Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
P4 will never happen
Author Message
EdwordL Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 35
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation: 5
I Root For: KU, WVU
Location:
Post: #81
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 07:03 PM)otown Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:34 AM)colohank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 07:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 06:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

Performance begets brand value. If a school can consistently put a successful, entertaining product on the field or court, it's going to attract a following beyond its customary reach. Conversely, substandard performance can reduce brand value.

I'm old enough to remember when the American auto industry was the only game in town, and everyone aspired to own a Cadillac or Lincoln even though their doors didn't fit and their flagship models spent a lot of time in the shop. Then along came Toyota, whose quality, reliability, and eventually styling exposed Detroit's hubris, laziness, and intrenched indifference to customer needs, wants, and safety. Toyota has never declared bankruptcy. But GM and Chrysler?

I agree, but that takes time.

As a Cincy fan, you remember the 2005 - 2012 Big East. Performance-wise, we had top-level hoops, and competitive, power-level results on the field too.

But we were ridiculed and fans/media were constantly saying we should be booted from the AQ ranks anyway.

We lacked brand value.

Sending UCONN to the BCS bowl didn't do you all favors via perception........

That is true. IIRC, they lost to Oklahoma by more than OU lost to West Virginia.
06-17-2022 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EdwordL Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 35
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation: 5
I Root For: KU, WVU
Location:
Post: #82
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-16-2022 01:48 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:34 AM)colohank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 07:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 06:55 AM)ken d Wrote:  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.

Performance begets brand value. If a school can consistently put a successful, entertaining product on the field or court, it's going to attract a following beyond its customary reach. Conversely, substandard performance can reduce brand value.

I'm old enough to remember when the American auto industry was the only game in town, and everyone aspired to own a Cadillac or Lincoln even though their doors didn't fit and their flagship models spent a lot of time in the shop. Then along came Toyota, whose quality, reliability, and eventually styling exposed Detroit's hubris, laziness, and intrenched indifference to customer needs, wants, and safety. Toyota has never declared bankruptcy. But GM and Chrysler?

Then you're also old enough to remember a time after WWII when "made in Japan" was synonymous with cheap and shoddy. Japan renamed a manufacturing town USA so they could honestly claim their products were "made in USA". Eventually, Japan was able to overcome the handicap of being defeated in war and show the world their products were now as good as any in the world. Now, their sustained performance makes them a premier brand.

Nah, urban legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_USA#Urban_myth

Japan's manufacturing rise could be traced, at least in part, to the work of W. Edwards Deming in bringing statistical process control to the CEOs of the top 500 companies in Japan after the war. A friend of mine, now retired, managed statistical process control for his company, located in Maryland and owned at that time by Phillips Corp. He asked me to copy edit the manual he wrote for in-house instructional use and even gave me a credit in the foreword, which I thought nice albeit unnecessary.
06-17-2022 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #83
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.

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.

P2. The economics will command it.
The real question is how many schools in each P
06-17-2022 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
random asian guy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,001
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 66
I Root For: VT, Georgetown
Location:
Post: #84
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-15-2022 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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.

True that the Pac12 is going to have TV negotiations soon. But so is the NB12. And to some degree, the possibiliy of Pac 12 expansion depends on how the NB12 and the TV negotiation goes.

What if the NB12’s asking price is too high and the ESPN determines moving some schools to Pac 12 would be beneficial? IIRC, the ACC (or the ESPN?) decided to add Pitt and Cuse soon after the Big East walking away from a nine-year deal that was worth $1 billion with the ESPN.

Not saying it’s going to happen, but I think the Pac12 expansion is still a possibility.
06-22-2022 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
otown Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,982
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 117
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #85
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 02:10 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  
(06-15-2022 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(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.

True that the Pac12 is going to have TV negotiations soon. But so is the NB12. And to some degree, the possibiliy of Pac 12 expansion depends on how the NB12 and the TV negotiation goes.

What if the NB12’s asking price is too high and the ESPN determines moving some schools to Pac 12 would be beneficial? IIRC, the ACC (or the ESPN?) decided to add Pitt and Cuse soon after the Big East walking away from a nine-year deal that was worth $1 billion with the ESPN.

