Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P4 will never happen
Author Message
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,431
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 234
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #41
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-14-2022 05:06 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  Way too many schools and the conferences are getting bigger

As of 2023 they're going to be to 69 "Power 5 schools".


They say power by the numbers could give the P5 more voting members to overcome the basketball schools. I don't think it is done that the P5 conferences are not done raiding for the best of the G5 conferences and maybe top FCS schools like North Dakota State, Stony Brook, etc to have a cushion against schools from the Big East and them to come up with better rules as a seperation between football and non-football schools.
06-15-2022 12:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Skyhawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 140
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Big10
Location:
Post: #42
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 12:25 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 12:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Two things:

The ACC should/would take Cincy before WVU is even considered, although both are unlikely unless the ESPN would pay for it.

The Pac will have a chance to consider an expansion one more time before/during the next media negotiation. If they decide to expand, I don’t think BYU would be a target. Texas schools such as TTU or TCU would have better chance. UT and aTm are gone but Texas market is still too good in my opinion.

I feel like Cincy and WVU are destined to land in some sort of redux version of the ACC post B1G/SEC raid by the end of this century. Cincy, Louisville, Pittsburgh, WVU, and VTech all together in the same conference just makes too much sense.

TBH, I'm really hoping Cincy can elevate its program to a Clemson-like level and the SEC wants to plant its flag in Ohio but that's just wishful thinking lol

I agree with the bolded text (and might add Memphis to that mix - brings them to 18).

B12 then backfills with USF and SMU. or possibly CO state.

That should bring stability to both conferences. Yes, Fl state and Clemson may want to leave, but I think those moves are still more than a few years out.
06-15-2022 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #43
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 12:07 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

For there to be a P4, the others would have to gobble up the majority of one of the weaker leagues. If this was going to happen, the prime time for that to happen was after the Texas/Oklahoma SEC announcement yet the others passed on the remaining 8.

Kansas is probably the only Big 12 school left that holds any interest to the Big 10 or SEC. While the PAC 12 has talked about a CTZ foothold the institutional and cultural differences proved to be a bridge too far and I’m guessing the money isn’t there.

The ACC Is locked into that meddlesome GOR so they aren’t a good candidate to be dissolved. While it’s feasible that it’s members could be dispersed across the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the power structure would be more akin to a Power 2 (SEC, Big 10) and then 2 leagues (PAC 12 and Big 12) who are a significant step down.

Dissolving the Pac 12 has geography working against us. Even if there was a scenario where the Big 10 cherry picked the PAC 12 and what was left merged into the Big 12 this would undoubtedly spur the SEC to raid the ACC in response and again, the end result is a Power 2 and then 2 lesser leagues.

The power dynamics just don’t lend themselves to a P4.

I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

Two things:

The ACC should/would take Cincy before WVU is even considered, although both are unlikely unless the ESPN would pay for it.

The Pac will have a chance to consider an expansion one more time before/during the next media negotiation. If they decide to expand, I don’t think BYU would be a target. Texas schools such as TTU or TCU would have better chance. UT and aTm are gone but Texas market is still too good in my opinion.

I usually don't love the argument, "If Conference A wanted School X, then they would have added by now." There are always lots of timing and other issues that play into when conference realignment moves occur.

However, I actually think that the argument applies with the Pac-12 wanting (or more appropriately, not wanting) to expand with anyone from the Big 12. If it was going to happen, then it would have absolutely happened last year when (a) every single Big 12 school was calling/begging every other power conference for an invite and (b) the Pac-12 was preparing to put its best foot forward for its TV rights negotiations happening this year. Those were essentially the same circumstances in 2010 with lots of scared Big 12 schools calling everyone and a new TV negotiation for the then-Pac-10 on the horizon and they acted upon it by adding Colorado and trying for the full boat of the proposed Pac-16.

There's absolutely no reason why the Pac-12 would add anyone from the Big 12 now when they're about to enter into new TV negotiations that will lock in their rights fees for the foreseeable future. It makes no sense. If it was going to happen, then it would have happened last year when there was realignment chaos over the course of several months.
06-15-2022 01:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,544
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 199
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #44
RE: P4 will never happen
I think the best chance of a semi-even P4 is dissecting the ACC and XII and merge the remainders.

Option 1: B1G/SEC retain all current members
B1G + Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia
SEC + Clemson, Florida St
PAC + Kansas, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech
METRO (+ non-FB Notre Dame): Baylor, Boston College, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, Iowa St, Kansas St, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virginia

Option 2: B1G/SEC switch slightly
B1G - Rutgers + Duke, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia
SEC - Missouri + Clemson, Florida St, Notre Dame
PAC + Houston, Oklahoma St, TCU, Texas Tech
METRO: Baylor, Boston College, BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech, Iowa St, Kansas St, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina St, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, West Virginia + 1 or 3 of Memphis/SMU/South Florida
06-15-2022 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 5,800
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 310
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #45
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 11:53 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

For there to be a P4, the others would have to gobble up the majority of one of the weaker leagues. If this was going to happen, the prime time for that to happen was after the Texas/Oklahoma SEC announcement yet the others passed on the remaining 8.

Kansas is probably the only Big 12 school left that holds any interest to the Big 10 or SEC. While the PAC 12 has talked about a CTZ foothold the institutional and cultural differences proved to be a bridge too far and I’m guessing the money isn’t there.

The ACC Is locked into that meddlesome GOR so they aren’t a good candidate to be dissolved. While it’s feasible that it’s members could be dispersed across the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the power structure would be more akin to a Power 2 (SEC, Big 10) and then 2 leagues (PAC 12 and Big 12) who are a significant step down.

Dissolving the Pac 12 has geography working against us. Even if there was a scenario where the Big 10 cherry picked the PAC 12 and what was left merged into the Big 12 this would undoubtedly spur the SEC to raid the ACC in response and again, the end result is a Power 2 and then 2 lesser leagues.

The power dynamics just don’t lend themselves to a P4.

I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

Yawn, the expansion for expansion's sake posts get old.

1. Kansas offers no value to the B1G. The B1G needs valuable football properties in demographically growing markets. That is the ACC schools. Kansas would simply make the B1G weaker in football while adding nothing meaningful to the conference demographically.

2. The ACC is not going to add West Virginia. WVU would not increase their TV contract. If WVU had that value, then the Big 12 would still have a big brand anchor. But clearly WVU isn't, so they don't do anything for the ACC.

2a. Locking down the Northeast where football is on the decline is nonsense. Not that WVU has anything to do with locking down the major populated areas of the NE in the first place. The ACC already has Pitt, Syracuse, and BC in the more populated areas.

