So based on some of the discussions that have occurred around here recently, I started thinking about how ESPN specifically might be looking at divvying up the Big 12 in order to gird their other investments.

1. The SEC Network and the ACC Network will still be significant products for some years to come and perhaps for a long time.

2. With the power of 2 conferences in their arsenal, the relative impotency of the Pac 12, and the positioning of the Big Ten; ESPN is in the best position to carve up the Big 12 favorably.

3. While the two conference networks will be bundled together and in so doing buoy each other's profits, it also behooves those involved to get as much bang for the buck out of the deal.

The Big Ten needs a little extra boost as we discussed in another thread so Oklahoma works well for them under the circumstances. More on that later.

Texas and Texas Tech works well for the SEC under this scenario.

The ACC's tastes are a little more odd or acquired as they have to concern themselves with the impact of Notre Dame. That and they are more limited by geography.

Let me propose as well that ESPN can toy with a few schools here and there and probably increase their bottom line by making sure cable subs are maximized in large markets and that each conference network is spread as far and as wide as possible.

While 16 works very well structurally and 18 is doable, I think 20 is still possible. For the purpose of this theory, however, I'm not going to worry about the numbers so much as making sure each move fits a specific objective.

I'm also adding that the ACC Network will still likely have issues being as profitable as everyone would like it to be so that will inform some of the moves here.

Objective 1: Each conference needs penetration on the periphery of its current markets.

Objective 2: Each conference needs members that fit.

Objective 3: Each conference needs to overlap their footprint to some degree as that increases advertising value and reduces the potential influence of any one conference dominating a region.

What if the SEC added Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas?

Objectives...the TX schools are obvious, but what about SEC coverage and penetration in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic? Well, there's really no better way to get it, ensure consistent cable carriage in that region, and absorb a school that fits other than to take WVU. The ACC doesn't really need WVU as that league pretty much has all those markets. WVU in the SEC ensures a greater amount of crossover value. For Kansas, you not only renew a rivalry with Mizzou, but you add an elite basketball power and an AAU school. While the KS market is not huge, it solidifies ESPN's presence in the region and in so doing also expands the ACC's market awareness to a region it can't really access.

What if the ACC added TCU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UConn?

Objectives...the TX market will be wholly owned ESPN territory. TCU is quite possibly the 3rd most valuable product in the current Big 12. Their inclusion along with UH gets solid penetration in that huge market for the ACC Network. Adding UC is a way to capitalize on the Notre Dame fan base as there are a ton of them in OH. The inclusion of UC should help them get a better rate and by extension the SECN as well. I threw UConn in because another basketball power would probably soothe over the old guard while simultaneously shoring up the Northeast for the ACC. That and I don't think Notre Dame would join in full unless forced to and it may still be some time before the conditions are just right.

Another ancillary objective here is that this guts the American conference. The value in that is ESPN doesn't really need a "tweener" conference having so much value that other networks come calling for the content. By contrast, a "tweener" conference would never warrant getting top billing on ESPN channels in place of the other leagues. The ACC is in a perfect position to take those schools though because their threshold for value is a good bit lower than everyone else's.

The Big Ten is just as well off in this scenario. It's entirely possible that Iowa State offers them as much value as Kansas. The 2nd school paired with Oklahoma is less relevant considering another stud is not likely to accompany.

I'm not sure what the Pac 12 would do and it might not really matter.

BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

(08-24-2018 03:26 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  So based on some of the discussions that have occurred around here recently, I started thinking about how ESPN specifically might be looking at divvying up the Big 12 in order to gird their other investments.

1. The SEC Network and the ACC Network will still be significant products for some years to come and perhaps for a long time.

2. With the power of 2 conferences in their arsenal, the relative impotency of the Pac 12, and the positioning of the Big Ten; ESPN is in the best position to carve up the Big 12 favorably.

3. While the two conference networks will be bundled together and in so doing buoy each other's profits, it also behooves those involved to get as much bang for the buck out of the deal.

The Big Ten needs a little extra boost as we discussed in another thread so Oklahoma works well for them under the circumstances. More on that later.

Texas and Texas Tech works well for the SEC under this scenario.

The ACC's tastes are a little more odd or acquired as they have to concern themselves with the impact of Notre Dame. That and they are more limited by geography.

