(06-02-2019 06:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote: If ESPN wants to maximize profits for its conference networks it simply increases inner league football and basketball contests between The SEC and The ACC. ESPN can for all practical purposes put all SEC and ACC out conference games on The SEC or ACC Network by insisting that SEC and ACC only play each other out of conference.
SEC basketball numbers get bumped because of The ACC. ACC football numbers get a bump because of The SEC.
If ESPN, SEC and ACC leadership chooses to do this matchups like Kansas / Kentucky, Louisville / Indiana or North Carolina / UCLA basketball or Texas A&M / Texas, Virginia Tech / WVU football go away. (Texas A&M vs Texas already has and if Texas doesn’t become an SEC or ACC property they may never play again.)
Then ESPN puts its 5 Notre Dame / ACC games all on The ACC Network.
If college sports fans believe ESPN is beyond taking the Nations best college football and basketball conferences off the schedules of The Big Ten, PAC or Big 12, they are sadly mistaken. Dictating conference membership was Step 1, dictating when conference games were played (ACC conference basketball games in November) was Step 2, dictating who their conferences play is Step 3.
Jim, we are headed there but in a way not quite a beneficial to any of our conference schools. ESPN is already doing this in a limited way between not only the SEC and ACC but also the Big 12 schools they have the most interest in. They use the SEC/Big 12 basketball challenge to pump ratings up for both. They use these future games scheduled with Texas and Oklahoma to maximize their investment (and over payment) in the Horns.
But what they refuse to do formally is to place us under 1 banner, set investment caps, and give us the leverage we would be due to gain the best possible contracts.
If you look at the history of realignment, and I wrote a blog on this before I joined this board, the footprint model only ever served 1 purpose and that for the network. It kept conferences from consolidating their hold over a region, or large states. Why? It kept the network from having to deal with an SEC that held sway over Florida, a Big 10 that held sway over New England, and it intentionally pushed the busting up of Texas as solely a SWC (networks were active in this direction as early as the late 80's and early 90's) and then over the Big 12. And they tried like hell to bust up North Carolina and Virginia.
By doing so what they managed to do was to make sure there was always another way into those states and regions should they lose a conference's confidence or business to another network. They also felt that by blurring regional boundaries they could draw in the interest of the other impacted regions. And both of these strategies have worked more or less for them and as they did they both eroded the leverage and power of top conferences.
Sure the Big 10 and SEC prospered but now we dance to their tune whether that is more neutral site games, more games against each other, more conference games, etc.
Notre Dame has made out like a bandit with this because they are the backdoor into the major cities of the Big 10 for the networks and when Delany wouldn't dance to Mickey Mouse's tune they were there for NBC and now marginally for ESPN.
What would a natural realignment looked like?
The 10 school SEC probably would have added Florida State and Arkansas without interference. We had always looked more West than East but considered Florida ours until the rise of FSU.
South Carolina and Georgia Tech would have been the prodigal son and solid get for the ACC.
When the Big East broke apart (and it might not have had things remained regional and networks had stayed out of manipulating crises) then Virginia Tech would have made sense for the ACC and getting into Florida with Miami would have as well.
By the time of the 2011 realignment timeline Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa State would have made sense for the Big 10 and perhaps then the SEC would have gotten into Texas with the Aggies and possibly Texas or Oklahoma.
But the point I've been making for over a decade is that when Georgia and Oklahoma won their lawsuit it took about half a decade for the Networks to figure out how to take advantage of the new opportunity to manipulate conferences into configurations that profited the network.
Texas was in too small a market so bust up the SWC and if just getting them and Nebraska to form a coalition called the Big 12 then that's at least a step in the right direction.
With Beamer and the rise of Va Tech and with Miami winning nattys in the 80's suddenly there was product in the Big East you could make a lot more money off of in other conferences and if they landed Penn State they might be damn hard to break up. And their cozy relationship with N.D. didn't help matters either. Too much brand power in an area just as likely to watch basketball as football. Move them accordingly and more money could be made.
The SEC and Big 10 could be manipulated eventually with the right additions gaining the right concessions. Keep them from consolidating power in their areas but keep them multiplying value by increasing their edges by encroaching into weaker markets. So Rutgers and Maryland and Missouri are preferred to any serious attempt at F.S.U. and Clemson in the South or Notre Dame in the North. And for all of the naysayers there was a brief point in which N.D. leadership was actually listening to the Big 10.
Note I haven't mentioned the PAC. They wouldn't play ball with the networks and they already had consolidated power in their region. So limit their exposure, let them run behind in carriage and revenue and eventually they'll cry uncle and I'd say were pretty damned close to that point now.
Once the networks get more control over the PAC then the corporate model takes over completely. More special alliances until the dead weight in each conference can be culled. Product placement at work. Multiply the value of Texas with U.S.C. and the value of Washington with Michigan, but not all under one umbrella where they gain leverage, but with season starting neutral site games in markets that have nothing to do with either but will watch if their cities are involved. Do it with bowl and CFP games at the end, and do it with mid-season games in hoops, baseball, etc.
To the network mindset 5 conferences works fine because it keeps power from being consolidated. But if they want more brand on brand they will eventually consent to a move to 4 each with a scheduling partner in the form of another conference with challenge play to match up top brands.
I favor 2 leagues because it returns some say to the conferences which are currently too small to take on the networks. I favor 2 leagues because the insanity of no caps on spending only serves the networks and not the schools. They use competition to force more and more spending to build brand and product which serves them since it is quality product at no overhead to them save for rights which are only a % of profit with little liability.
We need 2 leagues for no other reason than if we don't stick together we are going to continue to get railroaded into doing things are not good for our fans, our conferences, or for the game itself. Greed has taken over what was a sleepy, but healthy, American pass time and social icon and now the Devil plays the tune we dance to and tells us to like it.
Once the Big 10 and SEC figure this out and work together change can start. But as long as we are pitted against one another by petty battles over exposure and potential members it keeps us from targeting the real foe. Exactly like social issues does in national politics. The more we focus on our differences the more power corporations consolidate by lobbying both sides of the aisle. What's happening in college sports is no different. It's time we put aside our regional differences and took back control of our games.