3. BYU will never, ever be let into the PAC-12. That the PAC-12 was exploring Texas schools and not BYU last summer should make that extremely clear.

3a. The PAC-12 is the weakest of the P5s. There are no geographically reasonable additions that boost their TV deal. San Diego State would only dilute their TV deal because the other California schools carry the entire state. College sports - especially football - are dying on the West Coast. The PAC-12 is in a long-term decline that cannot be arrested.

Again, a Big 12 team getting poached likely isn't the first thing to occur in a chain of events.

Hypothetical: The SEC pulls in FSU/Clemson/Miami. Who can the ACC add that would be willing to join? I would guess that the fist two on the list are valid candidates, not because they "increase" their TV contract, but they might be able to help sustain it.
06-15-2022 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 8,831
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 411
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #46
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

For there to be a P4, the others would have to gobble up the majority of one of the weaker leagues. If this was going to happen, the prime time for that to happen was after the Texas/Oklahoma SEC announcement yet the others passed on the remaining 8.

Kansas is probably the only Big 12 school left that holds any interest to the Big 10 or SEC. While the PAC 12 has talked about a CTZ foothold the institutional and cultural differences proved to be a bridge too far and I’m guessing the money isn’t there.

The ACC Is locked into that meddlesome GOR so they aren’t a good candidate to be dissolved. While it’s feasible that it’s members could be dispersed across the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the power structure would be more akin to a Power 2 (SEC, Big 10) and then 2 leagues (PAC 12 and Big 12) who are a significant step down.

Dissolving the Pac 12 has geography working against us. Even if there was a scenario where the Big 10 cherry picked the PAC 12 and what was left merged into the Big 12 this would undoubtedly spur the SEC to raid the ACC in response and again, the end result is a Power 2 and then 2 lesser leagues.

The power dynamics just don’t lend themselves to a P4.

I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

We clearly aren’t on the same page. There are plenty of programs in the ACC that the SEC would be interested in in order to completely control the southern tv markets (and plenty of ACC schools who’d love to make SEC level money.

The PAC 12 is not expanding. No one increases their tv revenue or fits the profile.

While I think WVU would be a good thing for the ACC, I don’t see it happening unless the ACC losses members first
06-15-2022 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #47
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 11:53 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

For there to be a P4, the others would have to gobble up the majority of one of the weaker leagues. If this was going to happen, the prime time for that to happen was after the Texas/Oklahoma SEC announcement yet the others passed on the remaining 8.

Kansas is probably the only Big 12 school left that holds any interest to the Big 10 or SEC. While the PAC 12 has talked about a CTZ foothold the institutional and cultural differences proved to be a bridge too far and I’m guessing the money isn’t there.

The ACC Is locked into that meddlesome GOR so they aren’t a good candidate to be dissolved. While it’s feasible that it’s members could be dispersed across the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the power structure would be more akin to a Power 2 (SEC, Big 10) and then 2 leagues (PAC 12 and Big 12) who are a significant step down.

Dissolving the Pac 12 has geography working against us. Even if there was a scenario where the Big 10 cherry picked the PAC 12 and what was left merged into the Big 12 this would undoubtedly spur the SEC to raid the ACC in response and again, the end result is a Power 2 and then 2 lesser leagues.

The power dynamics just don’t lend themselves to a P4.

I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

Yawn, the expansion for expansion's sake posts get old.

1. Kansas offers no value to the B1G. The B1G needs valuable football properties in demographically growing markets. That is the ACC schools. Kansas would simply make the B1G weaker in football while adding nothing meaningful to the conference demographically.

2. The ACC is not going to add West Virginia. WVU would not increase their TV contract. If WVU had that value, then the Big 12 would still have a big brand anchor. But clearly WVU isn't, so they don't do anything for the ACC.

2a. Locking down the Northeast where football is on the decline is nonsense. Not that WVU has anything to do with locking down the major populated areas of the NE in the first place. The ACC already has Pitt, Syracuse, and BC in the more populated areas.

3. BYU will never, ever be let into the PAC-12. That the PAC-12 was exploring Texas schools and not BYU last summer should make that extremely clear.

3a. The PAC-12 is the weakest of the P5s. There are no geographically reasonable additions that boost their TV deal. San Diego State would only dilute their TV deal because the other California schools carry the entire state. College sports - especially football - are dying on the West Coast. The PAC-12 is in a long-term decline that cannot be arrested.

Again, a Big 12 team getting poached likely isn't the first thing to occur in a chain of events.

Hypothetical: The SEC pulls in FSU/Clemson/Miami. Who can the ACC add that would be willing to join? I would guess that the fist two on the list are valid candidates, not because they "increase" their TV contract, but they might be able to help sustain it.

That's the thing: yes, we can go through an infinitely expanding multiverse of potential downstream dominos in realignment moves (e.g. if the ACC gets poached, then the ACC will poach the Big 12, then the Big 12 will poach XYZ, etc.).

The key question today, though, is what is the realistic chance of that first domino happening at all? As I've noted before, I'm skeptical of any SEC expansion at this point: there is no single expansion that they can do that would be better than what they just did last year with adding Texas and Oklahoma alone. It was the mic drop of all conference realignment moves. That's why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC was basically no response at all outside of formulating an alliance that doesn't appear to be actually doing anything. This is quite different than the 2010-2013 period where moves were happening all over the place with multiple power players.

At the same time, adding two schools as singularly powerful as UT and OU to an SEC with money being split 16 ways just makes it that much harder to find any schools that could merely break even in splitting that money 18 or more ways. Even FSU, Clemson and/or Miami wouldn't move the needle as much as what the SEC just did with UT and OU.

There are ACC schools that the Big Ten is interested in, but once again, the Grant of Rights agreement exists until the mid-2030s. No one can wish it away (and note that leagues like the Big Ten actually *don't* want to wish it away because they have the exact same type of agreement with their own members).

At the same time, even if the GOR agreement wasn't an issue, the Big Ten could be finding itself in the same situation as the SEC where their new media deals will be so large that the number of expansion targets that make any financial sense goes down dramatically. At the projected $1 billion per in new Big Ten TV contracts, that means that a new school has to bring in nearly $70 million per year in TV money just for the conference to BREAK EVEN in expansion. It may well be the case that there isn't any Big Ten expansion that would increase per school revenue outside of Notre Dame joining.

We need to get back to the whole reason why realignment happens in the first place for power conferences: conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening. They're NOT expanding just for the sake of expanding in order to create a coordinated P4 or any other reason.

The bar is simply now way way way WAY higher than when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland and the SEC added Texas A&M and Missouri. New schools to the Big Ten and SEC essentially need to bring in 3 or 4 times than what those schools brought in just for the leagues to break even with expansion.

