(06-05-2020 02:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It boils down to money.

Half of SWC could make significantly more elsewhere. It was reported that ABC had noted that despite 8 schools in Texas, games involving OU drew better ratings in DFW than SWC games not involving UT or TAMU. It was the era where ABC was what mattered ESPN wasn’t paying big bucks yet and deuce had just launched. Arkansas had already bailed for bucks and an affiliation the eastern half of the state preferred.

Big East drain started with two schools who not only wanted the bucks they wanted to lock in an in-state school as conference competition.

Usually it does boil down to money. arkstfan makes some really good points here.

The most common factor that predicts demise of a conference...is that your high-value member schools are unhappy with your own conference’s performance and covet thy neighbor’s conference.

I believe that
1) SWC first lost Arkansas because of all the turmoil / cheating could not be adequately controlled...the SEC offered stability in the midst of uncertainty
2) SWC then lost UT-Austin because it needed / wanted to play in a bigger sandbox than just the state of Texas. The creation of the B12 allowed UT-Austin to play in lots of states in the Great Plains with major brands (e.g., OU and UNL) that helped garner larger TV revenue.
3) BE first lost Miami and VT because these are football-first schools that needed to join a conference that was committed to making football-first decisions. Their decision to switch was also reinforced by the fact that its cultural peers were already in the ACC.
4) BE then lost Syracuse and Pitt because they finally realized that revenues in a basketball-first conference could not keep-up with revenues in the ACC.

In the SWC, the high-value programs were UT-Austin, TAM and Arkansas. In the BE, Miami and Syracuse were most important financially...VT, BC and Pitt added depth and glue to the conference.

The current P5 high-value member schools:
PAC - USC, UCLA, Stanford and (possibly) Washington
B12 - UT-Austin and OU
ACC - FSU, Clemson, UNC, and (partially) Notre Dame
BIG - Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State
SEC - Alabama, Florida and Georgia

The BIG and SEC may be able withstand the loss of their highest-valued members. But these conferences have adequately catered their operating models to best align with the needs of these high-valued members. in other words, what these members covet is already in their conference. As a result, the BIG and SEC are currently the predators and not the prey.

Some schools may covet money, other schools may covet branding (which includes long-term stability and/or academic profile).

For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.

The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-05-2020 07:45 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 04:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 09:38 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The WAC also imploded as an FBS conference, one with history.

Well, that may work in reality, but does it work in theory? After all, they had 16 members at their peak. By the theory, they should have been as safe as houses.

But the league did not history together.

The theory was just a numbers game.

Quote: From the moment the airport 8 left to form the MW, the WAC was vulnerable.

This is a wonderful rhetorical trick, but if they had not already been vulnerable, the airport 8 would not have left. The airport 8 leaving was not the start of their vulnerability, but a consequence of it.

(06-05-2020 09:02 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The most common factor that predicts demise of a conference...is that your high-value member schools are unhappy with your own conference’s performance and covet thy neighbor’s conference.

I believe that
1) SWC first lost Arkansas because of all the turmoil / cheating could not be adequately controlled...the SEC offered stability in the midst of uncertainty
2) SWC then lost UT-Austin because it needed / wanted to play in a bigger sandbox than just the state of Texas. The creation of the B12 allowed UT-Austin to play in lots of states in the Great Plains with major brands (e.g., OU and UNL) that helped garner larger TV revenue.
3) BE first lost Miami and VT because these are football-first schools that needed to join a conference that was committed to making football-first decisions. Their decision to switch was also reinforced by the fact that its cultural peers were already in the ACC.
4) BE then lost Syracuse and Pitt because they finally realized that revenues in a basketball-first conference could not keep-up with revenues in the ACC.

In the SWC, the high-value programs were UT-Austin, TAM and Arkansas. In the BE, Miami and Syracuse were most important financially...VT, BC and Pitt added depth and glue to the conference.

