(07-28-2022 06:20 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 03:22 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 12:17 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Both the B1G and the SEC covet UVa and UNC, maybe only them {so not NCSU or VT, unfortunately}. Interesting to watch who will win them, and when.

Virginia Tech in many important ways is more desirable than Virginia in terms of audience and on field performance and size of the school.

UNC is the most preferable in North Carolina.

XLance says the group of Duke, Miami, FSU and Clemson were market adds? 3 of them are better national brands than UNC, and Clemson is a strong regional brand. It's the North Carolina and Viginia schools which are market adds, with UNC being a national brand in hoops, like Duke.

I don't see an issue with the SEC taking FSU, Miami and Clemson, or UNC and one of Duke / NC State, or one of the Virginia schools. Heck the SEC could take all 8. The issue is if it did only N.D. would find a B1G home and only 9 of 15 ACC schools could be placed. By splitting N.C. and Va, possibly 8 could be placed.

Yep!
The SEC could take FSU, Miami and Clemson and win a huge victory.
Basically what I said was that the B1G could take UVa, Virginia Tech, NC State and Carolina even after the SEC was able to secure Miami, FSU and Clemson ......and still win the war.

The converse is also true if the SEC secured Carolina, NC State, UVa and Virginia Tech. That is why those four schools together hold a lot of leverage in future realignment.

Spoken like a true, devoted Buckeye fan, IMO, and no offense to Fighting Muskie, but Ohio State fans are generally crazy, Fighting Muskie being one of the few rare exceptions.

LOL. Ohio St fans do include a subset of crazy thats right up there with guys who poison trees and then brag about it on talk radio.

(07-24-2022 02:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 12:17 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Both the B1G and the SEC covet UVa and UNC, maybe only them {so not NCSU or VT, unfortunately}. Interesting to watch who will win them, and when.

Virginia Tech in many important ways is more desirable than Virginia in terms of audience and on field performance and size of the school.

UNC is the most preferable in North Carolina.

XLance says the group of Duke, Miami, FSU and Clemson were market adds? 3 of them are better national brands than UNC, and Clemson is a strong regional brand. It's the North Carolina and Viginia schools which are market adds, with UNC being a national brand in hoops, like Duke.

I don't see an issue with the SEC taking FSU, Miami and Clemson, or UNC and one of Duke / NC State, or one of the Virginia schools. Heck the SEC could take all 8. The issue is if it did only N.D. would find a B1G home and only 9 of 15 ACC schools could be placed. By splitting N.C. and Va, possibly 8 could be placed.

I have been intending to comment on this for awhile, but I have either been busy or got distracted (off ADHD meds). Anyway, I had done some research on this, and from the research that I did, I found that UVa is a heavy lean to the B1G. I will link articles to my research when I get a chance.

OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

(07-30-2022 03:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

The first one is logical but not fleshed out enough especially on the political side.
The second is behind a paywall I refuse to pay to because their articles seldom give anything I can't pick up off the street. Donnan states the obvious.

Suffice it to say that the Virginia Board of Governors would be satisfied that both large state schools were provided for and would prefer they be together, but if each did well and they were able to play each other it would likely be good enough.

(07-30-2022 03:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

Jim Donnan is a snake in the grass, but what do you expect from a former NC State quarterback?
He twice accepted the job to take over the Tar Heels and reneged both times.
IIRC there was some legal trouble involving Donnan several years ago.

(07-30-2022 05:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 03:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

The first one is logical but not fleshed out enough especially on the political side.
The second is behind a paywall I refuse to pay to because their articles seldom give anything I can't pick up off the street. Donnan states the obvious.

Suffice it to say that the Virginia Board of Governors would be satisfied that both large state schools were provided for and would prefer they be together, but if each did well and they were able to play each other it would likely be good enough.

Not sure how connected Donnan is, but I did think it was interesting he mentioned that maybe a couple of West Coast schools would come as well to the SEC. Not sure who that would be.

(07-30-2022 05:49 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-30-2022 03:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

The first one is logical but not fleshed out enough especially on the political side.
The second is behind a paywall I refuse to pay to because their articles seldom give anything I can't pick up off the street. Donnan states the obvious.

Suffice it to say that the Virginia Board of Governors would be satisfied that both large state schools were provided for and would prefer they be together, but if each did well and they were able to play each other it would likely be good enough.

#2 was behind a paywall?? I don't blame you for not wanting to pay for the article ((I didn't pay for it either), but in #2, Donnan says he believes Clemson, FSU, Miami, and UNC will join the SEC.

I thought the Athletic article was behind a paywall, but I found something to click that actually allowed me to view the article for free.

(07-30-2022 03:54 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  OK, as promised, my research.

First, this: https://www.si.com/college/virginia/foot...t-possible

Second, this: https://theathletic.com/3405241/2022/07/...-foortball

Lastly, this: https://www.si.com/college/fsu/football/...o-join-sec

As Dawg fan, I really liked Jim Donnan, although he was a bad fit of a coach here. Can’t say that he didn't try tbough.

Where is Donnan a good fit then?


Doesn’t he own a UGa fan site now?

He's a good fit at a SunBelt school or as a journalist. Considering his age right now, I'd say journalist is his fit.


Btw, for JR and others like myself who don't like paywalls:

Quote: What, you ask, is the next-largest state that doesn’t contain a Big Ten or SEC school? It’s Virginia. And the University of Virginia would be of interest to both leagues. This one is more of a prestige play than an audience play, though. Virginia isn’t as big a TV draw as in-state rival Virginia Tech, but like most of the Big Ten schools and recent SEC addition Texas, it’s an academically prestigious flagship school in a large state.

Another link on UVa: https://www.landgrantholyland.com/2013/2...r-virginia

(07-24-2022 06:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sold on the idea of 24 being profitable for either the Big 10 or the SEC unless the streaming services are willing to pay oodles for a large quantity of content and want the conference name to drive the perceived value of the game:

UNC vs NC St as an ACC game has a lack luster value. Swap out that ACC patch and field logo with an SEC logo and suddenly that game has much more value.

I can’t believe I’m about to make a soccer analogy here but I am. Those schools I mentioned are like a pair of Championship (Tier 2) schools but promote them to the Premier League and the mere fact that it’s Premier League skyrockets the value. Alabama and Ohio St are your Manchester United and Arsenal types—the mega brands that drive the overall value of the league.

If I’m a streaming service, I want the leagues to be big so the mounds of T3 content that I’ve got in inventory are inherently more valuable and the finite number of cable and OTA time slots send viewers who are fans of all the teams to my service because all 24 teams are going to be on streaming at some point.

If I’m a 3 or 4-letter network, I’m probably happy with 16 because that’s a manageable number and I can get a M3 conference’s rights to air on the side for relatively cheap.

