Another scenario: the SEC is successful in raiding the Big 12 of its best properties. No other program is valuable enough to other conferences. In response, the Big Ten has to offer the more valuable PAC programs in order to keep up monetarily. The SEC goes to three divisions while the Big Ten goes to four divisions, all geographically. The PAC and Big 12 rebuild with most of the more valuable of the programs below the power group. There's no change in the ACC group, as it is shielded from raiding through a longer Grant of Rights.

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

B1G 20: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Arizona
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland

Pac 8: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Brigham Young, Boise State

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Houston
Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, West Virginia, Temple

ACC: no change

Ind: Notre Dame


The playoffs expand to a best-of-six format, to reflect the drastic membership change.

(07-26-2020 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another scenario: the SEC is successful in raiding the Big 12 of its best properties. No other program is valuable enough to other conferences. In response, the Big Ten has to offer the more valuable PAC programs in order to keep up monetarily. The SEC goes to three divisions while the Big Ten goes to four divisions, all geographically. The PAC and Big 12 rebuild with most of the more valuable of the programs below the power group. There's no change in the ACC group, as it is shielded from raiding through a longer Grant of Rights.

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

B1G 20: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Arizona
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland

Pac 8: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Brigham Young, Boise State

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Houston
Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, West Virginia, Temple

ACC: no change

Ind: Notre Dame


The playoffs expand to a best-of-six format, to reflect the drastic membership change.

If the PAC 12 and Big 12 both were gutted at the same time I could see the remnants merging rather than rebuilding separately.

(07-26-2020 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another scenario: the SEC is successful in raiding the Big 12 of its best properties. No other program is valuable enough to other conferences. In response, the Big Ten has to offer the more valuable PAC programs in order to keep up monetarily. The SEC goes to three divisions while the Big Ten goes to four divisions, all geographically. The PAC and Big 12 rebuild with most of the more valuable of the programs below the power group. There's no change in the ACC group, as it is shielded from raiding through a longer Grant of Rights.

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

B1G 20: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Arizona
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland

Pac 8: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Brigham Young, Boise State

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Houston
Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, West Virginia, Temple

ACC: no change

Ind: Notre Dame


The playoffs expand to a best-of-six format, to reflect the drastic membership change.

Why wouldn't the B1G just add 7 PAC schools and go to THREE divisions?...ie, simply add one additional Pacific division.

EAST: no change
WEST: no change
PACIFIC: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado
(I think UCLA would get the nod ahead of Cal, ASU, or Utah....actually, Cal might make it in before Arizona...)

10 game conference schedule includes 6 divisional games and 4 cross-conference games.

This conference would be powerful enough to make the Rose Bowl the B1G conference championship game, with semifinal games in Indianapolis and Las Vegas, and re-write the NY6 and CFP rules.

The Big Ten and SEC could both make similar moves at the same time and demand that the NCAA permit them to play semi-final games—deny us and we leave.

Winners of the Big Ten CCG play winners of the SEC CCG. Boom—you have a 4 team playoff among 42-48 team group.

ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

(07-28-2020 01:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

I've mentioned Clemson and Kentucky are the two teams that are obviously in the wrong conferences. ESPN can certainly give Kentucky SEC money to play in the ACC and vice versa and get Clemson as part of SEC football and Kentucky as part of ACC men's basketball.

(07-28-2020 01:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC could both make similar moves at the same time and demand that the NCAA permit them to play semi-final games—deny us and we leave.

Winners of the Big Ten CCG play winners of the SEC CCG. Boom—you have a 4 team playoff among 42-48 team group.

Muskie I've often thought that the Big 10 and SEC could manage as many as 24 each with the understanding that they would operate more like 2 conferences under one umbrella thereby reducing overhead expenses by half for conference administration, but maximizing leverage in contract negotiations.

Under that arrangement the Big 10 would add 4 from the ACC and 6 from the PAC while the SEC would add 4 from the Big 12 and 6 from the ACC.

Duke/or Pitt, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame for the Big 10.
U.S.C., Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Colorado for the Big 10.

