Piggybacking on a post I saw JR make in another thread along with some other thoughts I've been having lately, I think if you really want to preserve the integrity of the game while simultaneously increasing profit margins then there's really only one solution.

You have to split the ACC.

-It's the only league that is dominated by large public schools which means its economic potential is limited. That makes sense because it's basically the lowest money-generating league. Most of these schools would be worth more elsewhere.

-It crosses regions that share a time zone and not much else. There is too much institutional ambiguity in this league and that means they don't always work well with each other.

-It would benefit networks more to increase access to the Eastern Time Zone for other league as opposed to combining a large number of good to mediocre products in one time zone...even if it is the most populous.

-The SEC is almost too strong and the Big Ten is not far behind. Their monetary advantage is only going to grow so it might as well grow in a more natural way as opposed to fighting over Texas and Oklahoma. There is basically one clear winner there and one clear loser. Meanwhile, if the ACC stays as is then their relevance continues to wane with that horrible contract.

-Texas and Oklahoma can anchor a solid conference, but they need a little help to replenish the middle of the Big 12. They lost numerous solid schools 10 years ago, and they could survive and thrive with a little assistance. In other words, the ACC's core is not strong enough to carry a prosperous league when compared to the current Big 12.

-The PAC 12 is geographically locked into their role. They can't grow within their region and combining with another region will not only create horrendous travel, but it will diminish to some degree any unique quality the PAC might possess as their best schools will have trouble competing with the powers of the Big 12 or the Big Ten.

The easiest solution is to abandon John Skipper's pet project and split up the ACC.

I would suggest this format:

SEC adds Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech

Big Ten adds Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

Big 12 adds Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Notre Dame gets a partial with the Big 12.

The PAC 12 stays the same.

(01-24-2020 06:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Piggybacking on a post I saw JR make in another thread along with some other thoughts I've been having lately, I think if you really want to preserve the integrity of the game while simultaneously increasing profit margins then there's really only one solution.

You have to split the ACC.

-It's the only league that is dominated by large public schools which means its economic potential is limited. That makes sense because it's basically the lowest money-generating league. Most of these schools would be worth more elsewhere.

-It crosses regions that share a time zone and not much else. There is too much institutional ambiguity in this league and that means they don't always work well with each other.

-It would benefit networks more to increase access to the Eastern Time Zone for other league as opposed to combining a large number of good to mediocre products in one time zone...even if it is the most populous.

-The SEC is almost too strong and the Big Ten is not far behind. Their monetary advantage is only going to grow so it might as well grow in a more natural way as opposed to fighting over Texas and Oklahoma. There is basically one clear winner there and one clear loser. Meanwhile, if the ACC stays as is then their relevance continues to wane with that horrible contract.

-Texas and Oklahoma can anchor a solid conference, but they need a little help to replenish the middle of the Big 12. They lost numerous solid schools 10 years ago, and they could survive and thrive with a little assistance. In other words, the ACC's core is not strong enough to carry a prosperous league when compared to the current Big 12.

-The PAC 12 is geographically locked into their role. They can't grow within their region and combining with another region will not only create horrendous travel, but it will diminish to some degree any unique quality the PAC might possess as their best schools will have trouble competing with the powers of the Big 12 or the Big Ten.

The easiest solution is to abandon John Skipper's pet project and split up the ACC.

I would suggest this format:

SEC adds Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech

Big Ten adds Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

Big 12 adds Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Notre Dame gets a partial with the Big 12.

The PAC 12 stays the same.

That'll work. But Schlabach suggested on Finebaum yesterday that we might see an upper division of 4 conferences of about 18-20 schools each.

So what's the easiest way to get there.

Let's call it 20.

Big 10:

Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:

Clemson, Florida, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Tennessee, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Florida State, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

PAC:

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Arizona, Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
Arizona State, California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford

AAC:

Air Force, Army, Boise State, Navy, Wake Forest
Boston College, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Temple, West Virginia
Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane
Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, Southern Methodist, Tulsa

The issue I see here is that even in a 4x20 situation a way has to be found to soothe the egos of the likes of Baylor, Boston College, Wake Forest and West Virginia that would be "demoted" in this scenario. Wake, in particular, has huge political pull within the core of the ACC. It could be that the Big 12 finds a way to incorporate Boston College and Wake Forest. Notre Dame as a partial makes better sense if they can get semi-regular games in Boston and NC, for the Catholic and private school connections. The PAC would, I presume, stay at 12.

Btw, here's the link for those interested in the Mark Schlabach interview: http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=28548189

The numbers he mentioned are 4 16-18 member conferences and that many G5 schools would be playing a level below them and playing for their own championship, citing a conversation he had with Saban two years ago. 20 is not mentioned. That's what he was going by. It doesn't sound like he has definite info. Maybe Saban knows more than he let on.

As an aside, he also said that the AAC has looked into adding BYU and Boise State within the last few months.