That's a big reason why I think that there's going to be pretty much no change among the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC for quite awhile. What I wrote on my blog the very day that the news broke that UT and OU were heading to the SEC (quoting Doctor Strange in Infinity War): "We're in the END GAME now." That seismic move was the end of power conference realignment as opposed to the start of more. There might be other huge structural changes in college sports (like a restructuring or elimination of the NCAA), but the power conference memberships themselves look to be the most stable that they've been in generations from my perspective. Everything over the past 12 years was ultimately about which conference would end up with Texas and that's now resolved.
06-15-2022 03:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #48
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 11:53 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

For there to be a P4, the others would have to gobble up the majority of one of the weaker leagues. If this was going to happen, the prime time for that to happen was after the Texas/Oklahoma SEC announcement yet the others passed on the remaining 8.

Kansas is probably the only Big 12 school left that holds any interest to the Big 10 or SEC. While the PAC 12 has talked about a CTZ foothold the institutional and cultural differences proved to be a bridge too far and I’m guessing the money isn’t there.

The ACC Is locked into that meddlesome GOR so they aren’t a good candidate to be dissolved. While it’s feasible that it’s members could be dispersed across the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12 the power structure would be more akin to a Power 2 (SEC, Big 10) and then 2 leagues (PAC 12 and Big 12) who are a significant step down.

Dissolving the Pac 12 has geography working against us. Even if there was a scenario where the Big 10 cherry picked the PAC 12 and what was left merged into the Big 12 this would undoubtedly spur the SEC to raid the ACC in response and again, the end result is a Power 2 and then 2 lesser leagues.

The power dynamics just don’t lend themselves to a P4.

I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

Yawn, the expansion for expansion's sake posts get old.

1. Kansas offers no value to the B1G. The B1G needs valuable football properties in demographically growing markets. That is the ACC schools. Kansas would simply make the B1G weaker in football while adding nothing meaningful to the conference demographically.

2. The ACC is not going to add West Virginia. WVU would not increase their TV contract. If WVU had that value, then the Big 12 would still have a big brand anchor. But clearly WVU isn't, so they don't do anything for the ACC.

2a. Locking down the Northeast where football is on the decline is nonsense. Not that WVU has anything to do with locking down the major populated areas of the NE in the first place. The ACC already has Pitt, Syracuse, and BC in the more populated areas.

3. BYU will never, ever be let into the PAC-12. That the PAC-12 was exploring Texas schools and not BYU last summer should make that extremely clear.

3a. The PAC-12 is the weakest of the P5s. There are no geographically reasonable additions that boost their TV deal. San Diego State would only dilute their TV deal because the other California schools carry the entire state. College sports - especially football - are dying on the West Coast. The PAC-12 is in a long-term decline that cannot be arrested.

Again, a Big 12 team getting poached likely isn't the first thing to occur in a chain of events.

Hypothetical: The SEC pulls in FSU/Clemson/Miami. Who can the ACC add that would be willing to join? I would guess that the fist two on the list are valid candidates, not because they "increase" their TV contract, but they might be able to help sustain it.

That's the thing: yes, we can go through an infinitely expanding multiverse of potential downstream dominos in realignment moves (e.g. if the ACC gets poached, then the ACC will poach the Big 12, then the Big 12 will poach XYZ, etc.).

The key question today, though, is what is the realistic chance of that first domino happening at all? As I've noted before, I'm skeptical of any SEC expansion at this point: there is no single expansion that they can do that would be better than what they just did last year with adding Texas and Oklahoma alone. It was the mic drop of all conference realignment moves. That's why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC was basically no response at all outside of formulating an alliance that doesn't appear to be actually doing anything. This is quite different than the 2010-2013 period where moves were happening all over the place with multiple power players.

At the same time, adding two schools as singularly powerful as UT and OU to an SEC with money being split 16 ways just makes it that much harder to find any schools that could merely break even in splitting that money 18 or more ways. Even FSU, Clemson and/or Miami wouldn't move the needle as much as what the SEC just did with UT and OU.

There are ACC schools that the Big Ten is interested in, but once again, the Grant of Rights agreement exists until the mid-2030s. No one can wish it away (and note that leagues like the Big Ten actually *don't* want to wish it away because they have the exact same type of agreement with their own members).

At the same time, even if the GOR agreement wasn't an issue, the Big Ten could be finding itself in the same situation as the SEC where their new media deals will be so large that the number of expansion targets that make any financial sense goes down dramatically. At the projected $1 billion per in new Big Ten TV contracts, that means that a new school has to bring in nearly $70 million per year in TV money just for the conference to BREAK EVEN in expansion. It may well be the case that there isn't any Big Ten expansion that would increase per school revenue outside of Notre Dame joining.

We need to get back to the whole reason why realignment happens in the first place for power conferences: conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening. They're NOT expanding just for the sake of expanding in order to create a coordinated P4 or any other reason.

The bar is simply now way way way WAY higher than when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland and the SEC added Texas A&M and Missouri. New schools to the Big Ten and SEC essentially need to bring in 3 or 4 times than what those schools brought in just for the leagues to break even with expansion.

That's a big reason why I think that there's going to be pretty much no change among the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC for quite awhile. What I wrote on my blog the very day that the news broke that UT and OU were heading to the SEC (quoting Doctor Strange in Infinity War): "We're in the END GAME now." That seismic move was the end of power conference realignment as opposed to the start of more. There might be other huge structural changes in college sports (like a restructuring or elimination of the NCAA), but the power conference memberships themselves look to be the most stable that they've been in generations from my perspective. Everything over the past 12 years was ultimately about which conference would end up with Texas and that's now resolved.

Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?
06-15-2022 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 5,800
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 310
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #49
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 02:45 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 11:53 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 10:43 AM)XLance Wrote:  I disagree.

We could see a P4 by 2025 when the Big 12's GOR is up.

1)The SEC is complete. They don't need anything else, plus it's going to take that league a very long time to digest Texas and Oklahoma.
2)The B1G could expand by adding Kansas (or not) and be perfectly happy until the ACC's GOR expires in 2036.
3)The ACC needs to engage the NE and unfortunately/fortunately the path to get there is through West Virginia. The ACC needs to add West Virginia as the conference's resident "bad guy". It would actually be good for the league and for West Virginia too. It's possible the ACC could also look to add Cincinnati (Ohio is a big market).
4) The PAC's options for expansion are very limited and very specific to their network structure Option A-add BYU and Kansas. Since the PAC schools are paired for network broadcast purposes moving BYU in with Utah is a no brainer. Colorado could separate from Utah and hook up with Kansas. The PAC needs a spark to get their hoops jump started. Option B-add BYU and San Diego State. Southern California is a huge market and USC and UCLA are both pretty snooty. Engaging the population with a different approach may help to energize the entire region. The network pairings may be tricky, but culturally SDS is a better "fit" for the PAC than Kansas.