Not saying it’s going to happen, but I think the Pac12 expansion is still a possibility.

I thought PAC contract ends before Big 12?
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2022 02:25 PM by otown.)
06-22-2022 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,897
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #86
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 02:10 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  True that the Pac12 is going to have TV negotiations soon. But so is the NB12. And to some degree, the possibiliy of Pac 12 expansion depends on how the NB12 and the TV negotiation goes.

What if the NB12’s asking price is too high and the ESPN determines moving some schools to Pac 12 would be beneficial? IIRC, the ACC (or the ESPN?) decided to add Pitt and Cuse soon after the Big East walking away from a nine-year deal that was worth $1 billion with the ESPN.

Not saying it’s going to happen, but I think the Pac12 expansion is still a possibility.
The Pac-12's TV contract expires on June 30, 2024. The Big 12's TV contract expires on June 30, 2025.
06-22-2022 02:42 PM
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: #87
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.

bolded text: "...conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening."

I don't believe that is true.

Money definitely talks. but I don't think that a school has to monetarily "move the needle" greater than let's say texas in order for a particular conference to look at them.

There are a lot of things which make up a school.

Besides, if the sec or big ten decided to add a tiny school. the money outlay from joining should presumably change that school's situation as well. It's like investing money in a company - if it is run well, the value may grow.

Anyway, back to the point - there is more to a brand than winning (Waves hi to the classic Chicago cubs : ) - and there is more to a school than current perceived monetary value in media rights (Look over there - the ivy league...).

To capstone this point, I'll merely point out that delaney talked about dropping d1 football entirely - it's on option. Now I seriously think that was a hardball negotiating tactic at the time, but if they called him on it, I also seriously think that such discussions had taken place and the conference appeared to be ready to do so if necessary.

So yes, media money is a big deal, but it's not the begin all and end all of a conference's decisions for membership. If it was, I think that conferences would look quite different.
06-22-2022 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colohank Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 183
I Root For: Cincy
Location: Colorado
Post: #88
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-17-2022 04:16 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 01:48 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 12:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:34 AM)colohank Wrote:  
(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.

Performance begets brand value. If a school can consistently put a successful, entertaining product on the field or court, it's going to attract a following beyond its customary reach. Conversely, substandard performance can reduce brand value.

I'm old enough to remember when the American auto industry was the only game in town, and everyone aspired to own a Cadillac or Lincoln even though their doors didn't fit and their flagship models spent a lot of time in the shop. Then along came Toyota, whose quality, reliability, and eventually styling exposed Detroit's hubris, laziness, and intrenched indifference to customer needs, wants, and safety. Toyota has never declared bankruptcy. But GM and Chrysler?

Then you're also old enough to remember a time after WWII when "made in Japan" was synonymous with cheap and shoddy. Japan renamed a manufacturing town USA so they could honestly claim their products were "made in USA". Eventually, Japan was able to overcome the handicap of being defeated in war and show the world their products were now as good as any in the world. Now, their sustained performance makes them a premier brand.

Nah, urban legend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_USA#Urban_myth

Japan's manufacturing rise could be traced, at least in part, to the work of W. Edwards Deming in bringing statistical process control to the CEOs of the top 500 companies in Japan after the war. A friend of mine, now retired, managed statistical process control for his company, located in Maryland and owned at that time by Phillips Corp. He asked me to copy edit the manual he wrote for in-house instructional use and even gave me a credit in the foreword, which I thought nice albeit unnecessary.

Yes.
06-22-2022 04:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #89
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 02:57 PM)Skyhawk 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.

bolded text: "...conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening."

I don't believe that is true.

Money definitely talks. but I don't think that a school has to monetarily "move the needle" greater than let's say texas in order for a particular conference to look at them.

There are a lot of things which make up a school.

Besides, if the sec or big ten decided to add a tiny school. the money outlay from joining should presumably change that school's situation as well. It's like investing money in a company - if it is run well, the value may grow.

Anyway, back to the point - there is more to a brand than winning (Waves hi to the classic Chicago cubs : ) - and there is more to a school than current perceived monetary value in media rights (Look over there - the ivy league...).

