REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
Author Message
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-29-2019 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Per a UConn Twitter account:

Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more

https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/...17219?s=12

They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.

The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also

you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)

the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams

Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).

What stood out for me about Aresco's comments was his pushing for both an expanded playoffs and for a contract bowl - which must mean a spot in an NY6 bowl or that mythical "7th bowl" - for the AAC.

The latter wouldn't make much sense if Aresco thought an expanded playoffs would automatically include the AAC champ, or even if it automatically included the top G5 team. If the former, there's no need for it at all. And if the latter, he has to know there is zero chance of it happening, because basically, a contract bowl would be a fall-back in case the AAC champ is not the top G5 team and thus misses the playoffs, but no real "contract bowl" is going to want an AAC champ that wasn't ranked high enough to be the G5 champ.

So to me, this means Aresco is likely thinking that if we expand to 8, there won't be an auto-spot for the G5 in it. This would enable him to make a pitch to an NY6 (or new) contract-level bowl and say "yes, there's always a chance our champ will make the playoffs, but realistically, the vast majority of years, you will be getting out top team".
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2019 09:13 AM by quo vadis.)
05-30-2019 09:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fresnofanatic Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 582
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: fresno state
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
Are these rules spoken of in this thread Autonomous-5 rules or ncaa rules? Maybe G-5 needs to form their own autonomous 5 so we can make rules to favor our unique challenges?

AAC fans and Aresco can say and claim “P6!” all they want. There isn’t an A-6 so Aresco, Thompson and the 3 others need to start talking with each other and thinking out for the box for the non-A-5 and become the 2nd A5...call it “A5+” for the sake of sounding legit and more powerful.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2019 11:05 AM by fresnofanatic.)
05-30-2019 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fresnofanatic Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 582
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: fresno state
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-30-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Per a UConn Twitter account:


https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/...17219?s=12

They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.

The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also

you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)

the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams

Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).

What stood out for me about Aresco's comments was his pushing for both an expanded playoffs and for a contract bowl - which must mean a spot in an NY6 bowl or that mythical "7th bowl" - for the AAC.

The latter wouldn't make much sense if Aresco thought an expanded playoffs would automatically include the AAC champ, or even if it automatically included the top G5 team. If the former, there's no need for it at all. And if the latter, he has to know there is zero chance of it happening, because basically, a contract bowl would be a fall-back in case the AAC champ is not the top G5 team and thus misses the playoffs, but no real "contract bowl" is going to want an AAC champ that wasn't ranked high enough to be the G5 champ.

So to me, this means Aresco is likely thinking that if we expand to 8, there won't be an auto-spot for the G5 in it. This would enable him to make a pitch to an NY6 (or new) contract-level bowl and say "yes, there's always a chance our champ will make the playoffs, but realistically, the vast majority of years, you will be getting out top team".

P5 would NOT want to split the NYBowl money 7 ways. Aresco is leading AAC into fantasyland. Need to be more realistic and out-of-the-Box in his thinking. Which includes having strength in numbers and including the other 4 G5’rs in the climb upwards.
05-30-2019 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,030
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1573
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

A moot point. Once the SEC's T1 is renewed and the Big 10 has inked a new deal being divisionless makes expanding even more likely.

B1G: 54 million
SEC: 43.7 million
Big 12: 36.5 million
ACC: 29.5 million
PAC: 29.5 million

All of that for 2018.

If UT or OU join either the Big 10 or SEC or both the revenue gap widens significantly.

The SEC will receive a boost close to 58 million at lowest estimates when the T1 is renewed or bought by someone besides CBS.

The Big 10 will likely get at least a 5% bump when they renew their general FOX contract.

At those rates they will be doubling the ACC and PAC even with the ACCN which will likely make between 5 to 8 million a year tops after 4-5 years.

It won't matter if N.D. goes all in with the ACC because the revenue gap for the ACC and PAC vs the SEC and Big 10 will range from 150 million a decade to 250 million a decade or from 15 million a year to 25 million a year or more.