(01-24-2020 07:48 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The issue I see here is that even in a 4x20 situation a way has to be found to soothe the egos of the likes of Baylor, Boston College, Wake Forest and West Virginia that would be "demoted" in this scenario. Wake, in particular, has huge political pull within the core of the ACC. It could be that the Big 12 finds a way to incorporate Boston College and Wake Forest. Notre Dame as a partial makes better sense if they can get semi-regular games in Boston and NC, for the Catholic and private school connections. The PAC would, I presume, stay at 12.

Btw, here's the link for those interested in the Mark Schlabach interview: http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=28548189

The numbers he mentioned are 4 16-18 member conferences and that many G5 schools would be playing a level below them and playing for their own championship, citing a conversation he had with Saban two years ago. 20 is not mentioned. That's what he was going by. It doesn't sound like he has definite info. Maybe Saban knows more than he let on.

As an aside, he also said that the AAC has looked into adding BYU and Boise State within the last few months.

In his talk with Paul he spoke specifically about Sun Belt and CUSA teams being in the lower division and didn't mention schools like Houston, Central Florida, etc.

That said if the AAC at 20 is elevated to P4 status then a per team payout of ~35 million per team would be enough to cut the knees out from under the assimilated leftovers. Place Boise and B.Y.U. in that grouping and you can begin to justify some larger payouts. The ACC schools aren't making that much and that is about what Baylor earns. Toss in a T3 network for the AAC and you have them covered.

IMO this has to be done anyway to avoid the most able and willing of the G5 from filing lawsuits

If we are looking at 18 members we are including some of the G5 anyway. And if so the alignment I gave on the CS/CR board would stand for the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC. It would be up to the PAC to take in Boise and B.Y.U. perhaps with the Service Academies and perhaps Hawaii or San Diego State.

I still think the 3 x 20 versions of the PAC/SEC/Big 10 would be more competitive. And that the resulting AAC would be great high dollar filler, would provide some ease in an all P4 scheduling system, and would be the best way to assuage those who otherwise would be left behind.

(01-24-2020 08:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 07:48 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The issue I see here is that even in a 4x20 situation a way has to be found to soothe the egos of the likes of Baylor, Boston College, Wake Forest and West Virginia that would be "demoted" in this scenario. Wake, in particular, has huge political pull within the core of the ACC. It could be that the Big 12 finds a way to incorporate Boston College and Wake Forest. Notre Dame as a partial makes better sense if they can get semi-regular games in Boston and NC, for the Catholic and private school connections. The PAC would, I presume, stay at 12.

Btw, here's the link for those interested in the Mark Schlabach interview: http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=28548189

The numbers he mentioned are 4 16-18 member conferences and that many G5 schools would be playing a level below them and playing for their own championship, citing a conversation he had with Saban two years ago. 20 is not mentioned. That's what he was going by. It doesn't sound like he has definite info. Maybe Saban knows more than he let on.

As an aside, he also said that the AAC has looked into adding BYU and Boise State within the last few months.

In his talk with Paul he spoke specifically about Sun Belt and CUSA teams being in the lower division and didn't mention schools like Houston, Central Florida, etc.

That said if the AAC at 20 is elevated to P4 status then a per team payout of ~35 million per team would be enough to cut the knees out from under the assimilated leftovers. Place Boise and B.Y.U. in that grouping and you can begin to justify some larger payouts. The ACC schools aren't making that much and that is about what Baylor earns. Toss in a T3 network for the AAC and you have them covered.

IMO this has to be done anyway to avoid the most able and willing of the G5 from filing lawsuits

If we are looking at 18 members we are including some of the G5 anyway. And if so the alignment I gave on the CS/CR board would stand for the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC. It would be up to the PAC to take in Boise and B.Y.U. perhaps with the Service Academies and perhaps Hawaii or San Diego State.

I still think the 3 x 20 versions of the PAC/SEC/Big 10 would be more competitive. And that the resulting AAC would be great high dollar filler, would provide some ease in an all P4 scheduling system, and would be the best way to assuage those who otherwise would be left behind.

Connecticut might still find a way to get back in if it goes to 18. A pod containing BC, Syracuse, West Virginia, Pitt and Louisville might be tempting enough for them to jump again. Switch out BYU for UConn and the Big 12 doesn't have to go to a third time zone.

Big 18 East: UConn, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Miami, Louisville, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

Big 18 West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Christian, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Eliminates any need for a UT/OU rematch in the championship game.

BYU, Boise, San Diego State, Army and Air Force join the AAC as football-only members.

(01-24-2020 08:56 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 08:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 07:48 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  The issue I see here is that even in a 4x20 situation a way has to be found to soothe the egos of the likes of Baylor, Boston College, Wake Forest and West Virginia that would be "demoted" in this scenario. Wake, in particular, has huge political pull within the core of the ACC. It could be that the Big 12 finds a way to incorporate Boston College and Wake Forest. Notre Dame as a partial makes better sense if they can get semi-regular games in Boston and NC, for the Catholic and private school connections. The PAC would, I presume, stay at 12.

