they were making strides, that is until they were caught making something else. Keep Wake full time and add Notre Dame, Texas, and another more academically sound Big 12 private.
4. Boot the Irish and add Texas and Rice or T.C.U.

If Notre Dame is "in", then which school(s) that are already "in" is "out".
Wake Forest, TCU, and Kansas State could all be candidates for ouster.

The one that is in is the one whose students can solve the subject verb tense issues of your first sentence. Seriously though if the Irish are in then you need only add one and shouldn't have to expel anyone. So who do the Irish want? Connecticut, West Virginia, Texas, Cincinnati, or someone else?

Every time you add a G5 school the pool of P5 schools is expanded and the pool of money that is at some point finite feeds more and more mouths.
Realistically none of the schools that your have listed (even Texas) is not a "fit" for the ACC. So the choice would have to be made on the basis of market or network assisted shifting of another P5 school from another conference into the ACC.
In the case of market: Texas is the only real "market" play. Texas would be successful in the east as a novelty, but would the ACC play well to a Texas audience, even with a few friends tagging along?
A merger with the B1G would result in a northeast division of: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Louisville, Rutgers, and Maryland. Add in West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Notre Dame for a pretty sweet 10 team league to go along with the other 10 team league of VT, UVa, Carolina, Wake Forest, NC State, Dook, Clemson, GT, Florida State and Miami. The B1G then can go back to 11 or add Iowa State/Kansas to get to 12.

Not to be out done the SEC could then annex the Big 12 to divide into two conferences. I would go with:

East
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Kentucky.

West
LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas /Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, Texas, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech.

I think the SECN could make a fortune that line up.

The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

(10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

(10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

(10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.

(10-22-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.

And, pray tell, how is that going to tick off ESPN's "better investment"?
You are still sharing the same markets that you have been sharing. You have acquired an exciting brand of football, locked up a huge and growing market, divided your major competitor into thirds, gotten a solid basketball conference (with the ability to grow your own through inter-league play without getting embarrassed), absorbed a conference that is a better cultural fit than the ACC, North East Conference, or the Big Ten, and have given up absolutely nothing.

The B1G isn't going to absorb the ACC. The SEC isn't going to absorb the Big 12. Critical lack of interest by all parties I think.

I don't imagine ESPN is going to broker a deal between the SEC, Big 12, and ACC, but if they do then it would probably look something like this...

Virginia Tech and NC State moving to the SEC

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Baylor moving to the SEC

SEC:

Texas A&M, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas State
Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State
Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, NC State, Virginia Tech

The SEC gains vital markets and strong brands.

Then...

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Iowa State, and West Virginia to the ACC

Also, Notre Dame joins fully along with Cincinnati

ACC:

Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas, Iowa State
Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Notre Dame
Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest, West Virginia
Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville

The ACC gains greater football strength despite losing VT and NCSU. They diversify markets which is crucial to establishing a strong network. They also strengthen their basketball product which is the identity of the conference.

(10-23-2015 07:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 03:58 PM)XLance Wrote:  The PAC stays just as they are at 12.

Then we are back to what amounts to 6 conferences. 3 x 10 and 3 x 12 for a total of 66 schools. Everybody that was, is and we only had to add 1 (Cincinnati) for balance in the NEC (North East Conference)
We can then move to an 8 team playoff. With 6 conference champions and TWO at-large teams.

An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.

And, pray tell, how is that going to tick off ESPN's "better investment"?
You are still sharing the same markets that you have been sharing. You have acquired an exciting brand of football, locked up a huge and growing market, divided your major competitor into thirds, gotten a solid basketball conference (with the ability to grow your own through inter-league play without getting embarrassed), absorbed a conference that is a better cultural fit than the ACC, North East Conference, or the Big Ten, and have given up absolutely nothing.

Texas and Oklahoma add to the bottom line. Kansas less so. After that we are losing money by the number of snouts at the conference trough. And in the meantime we gain only two AAU schools while the Big 10 slides down the Eastern Seaboard into Florida. Nice try though!

To make a move to 20 or 24 and to have B.C., Pitt, Cuse, N.D., UVa, UNC, Duke, and Ga Tech move to the Big 10 would by necessity have to involve at the minimum Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Louisville to the SEC. Why?

