I. Conference Perspectives:

Big 10: AAU, Contiguous, Add to Existing Revenue. Possible exceptions: Notre Dame and Oklahoma

Schools Meeting Their Criteria: Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado


SEC: AAU Preferred, Contiguous, Add to Existing Revenue. Possible exceptions: Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas

Schools Meeting Their Criteria: Texas, Oklahoma


PAC: AAU Preferred, Contiguous, Add to Existing Revenue, Markets, and Carriage. Possible Exceptions: Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State

Schools Meeting Their Criteria: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas


ACC: AAU Preferred, Contiguous (It Depends), Add to Existing Revenue, Markets, and Carriage. Possible Exceptions: West Virginia, T.C.U., Baylor

Schools Meeting their Criteria: It Depends But Possibly West Virginia, Texas


Big 12: AAU Preferred, Contiguous Preferred, Add to Existing Revenue, Markets, and the Possible Creation of a Conference Network.
Possible Exceptions: Brigham Young, Anyone with the Right Accompanying PAC 12 Schools.

________________________________________________________

II. Network Perspectives:

Content Value: National Brands which When Joining with National Brands of the Conference They Join, Create Greater Ratings and Payouts for the Networks:

Schools in Play: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Southern Cal, U.C.L.A., Stanford, Oregon, Washington

Schools Which Could Enhance Value But Aren't National Brands: Colorado, an Arizona school, West Virginia


A. FOX's Probable Desires:

Add Texas and/or Oklahoma to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas or Colorado

Secure the Entire PAC Contract with Additions from the Big 12 (Same Cast of Schools)


B. ESPN's Probable Desires:

Add Texas and/or Oklahoma to the SEC possibly with Kansas or Texas Tech, or Oklahoma State.

Secure a School that Adds to the ACC's Value.


________________________________________________________

Other Possible Objectives:

Sculpting the Conferences Into a Format that Naturally Lends Itself to the Adopted Playoff Structure.

By Doing This They Encourage Notre Dame's Full Participation, Eliminate the Need for the Playoff Committee, and Can Standardize P Game Requirements in All Four Remaining Conferences Thereby Guaranteeing All Four Regions of the Nation Being Engaged Throughout the Semi-Finals.

Stabilize the Remaining Conferences. All of This Enhances Revenue Production.

________________________________________________________


Now If You Balance All of These Factors You Will Likely be Much Closer to Realizing a Possible Resolution For the Current Awkwardly Unstable Arrangement.

A Good Guess Involving Building In Some Balance:

ACC: Texas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas Tech

B1G: Notre Dame and Iowa State

SEC: Virginia Tech and N.C. State

PAC: Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

________________________________________________________

Why:

ACC: Absolutely needs a market of 28 million rabid Texas sports fans. What they don't need are in state duplicates which they have too many of already. And Texas won't come without all of their buddies.

B1G: Notre Dame adds nearly a billion in total value and gives the Big 10 absolute control of ad rates in their major cities. Iowa State needs a home and this is the price.

SEC: Their new contract will be so large that as long as ESPN guarantees payouts for the additional 20 million brought in by N.C. State and Virginia Tech they won't care and their top schools will be relieved by two mid-tier programs from new states joining.

PAC: They need branding and they need markets. Oklahoma and Kansas may be amenable to travel if they can protect the other 2 in state schools.

But, the PAC may choose to offer the Texas 4 instead and that will change things if it happens that way, which it could if ESPN lands the rights to the PAC 12 instead of FOX which is what I based the above upon.

So 2nd possibility:

ACC: Locks down West Virginia and Notre Dame.

Big 10: Takes Kansas and Iowa State

SEC: Takes Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

PAC: Takes Texas, Baylor, T.C.U., and Texas Tech

Problems: Big 10 isn't as happy. The ACC gets little more than what they have now. The SEC doubles down in Oklahoma.

I consider the likelihood of Texas heading to the PAC with 3 schools much less likely than Texas heading to the ACC with 3 schools.

But What if Notre Dame refuses the move for double the revenue?

Scenario 3 (Notre Dame refuses the Big 10)

Big 10: Adds Kansas and Missouri

SEC: Adds Virginia Tech and N.C. State and West Virginia

ACC: Adds Texas, Baylor, T.C.U., Texas Tech

PAC: Adds Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

This situation is still passable for the Big 10, workable for the SEC, beneficial for the ACC, and a trade off for the PAC. They lose one brand but are now gaining 3 states. I still think option 1 would be preferable for them if they can't land Texas.