The current P5 high-value member schools:
PAC - USC, UCLA, Stanford and (possibly) Washington
B12 - UT-Austin and OU
ACC - FSU, Clemson, UNC, and (partially) Notre Dame
BIG - Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State
SEC - Alabama, Florida and Georgia

The BIG and SEC may be able withstand the loss of their highest-valued members. But these conferences have adequately catered their operating models to best align with the needs of these high-valued members. in other words, what these members covet is already in their conference. As a result, the BIG and SEC are currently the predators and not the prey.

Some schools may covet money, other schools may covet branding (which includes long-term stability and/or academic profile).

And yet you leave out L.S.U, Auburn, and Texas A&M all in the top 12 and 2 of those 3 in the top 10. This is why I pin those lists of Revenue, WSJ valuations, and attendance every year. All 3 of those just named are higher than everyone in the PAC and everyone in the ACC other than FSU.

(06-05-2020 08:22 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 02:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  It boils down to money.

Half of SWC could make significantly more elsewhere. It was reported that ABC had noted that despite 8 schools in Texas, games involving OU drew better ratings in DFW than SWC games not involving UT or TAMU. It was the era where ABC was what mattered ESPN wasn’t paying big bucks yet and deuce had just launched. Arkansas had already bailed for bucks and an affiliation the eastern half of the state preferred.

Big East drain started with two schools who not only wanted the bucks they wanted to lock in an in-state school as conference competition.

Usually it does boil down to money. arkstfan makes some really good points here.

You are not grasping the point if you don't know why the values change and those are directly related to the pay models used. Content and Brand equals revenue and that is multiplied by the # of Brand schools and the # of Content games played between them. Cable subscriptions based on a single state's # of subscribers paid the same for 1 school or 8. The combined subscribers of Texas and Arkansas weren't enough to sustain 8 schools. So while money of course was the ultimate determining factor, that factor was actually directly tied to the Cable Subscription Pay models being used by the Networks to determine contract value with a conference.

Those days are gone. Now the actual # of viewers is what determines value. And the number of viewers is tied to brand identity and the # of games between brand schools. This is going to be driving factor now for brand consolidation.

Market size of the state is now mostly relevant to conference networks since they are really the only calculation tied to subscription fees.

(06-05-2020 09:26 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.

The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ACC had no interest in creating a hybrid conference. The ACC understood that football was the revenue driver of the future, and that the league would need to expand in order to strengthen its football schools. Rivalries and branding are easier to create if schools play each other across many sports and alums share the same geography. The problem for the ACC was that a few schools were very comfortable with the status quo...hence the ACC has been reactive (FSU joined only after PSU joined the BIG; Miami/VT/BC were added only after the SEC proved that the CCG would be successful; Syracuse and Pitt joined only after the BIG and SEC had viable plans for a conference network).

Not sure that any conference cherry-picks additions. It is really the school that chooses to leave their old alignments in order to go to perceived greener pastures.

(06-05-2020 10:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 09:02 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The most common factor that predicts demise of a conference...is that your high-value member schools are unhappy with your own conference’s performance and covet thy neighbor’s conference.

I believe that
1) SWC first lost Arkansas because of all the turmoil / cheating could not be adequately controlled...the SEC offered stability in the midst of uncertainty
2) SWC then lost UT-Austin because it needed / wanted to play in a bigger sandbox than just the state of Texas. The creation of the B12 allowed UT-Austin to play in lots of states in the Great Plains with major brands (e.g., OU and UNL) that helped garner larger TV revenue.
3) BE first lost Miami and VT because these are football-first schools that needed to join a conference that was committed to making football-first decisions. Their decision to switch was also reinforced by the fact that its cultural peers were already in the ACC.
4) BE then lost Syracuse and Pitt because they finally realized that revenues in a basketball-first conference could not keep-up with revenues in the ACC.

In the SWC, the high-value programs were UT-Austin, TAM and Arkansas. In the BE, Miami and Syracuse were most important financially...VT, BC and Pitt added depth and glue to the conference.

