(07-22-2018 07:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 03:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  I can't help but conclude from all the speculation about P5 realignment in general, and ACC realignment in particular, is that everybody is where they should be right now. There are no G5 schools whose addition would make any P5 conference better.

And while there may be a small number of P5 to P5 moves that might make the SEC better, those moves wouldn't necessarily make the schools who move better off than they are in their current conferences. That's not to say they won't make the moves anyway. Sometimes schools' presidents act foolishly.

And there are no guarantees that media partners won't make foolish decisions which might seem like good long term strategy in the present. But to me, the most likely P5 realignment is still no realignment at all. All the low hanging fruit has already been plucked.

Ken,
It's unfortunate the networks wanted to try to move to 4 P conferences. After they pared things down to 5 they have realized that "it won't work" and nobody knows how to fix it.

As long as we have fewer than six major conferences not all teams will be where they need to be.
I think we need 6 conferences consisting of between 10 and 12 teams.

1. leave the PAC alone at 12 teams

2. The B1G needs to revert to the original Big Ten.

3. Move the ACC back south.
Eleven teams: UVa, Carolina, Duke, State, Wake Forest, Clemson, South Carolina
Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami and Vanderbilt.


4. The SEC is still the premier football conference at eleven
Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss,
Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Arkansas.

5. The Big 12 is comfortable at 11 also.
Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor,
Oklahoma, Missouri and Oklahoma State.

6. The Eastern Conference adds the only G5
Cincinnati, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland,
Louisville, West Virginia and Virginia Tech.

7. Notre Dame can make an arrangement with anyone they want

This is a way that everyone is where they should be, but unfortunately it won't pay for itself.

Networks don't think about anything other than whose rights they have and how much they are going to make off of them. They probably do care that they are having to overpay the Big 12 in order to keep a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. But they aren't thinking of conferences there either, but rather the bottom line. That's what corporations do. And if there were only 1 corporation seeking rights then maybe they might be able to remedy some of the unintended consequences, but there aren't. There are 4 or 5 now and there are about to be more. So nobody is losing sleep over the unintended consequences of realignment, but they are probably thinking out strategies for landing the product they want so they can arrange it in the most profitable fashion.

As far as I know you are the only one running around trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

That opens itself up to a horrifying series of expansion thoughts: conferences owned as puppet sub-conferences of the P5 for partial/lesser shares.

(07-22-2018 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Networks don't think about anything other than whose rights they have and how much they are going to make off of them. They probably do care that they are having to overpay the Big 12 in order to keep a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. But they aren't thinking of conferences there either, but rather the bottom line. That's what corporations do. And if there were only 1 corporation seeking rights then maybe they might be able to remedy some of the unintended consequences, but there aren't. There are 4 or 5 now and there are about to be more. So nobody is losing sleep over the unintended consequences of realignment, but they are probably thinking out strategies for landing the product they want so they can arrange it in the most profitable fashion.

As far as I know you are the only one running around trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.

This is why I like megaconferences. If you make the ownership umbrella extensive enough you can fix all the positioning problems AND maximize profit at the same time. And Disney's ownership umbrella is already ... what .. 85-90% of what it needs to be to accomplish that with the Big 12 + SEC + ACC?

(07-22-2018 07:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Networks don't think about anything other than whose rights they have and how much they are going to make off of them. They probably do care that they are having to overpay the Big 12 in order to keep a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. But they aren't thinking of conferences there either, but rather the bottom line. That's what corporations do. And if there were only 1 corporation seeking rights then maybe they might be able to remedy some of the unintended consequences, but there aren't. There are 4 or 5 now and there are about to be more. So nobody is losing sleep over the unintended consequences of realignment, but they are probably thinking out strategies for landing the product they want so they can arrange it in the most profitable fashion.

As far as I know you are the only one running around trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.

