(07-16-2020 02:28 PM)texoma Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:40 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ingenious move for Texas, if their pride would allow it, would be for them to go to the SEC with Tech, but freeze out Oklahoma.

The Horns become part of ESPN’s great southern empire, they get 4 home conference games at home (in Texas) plus one away conference game (Tech or A&M) instate, probably an FCS and a G5 at home, and then they can offer to keep the RRR, ensuring yet another game in Texas.

Meanwhile arch rival Oklahoma has to choose between being the last tent pole left in a conference with a strong Texas presence/recruiting opportunities or Big Ten money but a loss of those recruiting grounds.

Muskie I seriously doubt Texas would leave the Big12 if OU stays. Personally, I think they are a lock if OU stays. In the Big12 Texas has the best situation in all of college football...I don't think they would willingly change a thing..

Texas cannot freeze out Oklahoma. The RRR means too much money for both teams, it is here to stay. OU's best recruiting days in Texas were when both teams were in difference conferences and OU only played one game per year in the State of Texas. If OU goes to the Big10 with only Kansas they will be just fine recruiting and otherwise.

Finally, Texas desire to play as many games as possible in the State is way overblown on this board. They desperately wanted out of the SWC, because of having to play all of the Texas teams.

I’m not proposing ending the RRR. I’m proposing that Texas and TTU go to the SEC and the RRR becomes an OOC affair.

Oklahoma can either join the Big Ten or keep trucking in the Big 12.

The Big 10 would provide them with money—but they wouldn’t get to play in Texas 2-3 times/yr like they do now.

You suggested that Oklahoma might not suffer too much if they only play in Texas once a year and maybe that would be the case.

Sorry, I know you were not suggesting ending the RRR. i just mentioned that for clarity. No offense intended. If Texas goes to the SEC I believe they would love for Oklahoma to come along and I believe the SEC would love to have OU. I do not think OU is going to be frozen out as you suggested.. If OU goes to the Big10 and they wanted to play more than once in Texas they could schedule OOC Tech, Houston etc., but history suggests there is no need for that.

However, I am convinced that Texas wants no part of the SEC for reasons that I have stated several times on this board. As I said to JR, going with OU, OSU and Tech and being in a division with OU, OSU, Tech, A&M, and Missouri just might do it though.

(07-17-2020 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 02:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  There are a few good lessons we have learned about realignment so far:

1- scheduling matters. for anybody not in the Big 12, not playing the teams you want to play every year stinks.
It's why we will never see a 16 or an 18 team conference. Even 12 teams is too large (same reason)

2- travel matters. Expense to the schools, difficulty for the fans that want to visit for away games (any sport)

The solution is two conferences with four 8 team divisions. Each division plays a round robin within their division (7 games).
Set schedules. Even if Alabama and Tennessee are in different divisions, they would play every year on the 3rd Saturday in October. Consistency matters to the fans, it's something they can plan for.
3 or 4 out of division games within the same two conferences (could be permanent crossovers)
1 FBS and no more than 1 game OOC with the other conference.

I don't see any way they go to 20 teams, although its interesting to speculate. Can you see any Big 10 team willing to play Ohio St. and Michigan only 2 times in 6 years as you would with pods? Similar situation with the SEC. And it mandates 9 conference games, leaving little room for conference rivalries that don't fit and out of conference games.

I think 18 with pods is too complicated for the fans. And the only way it would work would be if for the Big 10 they added 4 eastern or 4 western teams. In a 4-5-4-5 you play everyone in the opposite size divisions every other year and get teams in the same size division twice in 10 years. You could set it up so that Ohio St. and Michigan were in opposite size divisions from the rest of the current Big 10. But its complicated for fans and requires the right additions. Just don't see it.

(examples: Big 10 West-5 Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois; North-4 Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; East-5 Indiana, Purdue, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland; South-4 Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU or Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech---SEC West-5 Ole Miss, Mississippi St., LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M; South-4 Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt; East-5 Florida, Georgia South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri; North-4 Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech or Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TCU----and it all gets more complicated with the SEC if you add in state rivals, particularly FSU and Clemson).

Even scheduling for 14 is confusing for fans. It's just one of the reasons why I don't believe we will ever see 16.