Btw, here's the link for those interested in the Mark Schlabach interview: http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=28548189

The numbers he mentioned are 4 16-18 member conferences and that many G5 schools would be playing a level below them and playing for their own championship, citing a conversation he had with Saban two years ago. 20 is not mentioned. That's what he was going by. It doesn't sound like he has definite info. Maybe Saban knows more than he let on.

As an aside, he also said that the AAC has looked into adding BYU and Boise State within the last few months.

In his talk with Paul he spoke specifically about Sun Belt and CUSA teams being in the lower division and didn't mention schools like Houston, Central Florida, etc.

That said if the AAC at 20 is elevated to P4 status then a per team payout of ~35 million per team would be enough to cut the knees out from under the assimilated leftovers. Place Boise and B.Y.U. in that grouping and you can begin to justify some larger payouts. The ACC schools aren't making that much and that is about what Baylor earns. Toss in a T3 network for the AAC and you have them covered.

IMO this has to be done anyway to avoid the most able and willing of the G5 from filing lawsuits

If we are looking at 18 members we are including some of the G5 anyway. And if so the alignment I gave on the CS/CR board would stand for the Big 12, Big 10 and SEC. It would be up to the PAC to take in Boise and B.Y.U. perhaps with the Service Academies and perhaps Hawaii or San Diego State.

I still think the 3 x 20 versions of the PAC/SEC/Big 10 would be more competitive. And that the resulting AAC would be great high dollar filler, would provide some ease in an all P4 scheduling system, and would be the best way to assuage those who otherwise would be left behind.

Connecticut might still find a way to get back in if it goes to 18. A pod containing BC, Syracuse, West Virginia, Pitt and Louisville might be tempting enough for them to jump again. Switch out BYU for UConn and the Big 12 doesn't have to go to a third time zone.

Big 18 East: UConn, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College, Miami, Louisville, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech

Big 18 West: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas Christian, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

Eliminates any need for a UT/OU rematch in the championship game.

BYU, Boise, San Diego State, Army and Air Force join the AAC as football-only members.

I'm pretty sure UConn with their deficits they'll be dropping football.

By the way the Service Academies travel is covered so they can play for all sports and they have baseball and hoops. Army frequently makes the NCAA baseball tourney.

Now aside from all of this I believe the likeliest outcome is still this:

The SEC will make a play for Texas and Oklahoma. Texas will bargain for Texas Tech. The SEC will take Texas and Texas Tech. The Big 10 will take Kansas and Oklahoma and the top brands in the ACC will sweat it. Maybe they move early maybe not. But by 2035, if not very much sooner, Notre Dame will knuckle under for the big bucks in the Big 10. Maybe Virginia goes with them, maybe not. But if they do the SEC will take Duke and North Carolina and we both stop at 18.

Then a new conference is born. Another conference of 18.
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Virginia Tech
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Baylor, Brigham Young, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U.

The PAC stands as is. We move from 65 schools in a P5 to 66 schools in a P6.

Now let's say that Notre Dame turns us down for the next and, probably, final time. What happens to the 18-team scenario? Well, we might then have certain demands before assenting to a radical shakeup. So I would let you have Kansas, UNC and Texas but, in exchange, I'd want a foothold in the city of Atlanta, since it's already a blue island in a sea of red.

EDIT: On second thought, Penn State would like another football power to be in their division, so I'll leave you guys with Duke, provided you can convince Texas to go to you with just Kansas in tow. Two more football brands that are middling academically coupled with two more academic adds would be our best alternative to ND.

Alternate B1G 18

East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, Florida State, Georgia Tech
Central: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
West: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

Alternate SEC 18

East: UNC, USC, Georgia, Florida, Duke, Kentucky
Central: Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU

(01-29-2020 02:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now let's say that Notre Dame turns us down for the next and, probably, final time. What happens to the 18-team scenario? Well, we might then have certain demands before assenting to a radical shakeup. So I would let you have Kansas, UNC and Texas but, in exchange, I'd want a foothold in the city of Atlanta, since it's already a blue island in a sea of red.

EDIT: On second thought, Penn State would like another football power to be in their division, so I'll leave you guys with Duke, provided you can convince Texas to go to you with just Kansas in tow. Two more football brands that are middling academically coupled with two more academic adds would be our best alternative to ND.

Alternate B1G 18

East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, Florida State, Georgia Tech
Central: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
West: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

Alternate SEC 18

East: UNC, USC, Georgia, Florida, Duke, Kentucky
Central: Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU

I just can't see the Big 10 taking Florida State. Have you looked up their ARWU ranking?