Going divisionless will initially assist the Big 10 and SEC in assimilating even more growth if that is their desire and the revenue difference will have even the top brands of the PAC and ACC contemplating what they might earn elsewhere.

it is what I frequently have said that time x economic disparity x economic pressure from declining state and federal funds will = a two league format instead of a P4. And all of this will happen should Texas and or Oklahoma leave the Big 12. And remember what the departure of UT and OU do the Big 12. They lose over 40% of their total value when those 2 depart.

Other catalysts for 2 leagues will be these:

1. With further consolidation the Big 10 and SEC will gain leverage with dominance over their regions. If an advertiser wants in they have to pay top rates for the privilege.

2. Consolidation gives those conferences better leverage when selling rights.

3. Consolidation eliminates duplicated conference expenses, duplicated commercial property, and saves each school on their share of conference expenses.

4. It makes scheduling much simpler and will likely contain all regular season revenues within the conference since the size would mean that all 12 games would likely be played within house. Only post season revenues would be shared.

5. It's a format the networks understand well and can work with easily.

6. It is the most natural way to expand T3 revenue with a conference network and again it saves the network duplication of overhead.

So I don't think the SEC or Big 10 will be worried about Notre Dame going all in with the ACC. I think they will be preoccupied with anticipating their business model changes to maximize the advantages.
05-30-2019 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chess Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,881
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 149
I Root For: ECU & Nebraska
Location: Chicagoland
Post: #45
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-28-2019 10:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  This would make CFB better. Alabama and Georgia fans see the other visit their stadium once every 12 years. Ditto Duke and NC State. That needs to change.

That NC State @Duke game was always a... uh- Home game for the Wolfpack. Duke and State need to play each other in basketball. The schools do not need to play each other in football. Every game at Duke is a home game for the visiting team.
05-30-2019 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #46
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-29-2019 06:56 PM)goofus Wrote:  I would think the Big Ten and SEC would want Notre Dame to be a full member of the ACC.

If ND was in the ACC last year, they would have lost to Clemson before the Playoffs. That would have freed up a spot in the playoffs for either Georgia or Ohio State.

IMO, whether team A or B makes the playoffs in a given year is of trivial concern to a conference compared to the the relative power of the conferences. The ACC actually does overlap both SEC and B1G territory, so they are competitors, and an Notre Dame that was a full formal member of the ACC would greatly increase the ACC's overall brand power, make them much more formidable rival.

The SEC and B1G do not want that.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2019 12:01 PM by quo vadis.)
05-30-2019 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,213
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 142
I Root For: tOSU SJSU Stan'
Location: South Bay Area CA
Post: #47
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

Actually the B1G is floating the idea of scrapping divisions. Not, as you might suspect for putting the two best teams in the CCG, but for scheduling, as many schools want more "cross rivalry" games, as several traditional games of the old B1G are infrequent now. It is also thought necessary for expansion (e.g., Texas or Oklahoma).

The ACC strongly wants Division-less football, again it's mostly scheduling of long time rivals broken by Division.

To pass it really only needs a 3rd P5 conference and one G5 to go along. The B12 might tactically be against it to protect against B1G or SEC poaching of Oklahoma (since Division-less foorball would not require them to add a 16th school of lower value, and cost even more cross division rivalry games). The P12 might actually be in favor of the flexibility since it would allow the Oregon and Washington Schools to play a few more games in Southern California, and the conference has concerns about the quality of the CCG game with often a 3 loss school representing one of the Divisions. On the G5 side, C-USA might go along, as they have 14 schools, meaning they only host cross division opponents once every 7 years (one home and one road cross division game a year only) and they also have concerns about putting the best two schools in the CCG.

Aresco's proposal is nothing new, just a 3rd conference that wants the flexibility. IMO this is coming, the result of larger conferences.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2019 12:23 PM by Stugray2.)
05-30-2019 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 28,329
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1217
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-30-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Per a UConn Twitter account:


https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/...17219?s=12

They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.

The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also

you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)

the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams

Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).

What stood out for me about Aresco's comments was his pushing for both an expanded playoffs and for a contract bowl - which must mean a spot in an NY6 bowl or that mythical "7th bowl" - for the AAC.