To capstone this point, I'll merely point out that delaney talked about dropping d1 football entirely - it's on option. Now I seriously think that was a hardball negotiating tactic at the time, but if they called him on it, I also seriously think that such discussions had taken place and the conference appeared to be ready to do so if necessary.

So yes, media money is a big deal, but it's not the begin all and end all of a conference's decisions for membership. If it was, I think that conferences would look quite different.

Look - I'm probably the king of needing to tell people that there are so many different factors in conference realignment, particularly with respect to the academic requirements of the Big Ten and Pac-12. That seems to have been internalized among fans with respect to Big Ten expansion discussions for the most part, but we continue to see people proposing schools for the Pac-12 that will never, ever, ever get approved by Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC because of academic and/or cultural reasons. I point out demographics all of the time in realignment. Look at my blog - I challenge you to find anyone that has written more about the non-financial factors in realignment.

However, I completely disagree with the bolded notion. It's not what the Big Ten or SEC can do for an expansion candidate, but the reverse. Sure, the largesse of the Big Ten and SEC can make any school in the entire NCAA wealthy.... but that isn't and shouldn't ever be the goal of leagues in the position of the Big Ten and SEC. They are at the point where they HAVE to be choosy.

In 2010, there were lots of different expansion options for the power conferences because the financial bar for a profitable expansion for either the Big Ten or SEC was about $20 million additional revenue per year per expansion school. That meant that an "investment" school like Rutgers could still viably make more revenue for the Big Ten. The Big Ten could take a chance on Rutgers in the 2010s because there was an actual path for them to return profits to the league with the size of the conference at that point in time.

That environment doesn't exist in 2022. We're looking at each Big Ten school about to make $60-70 million per year in TV rights alone. There is no magical small team that the Big Ten or SEC could invest in like venture capitalists with the hopes that it will have the equivalent of a giant IPO. There is only one path available to any of the Big Ten or SEC to have a viable expansion at this point: a MONSTER addition. The SEC just had that with Texas and Oklahoma. The only schools that would count as monster additions to the Big Ten would be Notre Dame or schools from the ACC or Pac-12. ND is wedded to independence for the very reasons that you point out (where it has nothing to do with money), the ACC has an ironclad GOR agreement until the mid-2030s, and the Big Ten simply won't raid the Pac-12 (and even if the Big Ten wanted to do so, schools like USC aren't coming without a whole slew of other Pac-12 schools also coming because they also care about non-financial factors like cultural and geographic fit).

I could make the argument that the Big 12 could "invest" in some schools like UNLV and San Diego State. However, the rest of the power conferences are set at this point because the leagues that "matter" - the Big Ten and SEC - have such gargantuan financial revenue that they're effectively precluded from expansion being a viable option, which in turn keeps the Pac-12 and ACC safe, who in turn don't want any Big 12 schools. This is why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC to the SEC additions of Texas and Oklahoma was complete and utter paralysis.

I said it the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: we're in the end game. As a realignment junkie, it's a melancholy feeling for me. Believe me - I'd love to sit here and dream up tons of different realignment scenarios like I've done for the last 15 years, but that truly died the day that UT and OU went to the SEC. We all need to internalize this here.
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2022 04:56 PM by Frank the Tank.)
06-22-2022 04:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chester Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 558
Joined: Feb 2018
Reputation: 64
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #90
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 02:57 PM)Skyhawk 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.

bolded text: "...conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening."

I don't believe that is true.

Money definitely talks. but I don't think that a school has to monetarily "move the needle" greater than let's say texas in order for a particular conference to look at them.

There are a lot of things which make up a school.

Besides, if the sec or big ten decided to add a tiny school. the money outlay from joining should presumably change that school's situation as well. It's like investing money in a company - if it is run well, the value may grow.

Anyway, back to the point - there is more to a brand than winning (Waves hi to the classic Chicago cubs : ) - and there is more to a school than current perceived monetary value in media rights (Look over there - the ivy league...).

To capstone this point, I'll merely point out that delaney talked about dropping d1 football entirely - it's on option. Now I seriously think that was a hardball negotiating tactic at the time, but if they called him on it, I also seriously think that such discussions had taken place and the conference appeared to be ready to do so if necessary.

