SEC:

Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M



ACC:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Clemson, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest

Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma, Texas


In 2010 It Would Have Been:

Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest

Kansas, Miami, Oklahoma, Texas


Now that would give the ACC the branding it needs to obtain payouts equal to those of the Big 10 and SEC.

It would give you the content and markets to insure the ACCN it's best possible open.

It would solve issues for the Big 10 and SEC potential fracas over Texas and Oklahoma so it's a safer solution for ESPN.

And it would bring balance on this side of the Mississippi River and a little beyond.

The branding of the ACC would be no worse than equal that of the SEC and probably a little bit better than that of the Big 10.

I wonder if those who resisted in 2010 would have a change of heart today?

You know it can still be done.

Geography issue with that for KU, OU, Texas. Also they lose their travel partners and incur added expenses to travel to all the east coast schools. The Big 12 schools would be better off staying in Big 12 than running off to the ACC in this scenario.

Now, Virginia Tech is worth expanding for at 15 for the SEC. Their branding, fanbase, new markets and new recruiting grounds would add nicely to the SEC footprint. The SEC could afford to sit back and be picky at 16, but the likely candidates would West Virginia and Kansas knocking on the door while I’m sure the SEC would be hoping for an Oklahoma or Texas or even Florida State type addition.

I’m just not feeling N.C. State in the post market model. If the theory is the ACC’s future is secure for the next 100 years and the SEC jus HAS to plant its flag in that state, then so be it and let’s maximize our profits.

Personally, I'd love a dip into VA and NC. I think those schools would fit better for one thing.

I don't particularly expect it though.

One advantage it would give ESPN though is to create a greater balance between the SEC and ACC and secure both for the long term. If ESPN adds the Big 12 powers to the SEC then the ACC's future is in doubt as the economic gravity will increase and be centered around Birmingham.

(05-13-2018 10:56 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Personally, I'd love a dip into VA and NC. I think those schools would fit better for one thing.

I don't particularly expect it though.

One advantage it would give ESPN though is to create a greater balance between the SEC and ACC and secure both for the long term. If ESPN adds the Big 12 powers to the SEC then the ACC's future is in doubt as the economic gravity will increase and be centered around Birmingham.

And if ESPN was willing to gamble, perhaps they could threaten the ACC with just such a reality. That might be the kick in the butt they need.

Being very close to Charlotte, I noted before, seeing one current ACC school in the SEC could actually be good for both the SEC and the ACC. It would take a deal external to the ACC's GoR, and a willingness involving all parties. It won't happen, availability remains locked.

WVU remains the only viable eastern option from the current P5, and that depends on what happens in the B12 in a few years. From an earlier SEC viewpoint, WVU had been like "they are OK from a minimal expansion perspective, and we have them down the list below others that show better overall appeal".
WVU would really benefit the ACC the most.

The States of NC and VA are the ACC'a core, unshared turf, and that reality will hold for a long time to come.

(05-13-2018 11:13 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Being very close to Charlotte, I noted before, seeing one current ACC school in the SEC could actually be good for both the SEC and the ACC. It would take a deal external to the ACC's GoR, and a willingness involving all parties. It won't happen, availability remains locked.

WVU remains the only viable eastern option from the current P5, and that depends on what happens in the B12 in a few years. From an earlier SEC viewpoint, WVU had been like "they are OK from a minimal expansion perspective, and we have them down the list below others that show better overall appeal".
WVU would really benefit the ACC the most.

The States of NC and VA are the ACC'a core, unshared turf, and that reality will hold for a long time to come.

I'll address all of your posts here in one reply.

Travel? Not really that bad. Three divisional games for Texas and OU including each other, Kansas, and Louisville which is far more accessible than Morgantown. With an 8 game schedule, which is imminently possible with floating half divisions, Texas would still have 6 home games and at least 1 sometimes 2 road games within their division. They would only have two or three away games out of division per year.

So it's workable.