The current P5 high-value member schools:
PAC - USC, UCLA, Stanford and (possibly) Washington
B12 - UT-Austin and OU
ACC - FSU, Clemson, UNC, and (partially) Notre Dame
BIG - Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State
SEC - Alabama, Florida and Georgia

The BIG and SEC may be able withstand the loss of their highest-valued members. But these conferences have adequately catered their operating models to best align with the needs of these high-valued members. in other words, what these members covet is already in their conference. As a result, the BIG and SEC are currently the predators and not the prey.

Some schools may covet money, other schools may covet branding (which includes long-term stability and/or academic profile).

And yet you leave out L.S.U, Auburn, and Texas A&M all in the top 12 and 2 of those 3 in the top 10. This is why I pin those lists of Revenue, WSJ valuations, and attendance every year. All 3 of those just named are higher than everyone in the PAC and everyone in the ACC other than FSU.

It’s a close call with LSU, Auburn, Texas A&M and UT-Knoxville (similarly with Wisconsin). All these schools would be anchor tenants in the non-Power 2 conferences.

No doubt that Texas A&M was a high-value member school when it was part of the B12. I believe that its defection (especially when combined with Nebraska’s move to the BIG) has completely altered the long-term stability and prognosis for the B12.

Now that Texas A&M changed residency into the SEC...it is not as high in the pecking-order of important schools within its current peers. Whether or not Texas A&M leaves the SEC won’t change the survivability of the SEC.

This discussion is strictly about what variable predicts the demise of a conference...I’m arguing that the actions of “high-value schools” are the best predictor of conference demise. Yet each conference has a different level at which a school is deemed a “high-value school”.

When a conference has different factions within itself, with different, competing agendas, and long-term goals that conflict with one another, it ultimately spells doom for the long-term stability of the league. If a league does not have money that keeps all of the different agendas on the same road, then you get everyone looking out for themselves and pursue other opportunities. In two short ideas, its competing interests and money.

reading this thread makes me wanting to see the original Big 8 and original SWC do a full merger.. BIG 16.

ou,nu,isu,ksu,ku,osu,mizzu,co as the North
UT,aggy, tech, tcu, ark, smu, houston, Rice in the South

It would still probably implode further down the line and all but it would have been cool to see. Baseball would be a meat grinder

(06-05-2020 10:32 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 09:26 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.

The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ACC had no interest in creating a hybrid conference. The ACC understood that football was the revenue driver of the future, and that the league would need to expand in order to strengthen its football schools. Rivalries and branding are easier to create if schools play each other across many sports and alums share the same geography. The problem for the ACC was that a few schools were very comfortable with the status quo...hence the ACC has been reactive (FSU joined only after PSU joined the BIG; Miami/VT/BC were added only after the SEC proved that the CCG would be successful; Syracuse and Pitt joined only after the BIG and SEC had viable plans for a conference network).

Not sure that any conference cherry-picks additions. It is really the school that chooses to leave their old alignments in order to go to perceived greener pastures.

It is a marriage. Both parties have to want the other. And like men and women they are looking for different qualities in one another. The conference wants a high profile school with a national following preferably in football and depending upon the conference in question they may value cultural fit over academics, or academics over athletic prowess. In either case they would love to have a national brand football school with both athletic prowess and great academics. The school leaving is looking for higher revenue and security for the long term as best as they can determine it.

So there is some cherry picking on the part of both parties. Obviously a school that doesn't add to a conferences athletic and academic prestige is less likely to be taken, especially now that markets don't matter as much as profile and brand recognition by a national audience for particular sports. But no matter what the school must at least not detract from the current conference payouts and very likely had better add to them.

Therein lies the rub.

At 54,000,000 per school per year the Big 10 currently only has 3 schools that add to the bottom line that they can truly consider: Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma in that order. Only one of those completely matches their norms, Texas. Notre Dame is acceptable both culturally and monetarily and their stellar undergraduate program has been deemed in the past to be acceptable academically. Oklahoma brings athletic branding in football, but lags academically to the point that upon their inclusion they would be the lowest rated academic institution within the new Big 10.

