No matter what the cynics on YouTube, X and other internet platforms say. It sucks for those who are fans of programs who were adversely affected by the last round of realignment but that only cut down the power group from 5 to 4. I can't say what happens next but maybe there's a chance we get a break for the next decade or so. Maybe new media groups enter the marketplace and we get closer to equilibrium.

I think the presidents are soured by the behavior of Florida State not only in the ACC but also the other conferences.

The House settlement could be the opportunity to fix some of the issues that destabilized the major conferences so that we can get back to worrying about how the teams perform.

Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

The CFP would have been split equally if not for the "alliance." That gave the SEC and Big 10 time to re-think equal revenue sharing. It was a $5 million annual mistake by the ACC and the 4 Pac who moved to the Big 12. Of course, it cost the rest of the Big 12 $5 million annually also, but they weren't the ones who delayed things.

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

Agreed. It is a Power 2 based on the power and influence the BIG and SEC wield over the college sports landscape.

Well as of midnight Pacific time, its no longer a power 5. Its a power 4.

(07-31-2024 04:43 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

Agreed. It is a Power 2 based on the power and influence the BIG and SEC wield over the college sports landscape.

I think that the MAC AD's had it right when they questioned exactly how Conferences would even fit in the future model of college athletics. Sure, the SEC and B1G wield most of the power right now, but that's due to the membership. As Lou Gerstner said,

an organization is nothing more than the collective capacity of its people to create value.

The OUT move aggressively drove this point home to the rest of the P5. The B1G's response? The Alliance, which they used to help weaken the ACC and Pac, and then USCLA and UW/UO. The only reason that there is still an M2 is that most of its members are true 'tweeners, perhaps not 500k alumni or $200m athletics budgets, but a whole lot of people still care about what they do and are willing to pay to watch them do it on TV or in person. TCU, BYU, the 4c, NC St, VT, Miami, UVA, etc etc, these schools have value and, thus, clout in the new paradigm, regardless of whether they align themselves into 1 or 2 Conference(s).

(07-30-2024 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

The CFP would have been split equally if not for the "alliance." That gave the SEC and Big 10 time to re-think equal revenue sharing. It was a $5 million annual mistake by the ACC and the 4 Pac who moved to the Big 12. Of course, it cost the rest of the Big 12 $5 million annually also, but they weren't the ones who delayed things.

It’s very likely that the “alliance” led to greater differences in CFP distributions. Sankey was frustrated with the mistrust and delays. He provided a sweetheart deal to Petitti so that they would jointly champion the CFP payout model. Sankey is likely confident that the SEC will earn its 29% share regardless of the criteria ptb judge the results of the next eight CFPs.

IMO, the P2 is a monicker for strength in revenue generation, especially media rights. The P2 now includes most major collegiate brands and have more leverage when negotiating lucrative media rights renewals. Sankey has influence because he has a clear vision and a conference whose teams deliver results on the field. Nevertheless, there have been 60 to 70 power programs for several generations. It’s still unknown whether directly paying athletes will change how many programs are able to maintain profitable/financially-viable/power athletic departments. Having a stable and thriving P4 is actually better for the SEC and B1G. They’ll have plenty of options if they need to expand, but the break-up of the PAC and the uncertainty in the ACC doesn’t necessarily help their interests.

(08-16-2024 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

The CFP would have been split equally if not for the "alliance." That gave the SEC and Big 10 time to re-think equal revenue sharing. It was a $5 million annual mistake by the ACC and the 4 Pac who moved to the Big 12. Of course, it cost the rest of the Big 12 $5 million annually also, but they weren't the ones who delayed things.

It’s very likely that the “alliance” led to greater differences in CFP distributions. Sankey was frustrated with the mistrust and delays. He provided a sweetheart deal to Petitti so that they would jointly champion the CFP payout model. Sankey is likely confident that the SEC will earn its 29% share regardless of the criteria ptb judge the results of the next eight CFPs.

IMO, the P2 is a monicker for strength in revenue generation, especially media rights. The P2 now includes most major collegiate brands and have more leverage when negotiating lucrative media rights renewals. Sankey has influence because he has a clear vision and a conference whose teams deliver results on the field. Nevertheless, there have been 60 to 70 power programs for several generations. It’s still unknown whether directly paying athletes will change how many programs are able to maintain profitable/financially-viable/power athletic departments. Having a stable and thriving P4 is actually better for the SEC and B1G. They’ll have plenty of options if they need to expand, but the break-up of the PAC and the uncertainty in the ACC doesn’t necessarily help their interests.