The latter wouldn't make much sense if Aresco thought an expanded playoffs would automatically include the AAC champ, or even if it automatically included the top G5 team. If the former, there's no need for it at all. And if the latter, he has to know there is zero chance of it happening, because basically, a contract bowl would be a fall-back in case the AAC champ is not the top G5 team and thus misses the playoffs, but no real "contract bowl" is going to want an AAC champ that wasn't ranked high enough to be the G5 champ.

So to me, this means Aresco is likely thinking that if we expand to 8, there won't be an auto-spot for the G5 in it. This would enable him to make a pitch to an NY6 (or new) contract-level bowl and say "yes, there's always a chance our champ will make the playoffs, but realistically, the vast majority of years, you will be getting out top team".

Yeah---I dont see that. Honestly, the two are not related. A contract bowl is ENTIRELY contingent on finding a network willing to pay 30-40 million (minimum) for the rights to a CFP Bowl featuring the AAC champ. On the other hand, the CFP slot for the G5 is based more on avoiding anti-trust issues. If expansion to 8 is done in conjunction with P5 champs getting an automatic bid---then the chances that the G5 will get a guaranteed slot are quite high. If P5 champs are not AQ---then there likely will not be a guaranteed slot reserved for the G5 or the AAC. An AAC contract bowl has little to do with that calculus.
(This post was last modified: 05-30-2019 12:28 PM by Attackcoog.)
05-30-2019 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,165
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #49
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-30-2019 12:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-30-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also

you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)

the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams

Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).

What stood out for me about Aresco's comments was his pushing for both an expanded playoffs and for a contract bowl - which must mean a spot in an NY6 bowl or that mythical "7th bowl" - for the AAC.

The latter wouldn't make much sense if Aresco thought an expanded playoffs would automatically include the AAC champ, or even if it automatically included the top G5 team. If the former, there's no need for it at all. And if the latter, he has to know there is zero chance of it happening, because basically, a contract bowl would be a fall-back in case the AAC champ is not the top G5 team and thus misses the playoffs, but no real "contract bowl" is going to want an AAC champ that wasn't ranked high enough to be the G5 champ.

So to me, this means Aresco is likely thinking that if we expand to 8, there won't be an auto-spot for the G5 in it. This would enable him to make a pitch to an NY6 (or new) contract-level bowl and say "yes, there's always a chance our champ will make the playoffs, but realistically, the vast majority of years, you will be getting out top team".

Yeah---I dont see that. Honestly, the two are not related. A contract bowl is ENTIRELY contingent on finding a network willing to pay 30-40 million (minimum) for the rights to a CFP Bowl featuring the AAC champ. On the other hand, the CFP slot for the G5 is based more on avoiding anti-trust issues. If expansion to 8 is done in conjunction with P5 champs getting an automatic bid---then the chances that the G5 will get a guaranteed slot are quite high. If P5 champs are not AQ---then there likely will not be a guaranteed slot reserved for the G5 or the AAC. An AAC contract bowl has little to do with that calculus.

To me, they are connected, because the willingness of a network to pay $40m or so for the rights to a bowl featuring the AAC champ is impacted by the odds that the AAC champ will appear in the game. If the AAC or the G5 is guaranteed a playoff spot, then the network will know that either in no years or in most years (based on CFP experience) they will be paying $40m and not getting the AAC champ, whereas if there is no such guarantee, then most years they will.

That surely would impact on TV calculus about making such an investment. To me, Aresco must know that the ONLY chance the AAC could have at a contract bowl is if the AAC champ were essentially guaranteed to play in it.
05-31-2019 05:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,767
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 529
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #50
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

This would do nothing to "woo" Notre Dame football into joining the ACC?

Why would it? ND is doing everything in its power to not have football join a conference.

No divisions=irrelevant to ND.
05-31-2019 06:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,098
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 156
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #51
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-30-2019 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

A moot point. Once the SEC's T1 is renewed and the Big 10 has inked a new deal being divisionless makes expanding even more likely.

B1G: 54 million
SEC: 43.7 million
Big 12: 36.5 million
ACC: 29.5 million
PAC: 29.5 million

All of that for 2018.

If UT or OU join either the Big 10 or SEC or both the revenue gap widens significantly.

The SEC will receive a boost close to 58 million at lowest estimates when the T1 is renewed or bought by someone besides CBS.

