Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2017 10:42 PM by JRsec.)
07-27-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

A couple of observations:

(BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
The only way that Baylor replaces Wake Forest would be if Baylor went to the SEC and South Carolina slid into their spot in the ACC (that is of course if it were Wake Forest's decision to "drop out").

I question the assumption that "the networks" would want to pay $200 million per year to have 4 limited value schools to play in the PAC just to have some semblance of symmetry. Nobody on the east coast watches PAC events now, and are not likely to in the future, especially with those four additions.
07-28-2017 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,674
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 160
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #3
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
I could see the networks trying to whittle CFB down to a P4, but I just don't see how they could get equal teams within the remaining conferences. Texas is the only school that adds real value to the PAC. But the Longhorns don't want to go west, moving to the PAC doesn't maximize their value for ESPN.
07-28-2017 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-28-2017 08:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

A couple of observations:

(BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
The only way that Baylor replaces Wake Forest would be if Baylor went to the SEC and South Carolina slid into their spot in the ACC (that is of course if it were Wake Forest's decision to "drop out").

I question the assumption that "the networks" would want to pay $200 million per year to have 4 limited value schools to play in the PAC just to have some semblance of symmetry. Nobody on the east coast watches PAC events now, and are not likely to in the future, especially with those four additions.

If it is left to 64 then Baylor is definitely the one on the outside looking in. Wake Forest, while not a power school outside of being grandfathered in. There a few of those lucky ones.
07-28-2017 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Between increasing the number of Power vs Power match-ups during the regular season and expanding the playoff, there's not much left in the way of innovation for the networks to make additional money. So I think it's reasonable that realignment will be based around these 2 goals.

I still think ESPN holds an edge though because of the quality of their platform. FOX, in a way, is just piggybacking off the industry that ESPN built and in so doing is getting their slice of the pie.

I'm not sure the CCGs will be going away, but let's also consider that if they do then we get an extra week of the season to spread out the games. That may affect the way the scheduling model is generated.

A few things to keep in mind, Slive thinks we're going to really, really large conferences in the next move. He's probably got a good feel for what's going to happen assuming even he's not still in the loop which he may very well be despite not having actual authority. If we do move to even larger leagues then I think getting rid of the CCGs will be very hard because there's no real way to determine a champion and to my knowledge there's no NCAA sport where conferences don't determine champions through some sort of postseason event.

Let me offer another reason why it might actually work better for the networks to keep CCGs for Power leagues even if we get an expanded playoff.

Regardless of who goes where, let's say the idea of adding the preseason game against G5s or FCS schools comes to fruition. Let's say that occurs the last week of August so as not to interfere with the current numbers of weeks allotted for the schedule.

Week Zero: Preseason game against G5 or FCS: Games do not count towards overall record, but provide an extra home game.

Weeks 1-4: 64-72 teams playing equals 32-36 games spread across all the platforms each week

Let's theorize that each network can show 3 games per day without having to worry about overlapping game times...assuming 3 and half hours per game with a little time in between for talking heads. ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, FOX, FS1, BTN, PACN. Allowances are made for CBS to show their customary 1-2 games. If all of these networks are showing games all day then that's 31 time slots and sometimes 32 if CBS gets a double header. So we can go ahead and assume at least one of these networks will show a 4th game, a late West Coast game I'm guessing, on a regular basis. 32 is about all we have room for while keeping the start times reasonable unless another platform is utilized. If everyone has 18 teams then we've got 36 games a week so maybe that's far-fetched if for no more reason than there's really nowhere to put them unless the networks fork over enough to add a platform.

Weeks 5-9: BYEs are scheduled during this block. Everybody gets one so that reduces the number of games available each week

Weeks 10-13: 32-36 games each week

Week 14: CCGs and first round of G5 playoff

Starting the G5 Playoff the same week as the CCGs will do 2 things, it will allow for the networks to schedule the G5 playoff ahead of the CFP so as to have time to get all the games in and not have the events overlap. Instead of a 2-3 week break for major college football like we've got now, the networks will have some interesting inventory for thirsty fans. It's also an opportunity to keep the fans plugged in and use every chance to plug not only the CFP but more bowl games. I don't think we should underestimate the value of cross marketing there.