Until the streamers become the dominant power in the collegiate sports media rights bidding process I think things are on pause.

How I think they could make 24-team leagues work is by phasing in the new schools payments gradually and awarding bonuses for OTA and cable appearances.

The last time all this was happening, 10 years ago or so, I theorized that the SEC merging with the Big 12 would be a boon for everyone.

A 24 team league...

That configuration didn't include any ACC schools, but my concept was based on this: negotiating leverage rooted in basic economics...scarcity.

Think about it this way, the NFL has 32 teams and taps fewer markets than that. It's nationwide, however, and is essentially the only game in town when it comes to premier quality football. That has massive leverage despite the fact it has a large number of competitors. Of course, you can pick apart this scenario by examining the market dynamics, but I'm not suggesting a nationwide college football conference would make the same amount of money as the NFL. it's not about that, it's about the fact that unifying content under one roof creates new rules.

So even though a fair number of NFL teams suck in a given year and some fan bases aren't nearly as passionate as others, it doesn't matter. The sheer size and reach of the overall entity creates massive value. That value, in time, creates a better quality product. Think about what the NFL is today compared to just 30 years ago...

Notice this also, every major pro sport organization in this country has roughly the same number of teams. The mostly tap the same markets although there's a little shuffling here and there. Despite the fact that the other leagues are national, it doesn't mean they make as much money as the NFL, but the market dynamics are there for creating quality content and negotiating leverage with the TV partner.

I was always a fan of the SEC and Big 12 merging because I thought they had the most in common and it would have created a massive amount of content that was quality especially when you start playing more games internally. Think about that aspect as well. In the future, these leagues aren't going to be playing G5s and FCS and may even trim away some other "Power" schools from their schedules. They'll play more games internally and that will create a lot of valuable content especially at the T3 level.

As there is greater deregulation, there will be less necessity to maintain traditional concepts of much of anything whether that's schedules or scholarship rules or anything else. The important thing there is that consolidation allows for simpler and more uniform rules...because everyone's under the same roof.

Now I don't know if all the Power conferences will unite one day into one entity...I kind of doubt it...but that doesn't really affect the basic market dynamics of consolidation. A 24 team league has massive value as long as the members are significant in their own home markets. The primary reason for that is actually pretty simple. If ESPN or FOX or anyone else doesn't want to provide good compensation and they don't want to come to the table when appropriate then you just take your ball and go home. If ESPN loses the Big Ten then that sucks, but it's not so bad if there are 4 other Power conferences that can provide value. We're now rapidly reaching a phase where there's fewer competitors in town. We're basically in a space right now where 5 Power conferences don't exist...the legal designations on the NCAA rulebook are not relevant here.

The Power conferences actually hurt each other because in a way, they're competing for the same space...the same TV dollars, the same time slots, and they're pushing and shoving to one-up the other guy. What they should have been thinking about is coalescing their market power to flip the script. The schools should be competing with the networks, not with each other.

Let's say the Big 12 and SEC had merged 10 years ago. That entity would be a behemoth dealing with any network. Try to play hard ball with that conglomeration and you risk losing access to a disproportionate amount of good content. The same principle doesn't work if you're talking about CUSA and the Sun Belt merging...because it's not the premier product in its class. The market dynamics work if scarcity is combined with value. It's not so much about the numbers...it's about corning the market.

This is why I've never had a problem going to 24 or more. As long as we're talking schools that have value in the marketplace, we're doing nothing but helping ourselves by coalescing.

My little pet theory is this...the reason we're seeing networks say certain combinations/additions aren't "valuable" is because they're still in the position of highest leverage. ESPN and FOX and all the rest know darn well that there's ton of schools that have value in the marketplace if they were a part of a conglomeration, but these networks want to delay the influence of the conglomeration as much as possible.

So when a network advises the SEC or Big Ten that they need to go after "these" schools instead of "those over there, it's because they're self-interested. Now to be fair, the networks want the best match-ups. They're not arbitrarily valuing anyone. Their deceit is that they're unwilling to pay for certain additions because if they have to pay for larger leagues then they at least want some control over what those match-ups will be in the aftermath. If they have to spend a lot more money in the future to fund these leagues then they want the best bang for their buck.

For example, I don't believe for a second that Oregon and Washington wouldn't make money for the Big Ten regardless of Notre Dame's inclusion. Think about it, what motivation do these networks have to spend more money than they have to?

The "valuations" these networks offer are purely for their benefit.

Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

(08-01-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 06:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sold on the idea of 24 being profitable for either the Big 10 or the SEC unless the streaming services are willing to pay oodles for a large quantity of content and want the conference name to drive the perceived value of the game:

UNC vs NC St as an ACC game has a lack luster value. Swap out that ACC patch and field logo with an SEC logo and suddenly that game has much more value.

I can’t believe I’m about to make a soccer analogy here but I am. Those schools I mentioned are like a pair of Championship (Tier 2) schools but promote them to the Premier League and the mere fact that it’s Premier League skyrockets the value. Alabama and Ohio St are your Manchester United and Arsenal types—the mega brands that drive the overall value of the league.

If I’m a streaming service, I want the leagues to be big so the mounds of T3 content that I’ve got in inventory are inherently more valuable and the finite number of cable and OTA time slots send viewers who are fans of all the teams to my service because all 24 teams are going to be on streaming at some point.

If I’m a 3 or 4-letter network, I’m probably happy with 16 because that’s a manageable number and I can get a M3 conference’s rights to air on the side for relatively cheap.

Until the streamers become the dominant power in the collegiate sports media rights bidding process I think things are on pause.

How I think they could make 24-team leagues work is by phasing in the new schools payments gradually and awarding bonuses for OTA and cable appearances.

The last time all this was happening, 10 years ago or so, I theorized that the SEC merging with the Big 12 would be a boon for everyone.

A 24 team league...

That configuration didn't include any ACC schools, but my concept was based on this: negotiating leverage rooted in basic economics...scarcity.

Think about it this way, the NFL has 32 teams and taps fewer markets than that. It's nationwide, however, and is essentially the only game in town when it comes to premier quality football. That has massive leverage despite the fact it has a large number of competitors. Of course, you can pick apart this scenario by examining the market dynamics, but I'm not suggesting a nationwide college football conference would make the same amount of money as the NFL. it's not about that, it's about the fact that unifying content under one roof creates new rules.

So even though a fair number of NFL teams suck in a given year and some fan bases aren't nearly as passionate as others, it doesn't matter. The sheer size and reach of the overall entity creates massive value. That value, in time, creates a better quality product. Think about what the NFL is today compared to just 30 years ago...

Notice this also, every major pro sport organization in this country has roughly the same number of teams. The mostly tap the same markets although there's a little shuffling here and there. Despite the fact that the other leagues are national, it doesn't mean they make as much money as the NFL, but the market dynamics are there for creating quality content and negotiating leverage with the TV partner.