More time goes by and the more I think of it.. Big 12 really is solid at 10

Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

This can be done by having entities with multiple conferences. A simple example:
SEN group:
Big 12-South Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.; North Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC-West LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi St., Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M; East-Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.

(07-17-2020 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

This can be done by having entities with multiple conferences. A simple example:
SEN group:
Big 12-South Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.; North Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC-West LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi St., Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M; East-Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.

Yes, and that may be what ESPN is angling for. But it essentially becomes a unit that may or may not sign contracts together, but if it had 1 commissioner, 1 league office complex, and shared officials and worked scheduling agreements and had regional divisions what's the difference? The same travel is saved, the overhead is shared, duplicated expenses eliminated and 2 sets of corporate office property sold and divided. And one network with 3 channels or possibly more. It's simply more efficient. And under such an umbrella it would be possible to return Missouri to the Old Big 8 and Arkansas and A&M to the old SWC divisions for the purposes of scheduling.

I always think of the 10 Big 12 schools the 14 SEC schools and the 11 Southernmost ACC schools minus Wake which could be handled as a partial.

Break those into 6 divisions of 6, have 2 at large, and a helluva conference playoff. Six division champs and two at large with the higher seeds playing on campus for the first round.

Now tell me that wouldn't make a mint!

(07-17-2020 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

This can be done by having entities with multiple conferences. A simple example:
SEN group:
Big 12-South Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.; North Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC-West LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi St., Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M; East-Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.

Are you assuming that ESPN sells off the ACC to the B1G/FOX?

I think what your are much more likely to see would be the old SWC schools plus the ACC and SEC broken down into 4 units.

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss

Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

UVa, Carolina, State, Wake, Clemson, South Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech



I would expect the old Big 8 schools would provide the link necessary to connect to B1G to the PAC.

Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana.

Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Notre Dame could play 6 games with each side but would have to choose one of the 8 team "divisions" to place their other sports (I think I would opt for the least amount of travel if I were them).

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

I toyed with what could happen if, with the encouragement of the networks, the SEC and B1G formed two conferences in a new football only league consisting only of those P5 schools with an average attendance of 40K or more. I organized these schools into 3 nine team divisions in each conference as follows:

B1G: (teams listed in order of their 5 year average Sagarin rating)

West: Washington, USC, Stanford, Utah, Oregon, Cal, Arizona State, UCLA, Arizona

Central: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Iowa St, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, Illinois

East: Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan St, Pitt, UNC, Indiana, Virginia, Purdue

SEC:

West: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas A&M, TCU, Texas, Kansas St, Baylor, Texas Tech, Arkansas

Central: Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Mississippi St, West Virginia, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Louisville, Kentucky

East: Clemson, Georgia, Florida, Florida St, Miami, Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech, South Carolina

This format would allow for an 8 team championship playoff consisting of the 3 division champs plus the highest ranked non-champ from each conference. The first round could be played in Week 15 at the home fields of the two highest seeded division champions, with the B1G championship game played at the Rose Bowl and the SEC championship at the Sugar Bowl. The two conference champions square off a week later in prime time for the new League championship.

The other 76 FBS schools could then have their own four team championship tournament, since they would now be a separate division within the NCAA.

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Some people think there will be more FBS independents in the next few years (check the thread on UMass AD's statements in the general board). Do you think that would change the outcome that you put up there?

(07-18-2020 01:34 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

Some people think there will be more FBS independents in the next few years (check the thread on UMass AD's statements in the general board). Do you think that would change the outcome that you put up there?

That's a delicate balance. Do you derive more from traditional schools on the schedule that the fans are accustomed to playing and derive benefit from negotiating as a unit, or would your payouts be so massive that you would go it alone? Alabama, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, and maybe Clemson or Auburn, or Michigan could pull that off. Maybe even a half dozen more. But then what? And we've already determined that playing a dauting schedule among the elites will kill their fan support with down years.

If I had to guess I'd say we stick together for the aforementioned reasons, but the money is the delicate balance and it could tip that scale. We'd be better off long term if we stick together. Short term probably not.

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 12:31 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:31 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Oklahoma and Texas fans probably won’t like me framing it this way but those two are positioned to leverage huge concessions from the other 8 with each new media deal. In 2024 it might be unequal revenue sharing. In 2036 it could be retaining ALL of their own rights.