Big 10:

Option 1
Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin
Iowa, Iowa State, Minnesota, Nebraska

Option 2:

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Nebraska

Option 3:
Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska

SEC:

Option 1:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Kentucky, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Tennessee
Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Missouri, Texas A&M

Option 2:
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina
Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State
Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

Option3:
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina
Kentucky, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Alabama, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas A&M

ACC:

Option 1:
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Option 2:
Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Louisville, Notre Dame, Virginia, Virginia Tech
Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami

Option 3:
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
*Notre Dame as a partial


PAC 12:

Option 1:
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal
California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State


Option 2:
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal
California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Baylor, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Option 3:
Arizona, Arizona State, California Los Angeles, Southern Cal
California, Colorado, Stanford, Utah
Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

________________________________________________________

What if Balance Is Not the Motive, but Rather Simply Profit:

Then the SEC and Big 10 will go hard after 4 schools:
Kansas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Texas

Texas and Kansas to the SEC restores rivalries.
Notre Dame and Oklahoma to the Big 10 restores rivalries.

West Virginia and T.C.U. become market adds for the ACC.

The PAC (the poorest paying) has Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech to boost their markets.

Texas won't balk. They get paid handsomely by ESPN until 2031.


I hope this spurs some discussions for this awkward time with no sports.

But limit the discussions to the conference and network perspectives and we'll have some fun.

One conference perspective not listed is increasing basketball status. Though basketball is small potatoes compared to football, basketball also does fill up more hours on the networks, and so does become a, albeit lesser, consideration.

I also think a consideration is the power of individual schools and even people within those schools. For the SEC, that means perhaps figuring out a configuration with A&M in a different division than Texas if need be. It might also mean listening to what Saban thinks about moving Auburn east in other scenarios.

Most importantly will be what Texas thinks. I don't pretend to know the ends and outs of Texas politics, but I wonder how telling the new president will be.

Texas top 10 historical opponents are: A&M, Baylor, OK, Rice, TCU, Arkansas, SMU, Texas Tech, OK St., and Houston. In the top 15 are: Kansas St., Missouri, Colorado, Kansas and Iowa St. LSU is 16 and Nebraska/Tulane are tied for 17. Vandy and Alabama come in at 21/22, but that represents only 10 and 9 games respectively.

Those numbers tell me that rivalry-wise, Texas would have reasonable claim to move to the SEC (Arkansas, Missouri, LSU), but not really the Big 10 (as Nebraska is the top at 17, with Maryland at 36 - only 5 games) being the next school in line. Schools 30, 31, and 33 (Southern Cal, UCLA, and Oregon) are all PAC-12 schools, but so far down the list it doesn't make sense either.

Vs. the ACC, Notre Dame is first at 19, Miami at 41, and then Boston College at 45.

Obviously past and current conference affiliation plays a lot into those numbers, but historically speaking, Texas is in its best possible conference right now - all but WVU are in the top 15, with 5 in the top 10. WVU itself is at 25.

So from a Texas perspective:
Option 1: Stay in Big 12, try to increase value there.
Option 2: Move to the SEC with OK (play your 1, 3, 6, 12, and 16 ranked historical opponents)
Option 3: Move to the SEC with OK and two other schools (TCU is ranked higher historically than Tech, OK St could be an offer of peace? Play 1,3, 12, 14, 16 and one of 5/8/9).
Option 4: Move to Independent, or rebuild a Southwest conference and create a schedule that lets you beat up on Rice/SMU/Houston.
Option 5: Take 3 schools with you to the PAC or ACC.
Option 6: Take ? schools with you to the Big 10.

So, what does OK think?
Rivalry-wise, 2 top 10 teams (Missouri and A&M), are now in the SEC. 1 (Nebraska) is in the Big 10, and 1 (Colorado) is in the PAC-12. All 9 Big 12 teams come in the top 14, with WVU the lowest at 14.

So, OK (rivalry-wise):
Option 1: Stay in the Big 12 and increase value there.
Option 2: Move anywhere with Texas/Ok St. AND Kansas/KSU.
Option 3: Move anywhere with Texas OR OK St. OR Kansas/KSU.

Conclusion: The conference that is willing to pull the trigger on a group of 4 (or more) from the Big 12 will get both Texas and OK.