I was always a fan of the SEC and Big 12 merging because I thought they had the most in common and it would have created a massive amount of content that was quality especially when you start playing more games internally. Think about that aspect as well. In the future, these leagues aren't going to be playing G5s and FCS and may even trim away some other "Power" schools from their schedules. They'll play more games internally and that will create a lot of valuable content especially at the T3 level.

As there is greater deregulation, there will be less necessity to maintain traditional concepts of much of anything whether that's schedules or scholarship rules or anything else. The important thing there is that consolidation allows for simpler and more uniform rules...because everyone's under the same roof.

Now I don't know if all the Power conferences will unite one day into one entity...I kind of doubt it...but that doesn't really affect the basic market dynamics of consolidation. A 24 team league has massive value as long as the members are significant in their own home markets. The primary reason for that is actually pretty simple. If ESPN or FOX or anyone else doesn't want to provide good compensation and they don't want to come to the table when appropriate then you just take your ball and go home. If ESPN loses the Big Ten then that sucks, but it's not so bad if there are 4 other Power conferences that can provide value. We're now rapidly reaching a phase where there's fewer competitors in town. We're basically in a space right now where 5 Power conferences don't exist...the legal designations on the NCAA rulebook are not relevant here.

The Power conferences actually hurt each other because in a way, they're competing for the same space...the same TV dollars, the same time slots, and they're pushing and shoving to one-up the other guy. What they should have been thinking about is coalescing their market power to flip the script. The schools should be competing with the networks, not with each other.

Let's say the Big 12 and SEC had merged 10 years ago. That entity would be a behemoth dealing with any network. Try to play hard ball with that conglomeration and you risk losing access to a disproportionate amount of good content. The same principle doesn't work if you're talking about CUSA and the Sun Belt merging...because it's not the premier product in its class. The market dynamics work if scarcity is combined with value. It's not so much about the numbers...it's about corning the market.

This is why I've never had a problem going to 24 or more. As long as we're talking schools that have value in the marketplace, we're doing nothing but helping ourselves by coalescing.

My little pet theory is this...the reason we're seeing networks say certain combinations/additions aren't "valuable" is because they're still in the position of highest leverage. ESPN and FOX and all the rest know darn well that there's ton of schools that have value in the marketplace if they were a part of a conglomeration, but these networks want to delay the influence of the conglomeration as much as possible.

So when a network advises the SEC or Big Ten that they need to go after "these" schools instead of "those over there, it's because they're self-interested. Now to be fair, the networks want the best match-ups. They're not arbitrarily valuing anyone. Their deceit is that they're unwilling to pay for certain additions because if they have to pay for larger leagues then they at least want some control over what those match-ups will be in the aftermath. If they have to spend a lot more money in the future to fund these leagues then they want the best bang for their buck.

For example, I don't believe for a second that Oregon and Washington wouldn't make money for the Big Ten regardless of Notre Dame's inclusion. Think about it, what motivation do these networks have to spend more money than they have to?

The "valuations" these networks offer are purely for their benefit.

Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

I agree the SEC and B1G should in essence merge, but by scheduling until existing contracts expire. I also agree 36 should be the number and they should do it as a breakaway to monetize hoops. Where we disagree is in that only 2 of the B1G's likely additions would be worthy of inclusion, Oregon and Washington. The honorable acknowledgement from the ACC would be the release of Florida State and Clemson to pursue championships. They know what they want. The rest of your programs are conflicted. Five years would be a reasonable time to let the B12, PAC and remaining ACC sort things out. Then in 5 years those who wanted to join could be considered. Notre Dame would have to be all in. If they want in from the beginning, then Miami could be considered as well

The SEC and B1G will be each becoming less efficient in the current colossal market grab. Work as one and we get things worked out quickly on rules and structure and get officiating and enforcement operational. The payout pie also swells.

The pissing contest in which we are currently engaged will be counterproductive. We both would do much better by a collaborative effort.

But here's why it won't happen. They want to remain attached to the NCAA. The SEC would prefer a breakaway. They will want different rules for NIL and Pay for Play. So, we'll push competing models take more Southern schools than should be necessary and protect our region and pound them with a talent surplus they covet. It won't be good for the game, but they think they can strong arm their viewpoints from an inferior position so submission must be forced. There is a thin line between arrogance and stupidity. The alliance crap crossed the damn line into stupid. Therefore, unless they compromise, which they've shown no willingness to do, and they honor their word, which the alliance revealed in spades cannot be trusted, we both will continue to plow through history and tradition on disparate pathways because that is what two large corporate egos do when utilizing proxies to accomplish their will. The SEC and B1G don't share a like vision, but the antagonism is a scramble by FOX and ESPN to improve their positioning with regards to rights.

There was a time when an unmanageable group of schools divided and those schools separated based on geography (except for the U of Ga).
One group went west and south of the mountains and the other stayed on the coastal plain.
Technology solved to logistical problems of travel for the teams, but limited the ability of fans to be able to see their teams play in their opponents venues. Again technology solved the problem, by allowing those fans to tune in to watch those games on TV instead of actually attending.
Today we're finding that more and more fans, even of the home teams, are choosing to stay at home to watch the games on TV. The combination of less disposable income and large commitment of time is eating away at attending fan bases. Like the games in Rome the new emperors (media controllers) are attempting to pacify the masses by presenting bigger and grander contests.
Because the bigger draws couldn't keep their talent level consistent, the rules have been changed to allow for player transfers and outright player purchases to insure a steady flow of gladiators.
We know what happened in the past and collegiate sport is headed there again. Many want to grab as much money as possible before the collapse, while others are working to change the system before a disaster. But the masses want.........

Eventually those big unmanageable groups of schools will again become unstable and break apart and add rules to insure order. Smaller groups will form that are similar, to play among themselves and be renewed.
The masses will then turn on the professionals still playing the games, and that whole process will have to begin again after the masses again turn on themselves.

(08-02-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  There was a time when an unmanageable group of schools divided and those schools separated based on geography (except for the U of Ga).
One group went west and south of the mountains and the other stayed on the coastal plain.
Technology solved to logistical problems of travel for the teams, but limited the ability of fans to be able to see their teams play in their opponents venues. Again technology solved the problem, by allowing those fans to tune in to watch those games on TV instead of actually attending.
Today we're finding that more and more fans, even of the home teams, are choosing to stay at home to watch the games on TV. The combination of less disposable income and large commitment of time is eating away at attending fan bases. Like the games in Rome the new emperors (media controllers) are attempting to pacify the masses by presenting bigger and grander contests.
Because the bigger draws couldn't keep their talent level consistent, the rules have been changed to allow for player transfers and outright player purchases to insure a steady flow of gladiators.
We know what happened in the past and collegiate sport is headed there again. Many want to grab as much money as possible before the collapse, while others are working to change the system before a disaster. But the masses want.........