If the SEC has Duke, North Carolina, Texas and Kansas I don't think we would object to the Big 10 getting F.S.U. and Georgia Tech or Virginia and Oklahoma.

But what kind of conference would you form with the remnants of the ACC and Big 12?

And another plus to this solution is that it sets up a lot of Big 10/ SEC end of season tilts which would rive the ratings bonanza through the roof.

I count Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh to join with West Virginia in a Northeastern Division. Clemson, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest for an Eastern Division. Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Louisville for the Northwestern Division, and Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech for the Western Division.

So B1G at 18, SEC at 18, Big 12 at 20, PAC at ?

(01-30-2020 12:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I just can't see the Big 10 taking Florida State. Have you looked up their ARWU ranking?

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2019.html

Currently in the 67-94 (201-300) tier in the national ranking. That puts them in the same group as Iowa, UConn, Nebraska, Colorado State, Iowa State, South Florida and Kansas. They've trended a bit downward in the past three years but remain above the world 300 level. Oklahoma, btw, is two tiers below then (117-137 national; 401-500 world). Frankly, being that they're in an oil-rich region with access to big donors, it's disappointing. That would be a tougher ask from the Big 10's standpoint. However, they'd have Nebraska as a champion for them. One caveat is Dartmouth College is in the 95-116 (301-400) tier and they just got into the AAU. It's possible that the Big 12 is hurting OU's academics than first realized. So Big Ten membership could help in this regard, just like the Ivy League likely helped Dartmouth.

This is also where Georgia Tech helps in both. They'd certainly help wrt Florida State and, being that they have a better ranking than Kansas, the conference ranking wouldn't be hurt so much (plus also snowbirds). That's why I wouldn't mind Kansas going to your side. We'll still have more in the top 30 than the PAC schools. Certainly your AAU adds would make Texsa feel more comfortable in their new neighborhood. Whether that's enough to justify dumping Texas Tech is another question.

Quote:But what kind of conference would you form with the remnants of the ACC and Big 12?

And another plus to this solution is that it sets up a lot of Big 10/ SEC end of season tilts which would rive the ratings bonanza through the roof.

I count Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh to join with West Virginia in a Northeastern Division. Clemson, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest for an Eastern Division. Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Louisville for the Northwestern Division, and Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech for the Western Division.

So B1G at 18, SEC at 18, Big 12 at 20, PAC at ?

Hmm...how many members? Should ND reject full membership in Big Ten again then they wouldn't be full members in whatever conference pops up. I do think they'd like to play the likes of Pitt, Miami, BC, Navy, USC, Michigan State on a semi-regular basis. They also might entice the PAC with a bunch of contracted games, rotating the spot currently occupied by Stanford. Look to Utah, UCLA, Arizona, Cal, Stanford and even a non-member like BYU or Air Force getting a few games out of it.

I ultimately see ND getting contracted games with the PAC and whatever new conference and then scheduled games against select SEC and Big 10 programs. That would be as close to ideal as possible from their standpoint.

Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Louisville, Virginia Tech, Boston College, NC State, Miami, Clemson, Navy and Wake Forest would form a conference. Notre Dame would have Olympic sports membership and play 2/3 football games while Navy is football-only. The Citrus Bowl could be the tie-in.

Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Colorado State, Air Force, TCU, Baylor, Houston and BYU would form the second conference. The Cotton Bowl could be the tie-in.

Let's just consider that if we are going to build a solid conference around Texas and Oklahoma then we need to approach the SEC and Big 10 additions conservatively.

Tee reason I look at Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke, along with Notre Dame is because I don't see them as having major athletic value on their own (Notre Dame excepted) where it counts for networks.

Virginia and Notre Dame does this for the Big 10:
1. Adds enough value in Notre Dame to close the gap with the SEC in that area.
2. Virginia adds a key state and really strong University to the Big 10.

Duke and North Carolina give the SEC the state of North Carolina but at the same time fill a deficiency in basketball branding. This keeps the SEC from adding major football power, but gives the SEC something very beneficial to them and both add to the academics of the SEC.

If we limit our additions to a pair each it keeps our profits high.

Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Florida State and Miami makes for a helluva 6 team eastern division.

Add Pitt and Louisville to Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and West Virginia to create the Norther division of 6.

That leaves Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Texas, T.C.U. and Texas Tech for the Southern division.

You have everything you need in the Big 12 to make them highly competitive with the Big 10 and SEC.

If we must go to 18 to make room for Syracuse and Boston College there is another way to do it.

This is where the Big 10 takes Kansas and the SEC takes T.C.U. and the Big 10 takes Syracuse and the SEC adds Virginia Tech.