So yes, media money is a big deal, but it's not the begin all and end all of a conference's decisions for membership. If it was, I think that conferences would look quite different.

Delany only stated his opinion (as worded by Big Ten lawyers). He was later deposed and admitted that "some" B1G presidents and chancellors would probably disagree with him. (USA Today)

I don't disagree there are non-monetary factors at play in realignment, but money will always be the main factor. And IMO there is no way the Big Ten will ever give up the money and prestige of Big Time sports. But it would be funny to see OSU trademark "THE D3 University". 03-wink
06-22-2022 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shizzle787 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,136
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 8
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #91
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-22-2022 02:57 PM)Skyhawk 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:  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.

bolded text: "...conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening."

I don't believe that is true.

Money definitely talks. but I don't think that a school has to monetarily "move the needle" greater than let's say texas in order for a particular conference to look at them.

There are a lot of things which make up a school.

Besides, if the sec or big ten decided to add a tiny school. the money outlay from joining should presumably change that school's situation as well. It's like investing money in a company - if it is run well, the value may grow.

Anyway, back to the point - there is more to a brand than winning (Waves hi to the classic Chicago cubs : ) - and there is more to a school than current perceived monetary value in media rights (Look over there - the ivy league...).

To capstone this point, I'll merely point out that delaney talked about dropping d1 football entirely - it's on option. Now I seriously think that was a hardball negotiating tactic at the time, but if they called him on it, I also seriously think that such discussions had taken place and the conference appeared to be ready to do so if necessary.

So yes, media money is a big deal, but it's not the begin all and end all of a conference's decisions for membership. If it was, I think that conferences would look quite different.

Look - I'm probably the king of needing to tell people that there are so many different factors in conference realignment, particularly with respect to the academic requirements of the Big Ten and Pac-12. That seems to have been internalized among fans with respect to Big Ten expansion discussions for the most part, but we continue to see people proposing schools for the Pac-12 that will never, ever, ever get approved by Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC because of academic and/or cultural reasons. I point out demographics all of the time in realignment. Look at my blog - I challenge you to find anyone that has written more about the non-financial factors in realignment.

However, I completely disagree with the bolded notion. It's not what the Big Ten or SEC can do for an expansion candidate, but the reverse. Sure, the largesse of the Big Ten and SEC can make any school in the entire NCAA wealthy.... but that isn't and shouldn't ever be the goal of leagues in the position of the Big Ten and SEC. They are at the point where they HAVE to be choosy.

In 2010, there were lots of different expansion options for the power conferences because the financial bar for a profitable expansion for either the Big Ten or SEC was about $20 million additional revenue per year per expansion school. That meant that an "investment" school like Rutgers could still viably make more revenue for the Big Ten. The Big Ten could take a chance on Rutgers in the 2010s because there was an actual path for them to return profits to the league with the size of the conference at that point in time.

That environment doesn't exist in 2022. We're looking at each Big Ten school about to make $60-70 million per year in TV rights alone. There is no magical small team that the Big Ten or SEC could invest in like venture capitalists with the hopes that it will have the equivalent of a giant IPO. There is only one path available to any of the Big Ten or SEC to have a viable expansion at this point: a MONSTER addition. The SEC just had that with Texas and Oklahoma. The only schools that would count as monster additions to the Big Ten would be Notre Dame or schools from the ACC or Pac-12. ND is wedded to independence for the very reasons that you point out (where it has nothing to do with money), the ACC has an ironclad GOR agreement until the mid-2030s, and the Big Ten simply won't raid the Pac-12 (and even if the Big Ten wanted to do so, schools like USC aren't coming without a whole slew of other Pac-12 schools also coming because they also care about non-financial factors like cultural and geographic fit).

I could make the argument that the Big 12 could "invest" in some schools like UNLV and San Diego State. However, the rest of the power conferences are set at this point because the leagues that "matter" - the Big Ten and SEC - have such gargantuan financial revenue that they're effectively precluded from expansion being a viable option, which in turn keeps the Pac-12 and ACC safe, who in turn don't want any Big 12 schools. This is why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC to the SEC additions of Texas and Oklahoma was complete and utter paralysis.