The Big 12 will lose it's P status as soon as Texas and Oklahoma leave and even if the conference stayed intact, it would at best be regarded a G level.

Yawn, the expansion for expansion's sake posts get old.

1. Kansas offers no value to the B1G. The B1G needs valuable football properties in demographically growing markets. That is the ACC schools. Kansas would simply make the B1G weaker in football while adding nothing meaningful to the conference demographically.

2. The ACC is not going to add West Virginia. WVU would not increase their TV contract. If WVU had that value, then the Big 12 would still have a big brand anchor. But clearly WVU isn't, so they don't do anything for the ACC.

2a. Locking down the Northeast where football is on the decline is nonsense. Not that WVU has anything to do with locking down the major populated areas of the NE in the first place. The ACC already has Pitt, Syracuse, and BC in the more populated areas.

3. BYU will never, ever be let into the PAC-12. That the PAC-12 was exploring Texas schools and not BYU last summer should make that extremely clear.

3a. The PAC-12 is the weakest of the P5s. There are no geographically reasonable additions that boost their TV deal. San Diego State would only dilute their TV deal because the other California schools carry the entire state. College sports - especially football - are dying on the West Coast. The PAC-12 is in a long-term decline that cannot be arrested.

Again, a Big 12 team getting poached likely isn't the first thing to occur in a chain of events.

Hypothetical: The SEC pulls in FSU/Clemson/Miami. Who can the ACC add that would be willing to join? I would guess that the fist two on the list are valid candidates, not because they "increase" their TV contract, but they might be able to help sustain it.

That's the thing: yes, we can go through an infinitely expanding multiverse of potential downstream dominos in realignment moves (e.g. if the ACC gets poached, then the ACC will poach the Big 12, then the Big 12 will poach XYZ, etc.).

The key question today, though, is what is the realistic chance of that first domino happening at all? As I've noted before, I'm skeptical of any SEC expansion at this point: there is no single expansion that they can do that would be better than what they just did last year with adding Texas and Oklahoma alone. It was the mic drop of all conference realignment moves. That's why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC was basically no response at all outside of formulating an alliance that doesn't appear to be actually doing anything. This is quite different than the 2010-2013 period where moves were happening all over the place with multiple power players.

At the same time, adding two schools as singularly powerful as UT and OU to an SEC with money being split 16 ways just makes it that much harder to find any schools that could merely break even in splitting that money 18 or more ways. Even FSU, Clemson and/or Miami wouldn't move the needle as much as what the SEC just did with UT and OU.

There are ACC schools that the Big Ten is interested in, but once again, the Grant of Rights agreement exists until the mid-2030s. No one can wish it away (and note that leagues like the Big Ten actually *don't* want to wish it away because they have the exact same type of agreement with their own members).

At the same time, even if the GOR agreement wasn't an issue, the Big Ten could be finding itself in the same situation as the SEC where their new media deals will be so large that the number of expansion targets that make any financial sense goes down dramatically. At the projected $1 billion per in new Big Ten TV contracts, that means that a new school has to bring in nearly $70 million per year in TV money just for the conference to BREAK EVEN in expansion. It may well be the case that there isn't any Big Ten expansion that would increase per school revenue outside of Notre Dame joining.

We need to get back to the whole reason why realignment happens in the first place for power conferences: conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening. They're NOT expanding just for the sake of expanding in order to create a coordinated P4 or any other reason.

The bar is simply now way way way WAY higher than when the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland and the SEC added Texas A&M and Missouri. New schools to the Big Ten and SEC essentially need to bring in 3 or 4 times than what those schools brought in just for the leagues to break even with expansion.

That's a big reason why I think that there's going to be pretty much no change among the Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12 and ACC for quite awhile. What I wrote on my blog the very day that the news broke that UT and OU were heading to the SEC (quoting Doctor Strange in Infinity War): "We're in the END GAME now." That seismic move was the end of power conference realignment as opposed to the start of more. There might be other huge structural changes in college sports (like a restructuring or elimination of the NCAA), but the power conference memberships themselves look to be the most stable that they've been in generations from my perspective. Everything over the past 12 years was ultimately about which conference would end up with Texas and that's now resolved.

Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Don't say that! Don't even think it!
06-15-2022 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #50
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Oh - I get it! I was writing and thinking about conference realignment long before it became a semi-mainstream topic. I spent thousands of hours on my blog, researching, and going through forums like this one and news sources during that 2010-13 timeframe in particular. There are few topics that I love discussing more than conference realignment. Believe me - I'd LOVE to believe that the Big Ten is on the precipice of making some massive expansion moves.

However, I think a lot of people here somewhat weirdly underestimate just how much it means that Texas is specifically off-the-board for realignment purposes in terms of paralyzing everything else. That was the school through which so many different major realignment scenarios revolved around. The only other school that could conceivably have that type of impact on the realignment landscape is Notre Dame. That's it.

We're just so used to seeing one big move being reciprocated by other big moves in realignment that we are collectively in denial that we just saw the biggest move that you could ever possibly make and there's simply no answer for it. Marginal expansions (at least at the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC level) aren't going to work anymore: there's no realignment "Moneyball" move like the Big Ten turning Rutgers and Maryland into huge moneymakers that exists going forward. By the same token, there's simply no greater expansion that I can conceive of than what the SEC just did with Texas and Oklahoma. Even as a Big Ten partisan, I'm honestly still in awe that the SEC was able to pull that off. It was such a perfect and insanely powerful blockbuster move that it makes every single other possible power conference expansion out there that doesn't involve Notre Dame effectively irrelevant. It would take an inefficient (and likely per school revenue reducing) expansion of 3, 4, 5 or more non-ND schools in pretty much any conceivable Big Ten raiding of even ACC/Pac-12 schools to bring in what just bringing in UT and OU alone is able to do for the SEC.

Hence, we got the expansion paralysis that we saw in 2021 from the Alliance conferences compared to the massive movement among all power conferences in 2010-2013. I think that's going to continue as long as ND is firm with its independence (and I believe that will be the case for the foreseeable future).
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2022 04:38 PM by Frank the Tank.)
06-15-2022 04:32 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #51
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Oh - I get it! I was writing and thinking about conference realignment long before it became a semi-mainstream topic. I spent thousands of hours on my blog, researching, and going through forums like this one and news sources during that 2010-13 timeframe in particular. There are few topics that I love discussing more than conference realignment. Believe me - I'd LOVE to believe that the Big Ten is on the precipice of making some massive expansion moves.