This is why I like megaconferences. If you make the ownership umbrella extensive enough you can fix all the positioning problems AND maximize profit at the same time. And Disney's ownership umbrella is already ... what .. 85-90% of what it needs to be to accomplish that with the Big 12 + SEC + ACC?

That's precisely what the networks will eventually do. They've bought into a large undeveloped, haphazardly arranged, and ill managed business, NCAA football. They've used rights contracts to rearrange that product already in order to spread the appeal of single units (conferences) in order to reach a broader market. Now if they expand their ownership of rights they can reorganize the schools into divisions more friendly to the schools' needs while still accomplishing the objective of expanding their reach.

So I expect consolidation within the upper tier to make the marketing of individual games more profitable. And if that comes at the expense of granting even larger conferences more leverage it will be seen as a trade off that is worth it.

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

Being a full member has not a hoot in Hell to do with what money you get from the two revenue sports if you don't play one of the revenue sports. What is so hard to understand? If you don't play basketball, you don't get basketball money. If you don't play football, you don't get football money. The conference's has sophisticated enough accounting to split a ticket.

No one is joining the ACC to play a single sport. That's partial membership, and that comes with no vote. I really don't get the obsession with semantics and back flips over Notre Dame and how that spills over into other conversations.

(07-22-2018 07:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

Being a full member has not a hoot in Hell to do with what money you get from the two revenue sports if you don't play one of the revenue sports. What is so hard to understand? If you don't play basketball, you don't get basketball money. If you don't play football, you don't get football money. The conference's has sophisticated enough accounting to split a ticket.

No one is joining the ACC to play a single sport. That's partial membership, and that comes with no vote. I really don't get the obsession with semantics and back flips over Notre Dame and how that spills over into other conversations.

I'm guessing you probably are referring to the bigger sports but I can absolutely see the ACC adding single sport members for sports like Lacrosse, womens gymnastics, etc.

Where did the "ND gets a full ACCN share" come from? Why would their share percentage be any different than it is for the media contracts?

(07-22-2018 08:27 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 07:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

Being a full member has not a hoot in Hell to do with what money you get from the two revenue sports if you don't play one of the revenue sports. What is so hard to understand? If you don't play basketball, you don't get basketball money. If you don't play football, you don't get football money. The conference's has sophisticated enough accounting to split a ticket.

No one is joining the ACC to play a single sport. That's partial membership, and that comes with no vote. I really don't get the obsession with semantics and back flips over Notre Dame and how that spills over into other conversations.

I'm guessing you probably are referring to the bigger sports but I can absolutely see the ACC adding single sport members for sports like Lacrosse, womens gymnastics, etc.

Where did the "ND gets a full ACCN share" come from? Why would their share percentage be any different than it is for the media contracts?

If they didn't add Johns Hopkins for lax when JHU was begging, they're probably not going to add any single, affiliate olympic sports members. Unless, as JHU's initial contract with the B10 was only 5 years, the ACC rethinks that in 2019. The ACC is one team away from a gymnastics league, and was set to add it until Maryland left, and they haven't taken any action to rectify that yet. They could still pick up home gymnastics meets of ACC members. I don't think the EAGL owns any broadcast rights. Heck, the ACC could stage a tri-meet of just ACC members, and even award a non-official championship from that if they wanted, just to add content for the network. But the lack of interest in adding affiliate members has been pretty clear to this point.

Yes, ND is getting a full share of the ACC Network. They are actually a full conference member that just plays 3 less football games than everyone else. They're going to have a bunch of content on it and it is a big part on selling the ACCN to carriers. I believe they might even have football/coaches show content, and don't be surprised if they move some ACC homegames against ND to the ACCN.

I don’t see there being any less than 5 power conferences, we’ve hit a stalemate. Texas in the Big XII is the equivalent of Notre Dame having their own conference. Oklahoma leaving the Big XII hurts the conference, but my money says the Red River Rivalry goes on and doesn’t hurt Texas one bit. BYU is probably the Longhorns best partner in crime if the Sooners pack up and hit the trail.