Let me propose as well that ESPN can toy with a few schools here and there and probably increase their bottom line by making sure cable subs are maximized in large markets and that each conference network is spread as far and as wide as possible.

While 16 works very well structurally and 18 is doable, I think 20 is still possible. For the purpose of this theory, however, I'm not going to worry about the numbers so much as making sure each move fits a specific objective.

I'm also adding that the ACC Network will still likely have issues being as profitable as everyone would like it to be so that will inform some of the moves here.

Objective 1: Each conference needs penetration on the periphery of its current markets.

Objective 2: Each conference needs members that fit.

Objective 3: Each conference needs to overlap their footprint to some degree as that increases advertising value and reduces the potential influence of any one conference dominating a region.

What if the SEC added Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia, and Kansas?

Objectives...the TX schools are obvious, but what about SEC coverage and penetration in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic? Well, there's really no better way to get it, ensure consistent cable carriage in that region, and absorb a school that fits other than to take WVU. The ACC doesn't really need WVU as that league pretty much has all those markets. WVU in the SEC ensures a greater amount of crossover value. For Kansas, you not only renew a rivalry with Mizzou, but you add an elite basketball power and an AAU school. While the KS market is not huge, it solidifies ESPN's presence in the region and in so doing also expands the ACC's market awareness to a region it can't really access.

What if the ACC added TCU, Houston, Cincinnati, and UConn?

Objectives...the TX market will be wholly owned ESPN territory. TCU is quite possibly the 3rd most valuable product in the current Big 12. Their inclusion along with UH gets solid penetration in that huge market for the ACC Network. Adding UC is a way to capitalize on the Notre Dame fan base as there are a ton of them in OH. The inclusion of UC should help them get a better rate and by extension the SECN as well. I threw UConn in because another basketball power would probably soothe over the old guard while simultaneously shoring up the Northeast for the ACC. That and I don't think Notre Dame would join in full unless forced to and it may still be some time before the conditions are just right.

Another ancillary objective here is that this guts the American conference. The value in that is ESPN doesn't really need a "tweener" conference having so much value that other networks come calling for the content. By contrast, a "tweener" conference would never warrant getting top billing on ESPN channels in place of the other leagues. The ACC is in a perfect position to take those schools though because their threshold for value is a good bit lower than everyone else's.

The Big Ten is just as well off in this scenario. It's entirely possible that Iowa State offers them as much value as Kansas. The 2nd school paired with Oklahoma is less relevant considering another stud is not likely to accompany.

I'm not sure what the Pac 12 would do and it might not really matter.

That's really devaluing the ACC with those additions, especially if the number is 4. I think there are different ways of finishing realignment but if your looking at it from an ESPN perspective and dividing between the SEC/ACC the simplest way would simply be to do this:

SEC: OU, KS, ISU, OSU
ACC: UT, TT, TCU, WVU

Unfortunately, KSU & Baylor don't find a spot. Or if you wanted to do it right away to get the jump on tech companies and not worry about challenges of breaking up leagues add KSU to the SEC and Baylor to the ACC.

I don't think WVU adds anything for the SEC. I'm a fan of OK/Kansas to the SEC but that has been discussed ad nauseum. But given your Texas/Tech/Kansas triumvirate, and assuming ISU is too much of a reach for the SEC, I'd wonder about taking OSU on their own instead. With Texas in the fold, we don't need an OK school as much, but if WVU doesn't bring alot to the table we are left with a fourth Texas school in TCU or Baylor, or KSU or OSU. At that point I think OSUs value is less in market but more in simply being in another state, having some funds and being a decent athletic school right now. Plus it means the OK/OSU game brings some value to the SEC every other year. Of course, I only do that if OK has already decided on the Big 10, not giving them an excuse to say "OSU is already in the SEC, so we can go where we want." Or, let's think outside the box and take Arizona? I say it mostly in jest.

In that scenario the Big 10 can still take OK/ISU.

I do like your four to the ACC. UConn may be heading the wrong direction though. If not UConn maybe USF? However, I've thought for a while that with it's basketball history that Houston fits the ACC well. TCU as a travel partner also gives the ACC a piece of Dallas/Fort Worth.

(08-24-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

What about this spin on it?

Assuming Texas and Texas Tech come aboard, that does create a situation where Oklahoma could be put in a position to leave Oklahoma State behind. Will they leave OSU behind and go to the Big Ten or will they leave them behind and go to the SEC? From the perspective of the Legislators in the state, it's basically the same difference right?