Why Utah? It's a new market and a bridge to Northwest. Why not Arizona? They are more heavily subsidized than the other PAC AAU programs. Why not Cal or U.C.L.A.? As the two state schools they are subject to the disruptive policies of the State of California and neither of them has been particularly competitive, nor does either carry the cachet of USC or Stanford which are both darlings of the Irish and the better lure for the deal. Also why does the Big 10 need 4 schools for that state when these 2 carry the viewership? Colorado is not only a solid market but also a bridging step.

So the Big 10 sets up like this:
Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

For the SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Those would be your 2 money conferences. The other 17 current P5's would join with 7 of the best G5's and form a 3rd conference with guaranteed access for its champion to the CFP.

With a 10 game conference schedule you would play the 5 schools in your division, 1 OOC school from each of the other two conferences, rotate 1 school from each of the other divisions, and play 2 permanent rivals from within your conference.

There would be no games outside the three upper tier conferences of 72 schools.

We could consider having a preseason game instead of a Spring Game and it could be against what we now call a FCS or G5 opponent.

All three conferences would advance their division champs for the conference semis, and the conference champs get an automatic slot in a 4 team field. There is one at large spot.

The conference semis would likely bring another 100 million in to the conferences for the two games combined. The finals already bring in a good bit more than 50 million.

What you are doing by using this format is enhancing content value, enhancing revenue, enhancing leverage, and cutting the overhead for 6 conferences in half.

And it provides what is essentially 6 more playoff spots to the 3 conferences only it does so internally via the conference semis. Three champs and the best of the rest still gives us schedule that is not but 1 game longer potentially for 6 schools and yields the same 4 school CFP we currently use.

All schools not going to the CFP are still eligible for bowls.

And I might add it levels the media revenue for at least the top 48 schools, which actually enhances competition well over what we have currently.

(07-28-2020 01:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

I've mentioned Clemson and Kentucky are the two teams that are obviously in the wrong conferences. ESPN can certainly give Kentucky SEC money to play in the ACC and vice versa and get Clemson as part of SEC football and Kentucky as part of ACC men's basketball.

I disagree about Clemson, but you are absolutely correct about Kentucky.
I do think that Florida State could blend in very well in the SEC.

(07-28-2020 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC could both make similar moves at the same time and demand that the NCAA permit them to play semi-final games—deny us and we leave.

Winners of the Big Ten CCG play winners of the SEC CCG. Boom—you have a 4 team playoff among 42-48 team group.

Muskie I've often thought that the Big 10 and SEC could manage as many as 24 each with the understanding that they would operate more like 2 conferences under one umbrella thereby reducing overhead expenses by half for conference administration, but maximizing leverage in contract negotiations.

Under that arrangement the Big 10 would add 4 from the ACC and 6 from the PAC while the SEC would add 4 from the Big 12 and 6 from the ACC.

Duke/or Pitt, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame for the Big 10.
U.S.C., Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Colorado for the Big 10.

Why Utah? It's a new market and a bridge to Northwest. Why not Arizona? They are more heavily subsidized than the other PAC AAU programs. Why not Cal or U.C.L.A.? As the two state schools they are subject to the disruptive policies of the State of California and neither of them has been particularly competitive, nor does either carry the cachet of USC or Stanford which are both darlings of the Irish and the better lure for the deal. Also why does the Big 10 need 4 schools for that state when these 2 carry the viewership? Colorado is not only a solid market but also a bridging step.

So the Big 10 sets up like this:
Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

For the SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Those would be your 2 money conferences. The other 17 current P5's would join with 7 of the best G5's and form a 3rd conference with guaranteed access for its champion to the CFP.

With a 10 game conference schedule you would play the 5 schools in your division, 1 OOC school from each of the other two conferences, rotate 1 school from each of the other divisions, and play 2 permanent rivals from within your conference.

There would be no games outside the three upper tier conferences of 72 schools.

We could consider having a preseason game instead of a Spring Game and it could be against what we now call a FCS or G5 opponent.

All three conferences would advance their division champs for the conference semis, and the conference champs get an automatic slot in a 4 team field. There is one at large spot.