Big 12 Norther Division becomes this:
Boston College, Iowa State, Kansas State, Louisville, Pittsburgh West Virginia

The Big 12 Eastern Division becomes this:
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

The Big 12 South becomes:
Baylor, Brigham Young, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

The Big 10:
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

The SEC:
Duke, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Alabama, Auburn, Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

The SEC doesn't get in whopping value and outside of Notre Dame neither does the Big 10. But the Big 10 gets a major basketball brand in Kansas to the West and adds a physical presence in the State of New York with Syracuse. Virginia is still the major market and academic add and Notre Dame is the major sports brand.

The SEC gets two major basketball brands. Adds the state of Virginia and picks up a presence in DFW.

The resulting Big 12 has huge markets and five top football brands to build value around. Texas and Oklahoma are added to Clemson, Florida State and Miami for brand value. They pick up recruiting territory in Florida Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina and B.Y.U. is recognizable to the nation. Pitt and WVU are reunited.

(01-30-2020 12:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-29-2020 02:56 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Now let's say that Notre Dame turns us down for the next and, probably, final time. What happens to the 18-team scenario? Well, we might then have certain demands before assenting to a radical shakeup. So I would let you have Kansas, UNC and Texas but, in exchange, I'd want a foothold in the city of Atlanta, since it's already a blue island in a sea of red.

EDIT: On second thought, Penn State would like another football power to be in their division, so I'll leave you guys with Duke, provided you can convince Texas to go to you with just Kansas in tow. Two more football brands that are middling academically coupled with two more academic adds would be our best alternative to ND.

Alternate B1G 18

East: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, Florida State, Georgia Tech
Central: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
West: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern

Alternate SEC 18

East: UNC, USC, Georgia, Florida, Duke, Kentucky
Central: Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M, LSU

I just can't see the Big 10 taking Florida State. Have you looked up their ARWU ranking?

If the SEC has Duke, North Carolina, Texas and Kansas I don't think we would object to the Big 10 getting F.S.U. and Georgia Tech or Virginia and Oklahoma.

But what kind of conference would you form with the remnants of the ACC and Big 12?

And another plus to this solution is that it sets up a lot of Big 10/ SEC end of season tilts which would rive the ratings bonanza through the roof.

I count Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh to join with West Virginia in a Northeastern Division. Clemson, Miami, N.C. State, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest for an Eastern Division. Cincinnati, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Louisville for the Northwestern Division, and Baylor, Brigham Young, Houston, T.C.U. and Texas Tech for the Western Division.

So B1G at 18, SEC at 18, Big 12 at 20, PAC at ?

The Big 10 would absolutely take FSU...in a second! Let's just keep Notre Dame out of the discussion, I think that ship has sailed. So now, the 2 homeruns are the state of Texas and the state of Florida. Last I checked the Gators aren't leaving the SEC.

These numbers we all love to throw around are a reflection of the company we keep. Specifically talking viewership, and could you imagine lining FSU up with Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State? Add in Oklahoma, Virginia, UNC, Texas, Georgia Tech or whoever it may be that completes the realignment.

I never understood why FSU is always overlooked in these discussions? Their upside is 2nd to none and they are out of place in their current conference. Longevity matters to the SEC, BIG and PAC. FSU offers a lot to a very, very long relationship with a very old conference.

Academics do matter, but like Notre Dame and Oklahoma, I think FSU will be given a pass on that unchecked box.

Note: I'm not a realignment "junkie", just my 2 pennies.

If we were to create 3 conferences of 20 with relative balance then we have to not only absorb the ACC but assist the PAC so I always comes back to this:

PAC:

Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, Washington, Washington State
Arizona, California, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal, Stanford
Arizona State, Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Big 10:

Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Virginia
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

SEC:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina
Clemson, Kentucky, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech


As I've pointed out many times before this is enough to dissolve the ACC. 12 schools accounted for. This is enough to dissolve the Big 12. Eight teams accounted for.

On the outside: Baylor, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, West Virginia.

If those 5 schools wanted to enhance the AAC it is possible a 4th twenty team conference could emerge.

And of course the division between the SEC and Big 10 might be altered but I figure the Tobacco Road schools want to stick together and Notre Dame would have to go all in somewhere or miss the playoffs. None of these conferences would grant a partial membership.

(01-24-2020 06:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Piggybacking on a post I saw JR make in another thread along with some other thoughts I've been having lately, I think if you really want to preserve the integrity of the game while simultaneously increasing profit margins then there's really only one solution.

You have to split the ACC.

-It's the only league that is dominated by large public schools which means its economic potential is limited. That makes sense because it's basically the lowest money-generating league. Most of these schools would be worth more elsewhere.

-It crosses regions that share a time zone and not much else. There is too much institutional ambiguity in this league and that means they don't always work well with each other.

-It would benefit networks more to increase access to the Eastern Time Zone for other league as opposed to combining a large number of good to mediocre products in one time zone...even if it is the most populous.