So, if I am the Big 10, and my priorities are AAU and revenue, I'm looking at Texas and Kansas, and making an exception for OK, but that still means bringing in one more school that is even more of an exception. I'm hesitant.

If I am the SEC: AAU Preferred, Contiguous, and adds to existing revenue means I have no qualms about OK, and Texas/Kansas are both fine, but that fourth school is a question mark: do we take one of Tech/TCU, do we take OK St., would we even consider taking KSU?

If I am the PAC: OK, Texas, and Kansas all three fit, and their "little brothers" are all first tier exceptions. If we just take 4, who is the fourth? Is it worth it to take all six?

The ACC: Texas, OK, and others are fine, but how many will actually lift revenue? Take four? Who is the fourth? Take 6? Are we ready for a twenty team conference?

My guess: The SEC has a slight edge, taking Texas/Kansas and OK/OK St. in separate "expansions" - first with OK/St. and then with Texas/Kansas so as to be able to claim "we wanted to round out our conference with AAU schools, and there wasn't room for TCU/Tech."

However, the PAC can put in a good offer simply by taking on all 6. The SEC money, status and rivalries with Arkansas/LSU/A&M/Missouri, win out.

The next Gain in TV revenues will be by adding Tier I content. Maximizing those matchups will require adding top brand(s) and/or restructuring conference scheduling to allow all these brands to play one another instead of accidentally forming two separate conferences that split a conference title game.

My guess is the SEC offers Oklahoma again. If need be, brings along Oklahoma State to seal the deal. A 3+5 scheduling model will allow the flexibility to play all conference mates in a reasonable amount of time, maintain four nonconf games, and keep three yearly in conference rivals

OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

(04-13-2020 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

I’d even say further legitimizes the Missouri addition, if it needed to be. I like this duo. Let Texas rot itself in the XII, try it out as an independent, or realize their best play is in the SEC.

(04-13-2020 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

I get the concept, but everytime I look at OK St and KSU I am actually impressed. They would be middle of the pack in football and basketball valuation, and lower on attendance, and no they are not AAU or big brands, but they do have value - maybe not as additions on their own like you said, but if they have to tag along, there are certainly worse schools too.

(04-13-2020 04:33 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

I get the concept, but everytime I look at OK St and KSU I am actually impressed. They would be middle of the pack in football and basketball valuation, and lower on attendance, and no they are not AAU or big brands, but they do have value - maybe not as additions on their own like you said, but if they have to tag along, there are certainly worse schools too.

This is why I always recommend the formation of a new conference. The Big 10 and SEC are going to be very reticent to take second state schools from small states.

So if we received Oklahoma and Kansas (which would be a fine addition) the only way those 2 schools will be able to come is if there is a formation of a new P conference that includes their other state school.

Here's the deal. The SEC and Big 10 will only add schools that add to our revenue. Schools that choose to move to those conferences will have to have cover for other state schools to make those moves.

I still wouldn't consider it wholly unlikely if say with so much money at state that there would be movement from the ACC as well as the Big 12 or even instead of the Big 12.

Consider this the ACC is the only conference that spreads across distinct regions without actually dominating either. The Big 10 dominates the Northeast and the SEC dominates the Southeast. So where would their brands be worth more? If ESPN could pick up a larger, or even controlling interest in the Big 10 and still wanted to appease Texas would it not be possible for say Notre Dame and Virginia to head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke head to the SEC?

Can you imagine then what kind of conference the Big 12 could have without considering the PAC at all if they were able to add Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, and either Georgia Tech or Miami?

Or what if the SEC decided to be in Virginia and pick up influence in Florida and added Va Tech and Miami in addition to a North Carolina and Duke?

The Big 10 would be in position to add Pittsburgh and possibly N.C. State. So now we have 2 conferences of 18 both using the ACC exclusively.

It doesn't matter who goes where is my point. Those ACC schools could double their media revenue in either the SEC or B1G. And any that joined the Big 12 would make more as well and therein lies the ability to dissolve the ACC with 12 schools moving for more revenue, or maybe more.

It's actually easier to do because of their Northeastern and Southeastern groupings. All it would take is ESPN being able to capitalize even more off of those schools by moving them.