As to the GOR? It's also extremely workable if the deal benefits everyone. This deal was on the table in 2010 and the SEC went to a great deal of trouble to market what they considered then to be a possibly unpopular move. They realized the fan base was expecting Florida State and Clemson, or somebody more SEC like. So Clay Travis was leaked the concept of N.C. State and Va Tech, Mr. SEC sold the profitability angle and ESPN wanted the distribution for the SECN to be as profitable as possible at the open, wanted to balance the power, and had Deloss Dodds pushing the concept of moving East at Texas to donors. Oklahoma and Kansas were quietly apprised. The concept went far enough to have the SEC reportedly meeting with Virginia Tech officials at the Greenbriar in W.V. (prompting the Dude of WV to see the conference jet flights plan assuming the SEC was there to speak with WV) before certain ACC schools afraid of losing power within the conference shut it down.

If such a move profited everyone enough to be enticing (and since many N.C. State fans would be as happy as Aggies to be out from under the shadow of Chirpel Hell) it is at least feasible from the standpoint of the parties involved. A temporary dissolution of the GOR's could be accomplished with new ones signed. So it is workable.

The GOR's that had to be slapped into place following the blow up of this plan in 2010-3 (as things played out) are what locked us into this mess, served as the catalyst for the bolting of Maryland, alerted FOX to what had been a carefully crafted covert move by ESPN, and set the Big 10 on alert. The branding was going to be locked down for both leagues and markets shared to derive the maximum benefit for them by spreading the interest between two ESPN majority held conferences.

So I would submit that the plan, while it has some flaws, is still workable.

That said we are probably past it in as much as both Texas and Oklahoma have more leverage now than perhaps they perceived they had in 2010 when Notre Dame was to be the 4th addition.

Now admittedly I resurrected the topic because things are the slowest they've been since things heated up in 2009, and revisiting the early concepts and attempts can be informative to a degree. While the market model is dying there is still some value in double dipping large states, where ESPN is concerned, and the brands involved are the only ones worth stirring the pot over.

So I thought a good hypothetical rehash might be informative.

The real question to delve into is would a late addition to the ACC (Va Tech) and a school from a state with 4 current ACC schools (N.C. State) be worth the branding that Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame would bring to the their football value and Kansas would add to the content value for hoops? And would Virginia Tech and N.C. State benefit by being in the SEC? I think the first question is a no brainer, "Yes!" I think the second question is far more debatable.

Consider also that a scheduling agreement between the two 16 member conferences would restore some rivalries and still leave 3 OOC games for anyone desired by the parties involved to schedule. Meaning Texas can pick up all 3 of those in state if they wished and would still have the Sooners in Dallas and A&M back in the rotation, or Arkansas if they desired.

The interesting sociological question here is, "Are historical relationships strained or abandoned for revenue?" If there is anything that can be derived from the realignment of 2010-2 it's that the answer to that question is, "Yes!" Now the question is, "How much control will institutions cede in the name of revenue?" That IMO remains to be seen. And an ancillary question might be, "What other factors are needed as a catalyst?" In the case of Nebraska it was revenue, fear and loathing. For Penn State it was exposure/branding and revenue. For Maryland it was foremost debt, but laced with latent hostility. For Missouri it was shear terror. For Rutgers none of the questions are relevant because it was a no brainer golden ticket. For A&M it was exposure, branding, and loathing.

If Oklahoma or Texas ever leave it will be for more than just money. I feel their primary motivating factors will be different but similar. For Texas it will be to reestablish primacy, even if they must sacrifice a fiefdom of a conference for a fiefdom of a division. For Oklahoma it will be about maintaining the interest and support of a fan base. For all of the noise coming out of Norman, particularly under Boren, I do not believe it will be for academics. First because athletic associations have little to do with academic associations, and because the University's identity is probably as closely tied to athletics as that of Alabama.