-The SEC is almost too strong and the Big Ten is not far behind. Their monetary advantage is only going to grow so it might as well grow in a more natural way as opposed to fighting over Texas and Oklahoma. There is basically one clear winner there and one clear loser. Meanwhile, if the ACC stays as is then their relevance continues to wane with that horrible contract.

-Texas and Oklahoma can anchor a solid conference, but they need a little help to replenish the middle of the Big 12. They lost numerous solid schools 10 years ago, and they could survive and thrive with a little assistance. In other words, the ACC's core is not strong enough to carry a prosperous league when compared to the current Big 12.

-The PAC 12 is geographically locked into their role. They can't grow within their region and combining with another region will not only create horrendous travel, but it will diminish to some degree any unique quality the PAC might possess as their best schools will have trouble competing with the powers of the Big 12 or the Big Ten.

The easiest solution is to abandon John Skipper's pet project and split up the ACC.

I would suggest this format:

SEC adds Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech

Big Ten adds Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

Big 12 adds Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Notre Dame gets a partial with the Big 12.

The PAC 12 stays the same.

The unfortunate reality is that splitting the SEC between the B12 and ACC would do more to stabilize CFB than any other proposed conference dissolution.

B12 East: BAMA, AUB, WV, MISS, MSST, ARK
B12 Central: UTX, A&M, MIZZ, LSU, KU, TCU
B12 West: OU, TTU, BAY, KSU, OKST, BYU

B1G East: Adds UVA and UNC
B1G West: Moves IU and UM

ACC 'A': UM, BC, TENN, NCST, UGA, DUKE
ACC 'B': FSU, SYR, 'VILLE, VT, CLEM, VANDY
ACC 'C': UF, PITT, SCAR, UK, WAKE, GT

Its not something I'd want, but does highlight the fact that even SEC mid tier programs could be enhanced and flourish elsewhere.

(02-01-2020 07:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 06:14 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Piggybacking on a post I saw JR make in another thread along with some other thoughts I've been having lately, I think if you really want to preserve the integrity of the game while simultaneously increasing profit margins then there's really only one solution.

You have to split the ACC.

-It's the only league that is dominated by large public schools which means its economic potential is limited. That makes sense because it's basically the lowest money-generating league. Most of these schools would be worth more elsewhere.

-It crosses regions that share a time zone and not much else. There is too much institutional ambiguity in this league and that means they don't always work well with each other.

-It would benefit networks more to increase access to the Eastern Time Zone for other league as opposed to combining a large number of good to mediocre products in one time zone...even if it is the most populous.

-The SEC is almost too strong and the Big Ten is not far behind. Their monetary advantage is only going to grow so it might as well grow in a more natural way as opposed to fighting over Texas and Oklahoma. There is basically one clear winner there and one clear loser. Meanwhile, if the ACC stays as is then their relevance continues to wane with that horrible contract.

-Texas and Oklahoma can anchor a solid conference, but they need a little help to replenish the middle of the Big 12. They lost numerous solid schools 10 years ago, and they could survive and thrive with a little assistance. In other words, the ACC's core is not strong enough to carry a prosperous league when compared to the current Big 12.

-The PAC 12 is geographically locked into their role. They can't grow within their region and combining with another region will not only create horrendous travel, but it will diminish to some degree any unique quality the PAC might possess as their best schools will have trouble competing with the powers of the Big 12 or the Big Ten.

The easiest solution is to abandon John Skipper's pet project and split up the ACC.

I would suggest this format:

SEC adds Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech

Big Ten adds Syracuse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke

Big 12 adds Louisville, Georgia Tech, Miami, and Pittsburgh. Notre Dame gets a partial with the Big 12.

The PAC 12 stays the same.

The unfortunate reality is that splitting the SEC between the B12 and ACC would do more to stabilize CFB than any other proposed conference dissolution.

B12 East: BAMA, AUB, WV, MISS, MSST, ARK
B12 Central: UTX, A&M, MIZZ, LSU, KU, TCU
B12 West: OU, TTU, BAY, KSU, OKST, BYU

B1G East: Adds UVA and UNC
B1G West: Moves IU and UM

ACC 'A': UM, BC, TENN, NCST, UGA, DUKE
ACC 'B': FSU, SYR, 'VILLE, VT, CLEM, VANDY
ACC 'C': UF, PITT, SCAR, UK, WAKE, GT

Its not something I'd want, but does highlight the fact that even SEC mid tier programs could be enhanced and flourish elsewhere.

Except that's not how things logically happen now is it. In the real world and in real time moves are made for more money, not less, unless those moving up leave you behind.

I am not responding specifically to any individuals or ask this just for the SEC threads. It's about all kinds of expansion speculation and wishlists. There are plenty shifting scenarios that look plausible and reasonable, and others look downright bizarre. Please, no offense is intended. Have fun with the individual designs.

We talk much about movement and processing, but is enough being focused on the end game?