If Oklahoma and Kansas are moving together then I think it makes sense for them to move to the SEC as well and it's a little more economically efficient if Oklahoma State isn't in the picture.

While I do think ESPN would love to have a bigger slice of the Big Ten, I think it's going to take ACC properties to really pull that off. The risk is that the B1G will simply take their ball and go elsewhere at any time. At best, ESPN would still be sharing a fair chunk of games with another network and that limits scheduling options. That and ESPN doesn't really have as much sway over an OU as they do over current ACC schools. If OU decides to go to the B1G then does that really curry much favor? Texas and Kansas are the schools here that would be giving up a close relationship with ESPN should they move to the B1G.

From the perspective of dealing with the ACC, I just don't see any swaps going down. I think they'd like to expand their footprint, but losing anyone from their core of schools might alter their politics too much and create greater instability.

From ESPN's perspective, I think they would rather use the ACC and SEC as complements and buoy each other. Unless ESPN ends up buying the BTN or something like that, I don't think the B1G would ever really occupy the same priority. The ACC's content is valuable and comes at a bargain price. ESPN can fully control the time slots and scheduling. They can use the SEC and ACC non-conference games to create greater inventory in-house. With a move here and a move there, ESPN could use the foundation of those two leagues to control content on a massive scale.

For the ACC to move West, I think, would take special options. TCU and Houston would work pretty well because they are near major airports and it would be easy to get the ACC on the local cable operators and at that point the alumni numbers don't matter as much as the populations of two huge cities. West Virginia isn't a bad option, but I don't think the ACC really expands territory that way. Everything else is hard to get to or has a small economic footprint.

(08-27-2018 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

What about this spin on it?

Assuming Texas and Texas Tech come aboard, that does create a situation where Oklahoma could be put in a position to leave Oklahoma State behind. Will they leave OSU behind and go to the Big Ten or will they leave them behind and go to the SEC? From the perspective of the Legislators in the state, it's basically the same difference right?

If Oklahoma and Kansas are moving together then I think it makes sense for them to move to the SEC as well and it's a little more economically efficient if Oklahoma State isn't in the picture.

While I do think ESPN would love to have a bigger slice of the Big Ten, I think it's going to take ACC properties to really pull that off. The risk is that the B1G will simply take their ball and go elsewhere at any time. At best, ESPN would still be sharing a fair chunk of games with another network and that limits scheduling options. That and ESPN doesn't really have as much sway over an OU as they do over current ACC schools. If OU decides to go to the B1G then does that really curry much favor? Texas and Kansas are the schools here that would be giving up a close relationship with ESPN should they move to the B1G.

From the perspective of dealing with the ACC, I just don't see any swaps going down. I think they'd like to expand their footprint, but losing anyone from their core of schools might alter their politics too much and create greater instability.

From ESPN's perspective, I think they would rather use the ACC and SEC as complements and buoy each other. Unless ESPN ends up buying the BTN or something like that, I don't think the B1G would ever really occupy the same priority. The ACC's content is valuable and comes at a bargain price. ESPN can fully control the time slots and scheduling. They can use the SEC and ACC non-conference games to create greater inventory in-house. With a move here and a move there, ESPN could use the foundation of those two leagues to control content on a massive scale.

For the ACC to move West, I think, would take special options. TCU and Houston would work pretty well because they are near major airports and it would be easy to get the ACC on the local cable operators and at that point the alumni numbers don't matter as much as the populations of two huge cities. West Virginia isn't a bad option, but I don't think the ACC really expands territory that way. Everything else is hard to get to or has a small economic footprint.

Other ACC team fans beat me up over this all the time, but in my opinion the most logical expansion targets are WVU, ND, TCU and then probably Houston. The Texas private schools fit the profile, and WVU's value has been discussed at length.

However, that's only 6 Big XII schools... who would be the other 2 to dissolve the league?

One other thing I'll toss out: before breaking up the Big XII, they would need to join the ACC and SEC in voting for a rule change to allow conference championships without divisions - that way the Big Ten can't block it.

(08-27-2018 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

What about this spin on it?

Assuming Texas and Texas Tech come aboard, that does create a situation where Oklahoma could be put in a position to leave Oklahoma State behind. Will they leave OSU behind and go to the Big Ten or will they leave them behind and go to the SEC? From the perspective of the Legislators in the state, it's basically the same difference right?