The Big 10 will likely get at least a 5% bump when they renew their general FOX contract.

At those rates they will be doubling the ACC and PAC even with the ACCN which will likely make between 5 to 8 million a year tops after 4-5 years.

It won't matter if N.D. goes all in with the ACC because the revenue gap for the ACC and PAC vs the SEC and Big 10 will range from 150 million a decade to 250 million a decade or from 15 million a year to 25 million a year or more.

Going divisionless will initially assist the Big 10 and SEC in assimilating even more growth if that is their desire and the revenue difference will have even the top brands of the PAC and ACC contemplating what they might earn elsewhere.

it is what I frequently have said that time x economic disparity x economic pressure from declining state and federal funds will = a two league format instead of a P4. And all of this will happen should Texas and or Oklahoma leave the Big 12. And remember what the departure of UT and OU do the Big 12. They lose over 40% of their total value when those 2 depart.

Other catalysts for 2 leagues will be these:

1. With further consolidation the Big 10 and SEC will gain leverage with dominance over their regions. If an advertiser wants in they have to pay top rates for the privilege.

2. Consolidation gives those conferences better leverage when selling rights.

3. Consolidation eliminates duplicated conference expenses, duplicated commercial property, and saves each school on their share of conference expenses.

4. It makes scheduling much simpler and will likely contain all regular season revenues within the conference since the size would mean that all 12 games would likely be played within house. Only post season revenues would be shared.

5. It's a format the networks understand well and can work with easily.

6. It is the most natural way to expand T3 revenue with a conference network and again it saves the network duplication of overhead.

So I don't think the SEC or Big 10 will be worried about Notre Dame going all in with the ACC. I think they will be preoccupied with anticipating their business model changes to maximize the advantages.

This manifesto leads me to believe the biggest brands of those two conferences will have some economic majors that will realize if the they trim the fat they can make even more money.

My manifesto revolves around the idea of the largest brands going independent with their TV rights and even using in-house teams to broadcast events. Every major school is pouring money into their own AV departments. Why outsource to networks in the streaming age?

Over time, conference affiliation will be less important regarding TV, and stand alone brands will rule.
05-31-2019 07:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,741
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
I don't really see any reason for the SEC to oppose it. In fact, the SEC is reexamining scheduling this year and may want to see how other divisionless setups work.

Even if everything worked out perfectly for the ACC and they could work this out and get ND to become a full member and every school got a 1-2 million dollar pay bump, I still don't see it being something worth blocking.
05-31-2019 07:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,741
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 07:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  This manifesto leads me to believe the biggest brands of those two conferences will have some economic majors that will realize if the they trim the fat they can make even more money.

My manifesto revolves around the idea of the largest brands going independent with their TV rights and even using in-house teams to broadcast events. Every major school is pouring money into their own AV departments. Why outsource to networks in the streaming age?

Over time, conference affiliation will be less important regarding TV, and stand alone brands will rule.

You still have to have teams to beat and opposing stadiums close by. Alabama football is great, but they need Arkansas and Ole Miss (and SC) just as much as they need LSU and Auburn.
05-31-2019 07:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,030
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1573
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 07:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-30-2019 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

A moot point. Once the SEC's T1 is renewed and the Big 10 has inked a new deal being divisionless makes expanding even more likely.

B1G: 54 million
SEC: 43.7 million
Big 12: 36.5 million
ACC: 29.5 million
PAC: 29.5 million

All of that for 2018.

If UT or OU join either the Big 10 or SEC or both the revenue gap widens significantly.

The SEC will receive a boost close to 58 million at lowest estimates when the T1 is renewed or bought by someone besides CBS.

The Big 10 will likely get at least a 5% bump when they renew their general FOX contract.

At those rates they will be doubling the ACC and PAC even with the ACCN which will likely make between 5 to 8 million a year tops after 4-5 years.

It won't matter if N.D. goes all in with the ACC because the revenue gap for the ACC and PAC vs the SEC and Big 10 will range from 150 million a decade to 250 million a decade or from 15 million a year to 25 million a year or more.