Why does keeping the CCGs allow for a more robust lineup? Because if you stay with Week 14 being just the final week of the season and likely a week for rivalry games then you'll have a full slate and take away from the opportunity to plug the G5 playoff. Use the CCGs for headliners that weekend while the break in the schedule for everyone else will offer plenty of time to make hay over the big G5 games. The G5 playoff is potentially a big money maker during an otherwise low point in the season.

Week 15: Power schools take break while G5s go 2nd round

Week 16: G5s perhaps have their championship game because I'm assuming there'll be at least 8 teams involved and probably more for the sake of inventory.

Week 17: We're right around Christmas now. Bowl season begins and is anchored by the 1st round of an 8 team CFP.

Week 18: New Year's week contains more bowl games and CFP's 2nd semi-finals.

Week 19: National Championship game and possibly a few mop-up bowls. So we're ending the season in the same week we're ending it now.
07-28-2017 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Is the California law going to create problems for OOC games with schools in Kansas, Texas, and North Carolina?
07-28-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,480
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

So in this scenario the networks are pushing for consolidation and a standardized scheduling agreement within the power conferences. So they basically want higher ratings and better matchups that fans will watch. I'm just going to post this about the number of fans being brought into the conference since that is the main decider on which game someone watches.

Using the 2011 NYT's number of fans statistics, https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ent-chaos/ , the only two B12 teams that beat the SEC medium in number s of actual fans are Texas 2.25M and OU 1.2M; sec medium 1.09M. The remaining B12 candidates would fall into the bottom quarter of the conference as such:
Ark 0.99M
WVU 0.96
UK = Tech 0.91M
Ole 0.6M
OSU 0.72
MSU 0.55
ISU 0.54
V .38M

Assuming Loften wrote that the Gentlemen's agreement is real, Texas is off the board so the SEC would have to target OU or remain at 14. As the remaining schools don't add a significant football fan base, or matchup/content multipliers to push the desire to expand this conference.
07-28-2017 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-28-2017 05:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

So in this scenario the networks are pushing for consolidation and a standardized scheduling agreement within the power conferences. So they basically want higher ratings and better matchups that fans will watch. I'm just going to post this about the number of fans being brought into the conference since that is the main decider on which game someone watches.

Using the 2011 NYT's number of fans statistics, https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ent-chaos/ , the only two B12 teams that beat the SEC medium in number s of actual fans are Texas 2.25M and OU 1.2M; sec medium 1.09M. The remaining B12 candidates would fall into the bottom quarter of the conference as such:
Ark 0.99M
WVU 0.96
UK = Tech 0.91M
Ole 0.6M
OSU 0.72
MSU 0.55
ISU 0.54
V .38M

Assuming Loften wrote that the Gentlemen's agreement is real, Texas is off the board so the SEC would have to target OU or remain at 14. As the remaining schools don't add a significant football fan base, or matchup/content multipliers to push the desire to expand this conference.

Loften was playing to the home crowd using the slight bias of the cable footprint model as his justification. The gentlemen's agreement is hooey. Had ESPN not stepped in 3 days after they announced Clemson and Florida State to the SEC on their crawler because N.D. refused to join the ACC as a partial if the football first schools were not still there, the whole damned myth would have been publicly put down at that time.

What I suggest here is quite different. I am suggesting that the schools would be placed to optimize the quality of their OOC rival games. It is why I suggested Texas and Kansas to the Big 10 and Oklahoma and Iowa State to the SEC. But Oklahoma and West Virginia would work as well based on your metrics. Cincinnati and Notre Dame would still work for the ACC.