If Oklahoma and Kansas are moving together then I think it makes sense for them to move to the SEC as well and it's a little more economically efficient if Oklahoma State isn't in the picture.

While I do think ESPN would love to have a bigger slice of the Big Ten, I think it's going to take ACC properties to really pull that off. The risk is that the B1G will simply take their ball and go elsewhere at any time. At best, ESPN would still be sharing a fair chunk of games with another network and that limits scheduling options. That and ESPN doesn't really have as much sway over an OU as they do over current ACC schools. If OU decides to go to the B1G then does that really curry much favor? Texas and Kansas are the schools here that would be giving up a close relationship with ESPN should they move to the B1G.

From the perspective of dealing with the ACC, I just don't see any swaps going down. I think they'd like to expand their footprint, but losing anyone from their core of schools might alter their politics too much and create greater instability.

From ESPN's perspective, I think they would rather use the ACC and SEC as complements and buoy each other. Unless ESPN ends up buying the BTN or something like that, I don't think the B1G would ever really occupy the same priority. The ACC's content is valuable and comes at a bargain price. ESPN can fully control the time slots and scheduling. They can use the SEC and ACC non-conference games to create greater inventory in-house. With a move here and a move there, ESPN could use the foundation of those two leagues to control content on a massive scale.

For the ACC to move West, I think, would take special options. TCU and Houston would work pretty well because they are near major airports and it would be easy to get the ACC on the local cable operators and at that point the alumni numbers don't matter as much as the populations of two huge cities. West Virginia isn't a bad option, but I don't think the ACC really expands territory that way. Everything else is hard to get to or has a small economic footprint.

That's the interesting part of your argument here. But there is a 16 school solution for this. And perhaps by sending Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC to finish out our 16 member conference ESPN is really painting a pathway to gaining a piece of the PAC without upsetting Texas, or dealing with the Big 10.

Would you agree that both Oklahoma and Kansas have a significant little brother problem? Both Kansas and Oklahoma want the Big 10 but both have state legislatures that will be protective of the 2nd state school.

Perhaps by sending the SEC Texas and Texas Tech ESPN not only gives Texas the advantages it would be seeking over OU and the other Big 12 schools, but would also be placing a huge subtle pressure on OU and Kansas to seriously consider a PAC offer of OU/OSU/KU/KSU to take the PAC to 16. Why?

ESPN & FOX split the PAC 12 lease. They could still split it and ESPN gives up nothing. They still have a 50% stake in Oklahoma and Kansas, both FOX and ESPN get an enhanced PAC product with CTZ exposure.

The ACC takes in WVU. That leaves Baylor, T.C.U. and Iowa State. It also leaves the Big 10 still needing properties from ESPN it they are to expand further which puts the leverage back in Disney's hands.

Right now it Big 10's options are Kansas and Oklahoma. It adds two states and a basketball and football blue blood. But if the PAC got a significant bump to around 35 million which is what the Big 12 currently makes, might those two state legislatures rather have all 4 schools revenues protected as opposed to two of them receiving significant bumps while two see significant demotions? My money would be on protecting what they have rather than dealing with the chaos that would ensue if 2 got left behind.

If that happened it limits the Big 10's expansion to the Northeast and leaves them 1 AAU school (Iowa State) in play. Their expansion options would quickly become Colorado State and Iowa State, or Iowa State and Connecticut. If they wanted something better they would have to deal with ESPN.

So ATU in this situation Texas stays close to ESPN via the SEC, and Oklahoma and Kansas keep the same arrangement they have now. All 2nd state schools are taken care of. And options exist in the future that the Big 10 might find enticing.

Let's say hypothetically that the ACC takes T.C.U. for the market and W.V.U. and leaves N.D. alone. Should the Big 10 wish to expand after getting cozy with ESPN again they could take the Irish and Boston College and then the ACC could simply add Houston and get back to 16. If Notre Dame goes all in with the ACC, then at some future date Iowa State and Virginia Tech might be Big 10 options and the ACC still adds Houston. There are a lot of these kinds of simple moves that if the Big 10 was prevented from expanding this round, could be worked by the early 2030's.

(08-27-2018 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

What about this spin on it?