Going divisionless will initially assist the Big 10 and SEC in assimilating even more growth if that is their desire and the revenue difference will have even the top brands of the PAC and ACC contemplating what they might earn elsewhere.

it is what I frequently have said that time x economic disparity x economic pressure from declining state and federal funds will = a two league format instead of a P4. And all of this will happen should Texas and or Oklahoma leave the Big 12. And remember what the departure of UT and OU do the Big 12. They lose over 40% of their total value when those 2 depart.

Other catalysts for 2 leagues will be these:

1. With further consolidation the Big 10 and SEC will gain leverage with dominance over their regions. If an advertiser wants in they have to pay top rates for the privilege.

2. Consolidation gives those conferences better leverage when selling rights.

3. Consolidation eliminates duplicated conference expenses, duplicated commercial property, and saves each school on their share of conference expenses.

4. It makes scheduling much simpler and will likely contain all regular season revenues within the conference since the size would mean that all 12 games would likely be played within house. Only post season revenues would be shared.

5. It's a format the networks understand well and can work with easily.

6. It is the most natural way to expand T3 revenue with a conference network and again it saves the network duplication of overhead.

So I don't think the SEC or Big 10 will be worried about Notre Dame going all in with the ACC. I think they will be preoccupied with anticipating their business model changes to maximize the advantages.

This manifesto leads me to believe the biggest brands of those two conferences will have some economic majors that will realize if the they trim the fat they can make even more money.

My manifesto revolves around the idea of the largest brands going independent with their TV rights and even using in-house teams to broadcast events. Every major school is pouring money into their own AV departments. Why outsource to networks in the streaming age?

Over time, conference affiliation will be less important regarding TV, and stand alone brands will rule.

That's possible, but the need for ease of scheduling, the consolidation of overhead for officiating and the need for a more powerful lobby voice indicates that conferences will be with us for awhile. Leverage for contracts will continue to be important and most schools' administrations don't want to get bogged down in those details.

That said, I agree with you about the AV departments and can easily foresee the SEC considering handling its own network when the ESPN contract is up. It will have had an established viewing record by 2034 and we can produce our own programming.

But T1 and T2 rights will still be parsed out and the networks will pay much more when the volume of content is guaranteed and the quality of scheduling on an annual basis is proven.

So I still see the need for larger groups negotiating together, but when it comes to the T3 inventory cutting the middle guy out makes a lot of sense.
05-31-2019 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,220
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 211
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #55
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.

For a 14 school league with an 8 game league schedule, you could have 3 protected rivalries and play the remaining 10 schools either every other year, or two years on/two years off.

With a 9 game league schedule, you could have 5 protected rivalries and play the remaining 8 schools once every two years.
(This post was last modified: 05-31-2019 09:01 AM by orangefan.)
05-31-2019 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,098
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 156
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #56
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 08:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-31-2019 07:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-30-2019 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect Aresco will get his wish about going to no divisions. I suspect this will be deregulated across the board. The SEC has no reason to oppose it, as it can keep its divisions if it wants or abandon them.

As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

A moot point. Once the SEC's T1 is renewed and the Big 10 has inked a new deal being divisionless makes expanding even more likely.

B1G: 54 million
SEC: 43.7 million
Big 12: 36.5 million
ACC: 29.5 million
PAC: 29.5 million

All of that for 2018.

If UT or OU join either the Big 10 or SEC or both the revenue gap widens significantly.

The SEC will receive a boost close to 58 million at lowest estimates when the T1 is renewed or bought by someone besides CBS.

The Big 10 will likely get at least a 5% bump when they renew their general FOX contract.

At those rates they will be doubling the ACC and PAC even with the ACCN which will likely make between 5 to 8 million a year tops after 4-5 years.

It won't matter if N.D. goes all in with the ACC because the revenue gap for the ACC and PAC vs the SEC and Big 10 will range from 150 million a decade to 250 million a decade or from 15 million a year to 25 million a year or more.

Going divisionless will initially assist the Big 10 and SEC in assimilating even more growth if that is their desire and the revenue difference will have even the top brands of the PAC and ACC contemplating what they might earn elsewhere.

it is what I frequently have said that time x economic disparity x economic pressure from declining state and federal funds will = a two league format instead of a P4. And all of this will happen should Texas and or Oklahoma leave the Big 12. And remember what the departure of UT and OU do the Big 12. They lose over 40% of their total value when those 2 depart.