However, I think a lot of people here somewhat weirdly underestimate just how much it means that Texas is specifically off-the-board for realignment purposes in terms of paralyzing everything else. That was the school through which so many different major realignment scenarios revolved around. The only other school that could conceivably have that type of impact on the realignment landscape is Notre Dame. That's it.

We're just so used to seeing one big move being reciprocated by other big moves in realignment that we are collectively in denial that we just saw the biggest move that you could ever possibly make and there's simply no answer for it. Marginal expansions (at least at the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC level) aren't going to work anymore: there's no realignment "Moneyball" move like the Big Ten turning Rutgers and Maryland into huge moneymakers that exists going forward. By the same token, there's simply no greater expansion that I can conceive of than what the SEC just did with Texas and Oklahoma. Even as a Big Ten partisan, I'm honestly still in awe that the SEC was able to pull that off. It was such a perfect and insanely powerful blockbuster move that it makes every single other possible power conference expansion out there that doesn't involve Notre Dame effectively irrelevant. It would take an inefficient (and likely per school revenue reducing) expansion of 3, 4, 5 or more non-ND schools in pretty much any conceivable Big Ten raiding of even ACC/Pac-12 schools to bring in what just bringing in UT and OU alone is able to do for the SEC.

Hence, we got the expansion paralysis that we saw in 2021 from the Alliance conferences compared to the massive movement among all power conferences in 2010-2013. I think that's going to continue as long as ND is firm with its independence (and I believe that will be the case for the foreseeable future).

Had it been Oklahoma and any other Big 12 team other than Texas joining the SEC.....Had Texas chosen to join the PAC or the ACC...................but that's not the way things went down.
If there is a saving grace for the rest of the P5/4 it will be that it's going to take a very long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma. This time will give everyone else an opportunity to plan for survival.

I agree with you re: Notre Dame. They have a contract that guarantees football semi-independence and relevance if they are successful. The one thing the contract does not supply is guaranteed competitive money.

In the short term the B1G is insulated. They will have a new contract soon and for all intents and purposes will competitive money wise with the SEC for the immediate future.

The PAC, ACC and what's left of the Big 12 are facing some challenges. It's interesting how the conversation about collegiate sports over the last 30 years has focused on money, and the challenges of the PAC and ACC are based on how to get more to be somewhat competitive with the SEC and the B1G.

Solutions are very limited and mostly revolve around what each conference can or will do to pry a few more dollars out of ESPN (in the ACC's case) and any media outlet in the case of the PAC. The Big 12 has a plan, but the financial future is unknown.

So Frank, what can the ACC and the PAC do?
If ESPN would reopen their contract if they added schools would the ACC expand? Would the ACC be willing to take schools at ESPN's suggestion that they would ordinarily not even consider? Would the PAC add BYU to survive? Will the ACC be willing to invite West Virginia or Cincinnati or even a couple of outposts in Texas if it meant earning just a little more to be able to keep pace?


Remember, it's only temporary.
06-16-2022 05:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,492
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 671
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Mouth of Wilson, VA
Post: #52
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Oh - I get it! I was writing and thinking about conference realignment long before it became a semi-mainstream topic. I spent thousands of hours on my blog, researching, and going through forums like this one and news sources during that 2010-13 timeframe in particular. There are few topics that I love discussing more than conference realignment. Believe me - I'd LOVE to believe that the Big Ten is on the precipice of making some massive expansion moves.

However, I think a lot of people here somewhat weirdly underestimate just how much it means that Texas is specifically off-the-board for realignment purposes in terms of paralyzing everything else. That was the school through which so many different major realignment scenarios revolved around. The only other school that could conceivably have that type of impact on the realignment landscape is Notre Dame. That's it.

We're just so used to seeing one big move being reciprocated by other big moves in realignment that we are collectively in denial that we just saw the biggest move that you could ever possibly make and there's simply no answer for it. Marginal expansions (at least at the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC level) aren't going to work anymore: there's no realignment "Moneyball" move like the Big Ten turning Rutgers and Maryland into huge moneymakers that exists going forward. By the same token, there's simply no greater expansion that I can conceive of than what the SEC just did with Texas and Oklahoma. Even as a Big Ten partisan, I'm honestly still in awe that the SEC was able to pull that off. It was such a perfect and insanely powerful blockbuster move that it makes every single other possible power conference expansion out there that doesn't involve Notre Dame effectively irrelevant. It would take an inefficient (and likely per school revenue reducing) expansion of 3, 4, 5 or more non-ND schools in pretty much any conceivable Big Ten raiding of even ACC/Pac-12 schools to bring in what just bringing in UT and OU alone is able to do for the SEC.

Hence, we got the expansion paralysis that we saw in 2021 from the Alliance conferences compared to the massive movement among all power conferences in 2010-2013. I think that's going to continue as long as ND is firm with its independence (and I believe that will be the case for the foreseeable future).

Had it been Oklahoma and any other Big 12 team other than Texas joining the SEC.....Had Texas chosen to join the PAC or the ACC...................but that's not the way things went down.
If there is a saving grace for the rest of the P5/4 it will be that it's going to take a very long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma. This time will give everyone else an opportunity to plan for survival.

I agree with you re: Notre Dame. They have a contract that guarantees football semi-independence and relevance if they are successful. The one thing the contract does not supply is guaranteed competitive money.

In the short term the B1G is insulated. They will have a new contract soon and for all intents and purposes will competitive money wise with the SEC for the immediate future.

The PAC, ACC and what's left of the Big 12 are facing some challenges. It's interesting how the conversation about collegiate sports over the last 30 years has focused on money, and the challenges of the PAC and ACC are based on how to get more to be somewhat competitive with the SEC and the B1G.

Solutions are very limited and mostly revolve around what each conference can or will do to pry a few more dollars out of ESPN (in the ACC's case) and any media outlet in the case of the PAC. The Big 12 has a plan, but the financial future is unknown.

So Frank, what can the ACC and the PAC do?
If ESPN would reopen their contract if they added schools would the ACC expand? Would the ACC be willing to take schools at ESPN's suggestion that they would ordinarily not even consider? Would the PAC add BYU to survive? Will the ACC be willing to invite West Virginia or Cincinnati or even a couple of outposts in Texas if it meant earning just a little more to be able to keep pace?


Remember, it's only temporary.


The thing that ND has going for it (that the ACC does not) that you left out of your analysis is that the NBC contract comes up for renewal in 2025, not 2036.

Lets see how much TV money ND gets then. It may sign a five year deal then (all NBC deals since 1991 but the last one were for five years).