Eventually those big unmanageable groups of schools will again become unstable and break apart and add rules to insure order. Smaller groups will form that are similar, to play among themselves and be renewed.
The masses will then turn on the professionals still playing the games, and that whole process will have to begin again after the masses again turn on themselves.

Come to think of it, college football would be a bit more exciting if occasionally a Lion or Bear came out on the field…maybe Colorado could just let Ralphie loose the whole game.

(08-02-2022 08:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 05:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  There was a time when an unmanageable group of schools divided and those schools separated based on geography (except for the U of Ga).
One group went west and south of the mountains and the other stayed on the coastal plain.
Technology solved to logistical problems of travel for the teams, but limited the ability of fans to be able to see their teams play in their opponents venues. Again technology solved the problem, by allowing those fans to tune in to watch those games on TV instead of actually attending.
Today we're finding that more and more fans, even of the home teams, are choosing to stay at home to watch the games on TV. The combination of less disposable income and large commitment of time is eating away at attending fan bases. Like the games in Rome the new emperors (media controllers) are attempting to pacify the masses by presenting bigger and grander contests.
Because the bigger draws couldn't keep their talent level consistent, the rules have been changed to allow for player transfers and outright player purchases to insure a steady flow of gladiators.
We know what happened in the past and collegiate sport is headed there again. Many want to grab as much money as possible before the collapse, while others are working to change the system before a disaster. But the masses want.........

Eventually those big unmanageable groups of schools will again become unstable and break apart and add rules to insure order. Smaller groups will form that are similar, to play among themselves and be renewed.
The masses will then turn on the professionals still playing the games, and that whole process will have to begin again after the masses again turn on themselves.

Come to think of it, college football would be a bit more exciting if occasionally a Lion or Bear came out on the field…maybe Colorado could just let Ralphie loose the whole game.

Lol, Fighting Muskie!! ROFL!!!

(08-01-2022 09:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 06:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sold on the idea of 24 being profitable for either the Big 10 or the SEC unless the streaming services are willing to pay oodles for a large quantity of content and want the conference name to drive the perceived value of the game:

UNC vs NC St as an ACC game has a lack luster value. Swap out that ACC patch and field logo with an SEC logo and suddenly that game has much more value.

I can’t believe I’m about to make a soccer analogy here but I am. Those schools I mentioned are like a pair of Championship (Tier 2) schools but promote them to the Premier League and the mere fact that it’s Premier League skyrockets the value. Alabama and Ohio St are your Manchester United and Arsenal types—the mega brands that drive the overall value of the league.

If I’m a streaming service, I want the leagues to be big so the mounds of T3 content that I’ve got in inventory are inherently more valuable and the finite number of cable and OTA time slots send viewers who are fans of all the teams to my service because all 24 teams are going to be on streaming at some point.

If I’m a 3 or 4-letter network, I’m probably happy with 16 because that’s a manageable number and I can get a M3 conference’s rights to air on the side for relatively cheap.

Until the streamers become the dominant power in the collegiate sports media rights bidding process I think things are on pause.

How I think they could make 24-team leagues work is by phasing in the new schools payments gradually and awarding bonuses for OTA and cable appearances.

The last time all this was happening, 10 years ago or so, I theorized that the SEC merging with the Big 12 would be a boon for everyone.

A 24 team league...

That configuration didn't include any ACC schools, but my concept was based on this: negotiating leverage rooted in basic economics...scarcity.

Think about it this way, the NFL has 32 teams and taps fewer markets than that. It's nationwide, however, and is essentially the only game in town when it comes to premier quality football. That has massive leverage despite the fact it has a large number of competitors. Of course, you can pick apart this scenario by examining the market dynamics, but I'm not suggesting a nationwide college football conference would make the same amount of money as the NFL. it's not about that, it's about the fact that unifying content under one roof creates new rules.

So even though a fair number of NFL teams suck in a given year and some fan bases aren't nearly as passionate as others, it doesn't matter. The sheer size and reach of the overall entity creates massive value. That value, in time, creates a better quality product. Think about what the NFL is today compared to just 30 years ago...

Notice this also, every major pro sport organization in this country has roughly the same number of teams. The mostly tap the same markets although there's a little shuffling here and there. Despite the fact that the other leagues are national, it doesn't mean they make as much money as the NFL, but the market dynamics are there for creating quality content and negotiating leverage with the TV partner.

I was always a fan of the SEC and Big 12 merging because I thought they had the most in common and it would have created a massive amount of content that was quality especially when you start playing more games internally. Think about that aspect as well. In the future, these leagues aren't going to be playing G5s and FCS and may even trim away some other "Power" schools from their schedules. They'll play more games internally and that will create a lot of valuable content especially at the T3 level.

As there is greater deregulation, there will be less necessity to maintain traditional concepts of much of anything whether that's schedules or scholarship rules or anything else. The important thing there is that consolidation allows for simpler and more uniform rules...because everyone's under the same roof.

Now I don't know if all the Power conferences will unite one day into one entity...I kind of doubt it...but that doesn't really affect the basic market dynamics of consolidation. A 24 team league has massive value as long as the members are significant in their own home markets. The primary reason for that is actually pretty simple. If ESPN or FOX or anyone else doesn't want to provide good compensation and they don't want to come to the table when appropriate then you just take your ball and go home. If ESPN loses the Big Ten then that sucks, but it's not so bad if there are 4 other Power conferences that can provide value. We're now rapidly reaching a phase where there's fewer competitors in town. We're basically in a space right now where 5 Power conferences don't exist...the legal designations on the NCAA rulebook are not relevant here.

The Power conferences actually hurt each other because in a way, they're competing for the same space...the same TV dollars, the same time slots, and they're pushing and shoving to one-up the other guy. What they should have been thinking about is coalescing their market power to flip the script. The schools should be competing with the networks, not with each other.

Let's say the Big 12 and SEC had merged 10 years ago. That entity would be a behemoth dealing with any network. Try to play hard ball with that conglomeration and you risk losing access to a disproportionate amount of good content. The same principle doesn't work if you're talking about CUSA and the Sun Belt merging...because it's not the premier product in its class. The market dynamics work if scarcity is combined with value. It's not so much about the numbers...it's about corning the market.

This is why I've never had a problem going to 24 or more. As long as we're talking schools that have value in the marketplace, we're doing nothing but helping ourselves by coalescing.

My little pet theory is this...the reason we're seeing networks say certain combinations/additions aren't "valuable" is because they're still in the position of highest leverage. ESPN and FOX and all the rest know darn well that there's ton of schools that have value in the marketplace if they were a part of a conglomeration, but these networks want to delay the influence of the conglomeration as much as possible.