Kentucky, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina would have to have their in state rival games protected within a conference that large because the likelihood and ease of playing those rivals out of conference would be extremely tough. And because adding the states of Kansas & Oklahoma would need to be balanced by a representative from North Carolina and Virginia to even keep the money the same as it is now.

But to show you further how absurd the whole notion is, there is no way in hell that the Big 10 is going to dilute their product that much either. They would take Duke to get U.N.C. and Virginia. They might even take Virginia Tech, .....might? But AAU will be a sticking point for their presidents. N.D. would get in. Syracuse they could make an exception for as well. B.C.? Pitt is redundant and doesn't add that much athletic value at all (outside of hoops and the Big 10 is already blessed in that regard). Pitt would be a net revenue loss. There is no way they are adding N.C. State with Duke and UNC already on board and Wake is simply out. Georgia Tech is as far South as they would go. I can't see them picking up Miami but they might.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc., and possibly Louisville would just be out. Florida and South Carolina are fairly adamant about wanting to protect their rivalry games, Kentucky not so much and the SEC might prefer someone else in that slot.

It is your redundancy of schools within key states that hurts the ACC already. Why would the SEC or Big 10 want to absorb that? They wouldn't and they don't have to do so. And won't do so.

Ideally the SEC and Big 10 if they went large would settle on 20.

Syracuse, Notre Dame, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Georgia Tech make the most money and add the most cachet for them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson do the same for the SEC. If Texas wants the PAC to protect the other Texas schools then perhaps Kansas gets that slot.

Personally I think Texas would come on board.

Pitt, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Colorado State, Brigham Young, Houston, West Virginia could then form a New Conference or take the old Big 12 name if they wished. The PAC would stay at 12.

12 + 16 + 20 + 20 = 68

Wake is out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, Colorado State and B.Y.U. are in.

So if you are going to take the tack that you are pursuing what I outlined is more profitable and much more likely than what you propose. The ACC isn't moving wholesale to any conference. There is simply too much dead weight. Ditto for the Big 12.

(10-23-2015 08:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 07:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 07:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  An interesting concept. However I have noticed a few things. The ACC still doesn't have a network. The ACC is still economically disadvantaged. The ACC still has property coveted by wealthier conferences who have the time to wait without having to accommodate and pay for schools like Baylor, T.C.U., Iowa State, West Virginia, etc.

You'd better pray that Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas sate the expansion lusts of the Big 10 and SEC because guess what? If they don't you eventually will. There are 3 brands and one little brother worth having out of the 10 team Big 12. There are at least 10 schools that could easily find value in other conferences out of the ACC.

Time, pressure, and a lousy economy are on the side of your adversaries. Even ESPN feels that pressure.

JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.

And, pray tell, how is that going to tick off ESPN's "better investment"?
You are still sharing the same markets that you have been sharing. You have acquired an exciting brand of football, locked up a huge and growing market, divided your major competitor into thirds, gotten a solid basketball conference (with the ability to grow your own through inter-league play without getting embarrassed), absorbed a conference that is a better cultural fit than the ACC, North East Conference, or the Big Ten, and have given up absolutely nothing.

Texas and Oklahoma add to the bottom line. Kansas less so. After that we are losing money by the number of snouts at the conference trough. And in the meantime we gain only two AAU schools while the Big 10 slides down the Eastern Seaboard into Florida. Nice try though!

To make a move to 20 or 24 and to have B.C., Pitt, Cuse, N.D., UVa, UNC, Duke, and Ga Tech move to the Big 10 would by necessity have to involve at the minimum Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Louisville to the SEC. Why?

Kentucky, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina would have to have their in state rival games protected within a conference that large because the likelihood and ease of playing those rivals out of conference would be extremely tough. And because adding the states of Kansas & Oklahoma would need to be balanced by a representative from North Carolina and Virginia to even keep the money the same as it is now.

But to show you further how absurd the whole notion is, there is no way in hell that the Big 10 is going to dilute their product that much either. They would take Duke to get U.N.C. and Virginia. They might even take Virginia Tech, .....might? But AAU will be a sticking point for their presidents. N.D. would get in. Syracuse they could make an exception for as well. B.C.? Pitt is redundant and doesn't add that much athletic value at all (outside of hoops and the Big 10 is already blessed in that regard). Pitt would be a net revenue loss. There is no way they are adding N.C. State with Duke and UNC already on board and Wake is simply out. Georgia Tech is as far South as they would go. I can't see them picking up Miami but they might.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc., and possibly Louisville would just be out. Florida and South Carolina are fairly adamant about wanting to protect their rivalry games, Kentucky not so much and the SEC might prefer someone else in that slot.