Can anyone truly hurt the PAC's revenue and viewing numbers? Texas Tech and T.C.U. would give them markets. And two more would give them an Eastern half division. Either way those would tie into the members placed in the Southeast and Midwest for those cross conference rivalry games and it would put them in the CTZ for more exposure during the midday Saturday time slot.
07-28-2017 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.
07-30-2017 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2017 10:30 PM by JRsec.)
07-30-2017 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.

Presuming these rules must apply...

Notre Dame will be in the ACC. Baylor will be left out. Those are all but set in stone here. That leaves 9. PAC would need 4. SEC & B1G would need 2. ACC would need 1. B1G retains their AAU status rule, only options: Iowa St, Kansas, Texas.

How I would see it going down in order...

SEC gets the pick of the litter: Oklahoma. Oklahoma strongly recommends Oklahoma St gets an invite, so they do. Both accept.
Old Big East members of the ACC send a lifeline to West Virginia and the old ACC guard begrudgingly accept after much debate. Because, hey, they got Notre Dame.
B1G invites Kansas (who accepts). Rutgers gets a gridiron rival.
PAC sits idle for whoever is leftover.

Now it comes down to Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa St. Texas is waiting for the best deal.

The B1G make an offer to Texas. After some thought, Texas accepts. The idea of annual Texas/Michigan/Ohio St/Penn St/Wisconsin/Nebraska games sends the conference into a frenzy.

The PAC are left with the option to pick of Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa St. Could be worse, they tell themselves, forgetting they had the opportunity to take both Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.
07-31-2017 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,569
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 562
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #12
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 09:00 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC are left with the option to pick of Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa St. Could be worse, they tell themselves, forgetting they had the opportunity to take both Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

^^^ THIS ^^^
If the Pac-12 has ANY foresight whatsoever, they'd lock up OU and OSU right away, possibly even Kansas and Iowa State too. That really hems in Texas, but oh well - they did it to themselves.
07-31-2017 09:14 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 09:00 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC are left with the option to pick of Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa St. Could be worse, they tell themselves, forgetting they had the opportunity to take both Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

^^^ THIS ^^^
If the Pac-12 has ANY foresight whatsoever, they'd lock up OU and OSU right away, possibly even Kansas and Iowa State too. That really hems in Texas, but oh well - they did it to themselves.

Mark that would help the whole situation tremendously, but the problem is the PAC is now solidly in 5th position financially and Oklahoma makes 12 million more per year than the PAC pays in TV revenue. Kansas does as well. Oklahoma State and Iowa State both make 8 million more. And therein lies the rub. The PAC has fallen behind so much they are no longer viable for any other P5 schools.

In 2010 the PAC was 3rd in revenue and much closer to the SEC and ahead of the Big 12. All of the TV payouts in 2010 were closer. Such moves as the one you propose would have been lateral at worst or possibly better in terms of finances even factoring in travel. Now they would represent a huge loss. And in the case of the PAC even if they could attract those 4 it gets them nowhere close to the SEC or Big 10's distributions and both the SEC and Big 10 remain viable for Kansas and Oklahoma, and the SEC is would be viable possibly for OSU with OU.

So the reality is that the time for a move that might bring a relative balance is perhaps past. And it looks as though either the SEC or Big 10 will get stronger.

So from an ACC point of view you had better hope it is the SEC since ESPN won't let us raid you. If it is the Big 10, and they remain in FOX's hands, then when 2036 rolls around it will be you that gets picked apart.

This is why I have said that the only hope for a semblance of balance would be for the PAC to take 4 to 6 of the Big 12 schools. Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and or Kansas and Iowa State. A third division of 6 in a new marketable zone would give them perhaps enough new revenue to gain enough ground on the SEC and Big 10 to keep things balanced. The biggest problem with that plan would be that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would have to still move for less than they could get elsewhere and would have to make that move simply for the purposes of sticking together.

That would leave precious little for the SEC and Big 10 to get wealthier with. I suppose the SEC might give T.C.U. a look for a greater presence in DFW and maybe we finally look at W.V.U. for #16. The Big 10 might have to look at UConn and give a look to Colorado State. So either way the pickings would be very slim. In that scenario Cincinnati and Notre Dame would finish the ACC out nicely enough to stay about where you are now.