So when a network advises the SEC or Big Ten that they need to go after "these" schools instead of "those over there, it's because they're self-interested. Now to be fair, the networks want the best match-ups. They're not arbitrarily valuing anyone. Their deceit is that they're unwilling to pay for certain additions because if they have to pay for larger leagues then they at least want some control over what those match-ups will be in the aftermath. If they have to spend a lot more money in the future to fund these leagues then they want the best bang for their buck.

For example, I don't believe for a second that Oregon and Washington wouldn't make money for the Big Ten regardless of Notre Dame's inclusion. Think about it, what motivation do these networks have to spend more money than they have to?

The "valuations" these networks offer are purely for their benefit.

Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

I agree the SEC and B1G should in essence merge, but by scheduling until existing contracts expire. I also agree 36 should be the number and they should do it as a breakaway to monetize hoops. Where we disagree is in that only 2 of the B1G's likely additions would be worthy of inclusion, Oregon and Washington. The honorable acknowledgement from the ACC would be the release of Florida State and Clemson to pursue championships. They know what they want. The rest of your programs are conflicted. Five years would be a reasonable time to let the B12, PAC and remaining ACC sort things out. Then in 5 years those who wanted to join could be considered. Notre Dame would have to be all in. If they want in from the beginning, then Miami could be considered as well

The SEC and B1G will be each becoming less efficient in the current colossal market grab. Work as one and we get things worked out quickly on rules and structure and get officiating and enforcement operational. The payout pie also swells.

The pissing contest in which we are currently engaged will be counterproductive. We both would do much better by a collaborative effort.

But here's why it won't happen. They want to remain attached to the NCAA. The SEC would prefer a breakaway. They will want different rules for NIL and Pay for Play. So, we'll push competing models take more Southern schools than should be necessary and protect our region and pound them with a talent surplus they covet. It won't be good for the game, but they think they can strong arm their viewpoints from an inferior position so submission must be forced. There is a thin line between arrogance and stupidity. The alliance crap crossed the damn line into stupid. Therefore, unless they compromise, which they've shown no willingness to do, and they honor their word, which the alliance revealed in spades cannot be trusted, we both will continue to plow through history and tradition on disparate pathways because that is what two large corporate egos do when utilizing proxies to accomplish their will. The SEC and B1G don't share a like vision, but the antagonism is a scramble by FOX and ESPN to improve their positioning with regards to rights.

It's taken me awhile, but I finally understand the B1G. JR, what you and I are used to letting the games decide who is best. That is what we are used to and grew up with. It's a totally different mindset in the B1G. The closest analogy that I have for the B1G would be a public college version of the Ivy League. I kid not. Just like the Ivy has the academic index, so does the B1G with AAU membership being a requirement for the B1G, even if that requirement winds up biting the B1G in the butt, ala Texas and Oklahoma. Strong athletics are a requirement as well, IMO from what Frank the Tank and others have said.

I know some folks on here were calling Northwestern and Vandy elitist schools, but the Ivy League, the very conference the B1G was modeled after, is more elitist than that, IMHO. Oddly enough, I haven't seen the B1G and the Ivy League working together much or scheduling each other in games either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there is a deep rivalry between the two. The Pac-12/10 is to the B1G what the Patriot League is to the Ivy, IMO, a fellow collaborator.

Not to insult the SEC, but how are we in any way like the Ivy League, Do we actually like basketbrawl in winter, Kentucky being the obvious exception??? Do we even have a passing interest in lacrosse?? I, for one, am glad that the SEC is what it is and isn't willing to compromise on its principles. I love the fact that the SEC isn't arrogant like the B1G and the Ivy League (some B1G posters on here being the exception, as well as a pastor that I like who graduated from Harvard).

(08-02-2022 11:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 06:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m not sold on the idea of 24 being profitable for either the Big 10 or the SEC unless the streaming services are willing to pay oodles for a large quantity of content and want the conference name to drive the perceived value of the game:

UNC vs NC St as an ACC game has a lack luster value. Swap out that ACC patch and field logo with an SEC logo and suddenly that game has much more value.

I can’t believe I’m about to make a soccer analogy here but I am. Those schools I mentioned are like a pair of Championship (Tier 2) schools but promote them to the Premier League and the mere fact that it’s Premier League skyrockets the value. Alabama and Ohio St are your Manchester United and Arsenal types—the mega brands that drive the overall value of the league.

If I’m a streaming service, I want the leagues to be big so the mounds of T3 content that I’ve got in inventory are inherently more valuable and the finite number of cable and OTA time slots send viewers who are fans of all the teams to my service because all 24 teams are going to be on streaming at some point.

If I’m a 3 or 4-letter network, I’m probably happy with 16 because that’s a manageable number and I can get a M3 conference’s rights to air on the side for relatively cheap.

Until the streamers become the dominant power in the collegiate sports media rights bidding process I think things are on pause.

How I think they could make 24-team leagues work is by phasing in the new schools payments gradually and awarding bonuses for OTA and cable appearances.

The last time all this was happening, 10 years ago or so, I theorized that the SEC merging with the Big 12 would be a boon for everyone.

A 24 team league...

That configuration didn't include any ACC schools, but my concept was based on this: negotiating leverage rooted in basic economics...scarcity.

Think about it this way, the NFL has 32 teams and taps fewer markets than that. It's nationwide, however, and is essentially the only game in town when it comes to premier quality football. That has massive leverage despite the fact it has a large number of competitors. Of course, you can pick apart this scenario by examining the market dynamics, but I'm not suggesting a nationwide college football conference would make the same amount of money as the NFL. it's not about that, it's about the fact that unifying content under one roof creates new rules.

So even though a fair number of NFL teams suck in a given year and some fan bases aren't nearly as passionate as others, it doesn't matter. The sheer size and reach of the overall entity creates massive value. That value, in time, creates a better quality product. Think about what the NFL is today compared to just 30 years ago...

Notice this also, every major pro sport organization in this country has roughly the same number of teams. The mostly tap the same markets although there's a little shuffling here and there. Despite the fact that the other leagues are national, it doesn't mean they make as much money as the NFL, but the market dynamics are there for creating quality content and negotiating leverage with the TV partner.

I was always a fan of the SEC and Big 12 merging because I thought they had the most in common and it would have created a massive amount of content that was quality especially when you start playing more games internally. Think about that aspect as well. In the future, these leagues aren't going to be playing G5s and FCS and may even trim away some other "Power" schools from their schedules. They'll play more games internally and that will create a lot of valuable content especially at the T3 level.

As there is greater deregulation, there will be less necessity to maintain traditional concepts of much of anything whether that's schedules or scholarship rules or anything else. The important thing there is that consolidation allows for simpler and more uniform rules...because everyone's under the same roof.