And with regards to Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, and Wake Forest I don't think they will move at all. The question is whether they will sacrifice their cadre's total control over the ACC to gain financial stability and if so are they willing to cut two of their minions loose in order to do so. Regarding my OP more specifically have they discovered how very tenuous their position is should the SEC and Big 10 divide Oklahoma and Texas? As AllTideUp alluded to in his post should either or both of those conferences wind up acquiring Oklahoma and/or Texas the gap the ACC exists under with regard to revenue today will be insurmountable in the future and the 4 aforementioned ACC overlords may one day find they've been abandoned because of it. So their sociological question is "Is their desire to survive and thrive as a conference greater than their need for subservience and control, especially if the price of not taking that option may one day mean their total subjugation?" When dealing with narcissism I always bet on the the self preservation aspect over the need to dominate because the identity of the self is paramount as it is with these 4 institutions.

So Texas will choose to rule a smaller version of fiefdom to preserve it's dominance and North Carolina, Duke, and to much lesser extent Virginia will choose to compromise ultimately to preserve theirs. In 2010 it was convenient for UNC to assume that Texas might go ahead an take the PAC deal which eliminates them from interfering with the ACC and Tar Heel / Blue Devil rule, and it means that they don't add to the immediate value of their nearest adversaries, the SEC and Big 10. Here we are 8 years later and the likelihood of the PAC being positioned to attract Texas and/or Oklahoma is greatly diminished. The likelihood that if either move it will be to the Big 10 or SEC is much greater. Therefore the threat to the ACC is much greater.

So I submit that any plan, should Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma agree to it again, be offered to preserve the ACC and make it competitive financially be given in 2019, that those schools who were allegedly against it before, may now have changed their tune. Especially since it not only profits and secures their position, but because it secures and profits the position of their benefactor, ESPN.

The 2020 and after realignment period will be a war between rights purchasers and will have little to do with conference agendas. There will be parameters that conferences will set, but the carriers will try to lock up and park the most valuable product. Antiquated notions about what conferences desire being the driving force in the additions will be insignificant to the importance of the carrier landing and parking brands for which the conferences will be handsomely rewarded.

We established that we were cash whores in 2010-2. Now we will find out how particular our associations will be and how much cash it takes to make new bedfellows.

(05-13-2018 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting sociological question here, is just are historical relationships strained or abandoned for revenue? If there is anything that can be derived from the realignment of 2010-2 it's that the answer to that question is, "Yes!" Now the question is how much control will institutions cede in the name of revenue?

...

For Oklahoma it will be about maintaining the interest and support of a fan base. For all of the noise coming out of Norman, particularly under Boren, I do not believe it will be for academics. First because athletic associations have little to do with academic associations, and because the University's identity is probably as closely tied to athletics as that of Alabama.

...


The 2020 and after realignment period will be a war between rights purchasers and will have little to do with conference agendas. There will be parameters that conferences will set, but the carriers will try to lock up and park the most valuable product. Antiquated notions about what conferences desire being the driving force in the additions will be insignificant to the importance of the carrier landing and parking brands for which the conferences will be handsomely rewarded.

We established that we were cash whores in 2010-2. Now we will find out how particular our associations will be and how much cash it takes to make new bedfellows.

For me, the greatest proof that academics have very little to do with athletic conferences is the fact that these leagues have allowed networks like ESPN to call the shots.

Think about it like this...if your research capacities, funding, quality of student, or anything else related to academic life were at risk with these decisions then the last daggum thing you're going to do is put those decisions in the hands of corporate media execs in a far away "capital," if you will. These institutions, even the younger ones, have been around far longer than ESPN. Partnerships with ESPN and others are a means to an end, not a panacea for building academic prestige and credibility.

The fact that leagues have quite obviously made moves in exchange for getting more athletic monies is proof positive that they believe their academic futures to be secure regardless of what athletic association they enter into.

Either that or the people running these institutions are collectively morons.

(05-13-2018 04:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting sociological question here, is just are historical relationships strained or abandoned for revenue? If there is anything that can be derived from the realignment of 2010-2 it's that the answer to that question is, "Yes!" Now the question is how much control will institutions cede in the name of revenue?

...