The conference semis would likely bring another 100 million in to the conferences for the two games combined. The finals already bring in a good bit more than 50 million.

What you are doing by using this format is enhancing content value, enhancing revenue, enhancing leverage, and cutting the overhead for 6 conferences in half.

And it provides what is essentially 6 more playoff spots to the 3 conferences only it does so internally via the conference semis. Three champs and the best of the rest still gives us schedule that is not but 1 game longer potentially for 6 schools and yields the same 4 school CFP we currently use.

All schools not going to the CFP are still eligible for bowls.

And I might add it levels the media revenue for at least the top 48 schools, which actually enhances competition well over what we have currently.

I like the general principle but with maybe just a few small tweaks.

I’m starting to doubt the long term viability of college sports on the West Coast. I have the same concerns you have regarding the meddling of liberal state legislatures demanding conditions that make it impossible to compete and the willingness of university presidents to fund competitive programs. 6 programs from the Pac 12 might be too many.

Aside from Oregon and Utah, the NFL dominates college football for fan loyalty in the PAC 12 states. A well supported Iowa St program found bring more real value than a poorly supported PAC 12 one.

(07-28-2020 04:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:17 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Big Ten and SEC could both make similar moves at the same time and demand that the NCAA permit them to play semi-final games—deny us and we leave.

Winners of the Big Ten CCG play winners of the SEC CCG. Boom—you have a 4 team playoff among 42-48 team group.

Muskie I've often thought that the Big 10 and SEC could manage as many as 24 each with the understanding that they would operate more like 2 conferences under one umbrella thereby reducing overhead expenses by half for conference administration, but maximizing leverage in contract negotiations.

Under that arrangement the Big 10 would add 4 from the ACC and 6 from the PAC while the SEC would add 4 from the Big 12 and 6 from the ACC.

Duke/or Pitt, North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame for the Big 10.
U.S.C., Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Colorado for the Big 10.

Why Utah? It's a new market and a bridge to Northwest. Why not Arizona? They are more heavily subsidized than the other PAC AAU programs. Why not Cal or U.C.L.A.? As the two state schools they are subject to the disruptive policies of the State of California and neither of them has been particularly competitive, nor does either carry the cachet of USC or Stanford which are both darlings of the Irish and the better lure for the deal. Also why does the Big 10 need 4 schools for that state when these 2 carry the viewership? Colorado is not only a solid market but also a bridging step.

So the Big 10 sets up like this:
Colorado, Oregon, Southern Cal, Stanford, Utah, Washington
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Rutgers
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia

For the SEC:
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
Alabama, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, South Carolina
Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

Those would be your 2 money conferences. The other 17 current P5's would join with 7 of the best G5's and form a 3rd conference with guaranteed access for its champion to the CFP.

With a 10 game conference schedule you would play the 5 schools in your division, 1 OOC school from each of the other two conferences, rotate 1 school from each of the other divisions, and play 2 permanent rivals from within your conference.

There would be no games outside the three upper tier conferences of 72 schools.

We could consider having a preseason game instead of a Spring Game and it could be against what we now call a FCS or G5 opponent.

All three conferences would advance their division champs for the conference semis, and the conference champs get an automatic slot in a 4 team field. There is one at large spot.

The conference semis would likely bring another 100 million in to the conferences for the two games combined. The finals already bring in a good bit more than 50 million.

What you are doing by using this format is enhancing content value, enhancing revenue, enhancing leverage, and cutting the overhead for 6 conferences in half.

And it provides what is essentially 6 more playoff spots to the 3 conferences only it does so internally via the conference semis. Three champs and the best of the rest still gives us schedule that is not but 1 game longer potentially for 6 schools and yields the same 4 school CFP we currently use.

All schools not going to the CFP are still eligible for bowls.

And I might add it levels the media revenue for at least the top 48 schools, which actually enhances competition well over what we have currently.

I like the general principle but with maybe just a few small tweaks.

I’m starting to doubt the long term viability of college sports on the West Coast. I have the same concerns you have regarding the meddling of liberal state legislatures demanding conditions that make it impossible to compete and the willingness of university presidents to fund competitive programs. 6 programs from the Pac 12 might be too many.