But toss in the PAC's politicization of college football destinations and that pretty well kills the PAC option for most.

So we are going to see a war for Texas and Oklahoma and the winner will distance themselves even more from the other 3 power conferences. If the SEC and Big 10 only land 1 brand each they will still both gain ground, but nobody will outdistance the other 3 by much more (maybe just 3 million more).

But remember it won't be the conferences competing here as much as it will be FOX and ESPN. If FOX loses the battle they'll never be able to catch ESPN or get into the Southeast/Mid Atlantic/Southwest TV markets. There's your real impetus for the war and why the PAC is not a viable option there either. And therein lies the dreams of Texas as a partial member for the ACC.

It is also the only reason I'm still posting on the subject. How this turns out will either set college football on a course to two large leagues of composed of two conferences each, or it will result in an imbalance that assists the destruction of the game by destroying the interest through the imbalance of power. It has already jumped the banks of containment to destroy rivalries. I think that given the financial inequities within the P5 now that 2 leagues may be the best we can hope for already, an that's sad.
07-31-2017 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,390
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 93
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-30-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.
07-31-2017 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.

That's what I meant by elevating the AAC, or as you suggest a new conference formed from the best of the three and B.Y.U.. If their champ is viable in a year when another of the P conferences might have a 3 loss champ then it serves the purposes well, especially as a legal buffer since you will have elevated virtually all of the schools which might have a case for having been excluded: Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Houston, E.C.U., B.Y.U., and possibly Cincinnati (if they aren't ACC bound). The only reason I suggested the AAC is because it is fully ESPN held and when those brands like Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. move to the new conference it can't be a rebuilt Big 12 if ESPN is looking for sole ownership of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas product. A rebuilt Big 12 would contractually be 50% FOX owned (unless we wait until 2024). B.Y.U. is already under ESPN contract, and a new one at that.

So we are really not disagreeing on this. It would be like what we have now, only more concentrated at the top, and more inclusive in the new conference.

Remember too that Wichita has partially joined the AAC and Tulsa is already in it. So by directing the Big 12 remnant there ESPN gains full control of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as states and markets (should Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the schools wind up in ESPN hands.
07-31-2017 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,564
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 12:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 09:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 09:00 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  The PAC are left with the option to pick of Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas St, and Iowa St. Could be worse, they tell themselves, forgetting they had the opportunity to take both Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.

^^^ THIS ^^^
If the Pac-12 has ANY foresight whatsoever, they'd lock up OU and OSU right away, possibly even Kansas and Iowa State too. That really hems in Texas, but oh well - they did it to themselves.

Mark that would help the whole situation tremendously, but the problem is the PAC is now solidly in 5th position financially and Oklahoma makes 12 million more per year than the PAC pays in TV revenue. Kansas does as well. Oklahoma State and Iowa State both make 8 million more. And therein lies the rub. The PAC has fallen behind so much they are no longer viable for any other P5 schools.

In 2010 the PAC was 3rd in revenue and much closer to the SEC and ahead of the Big 12. All of the TV payouts in 2010 were closer. Such moves as the one you propose would have been lateral at worst or possibly better in terms of finances even factoring in travel. Now they would represent a huge loss. And in the case of the PAC even if they could attract those 4 it gets them nowhere close to the SEC or Big 10's distributions and both the SEC and Big 10 remain viable for Kansas and Oklahoma, and the SEC is would be viable possibly for OSU with OU.

So the reality is that the time for a move that might bring a relative balance is perhaps past. And it looks as though either the SEC or Big 10 will get stronger.

So from an ACC point of view you had better hope it is the SEC since ESPN won't let us raid you. If it is the Big 10, and they remain in FOX's hands, then when 2036 rolls around it will be you that gets picked apart.

