CSNbbs
If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SECbbs (/forum-285.html)
+---- Forum: SEC Conference Talk (/forum-246.html)
+---- Thread: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? (/thread-639096.html)



RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-07-2017 08:46 PM

Well with ESPN likely to be the beneficiary of RSN of FOX falling into their lap from Disney's bigger grab of FOX movie rights, ESPN will finally be able to resolve the Big 12's T3 rights issues. So the question is do they utilize the LHN to become a Big 12 network, or do they simply roll them over into the SECN, or future ACCN, or both?

Now more than before the possibility of sculpting two 18 member conferences is in their hands.

I suppose there are several ways to do it.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and West Virginia could head to the SEC and Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and T.C.U. could join the ACC.

Or the ACC could add Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia and Notre Dame could join in full and the SEC could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Or the SEC could add Oklahoma & Oklahoma State along with N.C. State & Virginia Tech leaving the ACC the option to add a Western division of 6: Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

But truly those are rather unnatural and violate the essentials of what will dictate future movement.

Why not simply add 4: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and create a third division of 6 within the SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

This is where we need to go!

If the Big 10 wants Kansas then great. If they want Iowa State then splendid. If the ACC takes West Virginia fantastic. But the 4 I listed for the SEC gives us three distinct and geographically suitable divisions which are all relatively well balanced.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - murrdcu - 12-07-2017 10:02 PM

(12-07-2017 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well with ESPN likely to be the beneficiary of RSN of FOX falling into their lap from Disney's bigger grab of FOX movie rights, ESPN will finally be able to resolve the Big 12's T3 rights issues. So the question is do they utilize the LHN to become a Big 12 network, or do they simply roll them over into the SECN, or future ACCN, or both?

Now more than before the possibility of sculpting two 18 member conferences is in their hands.

I suppose there are several ways to do it.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and West Virginia could head to the SEC and Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and T.C.U. could join the ACC.

Or the ACC could add Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia and Notre Dame could join in full and the SEC could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Or the SEC could add Oklahoma & Oklahoma State along with N.C. State & Virginia Tech leaving the ACC the option to add a Western division of 6: Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

But truly those are rather unnatural and violate the essentials of what will dictate future movement.

Why not simply add 4: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and create a third division of 6 within the SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

This is where we need to go!

If the Big 10 wants Kansas then great. If they want Iowa State then splendid. If the ACC takes West Virginia fantastic. But the 4 I listed for the SEC gives us three distinct and geographically suitable divisions which are all relatively well balanced.

Left us with all kinds of combos up there. I think if the SEC expanded beyond 16, conference playoffs would be required. Also, with a rotating pod system or a rivals/non-rival rotation would be required to actually play all the other members in football within a reasonable time frame.

Anyway, I think there are two ways to brake up B12 assists into the SEC: with Texas or without.

Without Texas: OU, OSU, KU, WVU, VT, NCSt

With Texas: UT, Tech, OU, OSU....possibly with KU and WVU.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-07-2017 10:11 PM

(12-07-2017 10:02 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 08:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Well with ESPN likely to be the beneficiary of RSN of FOX falling into their lap from Disney's bigger grab of FOX movie rights, ESPN will finally be able to resolve the Big 12's T3 rights issues. So the question is do they utilize the LHN to become a Big 12 network, or do they simply roll them over into the SECN, or future ACCN, or both?

Now more than before the possibility of sculpting two 18 member conferences is in their hands.

I suppose there are several ways to do it.

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas and West Virginia could head to the SEC and Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and T.C.U. could join the ACC.

Or the ACC could add Baylor, T.C.U., West Virginia and Notre Dame could join in full and the SEC could add Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Oklahoma State.

Or the SEC could add Oklahoma & Oklahoma State along with N.C. State & Virginia Tech leaving the ACC the option to add a Western division of 6: Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

But truly those are rather unnatural and violate the essentials of what will dictate future movement.

Why not simply add 4: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and create a third division of 6 within the SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas Tech

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

This is where we need to go!

If the Big 10 wants Kansas then great. If they want Iowa State then splendid. If the ACC takes West Virginia fantastic. But the 4 I listed for the SEC gives us three distinct and geographically suitable divisions which are all relatively well balanced.

Left us with all kinds of combos up there. I think if the SEC expanded beyond 16, conference playoffs would be required. Also, with a rotating pod system or a rivals/non-rival rotation would be required to actually play all the other members in football within a reasonable time frame.

Anyway, I think there are two ways to brake up B12 assists into the SEC: with Texas or without.

Without Texas: OU, OSU, KU, WVU, VT, NCSt

With Texas: UT, Tech, OU, OSU....possibly with KU and WVU.

You have two options for the conference playoffs with 3 divisions.
1. You take the two division champs with the best records and have a championship game.
2. You take the three division champs and the best at large and have semis & a championship.

As for 3 divisions and playing everyone it's simple. 9 conference games will do it.
You play your 5 division games and rotate 2 games a year each from the other two divisions. If we still need a permanent rival we can have 10 conference games with that permanent rival being the 10th. You play everyone every three years.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-08-2017 11:43 PM

The potential for ESPN to acquire those properties is perhaps the most fascinating development in realignment in recent memory. At least, it is to me.