I said it the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: we're in the end game. As a realignment junkie, it's a melancholy feeling for me. Believe me - I'd love to sit here and dream up tons of different realignment scenarios like I've done for the last 15 years, but that truly died the day that UT and OU went to the SEC. We all need to internalize this here.

I agree that the end game is nigh. I don't see conferences going past 16. Once you get past 16, you aren't a conference anymore, you are a conglomerate. Going past 16 is the law of diminishing returns. I don't see any movement in the P5 for the next decade. However, in the beginning to middle of the 30's I see one more move that will have a ripple effect: UVA and UNC to the B1G. It is a natural expansion for the B1G. They would add two AAU members who are state flagships and expand the outer edges of the league.
06-22-2022 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GarnetAndBlue Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 6
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 3
I Root For: FSU & Michigan
Location:
Post: #92
RE: P4 will never happen
I know the B1G would love to add UVA and UNC but I don't think those schools are very interested. I'm sure they've had a standing invite for years/decades (pre-GOR). UVA/UNC would be outposts in a much more football-focused league. Those schools are very prideful, much more concerned with being elite academic institutions, have big endowments/excellent funding, enjoy a lot of fair weather sports, and care greatly about their cultural/geographic ties. Aside from UMd...they have minimal history with schools in the B1G. Perhaps the big short/medium-term $$$ can make them sell out? I'd bet they see college football at its high water mark. And if they decide to jump someday and think that college football is going to thrive for decades to come (I do not)...then they move to the mighty mighty SEC.
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2022 09:04 AM by GarnetAndBlue.)
06-23-2022 08:37 AM
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: #93
RE: P4 will never happen
P4 may be possible but I think it would look more similar to something where the B1G/SEC are bigger and stronger but the PAC and ACC are still there. Here's how I'd like to see it happen:
1) The value of basketball skyrockets.
2) B1G effectively lures Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, Miami, North Carolina, and Virginia. Sits at 20.
3) SEC grabs Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina St, and Virginia Tech. Sits at 20.
4) PAC jumps into the CTZ with Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and Texas Tech. Sits at 16.
5) ACC, now at 5 in football, brings in the XII leftovers (Baylor, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Houston, TCU, and West Virginia) plus East Carolina, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, and Temple. Sits at 16.
6) Notre Dame wants to remain independent in football. BYU returns to independence.

The non-power conferences see value in consolidated. Except the MAC who sits at 12.
7) MWC brings in North Texas, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, and Wichita St (non-football). Sits at 16.
8) SBC adds Florida Atlantic and UAB. Sits at 16.
9) Navy returns to football independence with Army, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
10) CUSA, at 9, adds Charlotte and UTSA from AAC plus Eastern Kentucky from FCS ASUN. Sits at 12.

---

I would except conferences to go divisionless but here is a potential divisional alignment.

Independent: Army (Patriot), BYU (West Coast), Connecticut (Big East), Massachusetts (Atlantic 10), Navy (Patriot), Notre Dame (Big East)

B1G
Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), North Carolina, Virginia
East: Maryland, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers
North: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan St, Northwestern, Purdue

SEC
Atlantic: Clemson, Florida St, North Carolina St, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Central: Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
East: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St

PAC
Central: Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, Utah
Western: California, Oregon, Oregon St, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St

ACC
North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Temple, Wake Forest, West Virginia
South: Baylor, Central Florida, East Carolina, Houston, Memphis, SMU, South Florida, TCU

MWC
Mountain: Air Force, Colorado St, New Mexico, North Texas, Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, Wyoming
West: Boise St, Fresno St, Hawaii*, Nevada, San Diego St, San Jose St, UNLV, Utah St
* Football-only
^ Non-football: Wichita St

SBC
East: Appalachian St, Coastal Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Georgia Southern, Georgia St, James Madison, Marshall, Old Dominion
South: Arkansas St, South Alabama, Southern Miss, Texas St, Troy, UAB, UL Lafayette, UL Monroe

MAC
East: Akron, Bowling Green St, Buffalo, Kent St, Ohio, Miami (OH)
West: Ball St, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

CUSA
East: Charlotte, Eastern Kentucky, Florida International, Liberty, Middle Tennessee St, Western Kentucky
West: Jacksonville St, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico St, Sam Houston St, UTEP, UTSA
06-23-2022 05:12 PM
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: #94
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-22-2022 04:52 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-22-2022 02:57 PM)Skyhawk 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:  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.

bolded text: "...conferences want to increase per school revenue. PERIOD. If that's not happening, then expansion isn't happening."