Assuming Texas and Texas Tech come aboard, that does create a situation where Oklahoma could be put in a position to leave Oklahoma State behind. Will they leave OSU behind and go to the Big Ten or will they leave them behind and go to the SEC? From the perspective of the Legislators in the state, it's basically the same difference right?

If Oklahoma and Kansas are moving together then I think it makes sense for them to move to the SEC as well and it's a little more economically efficient if Oklahoma State isn't in the picture.

While I do think ESPN would love to have a bigger slice of the Big Ten, I think it's going to take ACC properties to really pull that off. The risk is that the B1G will simply take their ball and go elsewhere at any time. At best, ESPN would still be sharing a fair chunk of games with another network and that limits scheduling options. That and ESPN doesn't really have as much sway over an OU as they do over current ACC schools. If OU decides to go to the B1G then does that really curry much favor? Texas and Kansas are the schools here that would be giving up a close relationship with ESPN should they move to the B1G.

From the perspective of dealing with the ACC, I just don't see any swaps going down. I think they'd like to expand their footprint, but losing anyone from their core of schools might alter their politics too much and create greater instability.

From ESPN's perspective, I think they would rather use the ACC and SEC as complements and buoy each other. Unless ESPN ends up buying the BTN or something like that, I don't think the B1G would ever really occupy the same priority. The ACC's content is valuable and comes at a bargain price. ESPN can fully control the time slots and scheduling. They can use the SEC and ACC non-conference games to create greater inventory in-house. With a move here and a move there, ESPN could use the foundation of those two leagues to control content on a massive scale.

For the ACC to move West, I think, would take special options. TCU and Houston would work pretty well because they are near major airports and it would be easy to get the ACC on the local cable operators and at that point the alumni numbers don't matter as much as the populations of two huge cities. West Virginia isn't a bad option, but I don't think the ACC really expands territory that way. Everything else is hard to get to or has a small economic footprint.

That's the interesting part of your argument here. But there is a 16 school solution for this. And perhaps by sending Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC to finish out our 16 member conference ESPN is really painting a pathway to gaining a piece of the PAC without upsetting Texas, or dealing with the Big 10.

Would you agree that both Oklahoma and Kansas have a significant little brother problem? Both Kansas and Oklahoma want the Big 10 but both have state legislatures that will be protective of the 2nd state school.

Perhaps by sending the SEC Texas and Texas Tech ESPN not only gives Texas the advantages it would be seeking over OU and the other Big 12 schools, but would also be placing a huge subtle pressure on OU and Kansas to seriously consider a PAC offer of OU/OSU/KU/KSU to take the PAC to 16. Why?

ESPN & FOX split the PAC 12 lease. They could still split it and ESPN gives up nothing. They still have a 50% stake in Oklahoma and Kansas, both FOX and ESPN get an enhanced PAC product with CTZ exposure.

The ACC takes in WVU. That leaves Baylor, T.C.U. and Iowa State. It also leaves the Big 10 still needing properties from ESPN it they are to expand further which puts the leverage back in Disney's hands.

Right now it Big 10's options are Kansas and Oklahoma. It adds two states and a basketball and football blue blood. But if the PAC got a significant bump to around 35 million which is what the Big 12 currently makes, might those two state legislatures rather have all 4 schools revenues protected as opposed to two of them receiving significant bumps while two see significant demotions? My money would be on protecting what they have rather than dealing with the chaos that would ensue if 2 got left behind.

If that happened it limits the Big 10's expansion to the Northeast and leaves them 1 AAU school (Iowa State) in play. Their expansion options would quickly become Colorado State and Iowa State, or Iowa State and Connecticut. If they wanted something better they would have to deal with ESPN.

So ATU in this situation Texas stays close to ESPN via the SEC, and Oklahoma and Kansas keep the same arrangement they have now. All 2nd state schools are taken care of. And options exist in the future that the Big 10 might find enticing.

Let's say hypothetically that the ACC takes T.C.U. for the market and W.V.U. and leaves N.D. alone. Should the Big 10 wish to expand after getting cozy with ESPN again they could take the Irish and Boston College and then the ACC could simply add Houston and get back to 16. If Notre Dame goes all in with the ACC, then at some future date Iowa State and Virginia Tech might be Big 10 options and the ACC still adds Houston. There are a lot of these kinds of simple moves that if the Big 10 was prevented from expanding this round, could be worked by the early 2030's.