The SEC is currently paying out out 46 million roughly to member schools and that will jump to 67 million minimum by 2024. Right now at 46 million there are only 3 schools that add to its bottom line and they are the same schools that add to the Big 10 bottom line. Two of them are no brainers for SEC acceptance, Oklahoma and Texas. Notre Dame is not a cultural fit, nor would they be interested in the SEC.

The Rub:

Texas truly wants to remain and be literally the "Bell Cow" of their own conference. Oklahoma would prefer to remain with Texas and OSU. Oklahoma however is the school that could choose larger payouts over status quo. Texas isn't anywhere close to being needy or truly falling behind on that account.

If you look at the conference averages for Gross Total Revenue (all NET Revenue is fudged) and at Attendance, and at the WSJ's valuation of the programs within the conference ACC schools only meet or exceed two of those SEC averages and that's attendance and gross total revenue and in each case only 1 school in the ACC exceeds them. Clemson exceeds the SEC average on attendance and most years F.S.U. would but not for the last few years. Last year F.S.U. exceeded the SEC average in Gross Total Revenue for only the second time ever the first occurring some years back with renovation donations.

So if Texas won't move, and nobody in the ACC adds to the value of the SEC or Big 10, save for Notre Dame as a partial member of the ACC, then how does any realignment happen?

If the Big 12 is to be picked apart somebody has lure Oklahoma and likely Kansas out of it. Only if we get some relaxation on divisional requirements it would just take Oklahoma as Kansas doesn't add to the SEC or Big 10's bottom line either.

Outside of that the only thing that could force any movement of any kind would be the willingness of the Networks to remove another bell cow, North Carolina, and do so by paying either the Big 10 (likely) or SEC pro rata to take them, and likely along with Virginia. Ditto for N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make the moves politically feasible.

Now why would any network want to do that? Because it opens the door to build a much more valuable conference for less overall outlay around Texas and Oklahoma to maximize the value and multiply the # of content games those two industry leaders play annually. So you double the payouts for the two Virginia and two North Carolina schools, increase the payouts to Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville and Pitt over what they make in the ACC plus a bit over what the Big 12 currently makes and you create a much more dynamic conference around Texas which if this doesn't happen never exceeds the layout that ESPN has to pay them now. And make no mistake they are important to ESPN or the LHN average payout until 2031 (which is backloaded) would not be in excess of 15 million a year which for their T3 alone equals have of the complete per payout to the ACC schools.

It also prevents a feud between the Big 10 which ESPN has a little over a 45% stake in and the SEC which they now will have a 100% stake in. So this time Solomon won't offer to divide the baby, but rather find a foster home for it in the Big 12. Long range there is more stability, more national interest, and mitigated revenue disparities by making this kind of move, and that's good for the game.

Does it mean it will happen? No. But it is, and has to be, a serious consideration given the desires of Texas are not compatible with those of the Big 10 and SEC and giving the Big 10 and SEC each 20 million more market wise and doing so with only 4 schools that have to be covered to meet then conference payouts, is workable.

Do the Big 10 and SEC have to expand? No. But if we remain tied to the divisional requirement then expansion eases tensions in both conferences. If we abandon the current divisional requirements I doubt either would expand except to raise revenue and if Texas isn't budging that pretty well stops it.

I think a breakaway stops it as well. And whatever happens of these contingencies will dictate what the future of the CFP looks like.

The number could be an indicator, but not a cause of weakness.

Those leagues only had 8 members because they weren't in a position to acquire additional schools with greater support and marketability. So in the long run, they either collapsed or unified as in the case of what produced the Big 12.

Stronger members left for greener pastures while others were left behind to make due.

As others have said, the truly strong conferences contain a significant number of popular and marketable schools. The more you have, the more stable you are.

You can eight teams and be fundamentally stable (Ivy), you can have 16 and be fundamentally unstable (WAC). It comes down to leadership, something the Big East lacked with the likes of Donna Shalala and Mark Nordenberg publicly supporting the Big East while courting the ACC in private.