I don't believe that is true.

Money definitely talks. but I don't think that a school has to monetarily "move the needle" greater than let's say texas in order for a particular conference to look at them.

There are a lot of things which make up a school.

Besides, if the sec or big ten decided to add a tiny school. the money outlay from joining should presumably change that school's situation as well. It's like investing money in a company - if it is run well, the value may grow.

Anyway, back to the point - there is more to a brand than winning (Waves hi to the classic Chicago cubs : ) - and there is more to a school than current perceived monetary value in media rights (Look over there - the ivy league...).

To capstone this point, I'll merely point out that delaney talked about dropping d1 football entirely - it's on option. Now I seriously think that was a hardball negotiating tactic at the time, but if they called him on it, I also seriously think that such discussions had taken place and the conference appeared to be ready to do so if necessary.

So yes, media money is a big deal, but it's not the begin all and end all of a conference's decisions for membership. If it was, I think that conferences would look quite different.

Look - I'm probably the king of needing to tell people that there are so many different factors in conference realignment, particularly with respect to the academic requirements of the Big Ten and Pac-12. That seems to have been internalized among fans with respect to Big Ten expansion discussions for the most part, but we continue to see people proposing schools for the Pac-12 that will never, ever, ever get approved by Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC because of academic and/or cultural reasons. I point out demographics all of the time in realignment. Look at my blog - I challenge you to find anyone that has written more about the non-financial factors in realignment.

However, I completely disagree with the bolded notion. It's not what the Big Ten or SEC can do for an expansion candidate, but the reverse. Sure, the largesse of the Big Ten and SEC can make any school in the entire NCAA wealthy.... but that isn't and shouldn't ever be the goal of leagues in the position of the Big Ten and SEC. They are at the point where they HAVE to be choosy.

In 2010, there were lots of different expansion options for the power conferences because the financial bar for a profitable expansion for either the Big Ten or SEC was about $20 million additional revenue per year per expansion school. That meant that an "investment" school like Rutgers could still viably make more revenue for the Big Ten. The Big Ten could take a chance on Rutgers in the 2010s because there was an actual path for them to return profits to the league with the size of the conference at that point in time.

That environment doesn't exist in 2022. We're looking at each Big Ten school about to make $60-70 million per year in TV rights alone. There is no magical small team that the Big Ten or SEC could invest in like venture capitalists with the hopes that it will have the equivalent of a giant IPO. There is only one path available to any of the Big Ten or SEC to have a viable expansion at this point: a MONSTER addition. The SEC just had that with Texas and Oklahoma. The only schools that would count as monster additions to the Big Ten would be Notre Dame or schools from the ACC or Pac-12. ND is wedded to independence for the very reasons that you point out (where it has nothing to do with money), the ACC has an ironclad GOR agreement until the mid-2030s, and the Big Ten simply won't raid the Pac-12 (and even if the Big Ten wanted to do so, schools like USC aren't coming without a whole slew of other Pac-12 schools also coming because they also care about non-financial factors like cultural and geographic fit).

I could make the argument that the Big 12 could "invest" in some schools like UNLV and San Diego State. However, the rest of the power conferences are set at this point because the leagues that "matter" - the Big Ten and SEC - have such gargantuan financial revenue that they're effectively precluded from expansion being a viable option, which in turn keeps the Pac-12 and ACC safe, who in turn don't want any Big 12 schools. This is why the response from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC to the SEC additions of Texas and Oklahoma was complete and utter paralysis.

I said it the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: we're in the end game. As a realignment junkie, it's a melancholy feeling for me. Believe me - I'd love to sit here and dream up tons of different realignment scenarios like I've done for the last 15 years, but that truly died the day that UT and OU went to the SEC. We all need to internalize this here.