So, it might get two contract renewal extensions before the ACC gets one. Maybe ND signs three new deals (2025, 2030, 2035) before the ACC signs one.

It also gets a partial share of ACC/ESPN money. It gets a full share of ACC Network money.

It gets massive amounts of donor money.

(ND doesn't even count donations to athletics as part of its athletics revenues. It counts them as general revenues.)

It rakes in big apparel sale money. Its stadium holds 77,000, not 50,000.

It will soon sell subscriptions to Fighting Irish TV. Etc....etc.....

ND has lots of revenue sources, not just network TV money. One thing ND has always done well is think up new revenue sources.

Signing a deal with Guinness beer, making it "the official beer of Notre Dame football" and monetizing that is one such deal.

ND is something like #8 in total revenues currently, even with a low current NBC TV deal.

I think that ND will have the revenues to remain competitive as a football independent. It can afford to "monitor the landscape" until 2036 or so.

Joining the ACC in football would just be bad business. It would lock ND football long term in a Tier 2 conference. There is no real reason to give up independence to the lowest bidder like the ACC.
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2022 09:22 AM by TerryD.)
06-16-2022 05:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #53
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Oh - I get it! I was writing and thinking about conference realignment long before it became a semi-mainstream topic. I spent thousands of hours on my blog, researching, and going through forums like this one and news sources during that 2010-13 timeframe in particular. There are few topics that I love discussing more than conference realignment. Believe me - I'd LOVE to believe that the Big Ten is on the precipice of making some massive expansion moves.

However, I think a lot of people here somewhat weirdly underestimate just how much it means that Texas is specifically off-the-board for realignment purposes in terms of paralyzing everything else. That was the school through which so many different major realignment scenarios revolved around. The only other school that could conceivably have that type of impact on the realignment landscape is Notre Dame. That's it.

We're just so used to seeing one big move being reciprocated by other big moves in realignment that we are collectively in denial that we just saw the biggest move that you could ever possibly make and there's simply no answer for it. Marginal expansions (at least at the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC level) aren't going to work anymore: there's no realignment "Moneyball" move like the Big Ten turning Rutgers and Maryland into huge moneymakers that exists going forward. By the same token, there's simply no greater expansion that I can conceive of than what the SEC just did with Texas and Oklahoma. Even as a Big Ten partisan, I'm honestly still in awe that the SEC was able to pull that off. It was such a perfect and insanely powerful blockbuster move that it makes every single other possible power conference expansion out there that doesn't involve Notre Dame effectively irrelevant. It would take an inefficient (and likely per school revenue reducing) expansion of 3, 4, 5 or more non-ND schools in pretty much any conceivable Big Ten raiding of even ACC/Pac-12 schools to bring in what just bringing in UT and OU alone is able to do for the SEC.

Hence, we got the expansion paralysis that we saw in 2021 from the Alliance conferences compared to the massive movement among all power conferences in 2010-2013. I think that's going to continue as long as ND is firm with its independence (and I believe that will be the case for the foreseeable future).

Had it been Oklahoma and any other Big 12 team other than Texas joining the SEC.....Had Texas chosen to join the PAC or the ACC...................but that's not the way things went down.
If there is a saving grace for the rest of the P5/4 it will be that it's going to take a very long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma. This time will give everyone else an opportunity to plan for survival.

I agree with you re: Notre Dame. They have a contract that guarantees football semi-independence and relevance if they are successful. The one thing the contract does not supply is guaranteed competitive money.

In the short term the B1G is insulated. They will have a new contract soon and for all intents and purposes will competitive money wise with the SEC for the immediate future.

The PAC, ACC and what's left of the Big 12 are facing some challenges. It's interesting how the conversation about collegiate sports over the last 30 years has focused on money, and the challenges of the PAC and ACC are based on how to get more to be somewhat competitive with the SEC and the B1G.

Solutions are very limited and mostly revolve around what each conference can or will do to pry a few more dollars out of ESPN (in the ACC's case) and any media outlet in the case of the PAC. The Big 12 has a plan, but the financial future is unknown.

So Frank, what can the ACC and the PAC do?
If ESPN would reopen their contract if they added schools would the ACC expand? Would the ACC be willing to take schools at ESPN's suggestion that they would ordinarily not even consider? Would the PAC add BYU to survive? Will the ACC be willing to invite West Virginia or Cincinnati or even a couple of outposts in Texas if it meant earning just a little more to be able to keep pace?



Remember, it's only temporary.

That's the thing: I don't think that there is much that the ACC or Pac-12 can do as *conferences* to change what they'd be worth from a TV/media perspective at this point.

The Pac-12 adding BYU is simply a total non-starter - the only way that could ever even be conceivable is if the schools that make the Pac-12 attractive in the first place (the California schools) are gone. There is no world where Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA and USC will vote to be in the same league as BYU. None. Plus, even if we were to pretend that those schools would vote in BYU and/or some Texas-based Big 12 schools, those name brands simply aren't game changers financially for the Pac-12. It's not clear to me that the Pac-12 would be making more money per school by adding 2 or 4 Big 12 schools compared to the status quo. At the end of the day, the way for the Pac-12 to sell their new TV contract isn't new schools, but rather the prospect that Lincoln Riley is about to turn USC into a dynasty again: a mega power brand name in a mega power TV market. Pretty much all of the CFP berth and TV ratings concerns go away for the Pac-12 if/when USC is playing at its historical standards.

The ACC is in a similar situation, albeit their problem is that they can't get the TV rights reset that the Pac-12 is about to get for over a decade. I don't think adding Cincinnati or WVU would change how much the ACC is worth today on a per school basis even if the ACC were going to market with its TV contract now, much less trying to get ESPN to pay more for an existing contract where they have no obligation whatsoever to reopen it. Similar to the Pac-12, the answer for the ACC is within their existing conference: Florida State and Miami need to play at historical standards again. The ability of Clemson to dominate and get CFP berths really masked that how much less depth the ACC has compared to the SEC and Big Ten when those two Florida-based schools are struggling - I've thought for years that the ACC would be exposed on that front if/when Clemson took an unexpected upset and that finally happened last season.

Now, the good thing for the Pac-12 and ACC is those particular schools (USC, FSU and Miami) have A-plus Tier 1 recruiting locations that all of the TV money in the world can't buy. (Recruiting areas and fast-growing markets are a distinct advantage that the Pac-12 and ACC have at least over the Big Ten.) At the same time, I've been saying for awhile that USC and Miami are the two single-best schools anywhere for NIL with wealthy alums, a history of those alums and other boosters aggressively using that money, and glamour cities that are top centers for advertising and the paid Instagram post world.