For Oklahoma it will be about maintaining the interest and support of a fan base. For all of the noise coming out of Norman, particularly under Boren, I do not believe it will be for academics. First because athletic associations have little to do with academic associations, and because the University's identity is probably as closely tied to athletics as that of Alabama.

...


The 2020 and after realignment period will be a war between rights purchasers and will have little to do with conference agendas. There will be parameters that conferences will set, but the carriers will try to lock up and park the most valuable product. Antiquated notions about what conferences desire being the driving force in the additions will be insignificant to the importance of the carrier landing and parking brands for which the conferences will be handsomely rewarded.

We established that we were cash whores in 2010-2. Now we will find out how particular our associations will be and how much cash it takes to make new bedfellows.

For me, the greatest proof that academics have very little to do with athletic conferences is the fact that these leagues have allowed networks like ESPN to call the shots.

Think about it like this...if your research capacities, funding, quality of student, or anything else related to academic life were at risk with these decisions then the last daggum thing you're going to do is put those decisions in the hands of corporate media execs in a far away "capital," if you will. These institutions, even the younger ones, have been around far longer than ESPN. Partnerships with ESPN and others are a means to an end, not a panacea for building academic prestige and credibility.

The fact that leagues have quite obviously made moves in exchange for getting more athletic monies is proof positive that they believe their academic futures to be secure regardless of what athletic association they enter into.

Either that or the people running these institutions are collectively morons.

Is the ESPN guy that came up with the LHN still employed? That is just one example of ESPN flubs. I get the driving force, but yielding to a corporate network for conference composition decisions will have repercussions that could blow-up the scheme of the moment. ESPN, and perhaps others, can sell-off, buy-off, go bankrupt, merge or whatever. Rather than monopolizing, I'd rather see competition. The consumer at level 1 (the conferences), may ultimately come out better for the long-term. Once the monopoly and no viable options, the product can be devalued---paid less once control is fortified and other bidders are non-existent or sealed-off.
What happened in the early part of the 20th century, including anti-trust suits worked for capitalism, not today's corporate-ism.
Some future stat guy at ESPN is going to do a powerpoint (OK, maybe old methodology) display to company executives, showing "awesome cost-cutting measures". The stat guy, who doesn't know the difference between Texas Tech and Texas State, will have them sending Mississippi State to C-USA, send Auburn to the ACC, and adding Incarnate Word and Wichita State to the SEC. Silly hypothetical examples, of course; but the process could be generated with uniform control.
Streaming? Individual selection already exists but certainly will become more sophisticated. But it may not be the end all, particularly when the communications industry has the very same companies in charge of distributions. It is an alternative for bundling and won't necessarily be the prime factor in determining worth, given the intertwining. Institutional values are already known, and each can grow and diminish in context.
Weaken conference power in exchange for contractual revenue, may be the fate; but someone will look at this at a future point and ask why did we allow this to happen?

Alleged is the operative word.

(05-13-2018 07:47 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 04:00 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-13-2018 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The interesting sociological question here, is just are historical relationships strained or abandoned for revenue? If there is anything that can be derived from the realignment of 2010-2 it's that the answer to that question is, "Yes!" Now the question is how much control will institutions cede in the name of revenue?

...

For Oklahoma it will be about maintaining the interest and support of a fan base. For all of the noise coming out of Norman, particularly under Boren, I do not believe it will be for academics. First because athletic associations have little to do with academic associations, and because the University's identity is probably as closely tied to athletics as that of Alabama.

...


The 2020 and after realignment period will be a war between rights purchasers and will have little to do with conference agendas. There will be parameters that conferences will set, but the carriers will try to lock up and park the most valuable product. Antiquated notions about what conferences desire being the driving force in the additions will be insignificant to the importance of the carrier landing and parking brands for which the conferences will be handsomely rewarded.

We established that we were cash whores in 2010-2. Now we will find out how particular our associations will be and how much cash it takes to make new bedfellows.

For me, the greatest proof that academics have very little to do with athletic conferences is the fact that these leagues have allowed networks like ESPN to call the shots.