But even if it is only the Big 12 that suffers losses something has to be done with the remainder schools

This is why I wouldn't rule out a Texas move to the ACC but only if they could take their in state buddies and join in full as a quad. To make room Virginia Tech and N.C. State could move to the SEC without the ACC or ESPN losing market penetration and with the SEC and ESPN gaining access for the SECN in those two states. This would leave Oklahoma and Kansas in a position however to move without their in state rivals unless that move was to the PAC 12 which might take that foursome at this juncture.

Also I wouldn't rule out the Big 10 and SEC both expanding East and West and having a new conference formed from the remnants.

Big 10: Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Virginia
SEC: North Carolina, Duke, Texas, Virginia Tech (Texas Tech if we most)

New Conference: Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

This conference is signed by ESPN which has probably been waiting for a better way to market Brigham Young and is paid roughly what the Big 12 currently makes. That's a raise for the ACC schools and B.Y.U. and leaves no damages for the 7 other Big 12 schools forming it.

The SEC gets leverage over 28 million and advertising with Texas and the Big 10 gets leverage over all Northern Midwestern cities with Notre Dame. The SEC picks up two massive basketball brands and with Virginia Tech another 20 million for the footprint. The Big 10 gets a huge academic add and picks up a football and basketball brand. Both come out quite well without getting a big leg up on each other.

The new conference is highly competitive and has Florida State, and Clemson, West Virginia and Louisville, Oklahoma State, Brigham Young and others as contenders. Personally something like this seems to me to be workable. Who complains if everyone improves their revenue and rivalries are encouraged to be kept: Mizzou/Kansas, Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/TTU, A&M/TTU, OU/OSU, UNC/NCState, Florida/FSU, Georgia/GaTech, Clemson/S.Car, Lou/KY, etc.

What ESPN gets is to keep all current ACC schools except Virginia and Notre Dame as a partial which they surrender for a larger Big 10 share. They get Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina together, and in giving up on Kansas they miss only a small market and Oklahoma is more a Fox product than it is ESPN's. Virginia is not a ratings cash cow.

They still control all of Florida and Texas and every state south of Maryland in a straight line from North Carolina to Missouri and South.

As a long-time fan of SEC member Vanderbilt, I would be very pleased to see the league at VaTech and NCST.

The addition of OU and KU would be more "sexy." But I like the thought of the SEC having a presence in Virginia and North Carolina much more so than the league having members in Oklahoma and Kansas.

Great job, JRsec, with this assessment. I would weigh in a bit more but I'm just seeing this thread and it's 11:15 and I need to retire for the night.

(04-13-2020 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 04:33 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

I get the concept, but everytime I look at OK St and KSU I am actually impressed. They would be middle of the pack in football and basketball valuation, and lower on attendance, and no they are not AAU or big brands, but they do have value - maybe not as additions on their own like you said, but if they have to tag along, there are certainly worse schools too.

This is why I always recommend the formation of a new conference. The Big 10 and SEC are going to be very reticent to take second state schools from small states.

So if we received Oklahoma and Kansas (which would be a fine addition) the only way those 2 schools will be able to come is if there is a formation of a new P conference that includes their other state school.

Here's the deal. The SEC and Big 10 will only add schools that add to our revenue. Schools that choose to move to those conferences will have to have cover for other state schools to make those moves.

I still wouldn't consider it wholly unlikely if say with so much money at state that there would be movement from the ACC as well as the Big 12 or even instead of the Big 12.

Consider this the ACC is the only conference that spreads across distinct regions without actually dominating either. The Big 10 dominates the Northeast and the SEC dominates the Southeast. So where would their brands be worth more? If ESPN could pick up a larger, or even controlling interest in the Big 10 and still wanted to appease Texas would it not be possible for say Notre Dame and Virginia to head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke head to the SEC?

Can you imagine then what kind of conference the Big 12 could have without considering the PAC at all if they were able to add Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, and either Georgia Tech or Miami?

Or what if the SEC decided to be in Virginia and pick up influence in Florida and added Va Tech and Miami in addition to a North Carolina and Duke?

The Big 10 would be in position to add Pittsburgh and possibly N.C. State. So now we have 2 conferences of 18 both using the ACC exclusively.

It doesn't matter who goes where is my point. Those ACC schools could double their media revenue in either the SEC or B1G. And any that joined the Big 12 would make more as well and therein lies the ability to dissolve the ACC with 12 schools moving for more revenue, or maybe more.

It's actually easier to do because of their Northeastern and Southeastern groupings. All it would take is ESPN being able to capitalize even more off of those schools by moving them.