The other 8 have no choice but to tolerate it if they want to stay in a P5 conference meanwhile with each new financial concession it will be harder and harder for them to compete.

OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 12:31 PM)johnintx Wrote:  OU and Texas are absolutely positioned to extract huge concessions from the other 8 schools with each new media deal. And, there's a lot to be said for staying with the familiar. If the networks can pay OU and UT SEC-type money to stay in the B12, OU and UT will stay. The other 8 may not like the revenue differential, but they'll go along as the price to remain in the P5. (I'm personally on board with OU to the SEC, but remaining in the B12 is definitely an option, and is the path of least resistance)

The other 8 schools are more than competitive outside of football. Texas Tech came within overtime of winning a national championship in men's basketball in 2019. Kansas is a blueblood in men's basketball. Baylor is a national power in women's basketball. Tech and TCU are nationally competitive in baseball. All of this and more is in jeopardy outside of the P5. The question is: will they be able to swallow their pride to allow OU and UT to claim a bigger difference in revenue with each new media deal?

As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

(07-18-2020 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

Fair enough.

(07-18-2020 07:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

This can be done by having entities with multiple conferences. A simple example:
SEN group:
Big 12-South Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.; North Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC-West LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi St., Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M; East-Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.

Are you assuming that ESPN sells off the ACC to the B1G/FOX?

I think what your are much more likely to see would be the old SWC schools plus the ACC and SEC broken down into 4 units.

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss

Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

UVa, Carolina, State, Wake, Clemson, South Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech



I would expect the old Big 8 schools would provide the link necessary to connect to B1G to the PAC.

Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana.

Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Notre Dame could play 6 games with each side but would have to choose one of the 8 team "divisions" to place their other sports (I think I would opt for the least amount of travel if I were them).

No. I was just demonstrating a simple example. You could do as JR says and combine Big 12, SEC and most of the ACC into 3 conferences. You could also merge the Big 10 and ACC and combine into 3 more regional conferences. (Big 10-Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; ACC-Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech; Conference 3-Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Louisville, UConn). Lots of possibilities.

(07-18-2020 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

How do you get that done? If you put that group together today, and opened it up for bids, I have a hard time seeing anybody paying half that amount. I would guess closer to 10 million than 30. That's a lot of schools to overpay just to get a third conference.

(07-19-2020 07:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

How do you get that done? If you put that group together today, and opened it up for bids, I have a hard time seeing anybody paying half that amount. I would guess closer to 10 million than 30. That's a lot of schools to overpay just to get a third conference.

You would have to admit that the level of collusion necessary to make those divisions would invite a look-see by Congress and make the entire process vulnerable to multiple law suits if any school landed somewhere they were less than happy with.

(07-18-2020 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

I can see the ACC having more value separated and combined in some way with the SEC and Big 10. North Carolina has 40% of the people of Texas but also has 4 schools in one conference. And it doesn't have any full members that are top 10 in revenue. I would think those two conferences could add value. All but Duke and Wake have solid fan support when they are decent. In the Big East, BC consistently sold out their 44k stadium.

(07-18-2020 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 04:13 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  As to the matter of moving, the question changes significantly if accommodation is made for Oklahoma State and Texas Tech. Would the states of Oklahoma and Texas care about Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, West Virginia, or make a big fuss over two privates they don't fund if their 4 state schools were able to move to more security and greater payouts in a time where demographics and circumstances are aligned against revenue growth? To me that is the more germane question.

If it is merely a matter of Texas and Oklahoma bleeding concessions from the other 8 that is prima facia a non permanent arrangement loosely based on extortion which only breeds further acrimony and possibly misses a timing window of opportunity for much more. But if all 4 could access more within a window that guaranteed more stability and equity, and therefore more amicable relations it seems to me that the States of Texas and Oklahoma might feel better about such a decision.

We think of state schools as individual personalities, when in reality they are more like marriageable daughters of prominent sheiks of oil rich countries that permit polygamy. You don't always get to marry the most beautiful unless you marry both sisters at once. The parent state after all has to be concerned with the future provision for both, and not just the most attractive. And that reality exists in college football as well.

We think of schools and conferences making these decisions but in reality state legislatures will play a larger role in wanting to secure the best future of all its wards and the Presidents will feel their approval or disapproval palpably.