It is your redundancy of schools within key states that hurts the ACC already. Why would the SEC or Big 10 want to absorb that? They wouldn't and they don't have to do so. And won't do so.

Ideally the SEC and Big 10 if they went large would settle on 20.

Syracuse, Notre Dame, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Georgia Tech make the most money and add the most cachet for them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson do the same for the SEC. If Texas wants the PAC to protect the other Texas schools then perhaps Kansas gets that slot.

Personally I think Texas would come on board.

Pitt, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Colorado State, Brigham Young, Houston, West Virginia could then form a New Conference or take the old Big 12 name if they wished. The PAC would stay at 12.

12 + 16 + 20 + 20 = 68

Wake is out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, Colorado State and B.Y.U. are in.

So if you are going to take the tack that you are pursuing what I outlined is more profitable and much more likely than what you propose. The ACC isn't moving wholesale to any conference. There is simply too much dead weight. Ditto for the Big 12.

You keep talking as if the SEC and the ACC are in control. Ha!
If Skipper wanted to sell the ACC media rights contract to the Russians or the Red Chinese just what do you think that the SEC could do to stop it? Absolutely nothing.
Even if Skipper traded all or a portion or all of the ACC contract to FOX/B1G for B1G tier one rights, what are you going to do...hold you breath until you turn blue? It won't matter.
Adding two widgets together and dividing the whole into three widgets so they can be marketed separately is a pretty easy way to make a handsome profit while increasing the value of your assets.

(10-23-2015 12:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 08:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 07:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:48 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-22-2015 08:28 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, I'm surprised. The ACC wouldn't need a network, we would just fall in under the umbrella of the B1G network just as the Big 12 would be covered by the SECN. I do imagine that FOX would have to give ESPN a percentage or some exclusive broadcast rights ( but that's for the business folks to work out).
Why would it work? Because FOX and ESPN could both make lots of money, plus it would force the PAC to to turn over their network or be buried. Who wins? Looks like the networks for sure.

ESPN isn't going to tick off it's better investment just to provide you with some schadenfreude.

And, pray tell, how is that going to tick off ESPN's "better investment"?
You are still sharing the same markets that you have been sharing. You have acquired an exciting brand of football, locked up a huge and growing market, divided your major competitor into thirds, gotten a solid basketball conference (with the ability to grow your own through inter-league play without getting embarrassed), absorbed a conference that is a better cultural fit than the ACC, North East Conference, or the Big Ten, and have given up absolutely nothing.

Texas and Oklahoma add to the bottom line. Kansas less so. After that we are losing money by the number of snouts at the conference trough. And in the meantime we gain only two AAU schools while the Big 10 slides down the Eastern Seaboard into Florida. Nice try though!

To make a move to 20 or 24 and to have B.C., Pitt, Cuse, N.D., UVa, UNC, Duke, and Ga Tech move to the Big 10 would by necessity have to involve at the minimum Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, & Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Louisville to the SEC. Why?

Kentucky, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina would have to have their in state rival games protected within a conference that large because the likelihood and ease of playing those rivals out of conference would be extremely tough. And because adding the states of Kansas & Oklahoma would need to be balanced by a representative from North Carolina and Virginia to even keep the money the same as it is now.

But to show you further how absurd the whole notion is, there is no way in hell that the Big 10 is going to dilute their product that much either. They would take Duke to get U.N.C. and Virginia. They might even take Virginia Tech, .....might? But AAU will be a sticking point for their presidents. N.D. would get in. Syracuse they could make an exception for as well. B.C.? Pitt is redundant and doesn't add that much athletic value at all (outside of hoops and the Big 10 is already blessed in that regard). Pitt would be a net revenue loss. There is no way they are adding N.C. State with Duke and UNC already on board and Wake is simply out. Georgia Tech is as far South as they would go. I can't see them picking up Miami but they might.