Think about it like this...if your research capacities, funding, quality of student, or anything else related to academic life were at risk with these decisions then the last daggum thing you're going to do is put those decisions in the hands of corporate media execs in a far away "capital," if you will. These institutions, even the younger ones, have been around far longer than ESPN. Partnerships with ESPN and others are a means to an end, not a panacea for building academic prestige and credibility.

The fact that leagues have quite obviously made moves in exchange for getting more athletic monies is proof positive that they believe their academic futures to be secure regardless of what athletic association they enter into.

Either that or the people running these institutions are collectively morons.

Is the ESPN guy that came up with the LHN still employed? That is just one example of ESPN flubs. I get the driving force, but yielding to a corporate network for conference composition decisions will have repercussions that could blow-up the scheme of the moment. ESPN, and perhaps others, can sell-off, buy-off, go bankrupt, merge or whatever. Rather than monopolizing, I'd rather see competition. The consumer at level 1 (the conferences), may ultimately come out better for the long-term. Once the monopoly and no viable options, the product can be devalued---paid less once control is fortified and other bidders are non-existent or sealed-off.
What happened in the early part of the 20th century, including anti-trust suits worked for capitalism, not today's corporate-ism.
Some future stat guy at ESPN is going to do a powerpoint (OK, maybe old methodology) display to company executives, showing "awesome cost-cutting measures". The stat guy, who doesn't know the difference between Texas Tech and Texas State, will have them sending Mississippi State to C-USA, send Auburn to the ACC, and adding Immaculate Word and Wichita State to the SEC. Silly hypothetical examples, of course; but the process could be generated with uniform control.
Streaming? Individual selection already exists but certainly will become more sophisticated. But it may not be the end all, particularly when the communications industry has the very same companies in charge of distributions. It is an alternative for bundling and won't necessarily be the prime factor in determining worth, given the intertwining. Institutional values are already known, and each can grow and diminish in context.
Weaken conference power in exchange for contractual revenue, may be the fate; but someone will look at this at a future point and ask why did we allow this to happen?

You may find it odd, but I wholeheartedly agree that we are bound for the destination you suggest. I merely post the logical conclusion to what I see, know, and believe to be happening. Corporate think is far more predictable than most believe. I follow realignment because it may be the only touchstone to just how violated private citizen's lives have become because of the growing corporate hegemony. When it violated the sacred touchstones of private life, religious institutions, alma maters, and beloved sports I looked for a bigger blow back by the public. It's not happened. That tells me we are in for a very rough ride from here on out. So rough that the voice questioning why we did what we may be about to do probably won't be heard, if the concept is even spoken.

I knew we were headed down this path when the major conferences started hiring sports rights lawyers as commissioners and the terms footprint model and market demographic crept into the collegiate presidents' lexicon. We are enslaved by the words we use. Hire a rights lawyer for the conference commissioner and you'll get a liaison who will always believe his/her bread is buttered by the networks and whose associations will always be tied to them. The college presidents don't want to be troubled with running the business of college sports and they are more and more tied to corporate contacts and involved in corporate solicitations and are less and less obligated to the alumni base. What's more they are less and less tied to the State other than for basic apportionment.

It is true that eventually with the network of corporate interests that they inevitably will pay less and less for a more and more dependent product. But with the short term thinking of bureaucrats and administrative officials today we are pretty hosed already. The concept that they will be able to arrange the configurations they desire through cash is really well established and advanced. It is highly probable that we will enter the stage called product placement.

First the networks realized after OU/UGA vs NCAA that they had a grossly undervalued and disorganized product on their hands. One ripe for a hostile takeover.

With rising national debt, low wages, high personal debt, the dying off of the lasted vested generation of alumni donors the conditions were ripe for the lure of cash to work its magic for the carriers.

The growing divide of the G5/P5 is also a standard operating procedure for corporate raiders. Cull out the prime product and sell off cheaply that which you don't want. Then merchandising (product placement parlance for business people) becomes what we the fans call realignment. Get a hardened well followed product line and organize it to maximize the viewer participation, across multiple time slots, in multiple regions and the carrier maximizes its revenue. The footprint model of realignment was designed to do this which is why I argued vehemently in 2009 for our conferences to adhere to local additions that consolidated our holdings. If our hold over states is split then we eventually lose more of our leverage.