Aside from Oregon and Utah, the NFL dominates college football for fan loyalty in the PAC 12 states. A well supported Iowa St program found bring more real value than a poorly supported PAC 12 one.

I covered that contingency before. Three, 20 school, conferences plus whatever the PAC happens to be, if they want to be involved.

The SEC and Big 10 take 6 schools each:
Big 10: Duke, Iowa State, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Virginia
SEC: Clemson, Florida State, Kansas, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Texas

Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia
Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest
Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Tulane

Of course there are some debatable spots in the new conference of 20, but the money and leverage still break the same way and you still have the same playoff structure. And if the PAC stays at 12 you still have 72.

Instead of Pac being another division for the B16.. why can't they just do a scheduling alliance? Same with the Big 12 and SEC..or the ACC?

(07-28-2020 06:01 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  Instead of Pac being another division for the B16.. why can't they just do a scheduling alliance? Same with the Big 12 and SEC..or the ACC?

The problem with scheduling agreements is not at the conference level, but at the network level where they truly want to get more brand on brand matchups and with scheduling agreements they are adding 1. In a larger conference it could be 2 or 3 bigger games. And they would pay a lot more for them.

(07-28-2020 01:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

I've mentioned Clemson and Kentucky are the two teams that are obviously in the wrong conferences. ESPN can certainly give Kentucky SEC money to play in the ACC and vice versa and get Clemson as part of SEC football and Kentucky as part of ACC men's basketball.

OK, try this for a curveball... switching Clemson for Kentucky hurts both basketball the football revenue for the SEC. If we are talking dollars and cents, the SEC would definitely not trade Clemson straight up for Kentucky right now in all sports, and you would need to flip a coin to determine if they would trade just for football because it would depend on your metric for who was more valuable. Bottom line dollars, Kentucky would add more value to the ACC as a football school than as a basketball school.

Kentucky has been a perfectly fine fit in the SEC since... well... forever. I do agree that adding two from either UNC/NCST and UVA/VT would help Kentucky to have more natural top line rivals. We understand our place as a second-tier rival in football for most SEC East teams because of our weak football history, but I think it is fair to say that no one in the East is particularly eager to play us in the Stoops era, especially USC.

Bottom line, Florida State is the only ACC school that is objectively more valuable to the SEC right now than Kentucky. Everyone else in the ACC is playing catch-up in the revenue game, and Louisville is ironically our closest second.

(07-28-2020 06:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

I've mentioned Clemson and Kentucky are the two teams that are obviously in the wrong conferences. ESPN can certainly give Kentucky SEC money to play in the ACC and vice versa and get Clemson as part of SEC football and Kentucky as part of ACC men's basketball.

OK, try this for a curveball... switching Clemson for Kentucky hurts both basketball the football revenue for the SEC. If we are talking dollars and cents, the SEC would definitely not trade Clemson straight up for Kentucky right now in all sports, and you would need to flip a coin to determine if they would trade just for football because it would depend on your metric for who was more valuable. Bottom line dollars, Kentucky would add more value to the ACC as a football school than as a basketball school.

Kentucky has been a perfectly fine fit in the SEC since... well... forever. I do agree that adding two from either UNC/NCST and UVA/VT would help Kentucky to have more natural top line rivals. We understand our place as a second-tier rival in football for most SEC East teams because of our weak football history, but I think it is fair to say that no one in the East is particular eager to play us in the Stoops era, especially USC.

Bottom line, Florida State is the only ACC school that is objectively more valuable to the SEC right now than Kentucky. Everyone else is in the ACC playing catch-up in the revenue game, and Louisville is ironically our closest second.

Kentucky is top 20 in gross total revenue. Clemson is not. That said, add the difference in media revenue for the SEC vs ACC and it's pretty close to a draw. Clemson would nudge Kentucky out by 200,000 dollars.

But the real question is this. Does the content value of Clemson in the SEC for football exceed the content value for Kentucky in the ACC in basketball?