There is a point where a larger number of schools becomes counterproductive and people look to leave. The ACC may find out the hard way about this within this decade.

(06-04-2020 07:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Let's consider these two examples:

The Southwest Conference (in 1996):

1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas Tech
4. TCU
5. Rice
6. Baylor
7. SMU
8. Houston

The Big East Football Conference (in 2011):

1. Syracuse
2. Pitt
3. West Virginia
4. Rutgers
5. UConn
6. Louisville
7. Cincy
8. USF

Both of these conferences "imploded" or went out of existence (although, strictly speaking, the Big East morphed into the AAC).

Q. What did they have in common?

A. Both conferences had only 8 full members.


.

Hypothesis:

The single factor that may be most predictive of the imminent collapse of a conference may be having only 8 full members.

.

Corollary hypothesis:

The fewer schools there are in a conference, the greater the likelihood that the conference will eventually collapse.

100% incorrect conclusion.

The conferences that have supersized have collapsed. Southern Conference in 1933 (SEC) and 1953 (ACC). Missouri Valley in 1927 (Big 8-six at the time) and 1970s (Metro formed from some of the leavers). WAC in 1998. In division II, Great West and Lone Star all collapsed when they got up to 16 teams.

Why is the Big 10 still around? Because its members are similar in size and academics. Ivy isn't all the same size, but most are and they are similar in academics. The same was true of the SEC until the recent growth of states like Florida and Georgia.

Big East had a mix of publics and privates. Football schools and basketball schools. Northern and Southern schools. Very strong academic schools and mediocre academic schools.

The SWC had 4 publics and 4 privates. It had 4 megacity schools, 1 large city schools and 3 middle size city schools. It had two schools with over 40,000 students, 2 in the 30-35k range, 1 around 12-15k, 1 around 10k, 1 around 7k and 1 with 4k. It had 3 AAU schools, 2 strong privates with limited graduate programs, 1 ok private with limited graduate programs and 2 mediocre public schools. The only thing they really had in common was Texas.

(06-05-2020 10:32 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 09:26 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.

The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ACC had no interest in creating a hybrid conference. The ACC understood that football was the revenue driver of the future, and that the league would need to expand in order to strengthen its football schools. Rivalries and branding are easier to create if schools play each other across many sports and alums share the same geography. The problem for the ACC was that a few schools were very comfortable with the status quo...hence the ACC has been reactive (FSU joined only after PSU joined the BIG; Miami/VT/BC were added only after the SEC proved that the CCG would be successful; Syracuse and Pitt joined only after the BIG and SEC had viable plans for a conference network).

Not sure that any conference cherry-picks additions. It is really the school that chooses to leave their old alignments in order to go to perceived greener pastures.

The ACC IS a hybrid conference. Its just that ND is their only hybrid.

(06-04-2020 09:38 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  The WAC also imploded as an FBS conference, one with history.

Big West was one FBS conference as well.

(06-05-2020 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-04-2020 07:14 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  Let's consider these two examples:

The Southwest Conference (in 1996):

1. Texas
2. Texas A&M
3. Texas Tech
4. TCU
5. Rice
6. Baylor
7. SMU
8. Houston

The Big East Football Conference (in 2011):

1. Syracuse
2. Pitt
3. West Virginia
4. Rutgers
5. UConn
6. Louisville
7. Cincy
8. USF

Both of these conferences "imploded" or went out of existence (although, strictly speaking, the Big East morphed into the AAC).

Q. What did they have in common?

A. Both conferences had only 8 full members.


.

Hypothesis:

The single factor that may be most predictive of the imminent collapse of a conference may be having only 8 full members.

.

Corollary hypothesis:

The fewer schools there are in a conference, the greater the likelihood that the conference will eventually collapse.

100% incorrect conclusion.