Cincinnati, West Virginia, etc., and possibly Louisville would just be out. Florida and South Carolina are fairly adamant about wanting to protect their rivalry games, Kentucky not so much and the SEC might prefer someone else in that slot.

It is your redundancy of schools within key states that hurts the ACC already. Why would the SEC or Big 10 want to absorb that? They wouldn't and they don't have to do so. And won't do so.

Ideally the SEC and Big 10 if they went large would settle on 20.

Syracuse, Notre Dame, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina and Georgia Tech make the most money and add the most cachet for them.

Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Florida State and Clemson do the same for the SEC. If Texas wants the PAC to protect the other Texas schools then perhaps Kansas gets that slot.

Personally I think Texas would come on board.

Pitt, Connecticut, Cincinnati, Louisville, Miami, Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Colorado State, Brigham Young, Houston, West Virginia could then form a New Conference or take the old Big 12 name if they wished. The PAC would stay at 12.

12 + 16 + 20 + 20 = 68

Wake is out. Connecticut, Cincinnati, Colorado State and B.Y.U. are in.

So if you are going to take the tack that you are pursuing what I outlined is more profitable and much more likely than what you propose. The ACC isn't moving wholesale to any conference. There is simply too much dead weight. Ditto for the Big 12.

You keep talking as if the SEC and the ACC are in control. Ha!
If Skipper wanted to sell the ACC media rights contract to the Russians or the Red Chinese just what do you think that the SEC could do to stop it? Absolutely nothing.
Even if Skipper traded all or a portion or all of the ACC contract to FOX/B1G for B1G tier one rights, what are you going to do...hold you breath until you turn blue? It won't matter.
Adding two widgets together and dividing the whole into three widgets so they can be marketed separately is a pretty easy way to make a handsome profit while increasing the value of your assets.

You're nuts if you think any large American Corporations think only of the next few years. They don't have the SEC sewed up that for that long. And to alienate the member schools of the SEC would have some fairly severe long term consequences which just happen to be in direct contradiction to the obvious goals of the Mouse. And your precious Skipper would lose his position faster than a bullfrog catches a bug. I take it as an example of just more East coast self inflation. To have very little to contribute to major college athletics you guys sure do think the world revolves around your little niche. But, that has always been the symptoms of those who were second and third generation nouveau riche and why they are always surprised when their delusions are abruptly ended by reality. Outside of 100 year old tobacco money most of the Carolina hills were populated by dirt farmers which would be a grand heritage if not resented by the spoiled children and grandchildren trying to impress big city crooks, kiss politicians' arses, and distance themselves from their humble but honest roots. Hence lacrosse and all of the spoiled children of the wealthy seeking a sport where poor kids don't stomp Buffy and Jody into the dirt.

Your connections, and precious Skipper, won't make any difference in the end. The ACC is 100% at the disposal of ESPN and is merely a compilation of schools designed to be leverage for both the SEC and Big 10's much larger audiences. If not for the accident of Notre Dame you'd already be brokered.

Alas, the Big 10 and SEC aren't so easily disposed of, even to the Russians.

I had a regular golf game( at Sedgefield in Greensboro ...birthplace of the ACC) with the Director of Purchasing for P. Lorillard for years (Notre Dame Grad). He was always entertaining his vendors. I asked why things were backwards for him (why weren't the vendors entertaining him). He told me that there were so few vendors in the Tobacco industry, that his company needed the vendors more than they needed them.
So it is in the sports broadcast industry. There is much more product (some good, some not so good) than there are outlets to put it on the air.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the PAC, B1G or the SEC....you can be replaced. It doesn't matter whether ESPN owns 100% or 50%, they can do whatever they want and you don't have a choice unless you think Chinese ratings will pay your bills or Russian recruits can power your programs.

(10-23-2015 08:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  I had a regular golf game with the Director of Purchasing for P. Lorillard for years (Notre Dame Grad). He was always entertaining his vendors. I asked why things were backwards for him (why weren't the vendors entertaining him). He told me that there were so few vendors in the Tobacco industry, that his company needed the vendors more than they needed them.
So it is in the sports broadcast industry. There is much more product (some good, some not so good) than there are outlets to put it on the air.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the PAC, B1G or the SEC....you can be replaced. It doesn't matter whether ESPN owns 100% or 50%, they can do whatever they want and you don't have a choice unless you think Chinese ratings will pay your bills or Russian recruits can power your programs.