Since as long as the NCAA controls the basketball tournament the value multiplier is 4 to 1 for football. Clemson vs Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, L.S.U., Texas A&M, and of course South Carolina would be oodles more than even Kentucky's games against Syracuse, Duke, Virginia, and North Carolina.

So while the SEC would never trade Kentucky for Clemson, the value to the SEC in branding and in the main monied sport would be palpably different given the major deficit for Clemson in total revenue is indeed the 19 million dollar difference between what the two conferences pay.

So what Kentucky then has to consider is what happens to the football media revenue in an ACC minus Clemson? Right now the revenue for Kentucky from football about matches that of the basketball program. Kentucky and Louisville are both remarkably balanced in that regard. And I would have to think the loss of interest in Kentucky football in an ACC without Clemson would be significant.

So in this trade the SEC gains marginally. The ACC may gain marginally for hoops. But both the ACC and Kentucky would be a big loser on the football portion of the equation.

And if the SEC wanted to augment the value of Kentucky it need only add Kansas and boost football with either Oklahoma, or Texas, or both. Either Texas or Oklahoma would be far more valuable to the SEC than Florida State or clemson.

Might as well post by ideal fantasy 3x20:

Big Ten:
East: Penn State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke
West: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

SEC:
East: Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Kentucky, Louisville, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
West: Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Texas

Pac 12/Big 12:
West: UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State, Arizona, Arizona State
East: Utah, Colorado, Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, West Virginia (possible BYU replaces them because they fit better geographically).

Left out: NC State, Wake Forest, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Miami. Or Oklahoma and Texas can stay in the Pac 12/Big 12, NC State and Virginia Tech can join the SEC, and West Virginia and one of the other schools in the Pac 12/Big 12 gets bumped out instead. Or we can do a 3x22 but that dilutes the conferences.

(07-28-2020 11:11 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another scenario: the SEC is successful in raiding the Big 12 of its best properties. No other program is valuable enough to other conferences. In response, the Big Ten has to offer the more valuable PAC programs in order to keep up monetarily. The SEC goes to three divisions while the Big Ten goes to four divisions, all geographically. The PAC and Big 12 rebuild with most of the more valuable of the programs below the power group. There's no change in the ACC group, as it is shielded from raiding through a longer Grant of Rights.

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

B1G 20: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Arizona
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland

Pac 8: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Brigham Young, Boise State

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Houston
Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, West Virginia, Temple

ACC: no change

Ind: Notre Dame


The playoffs expand to a best-of-six format, to reflect the drastic membership change.

Why wouldn't the B1G just add 7 PAC schools and go to THREE divisions?...ie, simply add one additional Pacific division.

EAST: no change
WEST: no change
PACIFIC: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado
(I think UCLA would get the nod ahead of Cal, ASU, or Utah....actually, Cal might make it in before Arizona...)

10 game conference schedule includes 6 divisional games and 4 cross-conference games.

This conference would be powerful enough to make the Rose Bowl the B1G conference championship game, with semifinal games in Indianapolis and Las Vegas, and re-write the NY6 and CFP rules.

UCLA would bring the Rose Bowl and would give the Big Ten another in to the L.A. market. The issue here is state politics (and you say the same thing with the other Pacific states) sorting itself out before a decision would need to be made.

In any case, I'm a bit more optimistic about college sports in the West than others here. Yes, the politics is screwy right now but I'm taking the long-term view. With the PAC at a low point my argument is that it would be the best time to strike and get some valuable programs to enhance the conference as a whole. And the last thing is recruiting territory. I would not expand without accessing at least one of the big recruiting states, otherwise.

The other big issues are travel and would there be enough money generated to cover the extra cost of more programs.

The premise, again, is whether there would be realignment by 2026. That's the key point. If I have to go by that date then the ACC is still off limits. Going West comes with risks, as I've stated above.

Therefore, I see two scenarios that could emerge by 2026:

1) No change among conferences. The CFP is reworked to reflect the strength of the power conferences. Perhaps there's a slight chance of the playoffs expanding but that would depend on the college presidents, so I'm not counting on it happening. Another ten years and college sports may change so much to render the idea of more realignment moot.