The conferences that have supersized have collapsed. Southern Conference in 1933 (SEC) and 1953 (ACC). Missouri Valley in 1927 (Big 8-six at the time) and 1970s (Metro formed from some of the leavers). WAC in 1998. In division II, Great West and Lone Star all collapsed when they got up to 16 teams.

Why is the Big 10 still around? Because its members are similar in size and academics. Ivy isn't all the same size, but most are and they are similar in academics. The same was true of the SEC until the recent growth of states like Florida and Georgia.

Big East had a mix of publics and privates. Football schools and basketball schools. Northern and Southern schools. Very strong academic schools and mediocre academic schools.

The SWC had 4 publics and 4 privates. It had 4 megacity schools, 1 large city schools and 3 middle size city schools. It had two schools with over 40,000 students, 2 in the 30-35k range, 1 around 12-15k, 1 around 10k, 1 around 7k and 1 with 4k. It had 3 AAU schools, 2 strong privates with limited graduate programs, 1 ok private with limited graduate programs and 2 mediocre public schools. The only thing they really had in common was Texas.

Size wasn't the issue for the So Con. Athletic involvement levels were. And RR's connected the schools so when cars became the norm it was too unwieldy to survive.

The SEC is still extremely cohesive. The only outlier is probably Missouri and nothing against them but their culture and old rivals are different. Florida and Georgia growing doesn't put them at odds with the other members of the SEC that they have been with since the 30's. It doesn't limit their revenue but augments it, and academics literally has nothing to do with sports play. Florida is free as an AAU school to associate academically with whomever they wish.

You always manage to slip in an inaccurate slight with regards to the SEC. In this case the implication that "until" leaves hanging in the air when Georgia and Florida simply have no reason to leave their current associations and Florida fleetingly looked at it way back in the late 70's when their athletics lagged everyone in the SEC except the usual bottom feeders. That hasn't been the case in sometime.

The pay model killed the SWC along with SMU's death penalty. The problem is that with the remnants of the current Big 12 Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas represent almost 70% of the brand value and around 45% or so of the total revenue of the conference.

(06-05-2020 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 10:32 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-05-2020 09:26 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  For the record, it was Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese who first suggested that the ACC take the football schools. His vision however was a combining for football only.

The ACC instead of taking all the football schools for one sport only, cherry picked Big East schools for everything,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The ACC had no interest in creating a hybrid conference. The ACC understood that football was the revenue driver of the future, and that the league would need to expand in order to strengthen its football schools. Rivalries and branding are easier to create if schools play each other across many sports and alums share the same geography. The problem for the ACC was that a few schools were very comfortable with the status quo...hence the ACC has been reactive (FSU joined only after PSU joined the BIG; Miami/VT/BC were added only after the SEC proved that the CCG would be successful; Syracuse and Pitt joined only after the BIG and SEC had viable plans for a conference network).

Not sure that any conference cherry-picks additions. It is really the school that chooses to leave their old alignments in order to go to perceived greener pastures.

It is a marriage. Both parties have to want the other. And like men and women they are looking for different qualities in one another. The conference wants a high profile school with a national following preferably in football and depending upon the conference in question they may value cultural fit over academics, or academics over athletic prowess. In either case they would love to have a national brand football school with both athletic prowess and great academics. The school leaving is looking for higher revenue and security for the long term as best as they can determine it.

So there is some cherry picking on the part of both parties. Obviously a school that doesn't add to a conferences athletic and academic prestige is less likely to be taken, especially now that markets don't matter as much as profile and brand recognition by a national audience for particular sports. But no matter what the school must at least not detract from the current conference payouts and very likely had better add to them.

Therein lies the rub.

At 54,000,000 per school per year the Big 10 currently only has 3 schools that add to the bottom line that they can truly consider: Texas, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma in that order. Only one of those completely matches their norms, Texas. Notre Dame is acceptable both culturally and monetarily and their stellar undergraduate program has been deemed in the past to be acceptable academically. Oklahoma brings athletic branding in football, but lags academically to the point that upon their inclusion they would be the lowest rated academic institution within the new Big 10.