This is why I have said that the only hope for a semblance of balance would be for the PAC to take 4 to 6 of the Big 12 schools. Texas, Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and or Kansas and Iowa State. A third division of 6 in a new marketable zone would give them perhaps enough new revenue to gain enough ground on the SEC and Big 10 to keep things balanced. The biggest problem with that plan would be that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would have to still move for less than they could get elsewhere and would have to make that move simply for the purposes of sticking together.

That would leave precious little for the SEC and Big 10 to get wealthier with. I suppose the SEC might give T.C.U. a look for a greater presence in DFW and maybe we finally look at W.V.U. for #16. The Big 10 might have to look at UConn and give a look to Colorado State. So either way the pickings would be very slim. In that scenario Cincinnati and Notre Dame would finish the ACC out nicely enough to stay about where you are now.

But toss in the PAC's politicization of college football destinations and that pretty well kills the PAC option for most.

So we are going to see a war for Texas and Oklahoma and the winner will distance themselves even more from the other 3 power conferences. If the SEC and Big 10 only land 1 brand each they will still both gain ground, but nobody will outdistance the other 3 by much more (maybe just 3 million more).

But remember it won't be the conferences competing here as much as it will be FOX and ESPN. If FOX loses the battle they'll never be able to catch ESPN or get into the Southeast/Mid Atlantic/Southwest TV markets. There's your real impetus for the war and why the PAC is not a viable option there either. And therein lies the dreams of Texas as a partial member for the ACC.

It is also the only reason I'm still posting on the subject. How this turns out will either set college football on a course to two large leagues of composed of two conferences each, or it will result in an imbalance that assists the destruction of the game by destroying the interest through the imbalance of power. It has already jumped the banks of containment to destroy rivalries. I think that given the financial inequities within the P5 now that 2 leagues may be the best we can hope for already, an that's sad.

And that likelihood continues to grow in that it would be considered a temporary situation that could change after the 2035-36 season.
It also makes room for ESPN to keep Texas and acquire Oklahoma and another Big 8 team. ESPN could insure both Oklahoma and Texas of the continuation of the RRR and a prime TV slot for the game.
It also provides ESPN with a ready made studio in the CTZ for regional broadcasts.
07-31-2017 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,480
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.

That's what I meant by elevating the AAC, or as you suggest a new conference formed from the best of the three and B.Y.U.. If their champ is viable in a year when another of the P conferences might have a 3 loss champ then it serves the purposes well, especially as a legal buffer since you will have elevated virtually all of the schools which might have a case for having been excluded: Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Houston, E.C.U., B.Y.U., and possibly Cincinnati (if they aren't ACC bound). The only reason I suggested the AAC is because it is fully ESPN held and when those brands like Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. move to the new conference it can't be a rebuilt Big 12 if ESPN is looking for sole ownership of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas product. A rebuilt Big 12 would contractually be 50% FOX owned (unless we wait until 2024). B.Y.U. is already under ESPN contract, and a new one at that.

So we are really not disagreeing on this. It would be like what we have now, only more concentrated at the top, and more inclusive in the new conference.

Remember too that Wichita has partially joined the AAC and Tulsa is already in it. So by directing the Big 12 remnant there ESPN gains full control of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as states and markets (should Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the schools wind up in ESPN hands.

If Fox doesn't want to get "blocked out" of the southeastern markets, they should probably outbid CBS for that SEC Teir I contract. Then they wouldn't have to waste money overpaying AAC schools in a rebuilt Big 12. If CBS did lose the SEC Teir I contract, I assume they would either bid on the half of the Big Ten contract ABC doesn't want to match Fox's payments for or just not broadcast FBS games on CBS.
07-31-2017 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 03:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 10:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.

That's what I meant by elevating the AAC, or as you suggest a new conference formed from the best of the three and B.Y.U.. If their champ is viable in a year when another of the P conferences might have a 3 loss champ then it serves the purposes well, especially as a legal buffer since you will have elevated virtually all of the schools which might have a case for having been excluded: Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Houston, E.C.U., B.Y.U., and possibly Cincinnati (if they aren't ACC bound). The only reason I suggested the AAC is because it is fully ESPN held and when those brands like Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. move to the new conference it can't be a rebuilt Big 12 if ESPN is looking for sole ownership of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas product. A rebuilt Big 12 would contractually be 50% FOX owned (unless we wait until 2024). B.Y.U. is already under ESPN contract, and a new one at that.