Except people won't just watch anything. They need a viable product. The viability of the P5 product is taking hits every day as many more of what were dedicated fans say "screw it." "I'm tired of $1500 contributions to buy two seats for $1100 to sit in a location where I can remotely view the game while luxury boxes are sold to the corporate honchos for 100,000 plus per box for 6 games and every square inch of my once lovely stadium is covered with corporate logos."

They want to be able to play the same schools pretty much every year, enjoy seeing the same folks around them, to be able to talk to those folks over the canned noise that is supposed to produce artificial excitement for the TV, and they are tired of athletes who are as likely to mug or rape their kids while they are at college as they are to see meaningful playing time on the field or court. They are also getting sick of the constant changes made to what they want to be a touchstone to happier days and warm memories.

I got pissed this year when an old friend of ours lost her better half and on the day of the funeral the ticket office called to inform her that her donation needed to go up if she was to keep her same tickets. She told them to go to hell. More power to her. Corporate America doesn't give a damn about the schools or alumni or their feelings for their school and that is where the real prostitution is going on, only not by basketball coaches so much as trustees, BOR members, the president and the AD's who sell everything dear to us to those uber alien influences who monetize everything down to a more comfortable stadium cushion because they outlawed bringing your own in.

IMO they are killing the geese that laid the golden eggs in love, service, endowments, and a sense of esprit de corps with their fellow graduates. It started happening when our Congressmen quit their personal replies to our letters because our paltry contributions paled in comparison to lobby money from big business. Now the school whizzes on long adoring alums because the corporate rep crooks his finger with another cheesy way to turn a buck.

The funeral issue was the final straw for us. Her husband had been a long time faculty member even if not in a major research role and the gross insensitivity of the Athletic Department was just one more concrete illustration of how the school doesn't give a hoot about those who have given their lives to it.

I'm fine with letting the whole overpriced thing collapse into a heap of thug loving ashes. We've spent enough time glorifying what too frequently are the stupidest and most worthless of society and elevating them wrongly to a status above common entertainer. But we should have known that when they made more than some neurosurgeons upon their premature departures from our institutions of higher learning.

The pursuit of sports money has humiliated some of the finest academic institutions in the nation. But hey it's no different than the dog and pony show we call politics. They are all a bunch of blow snorting narcissists who think the laws and rules exist for everyone else but themselves. At least the athletes don't vote themselves a different retirement system when their corrupt legislation renders ours vulnerable to bankruptcy, or grant themselves immunity from the laws that govern the rest of us.

It is so disgusting that finally real America is tuning out and turning off, only this century not to acid thank God.

College football has been one of the last precious family events for Americans across the nation. Now it is anything but family friendly. IMO the death of college football popularity along with that of college basketball is just around the proverbial corner. I think it dies with the Boomers.

Also broadcasting every game makes me not even want to watch the number of games I used to watch. I'd take in three games on a good Saturday when my school was playing away and watch every play of all three. Now I barely finish one per Saturday. I do other things and walk by and check the score. I get sick of commercials the way I got sick of the loud artificial noise at the stadium. I get sick of instant replays when they don't need them and really ticked when they do need them and refuse to buzz down. What a sham. The kids don't play defense, I despise the high school air raid ball, and I actually now pity those who still care with all their hearts what happens.

So yeah. It's time to end this crap. It's time to re-institute academic standards and make them static across the nation. And it's time for the alumni to take back a little bit of their schools attention even if that means empty stadiums and arenas for a while to get that attention. After all Joe blow T-shirt fan doesn't get as puffed up drinking his suds and bloviating at work if his adopted school's alums don't show up. He or she must blend with the real alums to feel empowered by proxy. So TV will notice when advertisers no longer want to pay them prime rates to sell unnecessary objects, unrealistic images, and life altering pharmaceuticals to the publicly educated morons of the nation.

It will be truly great if we survive all of this. My hope is just that my children and grandchildren may one day experience what I knew as the goodness of this nation and hold again a shared sense of obligation to our families and community. It was once an obligation that bound us to our neighbors (who we actually knew by name and visited). I would also love to know before I die that our colleges are once again the somewhat safe places of personal development that permit us to move into life together with a sense of purpose and belonging to something larger than ourselves and to go bravely into the world we share and to make it a better place.

