The time to broker second state schools into a P conference is ticking. When the GOR clocks run out so will the leverage that big name state schools will have in landing their in state rivals a seat at the table.

The existing structure solidifies the advantages of the the two most powerful of the P5. Eventually that growing gap in revenue coupled with the pressure to compete, will lead to more consolidation. This time it will be about brands, not so much the markets. If the GOR's have expired when that happens the P5 of 65 will shrink both in the number of conferences and the number of schools.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...venue-club

The long and short of this is that if the addition of another school doesn't make the SEC and Big 10 more money, they won't be added no matter what.

Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Kansas, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, and Florida State have brand, or markets valuable enough to make the move. Possibly Clemson, N.C. State, Oklahoma State and Georgia Tech could add value to either or the SEC and Big 10.

That's really about it and even that grouping is way too generous. Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Florida State are the preferred brands.

There are diminishing returns to spending all of this money. 18-20 year olds can only get so good, and if the talent pool is spreading then that means you'll be no "better" than before.

A decent IPF and stadium are all you need to win big if you have the right kind of coaching. The excess money that schools are spending really don't make their players THAT much better. To get that extra 1% you're spending stupid amounts of money...

If that's what it comes to, then so be it. In all honesty, I'm numb to the whole conference realignment situation. The next generations will be picking colleges to attend not based on pride or any collegiality. It will be all based on a purely transactional basis. I give you money, you provide me with the tools I need to extract value from the market place. Most will likely end up going to school in stages in the future. Spend your first 1 - 2 years at a 2 year school to take the "commodity" type classes, and select the degree of interest to get the specialized training at the "big name" schools. That will be the cycle moving forward. Does it matter where you learn calculus based physics, college chemistry or Calc 1, II and III? Anyone think Harvard has a mysterious "X factor" that makes their teaching of "Intro to American Literature" and "History of Ancient Philosophy" any more special than the local community college? Of course not. Your best and brightest profs who differentiate one school vs another is not teaching that Freshman or Sophomore course. You're getting the same shlubs regardless of school.

Higher education is pricing out the feeling of collegiality in students. Commoditization will do that. Just like no one cares anymore where they get their gas today vs. days of yesteryear when a tank of Texaco gas was perceived to be different than a tank of ARCO gas, no one will give a sh!t on whether that "Intro to Psych" class was taken at MIT or the local community college.

There are G5 schools making more money in football than some P5 schools. You might think that schools like BYU, Boise State, UCF, Cincinnati and East Carolina are ahead of teams in the ACC and PAC 12.

The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

(12-18-2015 12:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

If you read the article you get the point. You guys are reading this and thinking in sports terms. Of course you can compete. The issue is revenue. That's why they call it revenue sports and not minor sports. The difference is not in performance but in gaudy amenities.

The reality is that schools that consider themselves to be blue bloods will want the amenities too. It's called envy.

It has nothing to do with reality, only perception. The reality already is that the top 5% of students nationwide will remain more or less competitive in the work place regardless of the school they attended (unless its Ivy). The reason is they already possess the necessary tools to succeed.

Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

It's a very convenient form of denial and isolation.

But then there is also a more sobering reason for the uber grouping of schools.....a winnowing is coming in higher education and they don't want to be among those whose programs are going to be trimmed or eliminated.

This is just the beginning of things that will signal a paradigm shift in higher education. Athletics is just the excuse for forming the new groupings. It's really much more about economics than sports. Sports is just one component of the total revenue stream that these schools will be seeking.

(12-18-2015 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

The latter part is more tenuous, since only playing within their own P grouping will almost certainly result in a reduction in total wins by that grouping.

Indeed, the highest revenue conference in that group is the SEC, in which every school plays not just one step down from the P grouping, but also one team a year that is two steps down.

(12-17-2015 10:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  That's really about it and even that grouping is way too generous. Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke and Florida State are the preferred brands.

That's really it right there, and even Kansas might not be a 100% go. The B1G and SEC don't want the Oklahoma States, VT's, and NC States, they aren't worth $40 million a year.

You nailed it: For those two dominant conferences, the list of desired additions is very short and basically corresponds to what you have listed here.

(12-18-2015 02:10 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

The latter part is more tenuous, since only playing within their own P grouping will almost certainly result in a reduction in total wins by that grouping.

Indeed, the highest revenue conference in that group is the SEC, in which every school plays not just one step down from the P grouping, but also one team a year that is two steps down.

In the future, a lot less people will care. College affiliation won't mean what it used to mean. It will be nothing more than a means to an end.

(12-18-2015 12:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

While 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator does not automatically make the coaches better coaches or the coordinators better coordinators, it does that most schools that see success under a HC expect to see that HC sign a bigger money contract to coach somewhere else in the not too distant future.

Which offsets the opportunity for a coach to establish a winning resume at a Go5 school to allow the Go5 schools to compete for recruits against lower tier P5 schools that struggle to get wins.

Moves can be made to more closely align the "second tier" group. How much more would/could say, Kansas earn from joining the B1G? What would the gap between Ohio St and Kansas be within the confines of the B1G?