Now I don't know if all the Power conferences will unite one day into one entity...I kind of doubt it...but that doesn't really affect the basic market dynamics of consolidation. A 24 team league has massive value as long as the members are significant in their own home markets. The primary reason for that is actually pretty simple. If ESPN or FOX or anyone else doesn't want to provide good compensation and they don't want to come to the table when appropriate then you just take your ball and go home. If ESPN loses the Big Ten then that sucks, but it's not so bad if there are 4 other Power conferences that can provide value. We're now rapidly reaching a phase where there's fewer competitors in town. We're basically in a space right now where 5 Power conferences don't exist...the legal designations on the NCAA rulebook are not relevant here.

The Power conferences actually hurt each other because in a way, they're competing for the same space...the same TV dollars, the same time slots, and they're pushing and shoving to one-up the other guy. What they should have been thinking about is coalescing their market power to flip the script. The schools should be competing with the networks, not with each other.

Let's say the Big 12 and SEC had merged 10 years ago. That entity would be a behemoth dealing with any network. Try to play hard ball with that conglomeration and you risk losing access to a disproportionate amount of good content. The same principle doesn't work if you're talking about CUSA and the Sun Belt merging...because it's not the premier product in its class. The market dynamics work if scarcity is combined with value. It's not so much about the numbers...it's about corning the market.

This is why I've never had a problem going to 24 or more. As long as we're talking schools that have value in the marketplace, we're doing nothing but helping ourselves by coalescing.

My little pet theory is this...the reason we're seeing networks say certain combinations/additions aren't "valuable" is because they're still in the position of highest leverage. ESPN and FOX and all the rest know darn well that there's ton of schools that have value in the marketplace if they were a part of a conglomeration, but these networks want to delay the influence of the conglomeration as much as possible.

So when a network advises the SEC or Big Ten that they need to go after "these" schools instead of "those over there, it's because they're self-interested. Now to be fair, the networks want the best match-ups. They're not arbitrarily valuing anyone. Their deceit is that they're unwilling to pay for certain additions because if they have to pay for larger leagues then they at least want some control over what those match-ups will be in the aftermath. If they have to spend a lot more money in the future to fund these leagues then they want the best bang for their buck.

For example, I don't believe for a second that Oregon and Washington wouldn't make money for the Big Ten regardless of Notre Dame's inclusion. Think about it, what motivation do these networks have to spend more money than they have to?

The "valuations" these networks offer are purely for their benefit.

Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

I agree the SEC and B1G should in essence merge, but by scheduling until existing contracts expire. I also agree 36 should be the number and they should do it as a breakaway to monetize hoops. Where we disagree is in that only 2 of the B1G's likely additions would be worthy of inclusion, Oregon and Washington. The honorable acknowledgement from the ACC would be the release of Florida State and Clemson to pursue championships. They know what they want. The rest of your programs are conflicted. Five years would be a reasonable time to let the B12, PAC and remaining ACC sort things out. Then in 5 years those who wanted to join could be considered. Notre Dame would have to be all in. If they want in from the beginning, then Miami could be considered as well

The SEC and B1G will be each becoming less efficient in the current colossal market grab. Work as one and we get things worked out quickly on rules and structure and get officiating and enforcement operational. The payout pie also swells.

The pissing contest in which we are currently engaged will be counterproductive. We both would do much better by a collaborative effort.

But here's why it won't happen. They want to remain attached to the NCAA. The SEC would prefer a breakaway. They will want different rules for NIL and Pay for Play. So, we'll push competing models take more Southern schools than should be necessary and protect our region and pound them with a talent surplus they covet. It won't be good for the game, but they think they can strong arm their viewpoints from an inferior position so submission must be forced. There is a thin line between arrogance and stupidity. The alliance crap crossed the damn line into stupid. Therefore, unless they compromise, which they've shown no willingness to do, and they honor their word, which the alliance revealed in spades cannot be trusted, we both will continue to plow through history and tradition on disparate pathways because that is what two large corporate egos do when utilizing proxies to accomplish their will. The SEC and B1G don't share a like vision, but the antagonism is a scramble by FOX and ESPN to improve their positioning with regards to rights.

It's taken me awhile, but I finally understand the B1G. JR, what you and I are used to letting the games decide who is best. That is what we are used to and grew up with. It's a totally different mindset in the B1G. The closest analogy that I have for the B1G would be a public college version of the Ivy League. I kid not. Just like the Ivy has the academic index, so does the B1G with AAU membership being a requirement for the B1G, even if that requirement winds up biting the B1G in the butt, ala Texas and Oklahoma. Strong athletics are a requirement as well, IMO from what Frank the Tank and others have said.

I know some folks on here were calling Northwestern and Vandy elitist schools, but the Ivy League, the very conference the B1G was modeled after, is more elitist than that, IMHO. Oddly enough, I haven't seen the B1G and the Ivy League working together much or scheduling each other in games either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there is a deep rivalry between the two. The Pac-12/10 is to the B1G what the Patriot League is to the Ivy, IMO, a fellow collaborator.

Not to insult the SEC, but how are we in any way like the Ivy League, Do we actually like basketbrawl in winter, Kentucky being the obvious exception??? Do we even have a passing interest in lacrosse??

I spent a good bit of my early life in Big 10 country and am quite familiar, and I did my postgraduate at Emory and am not ashamed of my undergrad education, nor overly impressed with the Ivy League, and certainly not with the Big 10, or ACC, having graded papers of honors grads from all of them. And what I have no use for are cultural apologists! Or for that matter I have no use for Ivy Leaguers who are so proud of their degrees they couldn't hold a job or do work they considered beneath them to support their family. An education is only worth what you make of it, and no work is beneath you when your family is in need. I spent 20 years in non-profit work and helped way too many highly educated formerly well to do flops! That's not to say I haven't met wonderful people from all of those regions and schools. But is to say I'm no respecter of a piece of paper when the guy standing before me holding it is an excuse making jack-ass!

(08-02-2022 11:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-24-2022 06:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The last time all this was happening, 10 years ago or so, I theorized that the SEC merging with the Big 12 would be a boon for everyone.

A 24 team league...

That configuration didn't include any ACC schools, but my concept was based on this: negotiating leverage rooted in basic economics...scarcity.

Think about it this way, the NFL has 32 teams and taps fewer markets than that. It's nationwide, however, and is essentially the only game in town when it comes to premier quality football. That has massive leverage despite the fact it has a large number of competitors. Of course, you can pick apart this scenario by examining the market dynamics, but I'm not suggesting a nationwide college football conference would make the same amount of money as the NFL. it's not about that, it's about the fact that unifying content under one roof creates new rules.

So even though a fair number of NFL teams suck in a given year and some fan bases aren't nearly as passionate as others, it doesn't matter. The sheer size and reach of the overall entity creates massive value. That value, in time, creates a better quality product. Think about what the NFL is today compared to just 30 years ago...