All of that is to say is that at least the top marquee brands in the Pac-12 and ACC have ways to compete with their counterparts in the Big Ten and SEC regardless of how much money that those latter two conferences distribute. The performance of those top marquee brands is going to determine how well (or not well) the Pac-12 and ACC does in terms of long-term media value as opposed to the Pac-12 trying to add some Texas teams or the ACC adding schools like WVU.

In essence, the *individual* current schools of the Pac-12 and ACC really hold the fates of their respective conferences. There's no outside expansion help out there, which means that there's little that the *conference* can do. It's all up for the individual schools themselves to perform in a way that then drives up the value of their conferences as opposed to the other way around.
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2022 06:26 AM by Frank the Tank.)
06-16-2022 06:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #54
RE: P4 will never happen
Now, one thing that is still very important to emphasize between the Pac-12 and ACC is that the Pac-12 *does* get a new TV contract soon in the way that the ACC simply can't do. Plus, remember that it's not just the Tier 1 Pac-12 rights going to market: they're going to get to sell *everything* that they have for media rights anew, including all of the games that have been on the Pac-12 Networks for the past decade. The main financial issue for the Pac-12 hasn't really been the value of their Tier 1 contract (which a lot people seem to forget was the largest out of any conference when it was signed), but rather the struggles of the Pac-12 Networks haven't allowed the league to monetize its Tier 2 and Tier 3 content in the way that the Big Ten and SEC (and to a lesser extent, the ACC) have been able to do over the past several years. *That* is where the Pac-12 has been severely under market value for quite awhile.

On the one hand, that shows how poorly the Pac-12 Networks were set up and run. It was a grave mistake for the Pac-12 to not bring in a major media partner like ESPN or FOX to run that platform. On the other hand, even if the Pac-12 Tier 2 and Tier 3 money isn't going to be as good as the Big Ten and SEC, it's going to have the practical impact of feeling like a huge windfall to all of these Pac-12 athletic departments. Those Pac-12 rights simply getting their market value will be a massive boost. It will be like the feeling of carrying around 100 pounds on your back for years and then suddenly getting to drop it all.

Note that the availability of the Tier 2 and Tier 3 rights means that the Pac-12 (at least on paper) has a lot more to offer to the streaming providers that have deep pockets compared to the Big Ten. Remember that those Tier 2 and Tier 3 rights aren't just fluff games: those constitute a ton of conference football and basketball games that can provide a ton of high level sports content to a streaming provider, whereas the Big Ten *might* be offering the equivalent of one Tier 2 conference game per week to a provider like Amazon.

That's why I'm more bullish on the Pac-12 than a lot of people here. There's a lot of focus on the warts of the Pac-12 (e.g. less passion compared to SEC and Big Ten fans, tepid on-the-field performance lately), but that's often blinding them to the fact that from a media rights perspective, the Pac-12 has a P5 monopoly over multiple *massive* markets, the power of a contending USC team specifically shouldn't be underestimated, and the league is finally getting to unwind their Pac-12 Networks mistake (not just a new Tier 1 TV contract) with content that's tailor-made for the streaming providers that are offering a lot of money right now.
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2022 06:52 AM by Frank the Tank.)
06-16-2022 06:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #55
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

(snip)

I'm the opposite - for years I didn't think we'd ever have a P4.

But now, I think we already do have a P4, or will have in 2023. Once TX and OU leave the Big 12, it won't be a "P" anymore, it will be clearly below the other current Ps. So there we have it, IMO.

Though even that P4 might not last long, as the B1G and SEC seem to be pulling away, meaning it will be more like a P2.

But the main thing is, the "5" will be gone, one way or another.
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2022 06:51 AM by quo vadis.)
06-16-2022 06:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #56
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 06:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

(snip)

I'm the opposite - for years I didn't think we'd ever have a P4.

But now, I think we already do have a P4, or will have in 2023. Once TX and OU leave the Big 12, it won't be a "P" anymore, it will be clearly below the other current Ps. So there we have it, IMO.

I seriously doubt the Big 12 will cease to be considered a power conference. Even without OUT their on field performance is on a par with both the PAC and the ACC in football, and they are second to none in hoops.

I think fans will just have to wrap their heads around the idea that there won't be symmetry in whatever post season tournament ultimately evolves.
06-16-2022 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 44,670
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1694
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #57
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 06:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 06:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-14-2022 04:50 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For years we’ve talked about a P4 but I’ve concluded that there will never be a P4.

(snip)

I'm the opposite - for years I didn't think we'd ever have a P4.

But now, I think we already do have a P4, or will have in 2023. Once TX and OU leave the Big 12, it won't be a "P" anymore, it will be clearly below the other current Ps. So there we have it, IMO.

I seriously doubt the Big 12 will cease to be considered a power conference. Even without OUT their on field performance is on a par with both the PAC and the ACC in football, and they are second to none in hoops.

I think fans will just have to wrap their heads around the idea that there won't be symmetry in whatever post season tournament ultimately evolves.

Well, IMO, "power" is based more on brand value than performance.

E.g., in the latter part of the BCS era, the post-Miami/VT/BC version of the Big East was arguably the top basketball conference, and its football performance was clearly "power" level as well. But while it did have formal "power" status as part of the AQ club, it wasn't really regarded by most fans and the media as a "power" league, was constantly being criticized as not worthy, etc.

That's what I think the "NB12" will be like.
06-16-2022 07:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #58
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 07:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IMO, "power" is based more on brand value than performance.

E.g., in the latter part of the BCS era, the post-Miami/VT/BC version of the Big East was arguably the top basketball conference, and its football performance was clearly "power" level as well. But while it did have formal "power" status as part of the AQ club, it wasn't really regarded by most fans and the media as a "power" league, was constantly being criticized as not worthy, etc.

That's what I think the "NB12" will be like.

Whatever it's like, "power" designation is a purely artificial one, with no particular impact on the field.

I have toyed with alternatives to the CFP models being debated, and one that I prefer (which may never come to realization) is a pure 16 team tournament with no autobids for conference champions and no selection committee. This would replace all CCTs in order to keep the upper limit on games played at 16 for the finalists.

In my world, the selection criterion would be Massey Composite rating at the end of the regular season. In the first round, #1 hosts #16, #2 hosts #15, etc.

Using this methodology, over the past four "normal" seasons, the SEC would have placed 18 teams in the field, and the B1G would have 15. After that, come the Big 12 and PAC with 8 each, the ACC with 7, the AAC had 4 (one each year) and Notre Dame would have qualified all four years.

First round losers go to the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton or Peach Bowls, and quarterfinal losers go to either the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl. All of these are purely exhibitions the way they were before the BCS.