(10-23-2015 08:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  I had a regular golf game( at Sedgefield in Greensboro ...birthplace of the ACC) with the Director of Purchasing for P. Lorillard for years (Notre Dame Grad). He was always entertaining his vendors. I asked why things were backwards for him (why weren't the vendors entertaining him). He told me that there were so few vendors in the Tobacco industry, that his company needed the vendors more than they needed them.
So it is in the sports broadcast industry. There is much more product (some good, some not so good) than there are outlets to put it on the air.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the PAC, B1G or the SEC....you can be replaced. It doesn't matter whether ESPN owns 100% or 50%, they can do whatever they want and you don't have a choice unless you think Chinese ratings will pay your bills or Russian recruits can power your programs.

There are more outlets today than there were 5 years ago. The reason? The sports broadcast industry has been growing in part thanks to new technology that makes live sporting events of greater value to advertisers.

Content can be replaced to a certain degree, but not infinitely and not necessarily to the same quality when done even once. The networks own a certain amount of leverage, yes. The leagues and their members own a certain amount of leverage as well because there will always be a loyal fan base that is school specific, not sport specific.

I think ultimately that is a reason these GOR agreements may be built on flimsy ground because the schools will always own their own content. A brand new season of games is not like a work of art that is produced once and sold over and over again. Rather, the college sports product is reproducing itself anew every week, year after year, decade after decade.

Now certainly, the networks are necessary as a delivery mechanism to the masses, but let's not forget large entities like ESPN wouldn't exist if they couldn't pay others for the rights to broadcast their content. ESPN is so big now, of course, that they don't rely on solely the collegiate sports to fill time, but they'd make a lot less money by ticking off any of their producers.

(10-23-2015 09:34 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 08:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  I had a regular golf game( at Sedgefield in Greensboro ...birthplace of the ACC) with the Director of Purchasing for P. Lorillard for years (Notre Dame Grad). He was always entertaining his vendors. I asked why things were backwards for him (why weren't the vendors entertaining him). He told me that there were so few vendors in the Tobacco industry, that his company needed the vendors more than they needed them.
So it is in the sports broadcast industry. There is much more product (some good, some not so good) than there are outlets to put it on the air.
In other words, it doesn't matter if you are the PAC, B1G or the SEC....you can be replaced. It doesn't matter whether ESPN owns 100% or 50%, they can do whatever they want and you don't have a choice unless you think Chinese ratings will pay your bills or Russian recruits can power your programs.

There are more outlets today than there were 5 years ago. The reason? The sports broadcast industry has been growing in part thanks to new technology that makes live sporting events of greater value to advertisers.

Content can be replaced to a certain degree, but not infinitely and not necessarily to the same quality when done even once. The networks own a certain amount of leverage, yes. The leagues and their members own a certain amount of leverage as well because there will always be a loyal fan base that is school specific, not sport specific.

I think ultimately that is a reason these GOR agreements may be built on flimsy ground because the schools will always own their own content. A brand new season of games is not like a work of art that is produced once and sold over and over again. Rather, the college sports product is reproducing itself anew every week, year after year, decade after decade.

Now certainly, the networks are necessary as a delivery mechanism to the masses, but let's not forget large entities like ESPN wouldn't exist if they couldn't pay others for the rights to broadcast their content. ESPN is so big now, of course, that they don't rely on solely the collegiate sports to fill time, but they'd make a lot less money by ticking off any of their producers.

I agree with most of what you say. What I think that you would agree with is that SEC and B1G football is too big a product to be presented by just anybody. Would you only want SEC football available only through Raycom? Where would your national audience get their feed? How could expand your markets or promote your brand if SEC football was only on a regional network? Where would the BIG money come from?
My point was that the SEC, whether they like it or not, needs ESPN (or FOX) more that the networks need them. The money has gotten so big, that the income from television just can't be replaced by any other source. Not in stadium advertising, higher ticket prices, or alumni contributions. The conferences have become addicted to TV money and can no longer survive without it. If the SEC won't toe ESPN's line, there is another junkie down the line that would be willing to take the fix.