Yes you have. And I have enjoyed reading your posts and your blog over the years (hasn't been a new one lately - would love to read your overall thoughts about the aftermath in the B12 - roster changes, new commissioner, etc, and what the future may hold)

I just think everyone holds the yardstick up to schools in realignment like they have to be monstrously huge before movement can happen. And I just don't think that's accurate.

rutgers and maryland are just two of many examples of that.

at the time, the prevailing opinion was that they didn't bring much to the table, but they still received invites.

yes, we now think we can justify due to the greater metropolitan areas they are near, but I think it's more things than that.

just as the potential reasons for KS, are more than merely money-related reasons like the nearby Kansas city metropolitan area.

Do I think that the big10 would help KS in some ways? sure, of course.

Do I think KS would also help the Big10 in some ways? yes, of course.

though each in different ways.

I have no problem with YMMV. Because, after all, any of these decisions are subjective ones. hard data only takes us so far.
06-24-2022 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColKurtz Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 253
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Raleigh
Post: #95
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-24-2022 12:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  rutgers and maryland are just two of many examples of that.

at the time, the prevailing opinion was that they didn't bring much to the table, but they still received invites.

I don’t think that’s true at all. It was understood they weren’t added for competitive reasons, but to get the Big Ten Network into the #1 and #7 tv markets. It didn’t matter that virtually no one in NYC watches Rutgers football, because the wanted those eyeballs for OSU/Indiana or Michigan/Minnesota.
06-24-2022 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PeteTheChop Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 981
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 107
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #96
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-14-2022 08:23 PM)Yosef181 Wrote:  If the projections are correct, we'll have a P2 in 10 years, not a P4 or P5.

What conference(s) will Notre Dame, Southern Cal and North Carolina belong to in 10 years?
06-24-2022 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #97
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-24-2022 01:11 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(06-24-2022 12:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  rutgers and maryland are just two of many examples of that.

at the time, the prevailing opinion was that they didn't bring much to the table, but they still received invites.

I don’t think that’s true at all. It was understood they weren’t added for competitive reasons, but to get the Big Ten Network into the #1 and #7 tv markets. It didn’t matter that virtually no one in NYC watches Rutgers football, because the wanted those eyeballs for OSU/Indiana or Michigan/Minnesota.

It matters now doesn't it! When market footprint was the rage the SEC under Slive and its presidents decided the only safe moves were those where footprint and content value were preserved together in the move. Nothing will ever replace content value as a motivation for a larger paycheck, and as we have seen technology has already rendered a cable footprint model mostly moot.

Anytime you are uncertain about the future of rules governing rubrics subject to change the wisest approach is to do only those things which satisfy both the current trend and those things which have historically held or generated value. For years I only bought silver coins in which the collector's value met or exceeded the silver value of the coin. If silver fell I had the collector's value as a hedge. If silver advanced I had no reason too intrinsic to hold onto it either.

The SEC saw great value in Arkansas as a bridge to Texas. But the SEC also saw another value in Arkansas, no instate divided loyalties within what we now call the P5. It was not only the state flagship school, but the only upper tier school. Say hello to Missouri with population x 2. Missouri was a marginal, but very low risk addition and they were paired with a major needle mover, A&M.

Now Arkansas and A&M were a lure for Texas and Missouri was an old Oklahoma friend. It was a move bridge players would call a finesse to coax out what the SEC was really after. So in the last 4 additions the SEC acquired 3 massive needle movers and a very safe corner move.

With technology and smart TV's networks have it better than ever. They know what you watch, when you watch it, and how long you watch it. Add social media data and they also know which companies would most like to advertise to you.

Content will be the only constant moving forward. Now for the current canards. Florida State, Clemson, Miami, and Virginia Tech are no longer accretive based on current media payouts.