It is why I provided the ESPN plan on realignment thread which was a retread from posts I made here in 2012. ESPN is monopolizing regions but defeating the leverage of the conferences whose rights they purchased by utilizing the footprint model of thinking. The SEC will be worth far more in 20 years if it holds all of the Texas state schools of size and Florida State. There's our leverage. But if ESPN is successful in breaking up North Carolina and Virginia they will be set. None of the conferences will have leverage over large markets because none of them will completely own those markets by virtue of containing their key schools.

The footprint model was destined, indeed planned to fail. It was a short term lure to stop regional thinking and planning and to bust up the leverage the conferences held. So for a short while they paid full subscription fees to two or more conferences for sharing states. Eventually they planned to move to a fractional pay model after the footprint model had served its purposes. In a fractional model you would be paid for the actual % of viewers you would have in a state. Streaming now is going to conveniently reduce that to a more precise accounting of actual viewership.

So, moving to break up existing large states to not only find ways to double and triple dip them to a wider total audience of say 2 or 3 conferences as opposed to just 1 will earn the corporate overlords more revenue, but the sapping of any natural leverage the conferences may have been able to wield is just as key and also earns them more.

Eventually college football will replace the NFL. Go ahead and laugh but the overhead costs to the networks are minimal, the fan base guaranteed by matriculation, and the pay scale a fraction of pro ball. What's more concussions play into this. Eventually they will set a term length on playing football. 6 to 8 years will likely be deemed risk worthy. So High School ball and College ball will be about it. And as people get poorer, and more and more population with less natural resources guarantees this outcome, professional sports will become either more affordable, or cease to exist and I'm betting on the latter.

So the NCAA provides a shorter shelf life for personalities that take over a profession, a more beloved association which perpetuates attachment, and costs much less than professional sports. There's your reason for the hostile takeover.

So smoke that over if you like, but it has been the game plan for the past decade and they are well down the road after the hostile takeover that began shortly after the Oklahoma Georgia suit.

Vantage point is everything. If you look at this from a fan perspective you see your conference getting weaker or stronger and you either love it, or hate it.
If you look at this from an Athletic perspective you will not as readily see what is happening, but the A.D.'s and coaches love it because it drives their salaries at the upper end. If you look at it from an Academic perspective you will only see it as a revenue stream that seems to be increasing. Only if you look at this from the viewpoint of the carrier (Corporate Vantage Point) will you see it for what it actually is. It follows the pattern of a hostile takeover completely.

I stated this plainly in my first post on this board. Nothing has changed except what met with universal rejection 6 years ago is slowly seeping into the consciousness of our posters. 4 years ago I spoke of the coming downsizing in higher education and was about shouted off the board. Now we have the WSJ and Ivy School presidents talking openly about it. We are losing the institutions we value most as individuals and it is not by accident. Lose our touchstones and we lose our cohesion. Lose cohesion and we'll accept any form of leadership in the ensuing vacuum. And then they may tell us what to think and there will be no voices to challenge lies.

It'll never happen, but I would honestly prefer ECU over NC State

The question on a deal like this would be...

If they allowed a few pieces to trade hands then what do you do with the rest of the Big 12? Lots of schools there that have no home.

EDIT: The thing about 2010 is you didn't have a GOR to deal with.

(05-16-2018 01:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The question on a deal like this would be...

If they allowed a few pieces to trade hands then what do you do with the rest of the Big 12? Lots of schools there that have no home.

EDIT: The thing about 2010 is you didn't have a GOR to deal with.

This kind of deal could only be pulled off around 2023 or 2022 at the earliest. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would merely announce that at the end of the GOR they would be leaving. Then there is no penalty, or at worst 1 year of one.

The only way they move any earlier is if enough of the other Big 12 members find a home, which means a larger absorption would be needed to avoid stiff penalties.