Tournament revenue would be distributed as follows. Each of the ten conferences would receive two shares, and each conference would get one additional share for every game in which one of its teams plays. That's a total of 50 shares. If the revenue pool is $800 million, each share is worth $16 million. My guess is that both the SEC and B1G would split half of that $800 million, more than compensating them for giving up their lucrative CCGs. Even the four conferences who may rarely get a team in the top 16 would get $32 million a year, earning their votes in support of such a format.
06-16-2022 07:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,224
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 362
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 05:57 AM)TerryD Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 05:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 03:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  Yet the speculation persists. I suspect it does so only because so many posters desperately hope that an end to realignment won't lead to closing down forums like this one. It was traumatic when the site was down briefly last week. Imagine if that had been permanent. What would we do to replace it?

Oh - I get it! I was writing and thinking about conference realignment long before it became a semi-mainstream topic. I spent thousands of hours on my blog, researching, and going through forums like this one and news sources during that 2010-13 timeframe in particular. There are few topics that I love discussing more than conference realignment. Believe me - I'd LOVE to believe that the Big Ten is on the precipice of making some massive expansion moves.

However, I think a lot of people here somewhat weirdly underestimate just how much it means that Texas is specifically off-the-board for realignment purposes in terms of paralyzing everything else. That was the school through which so many different major realignment scenarios revolved around. The only other school that could conceivably have that type of impact on the realignment landscape is Notre Dame. That's it.

We're just so used to seeing one big move being reciprocated by other big moves in realignment that we are collectively in denial that we just saw the biggest move that you could ever possibly make and there's simply no answer for it. Marginal expansions (at least at the Big Ten/SEC/Pac-12/ACC level) aren't going to work anymore: there's no realignment "Moneyball" move like the Big Ten turning Rutgers and Maryland into huge moneymakers that exists going forward. By the same token, there's simply no greater expansion that I can conceive of than what the SEC just did with Texas and Oklahoma. Even as a Big Ten partisan, I'm honestly still in awe that the SEC was able to pull that off. It was such a perfect and insanely powerful blockbuster move that it makes every single other possible power conference expansion out there that doesn't involve Notre Dame effectively irrelevant. It would take an inefficient (and likely per school revenue reducing) expansion of 3, 4, 5 or more non-ND schools in pretty much any conceivable Big Ten raiding of even ACC/Pac-12 schools to bring in what just bringing in UT and OU alone is able to do for the SEC.

Hence, we got the expansion paralysis that we saw in 2021 from the Alliance conferences compared to the massive movement among all power conferences in 2010-2013. I think that's going to continue as long as ND is firm with its independence (and I believe that will be the case for the foreseeable future).

Had it been Oklahoma and any other Big 12 team other than Texas joining the SEC.....Had Texas chosen to join the PAC or the ACC...................but that's not the way things went down.
If there is a saving grace for the rest of the P5/4 it will be that it's going to take a very long time for the SEC to digest Texas and Oklahoma. This time will give everyone else an opportunity to plan for survival.

I agree with you re: Notre Dame. They have a contract that guarantees football semi-independence and relevance if they are successful. The one thing the contract does not supply is guaranteed competitive money.

In the short term the B1G is insulated. They will have a new contract soon and for all intents and purposes will competitive money wise with the SEC for the immediate future.

The PAC, ACC and what's left of the Big 12 are facing some challenges. It's interesting how the conversation about collegiate sports over the last 30 years has focused on money, and the challenges of the PAC and ACC are based on how to get more to be somewhat competitive with the SEC and the B1G.

Solutions are very limited and mostly revolve around what each conference can or will do to pry a few more dollars out of ESPN (in the ACC's case) and any media outlet in the case of the PAC. The Big 12 has a plan, but the financial future is unknown.

So Frank, what can the ACC and the PAC do?
If ESPN would reopen their contract if they added schools would the ACC expand? Would the ACC be willing to take schools at ESPN's suggestion that they would ordinarily not even consider? Would the PAC add BYU to survive? Will the ACC be willing to invite West Virginia or Cincinnati or even a couple of outposts in Texas if it meant earning just a little more to be able to keep pace?


Remember, it's only temporary.


The thing that ND has going for it (that the ACC does not) that you left out of your analysis is that the NBC contract comes up for renewal in 2025, not 2036.

Lets see how much TV money ND gets then. It may sign a five year deal then (all NBC deals since 1991 but the last one were for five years).

So, it might get two contract renewal extensions before the ACC gets one. Maybe ND signs three new deals (2025, 2030, 2035) before the ACC signs one.

It also gets a partial share of ACC/ESPN money. It gets a full share of ACC Network money.

It gets massive amounts of donor money.

(ND doesn't even count donations to athletics as part of its athletics revenues. It counts them as general revenues.)

It rakes in big apparel sale money. Its stadium holds 77,000, not 50,000.

It will soon sell subscriptions to Fighting Irish TV. Etc....etc.....

ND has lots of revenue sources, not just network TV money. One thing ND has always done well is think up new revenue sources.

Signing a deal with Guinness beer, making it "the official beer of Notre Dame football" and monetizing that is one such deal.

ND is something like #8 in total revenues currently, even with a low current NBC TV deal.

I think that ND will have the revenues to remain competitive as a football independent. It can afford to "monitor the landscape" until 2036 or so.

Joining the ACC in football would just be bad business. It would lock ND football long term in a Tier 2 conference. There is no real reason to give up independence to the lowest bidder like the ACC.

Only logical place for ND would be the BIG10
06-16-2022 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #60
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 06:22 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Similar to the Pac-12, the answer for the ACC is within their existing conference: Florida State and Miami need to play at historical standards again. The ability of Clemson to dominate and get CFP berths really masked that how much less depth the ACC has compared to the SEC and Big Ten when those two Florida-based schools are struggling - I've thought for years that the ACC would be exposed on that front if/when Clemson took an unexpected upset and that finally happened last season.

To your point, I tallied the number of times each school was ranked in the top 16 of the Massey Composite at the end of each of the last four normal (non-COVID) regular seasons. The ACC rang the bell seven times, but four of those were Clemson (which barely made the cut at #16 last year). Other than that, only Miami (#10), Virginia Tech (#16) and Wake Forest (#14) made the list once each. If any conference will lose power status in the future in the minds of fans it will just as likely be the ACC as the new B12 unless FSU and Miami return to something near their former glory..

During that period 10 different schools that will play in the SEC after the OUT move finished in the top 16 at least once, and collectively they account for 22 of the 64 appearance by all FBS schools (and none of them were from the state of Texas).
(This post was last modified: 06-16-2022 10:28 AM by ken d.)
06-16-2022 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.