JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,256
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7964
I Root For: SEC
Location: |
RE: MHver3 on Twitter: Is he reliable?
(03-04-2023 03:24 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote: (03-04-2023 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote: (03-04-2023 01:24 PM)Big 12 fan too Wrote: (03-04-2023 12:53 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: (03-04-2023 11:56 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote: That isn’t completely true...
When they want a feeler or reactions, the MHver types are utilized. Complete deniability and zero cost. No cred risk to manage.
Trusted journalists are used for talking through the press- negotiations. For example, the 4Cs or PAC may be leaking to pro-PAC Mandel to threaten UW and Oregon, or providers, that unless they set up and commit to the PAC, there will be no PAC as an option.
Wealthy boosters/big time contributors, and board members, are going to ring-up The WVDude, MHver (perhaps the same person), and Fluguar, to promote their agendas? What entities employ them assuming they are employed beyond self-created Twitter accounts and maybe having an obscure home podcast?
In short, yes. The advent of Twitter and internet has really changed things from say 20 years ago.
You don’t generally use a McMurphy to “poll” or garner interest. Journalists and the Matt Brown types need to generally be factual. The fact these professionals have a brand of reporting facts makes it a lose-lose to utilize as polling or or just reactions. There are exceptions though.
As to MHVer3 he and the Dude of WV were rumor monger mates back in 2011-2. So, two different people. The Dude and Fluguar hooked up after that. Too much free attention for all 3 just by mentioning them.
The mere fact that Yormark and Kliavkoff have been interested in Gonzaga should raise eyebrows and questions.
Is College Football the only centerpiece of a consolidation into fewer conferences? No.
Why? Because when Pay for Play ends the NCAA, and it will, basketball value will double at the top programs. And the money from a fully monetized tournament which pays fully for each year will be the driver behind that value.
Why has the discussion been all about football brands thus far? Because they carry a higher value and while there is a slot left for full membership that's who will be talked about. And, since North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, and Kansas have football they get to sneak into the conversation sooner. Kansas has the 2nd highest valuation for combined sports of any school not already in the Big 10 or SEC and are behind only Notre Dame and just ahead of Washington in that regard. If the SEC hadn't been fully concentrated on football branding and had the Big 10 not already accessed much of their small in state market, I think they would have already been taken.
What Yormark and Kliavkoff have attempted to do is to take the top hoops programs into consideration as value adders since they have no shot at pulling a top football program from another P conference. So, they are tipping their hands as to what happens next in the realignment game.
Once football additions are completed, the next practical step in fully monetizing a breakaway upper tier will be in forming an all but football pay system for top basketball brands. Now maybe this is only going to be a priority for the third, or possibly fourth conference which some of you are calling the "M" conferences as the SEC and Big 10 may simply like their slate without having to augment it. But it seems to me the logic the Big 12 and PAC 12, and possibly a remnant ACC in a few years, will look to is accentuation of value by other revenue sports and basketball tops that list.
I believe it was Yormark who may have remarked about finding interest in the Big East hoops schools, even as a whole, because no other product could accentuate the emerging prominence of Big 12 hoops. I should think the ACC, if raided of some football brands, would look to the same and with more success since there is at least a strong connection between the two due to old membership of the Big East.
I have heard no rumor involving simply Villanova. All I've heard is interest in strong mid major basketball schools which do not have football. And I heard about it over a year ago, and long before the WVU huckster singled out 'Nova.
Call it realignment, consolidation, or whatever, a new for-profit upper tier is forming. Basketball will be a part of it. How that is assimilated into mostly groupings organized for football value hasn't been figured out yet. But it could easily be a thing after the football realignment ends. Remember, cozy all sports conferences, are becoming for profit businesses. Things are changing and will continue to change. And until all of the legal cases shaping the rules of college sports are completed, at least for now, it will continue.
For those reasons, do you think Arizona has any shot at am SEC bid, if not this cycle then later on with the ACC adds? I keep coming up with 5-6 ACC schools for the SEC and not 8, which would leave 2 spots.
So say FSU/Clemson/UNC/Duke/VTech and one of UVA/Miami with Kansas/Arizona instead of say GT/Louisville?
I think the Big 10 will take more PAC schools and that the Big 12 will grow out of that and ESPN will have what they want more cheaply and with less complications by going that route.
Now if ESPN thought they could land value for the ACC by merging the PAC with them they might look at Arizona to the ACC with 7 other PAC 12 schools. I think that move would provide ample cover for 4 to 6 ACC schools to leave for more profitable digs. Notre Dame and say Duke or Virginia to the Big 10 after the Big 10 has secured California, Stanford, Oregon and Washington. A Notre Dame plus 1 from the ACC would open the door for Kansas and Colorado to 24. It makes for 4 great six team divisions.
People will chide the notion and talk about additive value not being there, but the Big 10 contract has additive value for approved additions, and the real money is the added inventory, time slots, and the 18 million each school will earn from the expanded CFP, and a new tournament with twice the revenue distribution is the cherry on top.
But, to your question if the SEC was encouraged by ESPN to expand West instead of out of the ACC I suppose you could imagine a scenario in which Kansas, Colorado, and the Arizona schools would be involved. But given the SEC's insistence upon regionalism, sports fit, and the fact that so far Missouri was the only slight compromise which was justifiable as a Southern move more from political history than actual history point of view, I just don't see it happening. I believe that future moves by the SEC will either expand into additional Southern states, or lock down the Deep South, or possibly both.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2023 05:15 PM by JRsec.)
|
|
/
MHver3 on Twitter: Is he reliable?