But even if it is only the Big 12 that suffers losses something has to be done with the remainder schools

This is why I wouldn't rule out a Texas move to the ACC but only if they could take their in state buddies and join in full as a quad. To make room Virginia Tech and N.C. State could move to the SEC without the ACC or ESPN losing market penetration and with the SEC and ESPN gaining access for the SECN in those two states. This would leave Oklahoma and Kansas in a position however to move without their in state rivals unless that move was to the PAC 12 which might take that foursome at this juncture.

Also I wouldn't rule out the Big 10 and SEC both expanding East and West and having a new conference formed from the remnants.

Big 10: Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Virginia
SEC: North Carolina, Duke, Texas, Virginia Tech (Texas Tech if we most)

New Conference: Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

This conference is signed by ESPN which has probably been waiting for a better way to market Brigham Young and is paid roughly what the Big 12 currently makes. That's a raise for the ACC schools and B.Y.U. and leaves no damages for the 7 other Big 12 schools forming it.

The SEC gets leverage over 28 million and advertising with Texas and the Big 10 gets leverage over all Northern Midwestern cities with Notre Dame. The SEC picks up two massive basketball brands and with Virginia Tech another 20 million for the footprint. The Big 10 gets a huge academic add and picks up a football and basketball brand. Both come out quite well without getting a big leg up on each other.

The new conference is highly competitive and has Florida State, and Clemson, West Virginia and Louisville, Oklahoma State, Brigham Young and others as contenders. Personally something like this seems to me to be workable. Who complains if everyone improves their revenue and rivalries are encouraged to be kept: Mizzou/Kansas, Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/TTU, A&M/TTU, OU/OSU, UNC/NCState, Florida/FSU, Georgia/GaTech, Clemson/S.Car, Lou/KY, etc.

What ESPN gets is to keep all current ACC schools except Virginia and Notre Dame as a partial which they surrender for a larger Big 10 share. They get Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina together, and in giving up on Kansas they miss only a small market and Oklahoma is more a Fox product than it is ESPN's. Virginia is not a ratings cash cow.

They still control all of Florida and Texas and every state south of Maryland in a straight line from North Carolina to Missouri and South.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you did mention the need to keep rivalries, but I am confused about your proposal. At first you seem to say Texas + buddies to the ACC, but then you put Texas in the SEC without buddies?

Wouldn't Texas rather stay in the new conference/expanded Big 12? It would still have Baylor (their number 2 opponent), TCU (5), Tech (8), OK St. (9), and KSU (11), and ISU (15)?

In that SEC they would get A&M back (maybe?) and Arkansas back, but might find it harder to keep up the OK game or play Tech if Tech isn't also in the SEC, which would mean adding another member to the SEC.

(04-14-2020 09:24 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 05:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 04:33 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(04-13-2020 12:00 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  OU/KU is the ideal expansion for the SEC

-Adds two blue bloods in their respective sports with KU being especially valuable to up the SEC brand in BB
-Adds two new states to the footprint that combined add a Massachusetts worth of population
-Adds another AAU for the presidents
-Shores up SEC control in KC and DFW
-Takes away the B12s legitimacy in FB and BB

All in a slim, aerodynamic package of two schools with no conference killing egos or unnecessary little brother political tagalongs that could never get into the SEC on their own.

I get the concept, but everytime I look at OK St and KSU I am actually impressed. They would be middle of the pack in football and basketball valuation, and lower on attendance, and no they are not AAU or big brands, but they do have value - maybe not as additions on their own like you said, but if they have to tag along, there are certainly worse schools too.

This is why I always recommend the formation of a new conference. The Big 10 and SEC are going to be very reticent to take second state schools from small states.

So if we received Oklahoma and Kansas (which would be a fine addition) the only way those 2 schools will be able to come is if there is a formation of a new P conference that includes their other state school.

Here's the deal. The SEC and Big 10 will only add schools that add to our revenue. Schools that choose to move to those conferences will have to have cover for other state schools to make those moves.

I still wouldn't consider it wholly unlikely if say with so much money at state that there would be movement from the ACC as well as the Big 12 or even instead of the Big 12.

Consider this the ACC is the only conference that spreads across distinct regions without actually dominating either. The Big 10 dominates the Northeast and the SEC dominates the Southeast. So where would their brands be worth more? If ESPN could pick up a larger, or even controlling interest in the Big 10 and still wanted to appease Texas would it not be possible for say Notre Dame and Virginia to head to the Big 10 and North Carolina and Duke head to the SEC?