So we are really not disagreeing on this. It would be like what we have now, only more concentrated at the top, and more inclusive in the new conference.

Remember too that Wichita has partially joined the AAC and Tulsa is already in it. So by directing the Big 12 remnant there ESPN gains full control of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as states and markets (should Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the schools wind up in ESPN hands.

If Fox doesn't want to get "blocked out" of the southeastern markets, they should probably outbid CBS for that SEC Teir I contract. Then they wouldn't have to waste money overpaying AAC schools in a rebuilt Big 12. If CBS did lose the SEC Teir I contract, I assume they would either bid on the half of the Big Ten contract ABC doesn't want to match Fox's payments for or just not broadcast FBS games on CBS.

FOX can't offer the SEC what it loves most about the CBS games, a unique national time slot. NBC and ABC could. I expect ABC to be the main competitor for CBS next go around. And I expect the boost for those T1 rights to be sizable.
(This post was last modified: 07-31-2017 05:23 PM by JRsec.)
07-31-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,480
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 03:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='14473286' dateline='1501471535']

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.

That's what I meant by elevating the AAC, or as you suggest a new conference formed from the best of the three and B.Y.U.. If their champ is viable in a year when another of the P conferences might have a 3 loss champ then it serves the purposes well, especially as a legal buffer since you will have elevated virtually all of the schools which might have a case for having been excluded: Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Houston, E.C.U., B.Y.U., and possibly Cincinnati (if they aren't ACC bound). The only reason I suggested the AAC is because it is fully ESPN held and when those brands like Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. move to the new conference it can't be a rebuilt Big 12 if ESPN is looking for sole ownership of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas product. A rebuilt Big 12 would contractually be 50% FOX owned (unless we wait until 2024). B.Y.U. is already under ESPN contract, and a new one at that.

So we are really not disagreeing on this. It would be like what we have now, only more concentrated at the top, and more inclusive in the new conference.

Remember too that Wichita has partially joined the AAC and Tulsa is already in it. So by directing the Big 12 remnant there ESPN gains full control of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as states and markets (should Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the schools wind up in ESPN hands.

If Fox doesn't want to get "blocked out" of the southeastern markets, they should probably outbid CBS for that SEC Teir I contract. Then they wouldn't have to waste money overpaying AAC schools in a rebuilt Big 12. If CBS did lose the SEC Teir I contract, I assume they would either bid on the half of the Big Ten contract ABC doesn't want to match Fox's payments for or just not broadcast FBS games on CBS.

FOX can't offer the SEC what it loves most about the CBS games, a unique national time slot. NBC and ABC could. I expect ABC to be the main competitor for CBS next go around. And I expect the boost for those T1 rights to be sizable.
[/quote

It'll be huge with an open market bidding war and another Teir I addition like an OU or a Texas. Then in a decade, imagine reopening the contracts with the additions of say FSU and Virginia Tech.
07-31-2017 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 15,820
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 832
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-31-2017 05:31 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 05:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 03:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-31-2017 01:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  [quote='JRsec' pid='14473286' dateline='1501471535']

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is that this 5th league may very well be guaranteed a spot in the playoff.

And I'm saying that I think the CFP will expand to 8 almost purely as a means of generating some extra revenue for the networks. I think the playoff expands because there's so little in the way of innovation that the networks can employ to extract more cash out of the game. Creating more Power vs Power match-ups is one way and that's not too hard as long as everyone agrees to do it, but 1) I think the schools are more likely to agree to that if a league full of weaker members is inside the fold and considered viable for P vs P games while 2) it creates additional cover for this new cartel if more members are added rather than subtracted as that will create a modicum of opportunity for upward mobility within the ranks of major college athletics.