(07-22-2018 08:27 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 07:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

Being a full member has not a hoot in Hell to do with what money you get from the two revenue sports if you don't play one of the revenue sports. What is so hard to understand? If you don't play basketball, you don't get basketball money. If you don't play football, you don't get football money. The conference's has sophisticated enough accounting to split a ticket.

No one is joining the ACC to play a single sport. That's partial membership, and that comes with no vote. I really don't get the obsession with semantics and back flips over Notre Dame and how that spills over into other conversations.

I'm guessing you probably are referring to the bigger sports but I can absolutely see the ACC adding single sport members for sports like Lacrosse, womens gymnastics, etc.

Where did the "ND gets a full ACCN share" come from? Why would their share percentage be any different than it is for the media contracts?

It came from the latest series of contracts. ND does indeed get a full share of ACC Network profits.

The ACC plans to use ND to market the ACC Network and to add a bunch of content.

The ACC Network deal giving ND a full share has nothing to do with the original deal when ND joined, wherein it gets no ESPN football money, but receives about $6.4 million a year from basketball/other sports.

Think the future will see 1 of 2 things.

Either massive consolidation or a rebirth of independents with the Netflix/Sling/Amazon/youtube type providers giving TV contracts to individual schools (likely to start with a Texas/ND/OKl type schools going this direction).

(07-23-2018 06:40 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 08:27 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 07:58 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 06:41 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 01:07 PM)Statefan Wrote:  If[/b][/i][/u] Navy is a member of the ACC they will be a full member, what they will not play is BASKETBALL. There are a number of Olympic Sports where they usually

Notre Dame already gets a full ACCN share plus a partial regular ACC share. I don't see any way Navy could justify getting a whole 'nuther share! What I could see is Navy bringing enough to the table to justify getting the rest of Notre Dame's share - but that's all.

Being a full member has not a hoot in Hell to do with what money you get from the two revenue sports if you don't play one of the revenue sports. What is so hard to understand? If you don't play basketball, you don't get basketball money. If you don't play football, you don't get football money. The conference's has sophisticated enough accounting to split a ticket.

No one is joining the ACC to play a single sport. That's partial membership, and that comes with no vote. I really don't get the obsession with semantics and back flips over Notre Dame and how that spills over into other conversations.

I'm guessing you probably are referring to the bigger sports but I can absolutely see the ACC adding single sport members for sports like Lacrosse, womens gymnastics, etc.

Where did the "ND gets a full ACCN share" come from? Why would their share percentage be any different than it is for the media contracts?

It came from the latest series of contracts. ND does indeed get a full share of ACC Network profits.

The ACC plans to use ND to market the ACC Network and to add a bunch of content.

The ACC Network deal giving ND a full share has nothing to do with the original deal when ND joined, wherein it gets no ESPN football money, but receives about $6.4 million a year from basketball/other sports.

I suspect that regular season football games will be a relatively small percentage of the content on the ACCN.

(07-22-2018 07:11 PM)XLance Wrote:  As long as we have fewer than six major conferences not all teams will be where they need to be.
I think we need 6 conferences consisting of between 10 and 12 teams.

I am certainly sympathetic to the idea that six smaller conferences are better than four great big ones (or even the five we have now). But I'm afraid that ship has already sailed, and it's never coming back.

Some would like an 8 team playoff, and six conferences would accommodate that. But a 4 team playoff, IMO, also works better with six conferences than it does with five (or four). If there were six conference champions competing for those four spots, at least two would have to be left out. That reduces the stigma of being the only one that missed the cut.

But clearly, that's not the direction we are headed. So all I can do now is yell "get off my lawn" to those who have won this battle.