Sankey didn't do this. The networks did. They wanted to segregate the payouts with the best brands in the same 2 conferences and the tweeners not. When the best brands have been taken by the Super 2 a consolidated tweener conference will form from which FOX and ESPN will derive their T2 and T3 offerings. There will be inclusion, but not equal pay. Over time the heartiest of tweener conference will be absorbed by the Super 2 and that will be the upper tier.

The brands remaining to be absorbed: Notre Dame, Florida State, Clemson, and possibly Miami for football. North Carolina, Kansas, and possibly Duke for basketball. A Virginia and Arizona school for markets and possibly a San Franscisco area school for markets.

By segregating schools by value, the networks maximize what they can make off of scheduling and minimize how much they payout both in the cost of contracts (fewer of them), the elimination of duplicated expenses for both the conference and the networks (# of conference shares reduced among more schools, # of conference networks are reduced or retooled for more schools, and the ROI is increased).

This is business 101 and Sankey is not driving it, just benefitting from it as is Petitti.

If the commissioners and networks decided to start from scratch and create a P2 - and you were the primary consultant - what would it look like?

Here's my P2 --

B1G
North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin
West: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, USC, Washington

SEC
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Miami, Notre Dame
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas A&M

(08-16-2024 10:52 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-30-2024 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2024 05:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Power 2 really refers to the unequal amount of influence that the SEC and Big Ten are capable of wielding right now.

Yes, there are technically 4 Power conferences, but it's debatable how long that might last. And more to the point, if the Big Ten and SEC decide they want to head a new association then they can do that anytime they want.

Their influence was most recently felt starkly on the CFP deal.

The CFP would have been split equally if not for the "alliance." That gave the SEC and Big 10 time to re-think equal revenue sharing. It was a $5 million annual mistake by the ACC and the 4 Pac who moved to the Big 12. Of course, it cost the rest of the Big 12 $5 million annually also, but they weren't the ones who delayed things.

It’s very likely that the “alliance” led to greater differences in CFP distributions. Sankey was frustrated with the mistrust and delays. He provided a sweetheart deal to Petitti so that they would jointly champion the CFP payout model. Sankey is likely confident that the SEC will earn its 29% share regardless of the criteria ptb judge the results of the next eight CFPs.

IMO, the P2 is a monicker for strength in revenue generation, especially media rights. The P2 now includes most major collegiate brands and have more leverage when negotiating lucrative media rights renewals. Sankey has influence because he has a clear vision and a conference whose teams deliver results on the field. Nevertheless, there have been 60 to 70 power programs for several generations. It’s still unknown whether directly paying athletes will change how many programs are able to maintain profitable/financially-viable/power athletic departments. Having a stable and thriving P4 is actually better for the SEC and B1G. They’ll have plenty of options if they need to expand, but the break-up of the PAC and the uncertainty in the ACC doesn’t necessarily help their interests.

The 29% is not good for college football, its greedy and its a break from the past. But its really easy to justify. I tried to analyze it several different ways and the SEC and Big 10 usually came up to 30-35% You had to make strong assumptions toward the M2 just to get it down to 25%. I can't really fault them for working for their conference members and taking the value they are creating. That doesn't mean I have to like it or think it is good for the sport.

(08-16-2024 01:40 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If the commissioners and networks decided to start from scratch and create a P2 - and you were the primary consultant - what would it look like?

Here's my P2 --

B1G
North: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Wisconsin
West: Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, USC, Washington

SEC
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Miami, Notre Dame
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas A&M

The strength of the Big 10 and SEC is that almost everyone contributes something.

In the Big 10 Maryland and Rutgers provide access to students and alumni in the DC and NYC markets. Northwestern gets them games in Chicago, which is what Atlanta is to the SEC. Purdue is a good basketball school and Indiana is a premier basketball school. The value of the rest is pretty obvious. If you HAD to get rid of two, it would probably be Northwestern and Purdue.

In the SEC, Arkansas really is a solid program with excellent fan support. South Carolina has great fan support. Kentucky is perhaps the top college basketball program, but definitely top 5. Vanderbilt gives you games in Nashville. Ole Miss is a solid program with excellent fan support. Mississippi St. is a weak link but does have very good fan support. Missouri competes at times and is in a good sized market. If you HAD to get rid of two it would be Vanderbilt and Mississippi St.

I just don't see the two conferences abandoning schools they have been partners with for over a century for schools in another region of the country. If there is a single "super-conference," it will only be 12-16 schools with the elite pulling out of both. I think much more likely is that both conferences stay intact for many years.