For the B1G:

There is an additional requirement to be a top research university. That gives a school like Georgia Tech a leg up. Same for other ACC schools like Duke and UNC.

Texas is nice, but would ruin the conference.

Oklahoma, not enough research.


Kansas would be good. (Kansas v Nebraska was just a volleyball semi-final ... could be three B1G teams, one day!)

Seems like there is more money to be made by the SEC and B1G through withdrawing from the NCAA. Was reading this article on the Rose Bowl:
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20151216...off-system

I had no idea they had to pay the NCAA $50 million dollars. Are the other 6 Bowls the same?

(12-18-2015 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

If you read the article you get the point. You guys are reading this and thinking in sports terms. Of course you can compete. The issue is revenue. That's why they call it revenue sports and not minor sports. The difference is not in performance but in gaudy amenities.

The reality is that schools that consider themselves to be blue bloods will want the amenities too. It's called envy.

It has nothing to do with reality, only perception. The reality already is that the top 5% of students nationwide will remain more or less competitive in the work place regardless of the school they attended (unless its Ivy). The reason is they already possess the necessary tools to succeed.

Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

It's a very convenient form of denial and isolation.

But then there is also a more sobering reason for the uber grouping of schools.....a winnowing is coming in higher education and they don't want to be among those whose programs are going to be trimmed or eliminated.

This is just the beginning of things that will signal a paradigm shift in higher education. Athletics is just the excuse for forming the new groupings. It's really much more about economics than sports. Sports is just one component of the total revenue stream that these schools will be seeking.

Not so fast. I understand your line of logic, but you'd need another 20 years of US decline before it comes to that. This is about athletic-side consolidation, and TV networks maximizing the value of the TV product.

If this was just about educational quality, then the P5 would look a LOT different than it does right now.

Also, how are you going to feel about your program when you have no games against teams you can beat on the schedule? A lot of the powerhouse programs got that way because they WIN. If they go on a decade run of 4-8 and 3-9 play, imagine what that's going to do to TV ratings. It won't be pretty.

The P5 are in an interesting situation. If they make the new top flight too big, then they lose potential revenue. If they make the new top flight too small, then they'll collapse in on themselves over time. Being an NFL lite is NOT the direction they should go in if they want money.

(12-18-2015 12:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  If that's what it comes to, then so be it. In all honesty, I'm numb to the whole conference realignment situation. The next generations will be picking colleges to attend not based on pride or any collegiality. It will be all based on a purely transactional basis. I give you money, you provide me with the tools I need to extract value from the market place. Most will likely end up going to school in stages in the future. Spend your first 1 - 2 years at a 2 year school to take the "commodity" type classes, and select the degree of interest to get the specialized training at the "big name" schools. That will be the cycle moving forward. Does it matter where you learn calculus based physics, college chemistry or Calc 1, II and III? Anyone think Harvard has a mysterious "X factor" that makes their teaching of "Intro to American Literature" and "History of Ancient Philosophy" any more special than the local community college? Of course not. Your best and brightest profs who differentiate one school vs another is not teaching that Freshman or Sophomore course. You're getting the same shlubs regardless of school.

Higher education is pricing out the feeling of collegiality in students. Commoditization will do that. Just like no one cares anymore where they get their gas today vs. days of yesteryear when a tank of Texaco gas was perceived to be different than a tank of ARCO gas, no one will give a sh!t on whether that "Intro to Psych" class was taken at MIT or the local community college.

There's a difference. Some is the professors. Some is the students.

(12-18-2015 09:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  If that's what it comes to, then so be it. In all honesty, I'm numb to the whole conference realignment situation. The next generations will be picking colleges to attend not based on pride or any collegiality. It will be all based on a purely transactional basis. I give you money, you provide me with the tools I need to extract value from the market place. Most will likely end up going to school in stages in the future. Spend your first 1 - 2 years at a 2 year school to take the "commodity" type classes, and select the degree of interest to get the specialized training at the "big name" schools. That will be the cycle moving forward. Does it matter where you learn calculus based physics, college chemistry or Calc 1, II and III? Anyone think Harvard has a mysterious "X factor" that makes their teaching of "Intro to American Literature" and "History of Ancient Philosophy" any more special than the local community college? Of course not. Your best and brightest profs who differentiate one school vs another is not teaching that Freshman or Sophomore course. You're getting the same shlubs regardless of school.

Higher education is pricing out the feeling of collegiality in students. Commoditization will do that. Just like no one cares anymore where they get their gas today vs. days of yesteryear when a tank of Texaco gas was perceived to be different than a tank of ARCO gas, no one will give a sh!t on whether that "Intro to Psych" class was taken at MIT or the local community college.

There's a difference. Some is the professors. Some is the students.

But it's worth pointing out that the brightest minds in academia (ie, research) are not nearly the best teachers for people who are new to the material. Not even close.

In fact, top researchers are encouraged to not spend too much time on class prep, lest it take away from research -- particularly for non-tenured profs.