Can you imagine then what kind of conference the Big 12 could have without considering the PAC at all if they were able to add Louisville, Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Clemson, Florida State, and either Georgia Tech or Miami?

Or what if the SEC decided to be in Virginia and pick up influence in Florida and added Va Tech and Miami in addition to a North Carolina and Duke?

The Big 10 would be in position to add Pittsburgh and possibly N.C. State. So now we have 2 conferences of 18 both using the ACC exclusively.

It doesn't matter who goes where is my point. Those ACC schools could double their media revenue in either the SEC or B1G. And any that joined the Big 12 would make more as well and therein lies the ability to dissolve the ACC with 12 schools moving for more revenue, or maybe more.

It's actually easier to do because of their Northeastern and Southeastern groupings. All it would take is ESPN being able to capitalize even more off of those schools by moving them.

But even if it is only the Big 12 that suffers losses something has to be done with the remainder schools

This is why I wouldn't rule out a Texas move to the ACC but only if they could take their in state buddies and join in full as a quad. To make room Virginia Tech and N.C. State could move to the SEC without the ACC or ESPN losing market penetration and with the SEC and ESPN gaining access for the SECN in those two states. This would leave Oklahoma and Kansas in a position however to move without their in state rivals unless that move was to the PAC 12 which might take that foursome at this juncture.

Also I wouldn't rule out the Big 10 and SEC both expanding East and West and having a new conference formed from the remnants.

Big 10: Oklahoma, Kansas, Notre Dame, Virginia
SEC: North Carolina, Duke, Texas, Virginia Tech (Texas Tech if we most)

New Conference: Baylor, Brigham Young, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, T.C.U., Texas Tech
Boston College, Iowa State, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest

This conference is signed by ESPN which has probably been waiting for a better way to market Brigham Young and is paid roughly what the Big 12 currently makes. That's a raise for the ACC schools and B.Y.U. and leaves no damages for the 7 other Big 12 schools forming it.

The SEC gets leverage over 28 million and advertising with Texas and the Big 10 gets leverage over all Northern Midwestern cities with Notre Dame. The SEC picks up two massive basketball brands and with Virginia Tech another 20 million for the footprint. The Big 10 gets a huge academic add and picks up a football and basketball brand. Both come out quite well without getting a big leg up on each other.

The new conference is highly competitive and has Florida State, and Clemson, West Virginia and Louisville, Oklahoma State, Brigham Young and others as contenders. Personally something like this seems to me to be workable. Who complains if everyone improves their revenue and rivalries are encouraged to be kept: Mizzou/Kansas, Texas/Oklahoma, Texas/TTU, A&M/TTU, OU/OSU, UNC/NCState, Florida/FSU, Georgia/GaTech, Clemson/S.Car, Lou/KY, etc.

What ESPN gets is to keep all current ACC schools except Virginia and Notre Dame as a partial which they surrender for a larger Big 10 share. They get Kentucky, Duke and North Carolina together, and in giving up on Kansas they miss only a small market and Oklahoma is more a Fox product than it is ESPN's. Virginia is not a ratings cash cow.

They still control all of Florida and Texas and every state south of Maryland in a straight line from North Carolina to Missouri and South.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, and you did mention the need to keep rivalries, but I am confused about your proposal. At first you seem to say Texas + buddies to the ACC, but then you put Texas in the SEC without buddies?

Wouldn't Texas rather stay in the new conference/expanded Big 12? It would still have Baylor (their number 2 opponent), TCU (5), Tech (8), OK St. (9), and KSU (11), and ISU (15)?

In that SEC they would get A&M back (maybe?) and Arkansas back, but might find it harder to keep up the OK game or play Tech if Tech isn't also in the SEC, which would mean adding another member to the SEC.

Didn't mean to be confusing. I was giving various permutations on how movement could happen, not just one model.

If the ACC wants Texas they likely are going to have to make room for at least 3 of their buddies. If that's the case and they want to stay at 16 they need to make room. If they don't they won't get Texas and the Horns may indeed stay in the Big 12 and wait for the SEC and Big 10 to look at the ACC. There's a lot of different ways this could play out even though limited movement is left (meaning likely one more period of moving, not referencing only a few schools will move). We could see a few schools move or some much larger changes but I do think we will only have one more set of moves and then things will remain static for a long time.