Let me get specific about the P5. Is it really good for college sports, including football, to fundamentally end up with two, super elite, conference confederations (SEC & the BIG) with each having 18 to 26 members or so? To get there, the Big12 and the ACC lose all their most prominent schools at a minimum.

To define a national championship, one may assume, the SEC confederation champion plays the BIG confederation champion. The SEC confederation will have maybe, ten or more superstar football-playing institutions, while the BIG may have just four or five. Nevermind within each confederation, a superstar school may not play another superstar football school within a six or so year period. At the current 14, there are ongoing complaints about interactive factors.

When the number of competitive conferences/entities are reduced via expansion/raiding/financial bribery by a network, that looks like bundling for broadcaster profits
while narrowing overhead costs, plus freezing out corporate competitors.

I am OK with seeing four premiere conferences @ sixteen members each. I'd cringe at seeing eighteen each, but would listen to the arguments. Such though, will not work perfectly either.

I commend the SEC for not having GoRs and for not having distribution reductions for new members such as the BIG does.

I've said it multiple times before, abolish the ransom GoRs, but place a ceiling on conference sizes. That allows for shifts, but doesn't perpetuate a flurry of hostile takeovers. And theoretically, it doesn't prevent new conferences from forming or natural shifts in the pecking orders. Some fluidity is necessary.

(02-01-2020 12:40 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I am not responding specifically to any individuals or ask this just for the SEC threads. It's about all kinds of expansion speculation and wishlists. There are plenty shifting scenarios that look plausible and reasonable, and others look downright bizarre. Please, no offense is intended. Have fun with the individual designs.

We talk much about movement and processing, but is enough being focused on the end game?

Let me get specific about the P5. Is it really good for college sports, including football, to fundamentally end up with two, super elite, conference confederations (SEC & the BIG) with each having 18 to 26 members or so? To get there, the Big12 and the ACC lose all their most prominent schools at a minimum.

To define a national championship, one may assume, the SEC confederation champion plays the BIG confederation champion. The SEC confederation will have maybe, ten or more superstar football-playing institutions, while the BIG may have just four or five. Nevermind within each confederation, a superstar school may not play another football school within a six or so year period.

When the number of competitive conferences/entities are reduced via expansion/raiding/financial bribery by a network, that looks like bundling for broadcaster profits
while narrowing overhead costs, plus freezing out corporate competitors.

I am OK with seeing four premiere conferences @ sixteen members each. I'd cringe at seeing eighteen each, but would listen to the arguments. Such though, will not work perfectly either.

I commend the SEC for not having GoRs and for not having distribution reductions for new members such as the BIG does.

I've said it multiple times before, abolish the ransom GoRs, but place a ceiling on conference sizes. That allows for shifts, but doesn't perpetuate a flurry of hostile takeovers. And theoretically, it doesn't prevent new conferences from forming or natural shifts in the pecking orders. Some fluidity is necessary.

A few non specific points to address your post.

At 18 you can still play everyone else every three years. You just have to actually want to. There's no reason at 14 schools that the SEC can't play everyone in 3 years, we just choose not to.

The final size of conferences is determined by whether the arrangement is profitable or not.

We can easily stop at 16 if the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma. Outside of Notre Dame and Ohio State neither of which would ever join the SEC there would literally be nobody that could be added that would improve revenue. That should really sink in.

The best way to stop realignment in its tracks is for the SEC to move to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma and the Big 10 to move to 16 with Notre Dame and one more from a number of schools.

The fact that West Virginia would add to the bottom line of the ACC is a fact that should be carefully scrutinized. It reveals the tremendous value weakness within the ACC.

The PAC is too remote to figure into any of it.

So UT/OU to the SEC and Kansas and Notre Dame to the Big 10 ends realignment. Oklahoma and Notre Dame to the Big 10 and Texas and Texas Tech to the SEC or Texas and Kansas to the SEC would also end it.

If the Big 10 and SEC have no more value to add, and the ACC and PAC pick up the schools they want from the Big 12 remnants realignment is over. It's just that it will lock the PAC and ACC in to truly subordinate positions with regard to college sports.

Send Texas and Oklahoma and the key Big 12 properties to merge with the PAC and divide the ACC between the SEC and Big 10 and it ends as well, just more equitably.

I described all of this as a hostile takeover, but make no mistake it isn't a hostile takeover by well financed conferences, it is a hostile takeover by media companies using the conferences as proxies.

(02-01-2020 09:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Except that's not how things logically happen now is it. In the real world and in real time moves are made for more money, not less, unless those moving up leave you behind.

I'm not sure how any of this works TBH. I mean financially isn't the B12 five years past its sell by date? How is it's continued existence financially beneficial?

Has any move made by Larry Scott made the P12 more money?

The ACC kneecapping the Big East was supposed to stabilize the conference, but 7 years later another existential crisis is looming.