Other catalysts for 2 leagues will be these:

1. With further consolidation the Big 10 and SEC will gain leverage with dominance over their regions. If an advertiser wants in they have to pay top rates for the privilege.

2. Consolidation gives those conferences better leverage when selling rights.

3. Consolidation eliminates duplicated conference expenses, duplicated commercial property, and saves each school on their share of conference expenses.

4. It makes scheduling much simpler and will likely contain all regular season revenues within the conference since the size would mean that all 12 games would likely be played within house. Only post season revenues would be shared.

5. It's a format the networks understand well and can work with easily.

6. It is the most natural way to expand T3 revenue with a conference network and again it saves the network duplication of overhead.

So I don't think the SEC or Big 10 will be worried about Notre Dame going all in with the ACC. I think they will be preoccupied with anticipating their business model changes to maximize the advantages.

This manifesto leads me to believe the biggest brands of those two conferences will have some economic majors that will realize if the they trim the fat they can make even more money.

My manifesto revolves around the idea of the largest brands going independent with their TV rights and even using in-house teams to broadcast events. Every major school is pouring money into their own AV departments. Why outsource to networks in the streaming age?

Over time, conference affiliation will be less important regarding TV, and stand alone brands will rule.

That's possible, but the need for ease of scheduling, the consolidation of overhead for officiating and the need for a more powerful lobby voice indicates that conferences will be with us for awhile. Leverage for contracts will continue to be important and most schools' administrations don't want to get bogged down in those details.

That said, I agree with you about the AV departments and can easily foresee the SEC considering handling its own network when the ESPN contract is up. It will have had an established viewing record by 2034 and we can produce our own programming.

But T1 and T2 rights will still be parsed out and the networks will pay much more when the volume of content is guaranteed and the quality of scheduling on an annual basis is proven.

So I still see the need for larger groups negotiating together, but when it comes to the T3 inventory cutting the middle guy out makes a lot of sense.

I'm not suggesting conferences will go away, I'm suggesting the heavyweights will demand the lion's share eventually. I think the model will change and the payments will be based on what the individual school brings to the table rather than the conference as a whole.
05-31-2019 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 20,030
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 1573
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 09:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-31-2019 08:50 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-31-2019 07:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(05-30-2019 11:39 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(05-29-2019 06:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  As Frank mentioned earlier, like the Big Ten, the SEC has reason to oppose it because it could help the ACC to woo ND. Not that ND would go to the SEC, but you don't help the competition.

A moot point. Once the SEC's T1 is renewed and the Big 10 has inked a new deal being divisionless makes expanding even more likely.

B1G: 54 million
SEC: 43.7 million
Big 12: 36.5 million
ACC: 29.5 million
PAC: 29.5 million

All of that for 2018.

If UT or OU join either the Big 10 or SEC or both the revenue gap widens significantly.

The SEC will receive a boost close to 58 million at lowest estimates when the T1 is renewed or bought by someone besides CBS.

The Big 10 will likely get at least a 5% bump when they renew their general FOX contract.

At those rates they will be doubling the ACC and PAC even with the ACCN which will likely make between 5 to 8 million a year tops after 4-5 years.

It won't matter if N.D. goes all in with the ACC because the revenue gap for the ACC and PAC vs the SEC and Big 10 will range from 150 million a decade to 250 million a decade or from 15 million a year to 25 million a year or more.

Going divisionless will initially assist the Big 10 and SEC in assimilating even more growth if that is their desire and the revenue difference will have even the top brands of the PAC and ACC contemplating what they might earn elsewhere.

it is what I frequently have said that time x economic disparity x economic pressure from declining state and federal funds will = a two league format instead of a P4. And all of this will happen should Texas and or Oklahoma leave the Big 12. And remember what the departure of UT and OU do the Big 12. They lose over 40% of their total value when those 2 depart.

Other catalysts for 2 leagues will be these:

1. With further consolidation the Big 10 and SEC will gain leverage with dominance over their regions. If an advertiser wants in they have to pay top rates for the privilege.