2) Conference Armageddon. The BIG ONE. It'll likely come from the SEC raiding the Big 12, which triggers a reaction from the Big Ten. The PAC would be unable to keep up, so they won't put up much fuss. I don't see a piecemeal move keeping up with what a souped-up SEC would command and staying put may by that time come with greater risks than going West.

Wild Cards: NCAA reforms; a breakaway; player image rights established by Congress; stipends being declared unconstitutional

(07-28-2020 09:09 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 11:11 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 08:05 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Another scenario: the SEC is successful in raiding the Big 12 of its best properties. No other program is valuable enough to other conferences. In response, the Big Ten has to offer the more valuable PAC programs in order to keep up monetarily. The SEC goes to three divisions while the Big Ten goes to four divisions, all geographically. The PAC and Big 12 rebuild with most of the more valuable of the programs below the power group. There's no change in the ACC group, as it is shielded from raiding through a longer Grant of Rights.

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

B1G 20: Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Southern Cal, Arizona
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland

Pac 8: Oregon State, Washington State, Utah, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Brigham Young, Boise State

Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, TCU, Houston
Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, West Virginia, Temple

ACC: no change

Ind: Notre Dame


The playoffs expand to a best-of-six format, to reflect the drastic membership change.

Why wouldn't the B1G just add 7 PAC schools and go to THREE divisions?...ie, simply add one additional Pacific division.

EAST: no change
WEST: no change
PACIFIC: USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado
(I think UCLA would get the nod ahead of Cal, ASU, or Utah....actually, Cal might make it in before Arizona...)

10 game conference schedule includes 6 divisional games and 4 cross-conference games.

This conference would be powerful enough to make the Rose Bowl the B1G conference championship game, with semifinal games in Indianapolis and Las Vegas, and re-write the NY6 and CFP rules.

UCLA would bring the Rose Bowl and would give the Big Ten another in to the L.A. market. The issue here is state politics (and you say the same thing with the other Pacific states) sorting itself out before a decision would need to be made.

In any case, I'm a bit more optimistic about college sports in the West than others here. Yes, the politics is screwy right now but I'm taking the long-term view. With the PAC at a low point my argument is that it would be the best time to strike and get some valuable programs to enhance the conference as a whole. And the last thing is recruiting territory. I would not expand without accessing at least one of the big recruiting states, otherwise.

The other big issues are travel and would there be enough money generated to cover the extra cost of more programs.

The premise, again, is whether there would be realignment by 2026. That's the key point. If I have to go by that date then the ACC is still off limits. Going West comes with risks, as I've stated above.

Therefore, I see two scenarios that could emerge by 2026:

1) No change among conferences. The CFP is reworked to reflect the strength of the power conferences. Perhaps there's a slight chance of the playoffs expanding but that would depend on the college presidents, so I'm not counting on it happening. Another ten years and college sports may change so much to render the idea of more realignment moot.

2) Conference Armageddon. The BIG ONE. It'll likely come from the SEC raiding the Big 12, which triggers a reaction from the Big Ten. The PAC would be unable to keep up, so they won't put up much fuss. I don't see a piecemeal move keeping up with what a souped-up SEC would command and staying put may by that time come with greater risks than going West.

Wild Cards: NCAA reforms; a breakaway; player image rights established by Congress; stipends being declared unconstitutional

Some good prop bets there

Armageddon:

1-ESPN decides that Notre Dame is not worth the drama (and their numbers aren't as good as they should be)
2-ESPN in order to secure both Texas and Oklahoma lets the Irish walk and cede the NE to FOX
3-The B1G under new leadership is willing to give Notre Dame something similar to what the Irish now have with the ACC

SEC
Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Texas A&M,Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, Florida

ACC
Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisville, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia, Carolina, Wake, NCSU, Duke, South Carolina.

B1G
Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, Michigan, MSU, Ohio State, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa

PAC
Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, Utah, Washington, WSU, OSU, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State.