Let's say it's 6 current Big 12 members plus 3 AAC members and 3 Western schools including BYU that get together to form a 5th league. The networks won't have to spend nearly as much on the rest of the Big 12 properties if they allow the top 4 brands to leave. I think they'd rather limit it to 4 because those are essentially the only brands that could make expansion for the other Power leagues worth it. Additionally, the more current Big 12 members get into the SEC, B1G, ACC, or PAC then the more you're going to have to pay these leagues to make it worth their while. There's no need to spend that extra cash if you set up a system that takes care of the 6 Big 12 leftovers that the other leagues really don't want in the first place.

-So the other Power leagues agree to take the 4 top brands in the Big 12 because the money is worthwhile.

-You reduce your investment in the Big 12 by allowing those 4 to leave and replacing them with spare parts from the G5.

-The networks have the option of moving a few Big 12 properties into the AAC, but they'd have to increase the contract for that entire league significantly. No need to do that when most of the value of that league is concentrated in a handful of programs. Instead, move those handful of programs into the Big 12 because you're going to have to pay the Big 12 remnants decent money in order for everyone not to be pissed off. Albeit, they'll be spending a little more on certain schools...to cover the entry of the AAC and possibly MWC schools.

-ESPN will likely still own the rest of the AAC and the vast majority of the G5 at very low cost, but they'll be maximizing their investment by quite likely owning a G5 playoff. Their investment will be girded by the likelihood of FCS squads continuing to make a push to enter the G5 ranks...because there'll be so much extra money in the G5 contracts including the playoff.

-Ultimately, the networks cash in on the investment by expanding the playoff to 8. This new Big 12 gains automatic entry along with the other Power leagues.

-The structural benefit to this 5th league is that it allows the networks to maintain greater control. The more consolidation there is, the more power slips through the networks' fingers because content is more concentrated.

-Assuming there is an all Power vs Power schedule, the 5th league guarantees a few more wins for the big boys and therefore less disruption to the current power structure.

That's what I meant by elevating the AAC, or as you suggest a new conference formed from the best of the three and B.Y.U.. If their champ is viable in a year when another of the P conferences might have a 3 loss champ then it serves the purposes well, especially as a legal buffer since you will have elevated virtually all of the schools which might have a case for having been excluded: Connecticut, South Florida, Central Florida, Houston, E.C.U., B.Y.U., and possibly Cincinnati (if they aren't ACC bound). The only reason I suggested the AAC is because it is fully ESPN held and when those brands like Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. move to the new conference it can't be a rebuilt Big 12 if ESPN is looking for sole ownership of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas product. A rebuilt Big 12 would contractually be 50% FOX owned (unless we wait until 2024). B.Y.U. is already under ESPN contract, and a new one at that.

So we are really not disagreeing on this. It would be like what we have now, only more concentrated at the top, and more inclusive in the new conference.

Remember too that Wichita has partially joined the AAC and Tulsa is already in it. So by directing the Big 12 remnant there ESPN gains full control of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as states and markets (should Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas the schools wind up in ESPN hands.

If Fox doesn't want to get "blocked out" of the southeastern markets, they should probably outbid CBS for that SEC Teir I contract. Then they wouldn't have to waste money overpaying AAC schools in a rebuilt Big 12. If CBS did lose the SEC Teir I contract, I assume they would either bid on the half of the Big Ten contract ABC doesn't want to match Fox's payments for or just not broadcast FBS games on CBS.

FOX can't offer the SEC what it loves most about the CBS games, a unique national time slot. NBC and ABC could. I expect ABC to be the main competitor for CBS next go around. And I expect the boost for those T1 rights to be sizable.
[/quote

It'll be huge with an open market bidding war and another Teir I addition like an OU or a Texas. Then in a decade, imagine reopening the contracts with the additions of say FSU and Virginia Tech.

To quote Eliza Dolittle in My Fair Lady, "Wouldn't that be loverly!"
07-31-2017 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.