The public officiant of the marriage is the Network. Since 2 of the 4 schools have massive national viewership and a third has very strong regional numbers, and the fourth is competitive and does not flatly detract too much value I don't see any objection for the marriage.

Regionality is going to be a key factor in the future as the effect of COVID 19 will live on the public memory and institutional memory for quite some time. But supply and demand will also play a factor. Currently there are 5 P programs in Texas. Such a move would result in 3 and those 3 the only ones the state is essentially responsible for funding. So that consolidation also benefits the sports programs of those 3 state schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas, and L.S.U. also draw from the Texas recruiting pool but with less efficacy than at least 2 if not all 3 of the state schools. So no change there.

Therefore such a move keeps all of the rivals for UT, lessens the instate competition by degree, enhances their stability and revenue, and gives them a slate of schools to play in adjoining states which have enough clout of their own to bring large travel crowds, provide easy access to road games, and to hold the interest and imagination of their alumni keeping them engaged.

I don't see much downside at all.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

If UT and A&M are willing to be in the same room, much less the same conference, I'm ok with this. It's basically a new southwestern conference under the SEC media contract with some cross-division games against legacy SEC schools. DFW becomes a SEC core city. As you mention, it freezes out Baylor and TCU and splits the state of Texas up among three large public schools.

Getting UT and A&M to agree to this will be easier said than done, but a lot of it is public posturing. Neither side can be seen as giving in to the other.

To get A&M to go along with it, you might have to swap A&M and Mizzou. A&M didn't join the SEC just to have UT and OU follow them. There is a serious SEC pride and identity in College Station. But, if they're going to be in the same conference, UT and A&M will eventually have to play each other.

If ESPN waves enough money in the air, UT will listen.

I thought of putting them in a different division but travel will important for A&M as well and face it event A&M/Tech will be a huge regional game. The money involved is as important to A&M as it is to Texas and advertising leverage in the state of Texas under the SEC banner which brings eyeballs of its own nationally is important to everyone: ESPN / SEC / Texas / Texas A&M / Texas Tech & quit frankly both Oklahoma's. The LHN becomes a separate channel of the SECN focusing on that Division and LSU and the Mississippi & Misouri. Charlotte can carry the East along with Alabama, & Vanderbilt & Miss State.

When the money in the Big10 and SEC gets big enough it might pressure a move more like this:

SEC:
East: Clemson, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
SEast: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennesse
West: Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Vanderbilt
SWest: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech

Big 10:
NEast: Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Virginia
East: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
NWest: Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin.
West: California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington

There are your two money conferences. It would be easy to form a competitive one with lesser brands for inclusion to amp up the coverage.

Army, Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Duke, Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Navy, South Florida, Wake Forest
Air Force, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, T.C.U.
Arizona, Arizona State, Brigham Young, Oregon State, Utah, Washington State

One quick question. With 6 ACC schools in the "other" category, just how do you get 3/4 of the ACC schools vote to invalidate the GOR?

You make sure they earn more than 29.7 million a year, or even 32. Pay the schools in this conference 35-37 million and it gets done. Do you see anyone in that conference making that much or more now? I don't. Maybe WVU with T3 added to Big 12 T1 and T2 but their GOR expires.

So 3/4 of 14 (or 15 if Notre Dame is included) would be 11 rounded to the nearest integer. 35 million * 11 = $385 million to invalidate the GOR and that's on top of the money you would have to pay the other conferences to take in those 11 schools to keep them happy.

Under the "Big Two" plan, many if not all of the schools would be promoted to the Big Ten or SEC. North Carolina and Florida State would be thrilled with $35 million a year. That's a huge dropoff from what Ohio State and Alabama are getting now. I guarantee you the Big Ten and SEC won't take ACC members if it means the rest of their members will only get $35 million a year. So either the "new" members will get way less than the current members for the rest of the ACC GOR or you'll have to pay those ACC members Big Ten/SEC rates to keep them on par with the rest of the Big Ten/SEC and that $385 million could be almost double that depending on the payout of the next Big Ten and SEC contracts. This isn't even counting the Big 12 and Pac-12 which have teans included in this "Big Two" proposal. Money doesn't grow on trees, especially during this time and especially after ESPN dropped a boatload on the SEC. And again, you're assuming ESPN WANTS to break up the ACC, a cable network they just created, and by far the most valuable men's basketball conference in the country.