Although that scenario is not "impossible", it seems to present several problems:
1) The ACC has "passed" on West Virginia at least twice. It appears WVU does not meet the "requirements" (whatever they might be) of the ACC core schools. Given the size of their market, I can't imagine ESPN would find much value in them and given their academics, much the same for at least most of the ACC schools (burning couches does not seem to be an ACC "thing"!
2) Given their academics (yes, I know but in the PAC they probably count) I don't see either KSU or OSU making the grade, even with "Big Brothers" to the PAC. I think it would be more likely that the PAC would look at Texas schools, IIFF (and that's a big "IF") they even look at expansion. I think they realize they are pretty much "stuck" where they are. (I'm not sure given three time zones and the travel, that most CTZ are really all that interested in the PAC except as a last resort.)
3) The SEC is probably the only P5 conference that would consider taking OSU (and only if "tied" with OU to the SEC). I don't think anyone would take KSU. Those schools might "yell and scream" but that's pretty much reality.
4) If Kansas and/or Oklahoma is faced with question of having at least ONE school in the P5 (P4 by that time) or no school in a P5, doubt the yelling and screaming is going to make any difference. Also, you must remember the report that NU, KU, ISU, OU & A&M approached the B1G in the 2010 period about membership. https://www.missourinet.com/2015/07/27/k...e-big-ten/
Notice there was no KSU or OSU included. To me, that indicates that neither KU nor OU sees a "little brother problem" at least not one they think they can't "handle".
5) ESPN is unlikely to want UT & OU in the same conference (especially if it's the SEC) as it gives way too much negotiation power to the SEC. So, OSU can only be "taken care of" if OU goes to the SEC and UT does not.
6) With all of the arguments about the preference of not having two schools in a "small" state in the same conference (unless already there), I have difficulty thinking the B1G would be aching to add Iowa State and/or CSU. ISU is a fine school but I can't think of what ISU would really add, other than another mouth to feed. I doubt CSU would be of interest to the B1G, not being a "flagship" (and at least not yet AAU though it does a lot of research). Now, if they could get CU, that's another matter. I have no idea how likely that would be, but doubt it is very likely. Connecticut is a possibility IF the B1G decided it HAD to expand, but I think that would be very much a "last resort" for the B1G.
7) It seems there are so many "moving pieces" in these expansion scenarios, the chances of hitting upon what actually will happen (maybe NOTHING!) is an endless source of entertainment but with a low probablility of accurate prediction. Maybe all of our "crystal balls" need to be sent-in for refurbishing!!

(08-27-2018 01:12 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 11:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-27-2018 01:03 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 04:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 03:41 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  BTW, I'm still convinced ESPN would rather have Kansas in its quiver. That's one of the reasons I think they'll move some pieces around to get KU in the fold.

Awful Announcing reports on Jayhawk Network being added to ESPN+ lineup

I think the variable here ATU is whether or not ESPN has designs on more of the Big 10's rights. If they do I think that Oklahoma is the best available and closest brand for them to get. And if that's the case the Big 10 will likely land OU and KU. What people forget, and I don't mean you, is that Texas spent most of its existence in a conference of which OU was not a member.

However, if the Big 10 is not destined to be a larger holding of ESPN then I think that division of schools in an 18 team scenario could get a bit more scrambled.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC to make room for Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to the ACC would be more likely. If the ACCN hopes to compete with the SEC they need to spread their markets even more completely. Should Notre Dame ever wish to join in full then adding Cincinnati or UConn to take them to 20 would be possible.

The SEC however would be positioned if we were going to 18 to simply take Texas/TTU/OU/OSU and get there simply and efficiently. The ACC would add T.C.U. and Baylor to the West and West Virginia and Notre Dame to the East.

At that point I could see Kansas and Kansas State along with Iowa State joining the PAC with another Western schools added. Why? Because I wouldn't see the Big 10 adding anyone at that juncture.

What about this spin on it?

Assuming Texas and Texas Tech come aboard, that does create a situation where Oklahoma could be put in a position to leave Oklahoma State behind. Will they leave OSU behind and go to the Big Ten or will they leave them behind and go to the SEC? From the perspective of the Legislators in the state, it's basically the same difference right?

If Oklahoma and Kansas are moving together then I think it makes sense for them to move to the SEC as well and it's a little more economically efficient if Oklahoma State isn't in the picture.