2. Consolidation gives those conferences better leverage when selling rights.

3. Consolidation eliminates duplicated conference expenses, duplicated commercial property, and saves each school on their share of conference expenses.

4. It makes scheduling much simpler and will likely contain all regular season revenues within the conference since the size would mean that all 12 games would likely be played within house. Only post season revenues would be shared.

5. It's a format the networks understand well and can work with easily.

6. It is the most natural way to expand T3 revenue with a conference network and again it saves the network duplication of overhead.

So I don't think the SEC or Big 10 will be worried about Notre Dame going all in with the ACC. I think they will be preoccupied with anticipating their business model changes to maximize the advantages.

This manifesto leads me to believe the biggest brands of those two conferences will have some economic majors that will realize if the they trim the fat they can make even more money.

My manifesto revolves around the idea of the largest brands going independent with their TV rights and even using in-house teams to broadcast events. Every major school is pouring money into their own AV departments. Why outsource to networks in the streaming age?

Over time, conference affiliation will be less important regarding TV, and stand alone brands will rule.

That's possible, but the need for ease of scheduling, the consolidation of overhead for officiating and the need for a more powerful lobby voice indicates that conferences will be with us for awhile. Leverage for contracts will continue to be important and most schools' administrations don't want to get bogged down in those details.

That said, I agree with you about the AV departments and can easily foresee the SEC considering handling its own network when the ESPN contract is up. It will have had an established viewing record by 2034 and we can produce our own programming.

But T1 and T2 rights will still be parsed out and the networks will pay much more when the volume of content is guaranteed and the quality of scheduling on an annual basis is proven.

So I still see the need for larger groups negotiating together, but when it comes to the T3 inventory cutting the middle guy out makes a lot of sense.

I'm not suggesting conferences will go away, I'm suggesting the heavyweights will demand the lion's share eventually. I think the model will change and the payments will be based on what the individual school brings to the table rather than the conference as a whole.

That will probably be past my lifetime, but it may well come to pass. And when it does it will have taken us full circle back to birth of conferences first as scheduling alliances and then as business partners and around the circle we will go again. Only by that time there may not be any physical sports, just sodapop fat kids with nimble fingers and a joystick playing virtual football or hoops for good ole State U while they score by the likes they get on some futuristic social media scoring mechanism. And if that is the case I'll be relieved to be gone.
05-31-2019 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,767
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 529
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #58
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 07:52 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't really see any reason for the SEC to oppose it. In fact, the SEC is reexamining scheduling this year and may want to see how other divisionless setups work.

Even if everything worked out perfectly for the ACC and they could work this out and get ND to become a full member and every school got a 1-2 million dollar pay bump, I still don't see it being something worth blocking.

Even if what worked out? No ACC divisions?

Its a mystery to me why people think this might cause ND to consider having football join a conference.
05-31-2019 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,992
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 85
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 11:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(05-31-2019 07:52 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I don't really see any reason for the SEC to oppose it. In fact, the SEC is reexamining scheduling this year and may want to see how other divisionless setups work.

Even if everything worked out perfectly for the ACC and they could work this out and get ND to become a full member and every school got a 1-2 million dollar pay bump, I still don't see it being something worth blocking.

Even if what worked out? No ACC divisions?

Its a mystery to me why people think this might cause ND to consider having football join a conference.

All the ACC needs to do is add Navy, Stanford, USC, Michigan State, and Purdue and give Notre Dame the ability to hand-pick its ACC conference schedule each year. It's simple.
05-31-2019 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,853
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 556
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #60
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons
(05-31-2019 09:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  I'm not suggesting conferences will go away, I'm suggesting the heavyweights will demand the lion's share eventually. I think the model will change and the payments will be based on what the individual school brings to the table rather than the conference as a whole.

The media rights for the top European soccer leagues are negotiated as a league package, but the money isn't divided evenly among each league's teams. The clubs with the biggest brand names end up with larger shares than the clubs at the middle or bottom of the table.

That could be a model for a conference to divide its football media rights, maybe with the split being like that in the Premier League, with larger or smaller shares going to a team based on where it finishes in the league standings.
05-31-2019 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.