I know your position is that media is taking over CFB because its was an undermentioned product, and I agree. But making money off the B1G and SEC does not IMO take a great deal of financial acumen to pull off.

(02-01-2020 08:02 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-01-2020 09:54 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Except that's not how things logically happen now is it. In the real world and in real time moves are made for more money, not less, unless those moving up leave you behind.

I'm not sure how any of this works TBH. I mean financially isn't the B12 five years past its sell by date? How is it's continued existence financially beneficial?

Has any move made by Larry Scott made the P12 more money?

The ACC kneecapping the Big East was supposed to stabilize the conference, but 7 years later another existential crisis is looming.

I know your position is that media is taking over CFB because its was an undermentioned product, and I agree. But making money off the B1G and SEC does not IMO take a great deal of financial acumen to pull off.

My position now is that we need to continue to cut unnecessary conference overhead by consolidating. That also gives the conference (any of them) more leverage moving forward.

The ethical and business decision that is before FOX and ESPN is whether to move Oklahoma and Texas to either the SEC or Big 10 and thereby increase the revenue gap between those 2 and the other 3 making essentially P2 and a Psub2 which will continue to alienate fans and result in non competitive play between the PAC / ACC and the B1G/SEC.

It won't make me popular but I'm going to continue to push moving the strongest available product to the PAC to create a 20 team conference that has the 7 closest state schools to the PAC and T.C.U. and to divide the ACC which really only has 1 decent team right now between the SEC and Big 10.

It's the only way to shrink the revenue gap and create a competitive situation.

So you move 6 from the ACC to the Big 10 and 6 from the ACC to the SEC and 8 from the Big 12 to the PAC. That's enough from the Big 12 and ACC to dissolve both conferences and void their GOR's. You reduce duplicated overhead by 2 conference commissioners, all their staff, and you can sell the buildings of both and divide the assets between their former members.

Then your CFP can be the 3 conference champs and 1 at large which will keep all 3 conferences' contending fans energized late into the season. Schedule all P3 games and move the Spring game to mid August and play your local FCS school or a G5 for a pre season game that can be sold as the 7th home game for each P3 school.

It cleans up a lot of mess. If 60 total schools is deemed too few make it 72 and go to 4 divisions of 6 instead of 4 divisions of 5.

But at least you would have some competitive balance. The way we are headed it will be the SEC and Big 10 and nobody else will survive.

(02-01-2020 08:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  My position now is that we need to continue to cut unnecessary conference overhead by consolidating. That also gives the conference (any of them) more leverage moving forward.

The ethical and business decision that is before FOX and ESPN is whether to move Oklahoma and Texas to either the SEC or Big 10 and thereby increase the revenue gap between those 2 and the other 3 making essentially P2 and a Psub2 which will continue to alienate fans and result in non competitive play between the PAC / ACC and the B1G/SEC.

It won't make me popular but I'm going to continue to push moving the strongest available product to the PAC to create a 20 team conference that has the 7 closest state schools to the PAC and T.C.U. and to divide the ACC which really only has 1 decent team right now between the SEC and Big 10.

It's the only way to shrink the revenue gap and create a competitive situation.

So you move 6 from the ACC to the Big 10 and 6 from the ACC to the SEC and 8 from the Big 12 to the PAC. That's enough from the Big 12 and ACC to dissolve both conferences and void their GOR's. You reduce duplicated overhead by 2 conference commissioners, all their staff, and you can sell the buildings of both and divide the assets between their former members.

Then your CFP can be the 3 conference champs and 1 at large which will keep all 3 conferences' contending fans energized late into the season. Schedule all P3 games and move the Spring game to mid August and play your local FCS school or a G5 for a pre season game that can be sold as the 7th home game for each P3 school.

It cleans up a lot of mess. If 60 total schools is deemed too few make it 72 and go to 4 divisions of 6 instead of 4 divisions of 5.

But at least you would have some competitive balance. The way we are headed it will be the SEC and Big 10 and nobody else will survive.

Outside of the PAC12, I don't think the other conferences overhead is that significant. Distributing the conference share to the teams would be a nice bump though for members.

But the bolded is the real issue. And if a bunch of keyboard warriors can understand that moving UTX and OU to the SEC and B1G would severely cripple CFB competitive balance, the folks in Bristol have to know this too. Instead they conspired to derail the P16 that would have addressed this issue.

That is why I lean more towards CFP expansion to 6 or 8 as the solution to this problem. I believe the intractability of the remaining P5 conferences along with the dubious business sense of ESPN would preclude appropriate contraction to P3. To say nothing of the legal ramifications.

In a perfect world, we would see the P5 remain as is and an eight-team playoff. The winners of the five P5 leagues go (with the requirement that each team have at least 10 wins). The "best team" of the G5 is in (it would need at least 12 wins). And then two others (as chosen by the committee with multiple metrics considered). This keeps things stable. But I don't foresee this happening.

Major shifts loom.