While I do think ESPN would love to have a bigger slice of the Big Ten, I think it's going to take ACC properties to really pull that off. The risk is that the B1G will simply take their ball and go elsewhere at any time. At best, ESPN would still be sharing a fair chunk of games with another network and that limits scheduling options. That and ESPN doesn't really have as much sway over an OU as they do over current ACC schools. If OU decides to go to the B1G then does that really curry much favor? Texas and Kansas are the schools here that would be giving up a close relationship with ESPN should they move to the B1G.

From the perspective of dealing with the ACC, I just don't see any swaps going down. I think they'd like to expand their footprint, but losing anyone from their core of schools might alter their politics too much and create greater instability.

From ESPN's perspective, I think they would rather use the ACC and SEC as complements and buoy each other. Unless ESPN ends up buying the BTN or something like that, I don't think the B1G would ever really occupy the same priority. The ACC's content is valuable and comes at a bargain price. ESPN can fully control the time slots and scheduling. They can use the SEC and ACC non-conference games to create greater inventory in-house. With a move here and a move there, ESPN could use the foundation of those two leagues to control content on a massive scale.

For the ACC to move West, I think, would take special options. TCU and Houston would work pretty well because they are near major airports and it would be easy to get the ACC on the local cable operators and at that point the alumni numbers don't matter as much as the populations of two huge cities. West Virginia isn't a bad option, but I don't think the ACC really expands territory that way. Everything else is hard to get to or has a small economic footprint.

That's the interesting part of your argument here. But there is a 16 school solution for this. And perhaps by sending Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC to finish out our 16 member conference ESPN is really painting a pathway to gaining a piece of the PAC without upsetting Texas, or dealing with the Big 10.

Would you agree that both Oklahoma and Kansas have a significant little brother problem? Both Kansas and Oklahoma want the Big 10 but both have state legislatures that will be protective of the 2nd state school.

Perhaps by sending the SEC Texas and Texas Tech ESPN not only gives Texas the advantages it would be seeking over OU and the other Big 12 schools, but would also be placing a huge subtle pressure on OU and Kansas to seriously consider a PAC offer of OU/OSU/KU/KSU to take the PAC to 16. Why?

ESPN & FOX split the PAC 12 lease. They could still split it and ESPN gives up nothing. They still have a 50% stake in Oklahoma and Kansas, both FOX and ESPN get an enhanced PAC product with CTZ exposure.

The ACC takes in WVU. That leaves Baylor, T.C.U. and Iowa State. It also leaves the Big 10 still needing properties from ESPN it they are to expand further which puts the leverage back in Disney's hands.

Right now it Big 10's options are Kansas and Oklahoma. It adds two states and a basketball and football blue blood. But if the PAC got a significant bump to around 35 million which is what the Big 12 currently makes, might those two state legislatures rather have all 4 schools revenues protected as opposed to two of them receiving significant bumps while two see significant demotions? My money would be on protecting what they have rather than dealing with the chaos that would ensue if 2 got left behind.

If that happened it limits the Big 10's expansion to the Northeast and leaves them 1 AAU school (Iowa State) in play. Their expansion options would quickly become Colorado State and Iowa State, or Iowa State and Connecticut. If they wanted something better they would have to deal with ESPN.

So ATU in this situation Texas stays close to ESPN via the SEC, and Oklahoma and Kansas keep the same arrangement they have now. All 2nd state schools are taken care of. And options exist in the future that the Big 10 might find enticing.

Let's say hypothetically that the ACC takes T.C.U. for the market and W.V.U. and leaves N.D. alone. Should the Big 10 wish to expand after getting cozy with ESPN again they could take the Irish and Boston College and then the ACC could simply add Houston and get back to 16. If Notre Dame goes all in with the ACC, then at some future date Iowa State and Virginia Tech might be Big 10 options and the ACC still adds Houston. There are a lot of these kinds of simple moves that if the Big 10 was prevented from expanding this round, could be worked by the early 2030's.