The SEC is currently paying out out 46 million roughly to member schools and that will jump to 67 million minimum by 2024. Right now at 46 million there are only 3 schools that add to its bottom line and they are the same schools that add to the Big 10 bottom line. Two of them are no brainers for SEC acceptance, Oklahoma and Texas. Notre Dame is not a cultural fit, nor would they be interested in the SEC.

The Rub:

Texas truly wants to remain and be literally the "Bell Cow" of their own conference. Oklahoma would prefer to remain with Texas and OSU. Oklahoma however is the school that could choose larger payouts over status quo. Texas isn't anywhere close to being needy or truly falling behind on that account.

If you look at the conference averages for Gross Total Revenue (all NET Revenue is fudged) and at Attendance, and at the WSJ's valuation of the programs within the conference ACC schools only meet or exceed two of those SEC averages and that's attendance and gross total revenue and in each case only 1 school in the ACC exceeds them. Clemson exceeds the SEC average on attendance and most years F.S.U. would but not for the last few years. Last year F.S.U. exceeded the SEC average in Gross Total Revenue for only the second time ever the first occurring some years back with renovation donations.

So if Texas won't move, and nobody in the ACC adds to the value of the SEC or Big 10, save for Notre Dame as a partial member of the ACC, then how does any realignment happen?

If the Big 12 is to be picked apart somebody has lure Oklahoma and likely Kansas out of it. Only if we get some relaxation on divisional requirements it would just take Oklahoma as Kansas doesn't add to the SEC or Big 10's bottom line either.

Outside of that the only thing that could force any movement of any kind would be the willingness of the Networks to remove another bell cow, North Carolina, and do so by paying either the Big 10 (likely) or SEC pro rata to take them, and likely along with Virginia. Ditto for N.C. State and Virginia Tech to make the moves politically feasible.

Now why would any network want to do that? Because it opens the door to build a much more valuable conference for less overall outlay around Texas and Oklahoma to maximize the value and multiply the # of content games those two industry leaders play annually. So you double the payouts for the two Virginia and two North Carolina schools, increase the payouts to Clemson, F.S.U., Georgia Tech, Miami, Louisville and Pitt over what they make in the ACC plus a bit over what the Big 12 currently makes and you create a much more dynamic conference around Texas which if this doesn't happen never exceeds the layout that ESPN has to pay them now. And make no mistake they are important to ESPN or the LHN average payout until 2031 (which is backloaded) would not be in excess of 15 million a year which for their T3 alone equals have of the complete per payout to the ACC schools.

It also prevents a feud between the Big 10 which ESPN has a little over a 45% stake in and the SEC which they now will have a 100% stake in. So this time Solomon won't offer to divide the baby, but rather find a foster home for it in the Big 12. Long range there is more stability, more national interest, and mitigated revenue disparities by making this kind of move, and that's good for the game.

Does it mean it will happen? No. But it is, and has to be, a serious consideration given the desires of Texas are not compatible with those of the Big 10 and SEC and giving the Big 10 and SEC each 20 million more market wise and doing so with only 4 schools that have to be covered to meet then conference payouts, is workable.

Do the Big 10 and SEC have to expand? No. But if we remain tied to the divisional requirement then expansion eases tensions in both conferences. If we abandon the current divisional requirements I doubt either would expand except to raise revenue and if Texas isn't budging that pretty well stops it.

I think a breakaway stops it as well. And whatever happens of these contingencies will dictate what the future of the CFP looks like.

It also makes sense for ESPN to amplify, in some sense, the sort of dynamic they've had going by pitting the SEC and ACC against each other competitively.

The wrinkle there is the Big 12 and SEC have a more official working relationship with the Sugar Bowl and basketball challenge laying a foundation. The workings between the SEC and ACC are more centered on the in-state rivalries that just happen to cross from one conference to the other in each instance. Of course, as you laid out, these priorities could simply be combined and I think everyone would be happier.