Notice this also, every major pro sport organization in this country has roughly the same number of teams. The mostly tap the same markets although there's a little shuffling here and there. Despite the fact that the other leagues are national, it doesn't mean they make as much money as the NFL, but the market dynamics are there for creating quality content and negotiating leverage with the TV partner.

I was always a fan of the SEC and Big 12 merging because I thought they had the most in common and it would have created a massive amount of content that was quality especially when you start playing more games internally. Think about that aspect as well. In the future, these leagues aren't going to be playing G5s and FCS and may even trim away some other "Power" schools from their schedules. They'll play more games internally and that will create a lot of valuable content especially at the T3 level.

As there is greater deregulation, there will be less necessity to maintain traditional concepts of much of anything whether that's schedules or scholarship rules or anything else. The important thing there is that consolidation allows for simpler and more uniform rules...because everyone's under the same roof.

Now I don't know if all the Power conferences will unite one day into one entity...I kind of doubt it...but that doesn't really affect the basic market dynamics of consolidation. A 24 team league has massive value as long as the members are significant in their own home markets. The primary reason for that is actually pretty simple. If ESPN or FOX or anyone else doesn't want to provide good compensation and they don't want to come to the table when appropriate then you just take your ball and go home. If ESPN loses the Big Ten then that sucks, but it's not so bad if there are 4 other Power conferences that can provide value. We're now rapidly reaching a phase where there's fewer competitors in town. We're basically in a space right now where 5 Power conferences don't exist...the legal designations on the NCAA rulebook are not relevant here.

The Power conferences actually hurt each other because in a way, they're competing for the same space...the same TV dollars, the same time slots, and they're pushing and shoving to one-up the other guy. What they should have been thinking about is coalescing their market power to flip the script. The schools should be competing with the networks, not with each other.

Let's say the Big 12 and SEC had merged 10 years ago. That entity would be a behemoth dealing with any network. Try to play hard ball with that conglomeration and you risk losing access to a disproportionate amount of good content. The same principle doesn't work if you're talking about CUSA and the Sun Belt merging...because it's not the premier product in its class. The market dynamics work if scarcity is combined with value. It's not so much about the numbers...it's about corning the market.

This is why I've never had a problem going to 24 or more. As long as we're talking schools that have value in the marketplace, we're doing nothing but helping ourselves by coalescing.

My little pet theory is this...the reason we're seeing networks say certain combinations/additions aren't "valuable" is because they're still in the position of highest leverage. ESPN and FOX and all the rest know darn well that there's ton of schools that have value in the marketplace if they were a part of a conglomeration, but these networks want to delay the influence of the conglomeration as much as possible.

So when a network advises the SEC or Big Ten that they need to go after "these" schools instead of "those over there, it's because they're self-interested. Now to be fair, the networks want the best match-ups. They're not arbitrarily valuing anyone. Their deceit is that they're unwilling to pay for certain additions because if they have to pay for larger leagues then they at least want some control over what those match-ups will be in the aftermath. If they have to spend a lot more money in the future to fund these leagues then they want the best bang for their buck.

For example, I don't believe for a second that Oregon and Washington wouldn't make money for the Big Ten regardless of Notre Dame's inclusion. Think about it, what motivation do these networks have to spend more money than they have to?

The "valuations" these networks offer are purely for their benefit.

Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

I agree the SEC and B1G should in essence merge, but by scheduling until existing contracts expire. I also agree 36 should be the number and they should do it as a breakaway to monetize hoops. Where we disagree is in that only 2 of the B1G's likely additions would be worthy of inclusion, Oregon and Washington. The honorable acknowledgement from the ACC would be the release of Florida State and Clemson to pursue championships. They know what they want. The rest of your programs are conflicted. Five years would be a reasonable time to let the B12, PAC and remaining ACC sort things out. Then in 5 years those who wanted to join could be considered. Notre Dame would have to be all in. If they want in from the beginning, then Miami could be considered as well

The SEC and B1G will be each becoming less efficient in the current colossal market grab. Work as one and we get things worked out quickly on rules and structure and get officiating and enforcement operational. The payout pie also swells.

The pissing contest in which we are currently engaged will be counterproductive. We both would do much better by a collaborative effort.

But here's why it won't happen. They want to remain attached to the NCAA. The SEC would prefer a breakaway. They will want different rules for NIL and Pay for Play. So, we'll push competing models take more Southern schools than should be necessary and protect our region and pound them with a talent surplus they covet. It won't be good for the game, but they think they can strong arm their viewpoints from an inferior position so submission must be forced. There is a thin line between arrogance and stupidity. The alliance crap crossed the damn line into stupid. Therefore, unless they compromise, which they've shown no willingness to do, and they honor their word, which the alliance revealed in spades cannot be trusted, we both will continue to plow through history and tradition on disparate pathways because that is what two large corporate egos do when utilizing proxies to accomplish their will. The SEC and B1G don't share a like vision, but the antagonism is a scramble by FOX and ESPN to improve their positioning with regards to rights.

It's taken me awhile, but I finally understand the B1G. JR, what you and I are used to letting the games decide who is best. That is what we are used to and grew up with. It's a totally different mindset in the B1G. The closest analogy that I have for the B1G would be a public college version of the Ivy League. I kid not. Just like the Ivy has the academic index, so does the B1G with AAU membership being a requirement for the B1G, even if that requirement winds up biting the B1G in the butt, ala Texas and Oklahoma. Strong athletics are a requirement as well, IMO from what Frank the Tank and others have said.

I know some folks on here were calling Northwestern and Vandy elitist schools, but the Ivy League, the very conference the B1G was modeled after, is more elitist than that, IMHO. Oddly enough, I haven't seen the B1G and the Ivy League working together much or scheduling each other in games either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there is a deep rivalry between the two. The Pac-12/10 is to the B1G what the Patriot League is to the Ivy, IMO, a fellow collaborator.

Not to insult the SEC, but how are we in any way like the Ivy League, Do we actually like basketbrawl in winter, Kentucky being the obvious exception??? Do we even have a passing interest in lacrosse??

I spent a good bit of my early life in Big 10 country and am quite familiar, and I did my postgraduate at Emory and am not ashamed of my undergrad education, nor overly impressed with the Ivy League, and certainly not with the Big 10, or ACC, having graded papers of honors grads from all of them. And what I have no use for are cultural apologists! Or for that matter I have no use for Ivy Leaguers who are so proud of their degrees they couldn't hold a job or do work they considered beneath them to support their family. An education is only worth what you make of it, and no work is beneath you when your family is in need. I spent 20 years in non-profit work and helped way too many highly educated formerly well to do flops! That's not to say I haven't met wonderful people from all of those regions and schools. But is to say I'm no respecter of a piece of paper when the guy standing before me holding it is an excuse making jack-ass!