(12-18-2015 09:24 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Seems like there is more money to be made by the SEC and B1G through withdrawing from the NCAA. Was reading this article on the Rose Bowl:
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20151216...off-system

I had no idea they had to pay the NCAA $50 million dollars. Are the other 6 Bowls the same?

They're talking about the 2014 BCS national championship game, which was played at the Rose Bowl. That was for the 2013 season. (Florida St beat Auburn in the game)

Still, the BCS organization (which is now called the CFP organization) was completely separate from the NCAA.

So I'd be curious to know why they had to send $50million to the NCAA.


It could just be a mistake. Perhaps they're (poorly) referencing the sum of the $24million payouts to each conference (ACC and SEC, in this case)?

(12-18-2015 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

If you read the article you get the point. You guys are reading this and thinking in sports terms. Of course you can compete. The issue is revenue. That's why they call it revenue sports and not minor sports. The difference is not in performance but in gaudy amenities.

The reality is that schools that consider themselves to be blue bloods will want the amenities too. It's called envy.

It has nothing to do with reality, only perception. The reality already is that the top 5% of students nationwide will remain more or less competitive in the work place regardless of the school they attended (unless its Ivy). The reason is they already possess the necessary tools to succeed.

Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

It's a very convenient form of denial and isolation.

But then there is also a more sobering reason for the uber grouping of schools.....a winnowing is coming in higher education and they don't want to be among those whose programs are going to be trimmed or eliminated.

This is just the beginning of things that will signal a paradigm shift in higher education. Athletics is just the excuse for forming the new groupings. It's really much more about economics than sports. Sports is just one component of the total revenue stream that these schools will be seeking.

What "winnowing" do you envision? Please elaborate.

(12-18-2015 10:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 09:24 AM)Dasville Wrote:  Seems like there is more money to be made by the SEC and B1G through withdrawing from the NCAA. Was reading this article on the Rose Bowl:
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20151216...off-system

I had no idea they had to pay the NCAA $50 million dollars. Are the other 6 Bowls the same?

They're talking about the 2014 BCS national championship game, which was played at the Rose Bowl. That was for the 2013 season. (Florida St beat Auburn in the game)

Still, the BCS organization (which is now called the CFP organization) was completely separate from the NCAA.

So I'd be curious to know why they had to send $50million to the NCAA.


It could just be a mistake. Perhaps they're (poorly) referencing the sum of the $24million payouts to each conference (ACC and SEC, in this case)?

Could be a mistake, however, the article had tax documents as its source. Would be a major blunder to misrepresent public tax documents.



From the link:

Quote:In 2014, TofR sent $19 million to both of its partners and another $50 million to the NCAA. That left about $40 million to cover the costs of the Rose Bowl Game, the BCS championship game and the parade.

(12-18-2015 09:46 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-18-2015 12:13 AM)bluesox Wrote:  The school's are just spending the money so it really doesn't matter how much they make. I mean 10 million for a coach and 1+ million for coordinator is pretty crazy. With 85 scholarship limits and endless supply of high school football players, lots of school's outside the big 10 and sec will be very competitive.

If you read the article you get the point. You guys are reading this and thinking in sports terms. Of course you can compete. The issue is revenue. That's why they call it revenue sports and not minor sports. The difference is not in performance but in gaudy amenities.

The reality is that schools that consider themselves to be blue bloods will want the amenities too. It's called envy.

It has nothing to do with reality, only perception. The reality already is that the top 5% of students nationwide will remain more or less competitive in the work place regardless of the school they attended (unless its Ivy). The reason is they already possess the necessary tools to succeed.

Consolidation will occur because of the desires of certain schools to be seen and associated with others. Sports will be secondary. Then if they make the move to only play within their own P grouping they won't face the possibility of losing to someone not in the club.

It's a very convenient form of denial and isolation.

But then there is also a more sobering reason for the uber grouping of schools.....a winnowing is coming in higher education and they don't want to be among those whose programs are going to be trimmed or eliminated.

This is just the beginning of things that will signal a paradigm shift in higher education. Athletics is just the excuse for forming the new groupings. It's really much more about economics than sports. Sports is just one component of the total revenue stream that these schools will be seeking.

Not so fast. I understand your line of logic, but you'd need another 20 years of US decline before it comes to that. This is about athletic-side consolidation, and TV networks maximizing the value of the TV product.

If this was just about educational quality, then the P5 would look a LOT different than it does right now.

Also, how are you going to feel about your program when you have no games against teams you can beat on the schedule? A lot of the powerhouse programs got that way because they WIN. If they go on a decade run of 4-8 and 3-9 play, imagine what that's going to do to TV ratings. It won't be pretty.

The P5 are in an interesting situation. If they make the new top flight too big, then they lose potential revenue. If they make the new top flight too small, then they'll collapse in on themselves over time. Being an NFL lite is NOT the direction they should go in if they want money.

I want it all to collapse back into small, weak regional conferences and a bunch of independents, so lets make the top flight very small.