ESPN is close to wrapping this thing up. Outside of Oregon, Washington, Michigan State and Ohio State, programs under the ESPN banner have participated in college football championship series and playoffs since 2014-2015 season:
2014-2015 - FSU,Oregon,Bama,tOSU
2015-2016 - CU,OU,Bama,MSU
2016-2017 - CU,tOSU, Bama, UW
2017-2018 - UGA,OU,Bama,CU
Let's not forget that the Bowl championship series was heavily dominated by SEC teams:
'98 UT '99 FSU '00 OU '01 the U '02 tOSU '03 LSU '04 USC '05 Texas '06 UF '07 LSU '08 UF

'09 Bama '10 AU '11 Bama '12 Bama '13 FSU.

The Final Four is similar. ESPN have football and basketball sewn up. Adding Texas or Oklahoma would be gravy. adding WVU and/or TCU, Oklahoma State, Kansas as well would put a strangle hold on not only college football but basketball as well.

(07-20-2018 10:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-19-2018 09:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  UNC-Duke, UVa, NCSU, Wake
Duke-UNC, Wake, NCSU, GT
NCSU-UNC, Duke, Wake, CU
Wake-UNC, Duke, NCSU, VT

UVa-VT, UNC, UL, SU
VT-UVa, Wake, Miami, CU

SU-BC, Pitt, UL, UVa
BC-SU, Miami, Pitt, GT
Pitt-SU, UL, Miami, BC

GT-CU, Duke, FSU, BC
CU-NCSU, GT, FSU, VT

Miami-FSU, BC, VT, Pitt
FSU-Miami, CU, GT, UL
UL-Pitt, UVa, FSU, SU

FIFY

That looks great!

(07-22-2018 07:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-22-2018 07:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Networks don't think about anything other than whose rights they have and how much they are going to make off of them. They probably do care that they are having to overpay the Big 12 in order to keep a hold on Texas and Oklahoma. But they aren't thinking of conferences there either, but rather the bottom line. That's what corporations do. And if there were only 1 corporation seeking rights then maybe they might be able to remedy some of the unintended consequences, but there aren't. There are 4 or 5 now and there are about to be more. So nobody is losing sleep over the unintended consequences of realignment, but they are probably thinking out strategies for landing the product they want so they can arrange it in the most profitable fashion.

As far as I know you are the only one running around trying to put the Genie back in the bottle.

This is why I like megaconferences. If you make the ownership umbrella extensive enough you can fix all the positioning problems AND maximize profit at the same time. And Disney's ownership umbrella is already ... what .. 85-90% of what it needs to be to accomplish that with the Big 12 + SEC + ACC?

Especially with mega conferences there would have to be symmetry.
So if you combined the two ESPN conferences (SEC and ACC) for 28, you would only have to add 4 from the Big 12 to get to 32 so that the FOX team (PAC & B1G) could have 32 teams.
Would you divide at Texas? or sell off Missouri for one of the Oklahoma schools or West Virginia?

(07-23-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  I suspect that regular season football games will be a relatively small percentage of the content on the ACCN.

Well duh! There are far fewer available games than there are in other sports.

Regardless, the SEC Network broadcast 46 live football games last season, including 19 conference games.

I think this could happening:

Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

(07-23-2018 08:00 AM)nole Wrote:  Think the future will see 1 of 2 things.

Either massive consolidation or a rebirth of independents with the Netflix/Sling/Amazon/youtube type providers giving TV contracts to individual schools (likely to start with a Texas/ND/OKl type schools going this direction).

I hope so. Back to the future.

(07-23-2018 01:45 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think this could happening:

Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Louisville
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State
Miami

(07-23-2018 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-23-2018 10:03 AM)ken d Wrote:  I suspect that regular season football games will be a relatively small percentage of the content on the ACCN.

Well duh! There are far fewer available games than there are in other sports.

Regardless, the SEC Network broadcast 46 live football games last season, including 19 conference games.

I was simply responding to the question of why Notre Dame gets a full share in the ACCN. Do you think they shouldn't?