Although that scenario is not "impossible", it seems to present several problems:
1) The ACC has "passed" on West Virginia at least twice. It appears WVU does not meet the "requirements" (whatever they might be) of the ACC core schools. Given the size of their market, I can't imagine ESPN would find much value in them and given their academics, much the same for at least most of the ACC schools (burning couches does not seem to be an ACC "thing"!
2) Given their academics (yes, I know but in the PAC they probably count) I don't see either KSU or OSU making the grade, even with "Big Brothers" to the PAC. I think it would be more likely that the PAC would look at Texas schools, IIFF (and that's a big "IF") they even look at expansion. I think they realize they are pretty much "stuck" where they are. (I'm not sure given three time zones and the travel, that most CTZ are really all that interested in the PAC except as a last resort.)
3) The SEC is probably the only P5 conference that would consider taking OSU (and only if "tied" with OU to the SEC). I don't think anyone would take KSU. Those schools might "yell and scream" but that's pretty much reality.
4) If Kansas and/or Oklahoma is faced with question of having at least ONE school in the P5 (P4 by that time) or no school in a P5, doubt the yelling and screaming is going to make any difference. Also, you must remember the report that NU, KU, ISU, OU & A&M approached the B1G in the 2010 period about membership. https://www.missourinet.com/2015/07/27/k...e-big-ten/
Notice there was no KSU or OSU included. To me, that indicates that neither KU nor OU sees a "little brother problem" at least not one they think they can't "handle".
5) ESPN is unlikely to want UT & OU in the same conference (especially if it's the SEC) as it gives way too much negotiation power to the SEC. So, OSU can only be "taken care of" if OU goes to the SEC and UT does not.
6) With all of the arguments about the preference of not having two schools in a "small" state in the same conference (unless already there), I have difficulty thinking the B1G would be aching to add Iowa State and/or CSU. ISU is a fine school but I can't think of what ISU would really add, other than another mouth to feed. I doubt CSU would be of interest to the B1G, not being a "flagship" (and at least not yet AAU though it does a lot of research). Now, if they could get CU, that's another matter. I have no idea how likely that would be, but doubt it is very likely. Connecticut is a possibility IF the B1G decided it HAD to expand, but I think that would be very much a "last resort" for the B1G.
7) It seems there are so many "moving pieces" in these expansion scenarios, the chances of hitting upon what actually will happen (maybe NOTHING!) is an endless source of entertainment but with a low probablility of accurate prediction. Maybe all of our "crystal balls" need to be sent-in for refurbishing!!

1. When the ACC passed on West Virginia it was decades ago. The football first schools weren't even in existence in the ACC at the time. Things have changed there and there is simply no other palpable addition for what is currently the last place conference in revenue. The fact that WVU is competitive in all 3 major men's sports is also key here. Their academics were no worse than Louisville's and like their Kentucky neighbor they add to both side of the ACC's sports product value. I wouldn't count them out the next time around.

2. I don't disagree with your assessment of the PAC's situation at all. However, if they do get intentional about increasing their sports revenue it isn't out of the realm of possibility and given their whiffs in the past their options this time around are liable to be less favorable than the last the time they were a player

3. The SEC is after a much deeper penetration into the DFW market. Oklahoma gives us that. We probably would be willing to take OSU to make that happen. However of the pairings we can work toward obtaining from the Big 12 OU/OSU is the 7th best pairing in terms of value to the SEC. And Texas has been in talks with the SEC since before 1990.

4. It is true those schools had discussions with the Big 10, but at least 2 of those schools were merely obtaining a sense of their worth to the various conferences because 2 of them also had definite discussions with the SEC and it was rumored that Kansas had as well. Texas A&M was already deep into exploring SEC membership, and had been since 1991-2. And Texas talked with the SEC again as well.

Don't put any stock into the twitterati reports of "discussions". Discussions happen regularly for many reasons among which are doing due diligence on their media contract valuations and so they check their value to all of the other major conferences, and they do so when they are looking around to be able to lay the complete scenario of possibilities on the table for their decision makers. Most of the time it means zilch. What schools say publicly also means zilch.

5. I agree that ESPN isn't like to want both OU and UT in the same conference. But if the two schools were interested, then neither is ESPN wanting to piss off the SEC and risk losing that product by 2034.

6. My suggestions here were merely to point out how unpalatable those two pairings would be and to add emphasis to the Big 10's needs to curry ESPN's favor if they were to expand again to the East.

7. I don't feel the need for a new crystal ball, since I don't use one. What I use is the raw data on valuations, attendance, gross total revenue, fit and conference profile, with a moderate realization of the possible business goals of the networks, especially when one plots the course of their past moves and sees the direction in which they are moving.