Sounds like the exact opposite of me, lol!! If I had to support my son by flipping hamburgers, I'd do it!°

BTW, IMO, Emory is an awesome school, and I have a deep respect for it.

(08-02-2022 11:39 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-02-2022 11:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-01-2022 09:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  Maybe 10 years ago a merger between the SEC and Big 12 would have added value to both. But not today. But the theory remains valid. IMO, the best thing the SEC could do today is merge with the Big Ten. That's also the best thing the Big Ten could do. Throw in the four remaining valuable schools from the PAC and you have a 36 team behemoth that has all the leverage with media partners. I say partners because, like the NFL having multiple partners maximizes the value of this new league.

Keeping the remaining two P5 conferences intact solves a lot of issues this board has been struggling with for the past couple of years, and eliminates concerns about issues the courts or legislatures may have with the changed landscape of college athletics. A merger now with a contract length of about 8 years buys time to smooth the rough edges that landscape may have, and gets everyone closer to the end of the ACC GoR when any additional realignment or consolidation might make financial sense then.

I agree the SEC and B1G should in essence merge, but by scheduling until existing contracts expire. I also agree 36 should be the number and they should do it as a breakaway to monetize hoops. Where we disagree is in that only 2 of the B1G's likely additions would be worthy of inclusion, Oregon and Washington. The honorable acknowledgement from the ACC would be the release of Florida State and Clemson to pursue championships. They know what they want. The rest of your programs are conflicted. Five years would be a reasonable time to let the B12, PAC and remaining ACC sort things out. Then in 5 years those who wanted to join could be considered. Notre Dame would have to be all in. If they want in from the beginning, then Miami could be considered as well

The SEC and B1G will be each becoming less efficient in the current colossal market grab. Work as one and we get things worked out quickly on rules and structure and get officiating and enforcement operational. The payout pie also swells.

The pissing contest in which we are currently engaged will be counterproductive. We both would do much better by a collaborative effort.

But here's why it won't happen. They want to remain attached to the NCAA. The SEC would prefer a breakaway. They will want different rules for NIL and Pay for Play. So, we'll push competing models take more Southern schools than should be necessary and protect our region and pound them with a talent surplus they covet. It won't be good for the game, but they think they can strong arm their viewpoints from an inferior position so submission must be forced. There is a thin line between arrogance and stupidity. The alliance crap crossed the damn line into stupid. Therefore, unless they compromise, which they've shown no willingness to do, and they honor their word, which the alliance revealed in spades cannot be trusted, we both will continue to plow through history and tradition on disparate pathways because that is what two large corporate egos do when utilizing proxies to accomplish their will. The SEC and B1G don't share a like vision, but the antagonism is a scramble by FOX and ESPN to improve their positioning with regards to rights.

It's taken me awhile, but I finally understand the B1G. JR, what you and I are used to letting the games decide who is best. That is what we are used to and grew up with. It's a totally different mindset in the B1G. The closest analogy that I have for the B1G would be a public college version of the Ivy League. I kid not. Just like the Ivy has the academic index, so does the B1G with AAU membership being a requirement for the B1G, even if that requirement winds up biting the B1G in the butt, ala Texas and Oklahoma. Strong athletics are a requirement as well, IMO from what Frank the Tank and others have said.

I know some folks on here were calling Northwestern and Vandy elitist schools, but the Ivy League, the very conference the B1G was modeled after, is more elitist than that, IMHO. Oddly enough, I haven't seen the B1G and the Ivy League working together much or scheduling each other in games either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there is a deep rivalry between the two. The Pac-12/10 is to the B1G what the Patriot League is to the Ivy, IMO, a fellow collaborator.

Not to insult the SEC, but how are we in any way like the Ivy League, Do we actually like basketbrawl in winter, Kentucky being the obvious exception??? Do we even have a passing interest in lacrosse??

I spent a good bit of my early life in Big 10 country and am quite familiar, and I did my postgraduate at Emory and am not ashamed of my undergrad education, nor overly impressed with the Ivy League, and certainly not with the Big 10, or ACC, having graded papers of honors grads from all of them. And what I have no use for are cultural apologists! Or for that matter I have no use for Ivy Leaguers who are so proud of their degrees they couldn't hold a job or do work they considered beneath them to support their family. An education is only worth what you make of it, and no work is beneath you when your family is in need. I spent 20 years in non-profit work and helped way too many highly educated formerly well to do flops! That's not to say I haven't met wonderful people from all of those regions and schools. But is to say I'm no respecter of a piece of paper when the guy standing before me holding it is an excuse making jack-ass!

Sounds like the exact opposite of me, lol!! If I had to support my son by flipping hamburgers, I'd do it!°

When you sacrifice to advance those that you love you have nothing for which you need to apologize. And you should hold your head high when dealing with anyone. Pedigrees and Paper are another nice attribute but only when sported by people of integrity. For too many they amount to little more than an expensive perfume for a putrid character. We are told not to judge (which means render an evaluation upon what we are told). We are commanded to discern (which means to observe and size others up based upon what they do, or don't do). A diploma tells you what a person's potential might be. It doesn't say much about a person's character. You find that out firsthand. People I admire might surprise you. One was an African American woman I encountered who left an abusive relationship, worked 3 jobs and single handedly put her three children through college and did it with genuine kindness and a strong education of her own, all learned at the public library. When life gets me down, I have but to think of her, her pure heart and dedication, and sense of joy in seeing her children succeed. That's faith, love, and solid character in one uncomplaining woman who improved everyone who knew her. My joy in life is in having known a variety of different kinds of people just as uniquely inspiring. I just wish there were more. Negative never met them and if it did it never distracted them long enough to impede their sense of purpose or rob them of their joy. They are my heroes and heroines.

(08-02-2022 11:15 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's taken me awhile, but I finally understand the B1G. [...] The closest analogy that I have for the B1G would be a public college version of the Ivy League. I kid not. Just like the Ivy has the academic index, so does the B1G with AAU membership being a requirement for the B1G, even if that requirement winds up biting the B1G in the butt, ala Texas and Oklahoma. Strong athletics are a requirement as well, IMO from what Frank the Tank and others have said.

I know some folks on here were calling Northwestern and Vandy elitist schools, but the Ivy League, the very conference the B1G was modeled after, is more elitist than that, IMHO. Oddly enough, I haven't seen the B1G and the Ivy League working together much or scheduling each other in games either. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that there is a deep rivalry between the two. The Pac-12/10 is to the B1G what the Patriot League is to the Ivy, IMO, a fellow collaborator.

[...]

A very interesting take.

I don't know about the "elitest" part (I've met self-important people from all over, not just the rust belt), but I think the points about academic-focus are well taken.

And an interesting thought about the idea of a rivalry with the Ivy League.

I've never thought about that, nor seen it, but it could very well be a thing. Interesting.