Would Clemson rather be in the SEC than the ACC? Probably. Does the SEC want them? I don't know. Even if it were true (which is debatable), for the ACC GOR to be broken, 11 ACC schools (assuming the 3/4 to break the GOR quoted is accurate) would have to be wanted by the SEC/Big Ten (or if somehow you think ACC schools would actually prefer the Big 12 over the ACC that would be an option). This would assume both the SEC and ACC would want to add at least 5-6 more members and that's again assuming no Pac 12 or Big 12 members moving to the SEC and/or Big Ten. Sure, if ESPN and/or FOX pays the conference(s) enough, anything's possible. But again, that's a ton of money just to break up the ACC.

Just wait until the GOR is over and the SEC can add Florida State and Clemson, the schools they probably really want, and forget everyone else. Or if they want to expand north geographically, Virginia Tech and NC State.

(07-18-2020 07:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-18-2020 07:32 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2020 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Reasons for going beyond 16:

1. Reduction of duplicated expenses from multiple conferences. Most conferences have several million dollars worth of commercial property and virtually all of them take a full conference share of the media revenue to operate. Eliminate 2 or 3 of them and the revenue adds up.

2. The new regional division becomes just a smaller more profitable version of the old 8 to 10 team conference.

3. Revenue is increased due to content multiplication and the variety of having multiple brand schools that can rotate on and off of your schedule as mandated by the conference office.

4. Revenue is increased with the leverage of larger number of schools being contracted.

5. Standardization of officiating and share cost of overhead reduction which permits fewer people to manage more and hopefully brings consistency to officiating.

6. Increased inventory for streaming and T1 and T2 rights negotiations.

7. The networks have already discussed six figure payouts for a streamlined format and essentially the concept of 1 or 2 larger leagues.

So I look for the current financial crisis to shrink the numbers of division I schools, for the reward of content to consolidate brands in order to obtain larger payouts, and for the Networks to help the schools involved organize themselves so that playoff spots are decided on the field and entrants would represent as many regions of the country as possible.

So fewer conferences (or leagues) divided into regional divisions which will put forth a contender from each region to enhance market penetration and viewing numbers for the sake of advertising revenue.

This can be done by having entities with multiple conferences. A simple example:
SEN group:
Big 12-South Texas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St.; North Kansas, Kansas St., Iowa St., West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas
SEC-West LSU, Ole Miss, Missisippi St., Alabama, Auburn, Texas A&M; East-Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky.

Are you assuming that ESPN sells off the ACC to the B1G/FOX?

I think what your are much more likely to see would be the old SWC schools plus the ACC and SEC broken down into 4 units.

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss

Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Miami, Florida, Florida State, Georgia

Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College

UVa, Carolina, State, Wake, Clemson, South Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech



I would expect the old Big 8 schools would provide the link necessary to connect to B1G to the PAC.

Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana.

Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri

Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State

USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State

Notre Dame could play 6 games with each side but would have to choose one of the 8 team "divisions" to place their other sports (I think I would opt for the least amount of travel if I were them).

No. I was just demonstrating a simple example. You could do as JR says and combine Big 12, SEC and most of the ACC into 3 conferences. You could also merge the Big 10 and ACC and combine into 3 more regional conferences. (Big 10-Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St.; ACC-Miami, FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech; Conference 3-Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Louisville, UConn). Lots of possibilities.

Bullet, we have already had a 6 conference set up. Six does not work for playoff football.
The move was then to go to 4 conferences with 16 teams each. Nobody (schools/networks/conferences) could reach consensus on how to divide into quarters.
If we move to two multi-divisional leagues, there would have to be 4 divisions in each league to facilitate an eight team playoff.
Those divisions could have as few as 7 teams (56 total) or as many as 9 (72 teams).
So pick your poison 56, 64, or 72. Regional is better. More than likely if you choose 56, the eliminated teams will have to come from conferences whose GOR's or network contracts expire (not the ACC) to avoid legal problems unless some of ACC teams agree to be bought out.

JR's example only utilized 6 teams per division (48 total).
That left 16 of the 64 +1 current teams out in the cold, forcing them into a contract of lesser value than the fortunate 48.