This is no longer a math equation for conferences to work out. Rather the question is, "Accretive to whom?" It's the networks! You add money when you increase the total viewers per event and add to even that when the network controls the percentage of viewers in a large market with their product roster. If the aforementioned schools can double their number of games with 5+ million viewers by moving to the SEC then where would ESPN make more from their content value? Now the equation's variables are only known to the network because only they truly know how much additional profit comes from that doubling of major content games. I would suspect that if FSU or Clemson is worth 35 million vs an ACC schedule where their primary value is at the top of the averaged figures (which pulls their value down) that as mid tier SEC schools in terms of where that averaging would fall, and the fact that they would drive multiples of 5 million viewer games vs the new schedule, that they might easily be worth 80 million, particularly since FSU and UF together deliver ~80% of the Florida market, which means Miami might not be needed. However, with Miami instead of FSU a simple majority of viewers would be reached and in areas without the same duplication of FSU and UF. Clemson would likely pay its way but offers less in its State than FSU in terms of accessing a larger % for ad leverage. Va Tech is easily worth much more in the SEC and the SEC gets broader market penetration.

Only ESPN can know what its long-term intentions are for an underpaid product collection. Which brings us to changes in the law and a likely not too distant impact upon basketball.

Duke (which will be fine w/o coach K because of their money and their need to stay in the public eye in that sport), UNC, and Kansas could easily double their present hoops values outside of NCAA control. Put them together with Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas, LSU, Tennessee, and Florida, not to mention other rising programs and you can double their commercial value in scheduling alone. The total package could approach football numbers for the network in a crappy winter schedule of program events.

My point? Conferences now mostly decide to cooperate with what benefits their rights holders and they only make sure the additions will hold content value, or increase advertising rates by % of control, or that the intangibles (academics since it isn't directly sports related) make sense.

Therefore, based on what ESPN (or FOX with the B1G) see as skimming the most dross and concentrating the most palatable product for markets, we will see realignment proposals, which in order to be acceptable, will build strength for the most brand laden conferences and concentrate their hold over their regions. Why? It's profitable, has synergy with rivalry, cheaper for non-revenues, and safe.

As long as money and regional strength can be enhanced, especially in an era of higher fuel costs, realignment will continue. It's no longer about adding to a conference's bottom line inasmuch as if the network can profit so will the conference. The equation has changed and unless you are in the ESPN or FOX board room, you may guess, but you simply won't know.

My illustrations here are my best guesses for the purpose of making an illustration.
(This post was last modified: 06-24-2022 02:38 PM by JRsec.)
06-24-2022 02:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSchmack Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 761
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 101
I Root For: chaos
Location:
Post: #98
RE: P4 will never happen
I don't think a P4 ever really happens in terms of like, four conferences expand in a "divide and conquer" situation that leaves us with four powerful leagues and everyone else without a seat at the table.

There's two main reasons. I don't think that the "falling dominoes" situation the Big East was in that led to "P5 instead of BCS" can happen to any of the remaining P5 members, because it's past diminishing returns for the P4 to expand to the point where the fifth league drops down so far that no one wants their properties.

I don't think it CAN happen with the Pac-12 or Big 12 getting butchered; and I think the only way it happens to the ACC creates a situation where it's the SEC and Big Ten, and gap to them for the Pac-12/Big 12 becomes larger than the gap from Big 12/Pac 12 to America/Mountain West. So you wouldn't call it the P4 anymore.

And in either case it requires the Big Ten and SEC to go from "very big conferences" to not actually a conference anymore, but a collective (if we aren't there already). Which is when you're really better off operating as two conferences with a bundled TV rights situation (like my suggestion for the Big Ten/Pac-12). A Big Ten/Pac-12 NETWORK merger is smarter than the Big Ten raiding the Pac-12 and having 14 schools from Rutgers to Nebraska and 4 or 6 in the LA, Bay Area, Seattle and Phoenix markets.
06-24-2022 03:25 PM
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: #99
RE: P4 will never happen
(06-24-2022 01:11 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(06-24-2022 12:40 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  rutgers and maryland are just two of many examples of that.

at the time, the prevailing opinion was that they didn't bring much to the table, but they still received invites.

I don’t think that’s true at all. It was understood they weren’t added for competitive reasons, but to get the Big Ten Network into the #1 and #7 tv markets. It didn’t matter that virtually no one in NYC watches Rutgers football, because they wanted those eyeballs for OSU/Indiana or Michigan/Minnesota.

They also wanted them because there are large numbers of Big Ten alumni working in those markets who couldn't see their alma mater's games in person. Getting tickets to Rutgers games and Maryland games was relatively easy.
06-24-2022 03:29 PM
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.