*Notre Dame attached to the B1G/PAC

(07-28-2020 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 06:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:52 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:33 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-28-2020 01:27 PM)XLance Wrote:  ESPN is getting ready to spend big money on the SEC. As I mentioned in another thread, they are going to be looking for a ROI.
Some of the pieces are in the wrong places to maximize profits
I think there is a strong possibility where some SEC teams will migrate to the ACC and vice versa. Even though football drives the bus money wise, there is still a lot of air time to fill between New Years and Labor day.

Why shuffle when you could just raid ACC and Big 12 and go to 24?

No one in the SEC is going to voluntarily switch to the ACC without assurances that the pay will be the same if not better.

I've mentioned Clemson and Kentucky are the two teams that are obviously in the wrong conferences. ESPN can certainly give Kentucky SEC money to play in the ACC and vice versa and get Clemson as part of SEC football and Kentucky as part of ACC men's basketball.

OK, try this for a curveball... switching Clemson for Kentucky hurts both basketball the football revenue for the SEC. If we are talking dollars and cents, the SEC would definitely not trade Clemson straight up for Kentucky right now in all sports, and you would need to flip a coin to determine if they would trade just for football because it would depend on your metric for who was more valuable. Bottom line dollars, Kentucky would add more value to the ACC as a football school than as a basketball school.

Kentucky has been a perfectly fine fit in the SEC since... well... forever. I do agree that adding two from either UNC/NCST and UVA/VT would help Kentucky to have more natural top line rivals. We understand our place as a second-tier rival in football for most SEC East teams because of our weak football history, but I think it is fair to say that no one in the East is particular eager to play us in the Stoops era, especially USC.

Bottom line, Florida State is the only ACC school that is objectively more valuable to the SEC right now than Kentucky. Everyone else is in the ACC playing catch-up in the revenue game, and Louisville is ironically our closest second.

Kentucky is top 20 in gross total revenue. Clemson is not. That said, add the difference in media revenue for the SEC vs ACC and it's pretty close to a draw. Clemson would nudge Kentucky out by 200,000 dollars.

But the real question is this. Does the content value of Clemson in the SEC for football exceed the content value for Kentucky in the ACC in basketball?

Since as long as the NCAA controls the basketball tournament the value multiplier is 4 to 1 for football. Clemson vs Georgia, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, L.S.U., Texas A&M, and of course South Carolina would be oodles more than even Kentucky's games against Syracuse, Duke, Virginia, and North Carolina.

So while the SEC would never trade Kentucky for Clemson, the value to the SEC in branding and in the main monied sport would be palpably different given the major deficit for Clemson in total revenue is indeed the 19 million dollar difference between what the two conferences pay.

So what Kentucky then has to consider is what happens to the football media revenue in an ACC minus Clemson? Right now the revenue for Kentucky from football about matches that of the basketball program. Kentucky and Louisville are both remarkably balanced in that regard. And I would have to think the loss of interest in Kentucky football in an ACC without Clemson would be significant.

So in this trade the SEC gains marginally. The ACC may gain marginally for hoops. But both the ACC and Kentucky would be a big loser on the football portion of the equation.

And if the SEC wanted to augment the value of Kentucky it need only add Kansas and boost football with either Oklahoma, or Texas, or both. Either Texas or Oklahoma would be far more valuable to the SEC than Florida State or clemson.

Good points, JR, and a full imagining of the scenario is interesting. Valuations would change pretty quickly. Does Clemson football fade when they have more than one or two true hurdles to overcome in the regular season to make the playoffs, and does Kentucky rise substantially more when they do not have to endure the grind of the SEC football schedule each year? In an ACC without the current version of Clemson, we would have more than a puncher's chance at the conference title, not to mention a division title, most years with our current program. Even with being a punching bag in football for most of my life, we have still consistently hung in there in terms of SEC attendance and revenue generation.

It is going to be hard to squeeze more revenue out of basketball without a major change, like a gutting of Rupp for more luxury suites (see Louisville at YUM!). The ACC would produce more national, primetime basketball matchups, though, and so we could maybe throw a few million more in broadcast rights to a different conference. The SEC Network sure does lean on Kentucky's second tier conference games, though. I agree that Kentucky and Clemson could work in either conference, and I suppose that is a compliment to both.