Getting certain ACC schools into the Big 12 would build a strong league around OU and UT without forcing some odd marriages with the PAC.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Louisville are musts here. Not that some SEC members wouldn't love to have them in their fold, but it makes everything a little more symmetrical. It also allows for more inter-conference games that not only attract attention, but allow ESPN to acquire more watchable games without having to put every team under the same roof.

What about Notre Dame? Honestly, I think they would take a partial deal with the Big 12, but at this stage that league really has no incentive to offer such a deal. The Big Ten will take them fully, but not sure ND really wants that at the end of the day. Do they attempt a partial deal with the PAC 12? That makes travel pretty crazy as a whole and not sure the PAC would really want to deal with that sort of departure from their norms. I think what happens is they join the Big 12 in full. The 16th member is Miami and that's partially to preserve the FSU/Miami game, but also because of the quality of market and recruiting base.

For the SEC, I'm sure they would like a slice of both NC and VA, but the matter is complicated. If it's a matter of moving to 16 then neither the SEC nor Big Ten can do it and make everybody happy. UNC wants Duke to come along. The Big Ten will want UNC and UVA by contrast. The SEC's interest in NC State was said to be tepid and there's a question of whether or not UNC would be happy breaking up the Triangle anyway if NCSU was the one going to the SEC.

But perhaps there's another option...

If North Carolina and Duke move to the SEC then those parties are likely happy. What this sort of move could accomplish, however, would be to make room for the entire Triangle in one conference. Vanderbilt is probably never going to take football seriously again. Allow them to maintain SEC membership, but they can either drop football or go independent with a few guaranteed games against SEC schools. This opens up a 3rd full spot and NC State can slide in. This may end up being important as the UNC Board of Governors may indeed favor UNC, but they will want to protect the interests of NCSU at the same time. The issue is they will not do what's best for NCSU if it means UNC is diminished in some way. Moving all 3 to the SEC together, however, is beneficial for everyone. I'll even go one step further. Wake Forest is added as another partial member with the same deal Vanderbilt receives. So the SEC has 16 full and 2 partials. NC is officially SEC territory.

For the Big Ten's part, they need some motivation to go along with all that. Acquiring Virginia is an absolute necessity. All in all, I think Virginia Tech is acceptable as well and probably provides a better long term football product anyway. It's a larger school with a growing alumni base. UVA, by contrast, is an elite public with a smallish enrollment. But wait, there's more!

The Big Ten only acquires one new state here, and even though cable subs are less important going forward, you still need to add regions more so than simply fan bases. The more regions you control, the more eyeballs will be on your wider product. With that in mind, Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, and UConn become partial members of the Big Ten. Syracuse basketball is an important brand and it helps secure the NY market. It also means a strong core of basketball schools in the East...UVA, Maryland, UConn, and Syracuse. This is important because most of the Big Ten's strength in basketball has been Midwestern historically. Having some of the better brands in the East offers balance when it comes to TV and probably recruiting as well.

BC offers a hockey program that would be helpful and so does UConn. A presence in New England is good as a whole especially if they start focusing on their basketball program again. Pitt offers decent basketball as well.

The football teams for the respective schools are guaranteed partial deals and that helps the Big Ten fill out their schedule without as many G5s or as much travel. With the SEC and Big 12 focusing more on playing each other out of conference, the slots will be fewer and far between.

Consider this:

SUPER CONFERENCE

EAST

1 Auburn
2 Clemson
3 Florida
4 Florida State
5 Georgia
6 Michigan
7 North Carolina
8 Notre Dame
9 Ohio State
10 Penn State



WEST

1 Alabama
2 LSU
3 Oklahoma
4 Oregon
5 Southern California
6 Stanford
7 Texas
8 Texas A&M
9 UCLA
10 Washington

The biggest problem here is splitting up of Alabama and Auburn. And maybe choosing between North Carolina and Tennessee. Of course this would never happen unless there is some major TV $ involved. Talk about getting beaten up every week, this would do it.