They'd essentially own the Big 12's 3rd tier rights all the way around. The potential for acquiring the PAC's rights would skyrocket, I think. There's even potential for getting the BTN one day.

Especially considering how much content ESPN owns that isn't P5, they could really have a nice platform to utilize it in markets across the country that would care about it. That's as opposed to their typical approach of making every game a national event. Check out WatchESPN at any given time and see the ridiculous number of games they have available.

Purely from a standpoint of distribution, I would hope though that they bring a little more organization to the RSN system though. FOX is always pretty haphazard with everything they do while ESPN could squeeze it for what it's worth.

The question will be for ESPN, given their extensive platform, what realignment moves make the most sense for the bottom line?

If they own pretty much everything then that could change the equation...


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-09-2017 12:08 AM

(12-08-2017 11:43 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  The potential for ESPN to acquire those properties is perhaps the most fascinating development in realignment in recent memory. At least, it is to me.

They'd essentially own the Big 12's 3rd tier rights all the way around. The potential for acquiring the PAC's rights would skyrocket, I think. There's even potential for getting the BTN one day.

Especially considering how much content ESPN owns that isn't P5, they could really have a nice platform to utilize it in markets across the country that would care about it. That's as opposed to their typical approach of making every game a national event. Check out WatchESPN at any given time and see the ridiculous number of games they have available.

Purely from a standpoint of distribution, I would hope though that they bring a little more organization to the RSN system though. FOX is always pretty haphazard with everything they do while ESPN could squeeze it for what it's worth.

The question will be for ESPN, given their extensive platform, what realignment moves make the most sense for the bottom line?

If they own pretty much everything then that could change the equation...

I could see them buying the FOX portion of the Big 10 out. I still have my doubts about the PAC. Here's why. The two most populated areas of the country are in bed before the PAC finishes and ESPN leases half of that property which is ample to cover the slots they require. What's more is ESPN is responsible or 0% of the overhead there. It's the cheapest product lease for them possible. Why buy the cow when you already get the milk?

Where I agree is that it would make final moves to 16 or 18 member conferences very manageable in house, so to speak.

There are some interesting twists however that might arise from the PAC, it's low viewership numbers, and it's lack of desire to change, and their recalcitrance in selling a piece of their network for distribution. One way around all of that would be enticing PAC members to leave.

Colorado would make a fine Big 10 school.

Utah and the two Arizona's would not be out of the question for an expanding Big 12.

Would U.S.C. and U.C.L.A. be interested in moving too? If the monetizing of the LHN being converted into a Big 12 Network is high enough then perhaps. If the PAC suddenly dropped down to 7 members they would have a year to grow or go. Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and Cal could make a transition to the Big 10. If Colorado made the move as well then perhaps Utah takes them to 20. Brigham Young and Colorado State then round out a Big 12 move to 16. Toss in New Mexico and West Virginia is off off to the SEC or ACC.

If however the PAC does come on board then the parsing of the Big 12 is finally possible.

Would the SEC take Oklahoma and O.S.U. to get to 16 and the Big 10 take Iowa State and Kansas to do the same if we were moving to a Champ's only model?

Would West Virginia join Notre Dame to round out the ACC since N.D.'s access otherwise would be at an end?

Would Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. and KState head to the PAC for more carriage and the promise of a more equitable payout for the PAC?

I think maybe so. But we'll see. However I do agree the variables were just multiplied and the end of realignment is in sight if ESPN does wind up with the PAC.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-09-2017 12:50 AM

(12-09-2017 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think maybe so. But we'll see. However I do agree the variables were just multiplied and the end of realignment is in sight if ESPN does wind up with the PAC.

That's really my angle. If purchasing the PAC makes reorganizing the entire landscape easier then it might be worth it. Get the PAC and you get the rest of it so to speak.

That and if ESPN wants decent content for their RSNs in the West then it wouldn't hurt to have the PAC on board even if people in the East aren't watching very much. Really, the PAC's only other choice would be to go all in with FOX and hope what little exposure that network gives them is enough to keep from being raided.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-09-2017 02:12 AM

(12-09-2017 12:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think maybe so. But we'll see. However I do agree the variables were just multiplied and the end of realignment is in sight if ESPN does wind up with the PAC.

That's really my angle. If purchasing the PAC makes reorganizing the entire landscape easier then it might be worth it. Get the PAC and you get the rest of it so to speak.

That and if ESPN wants decent content for their RSNs in the West then it wouldn't hurt to have the PAC on board even if people in the East aren't watching very much. Really, the PAC's only other choice would be to go all in with FOX and hope what little exposure that network gives them is enough to keep from being raided.

Don't you get the feeling that FOX is waiving the white flag on their pursuit of college football? What I think they get out of this is a much broader inventory to sublease from ESPN without having the overhead of rights deals. Face it, if Fox doesn't bid against ESPN then the Mouse gets the Big 10 and PAC rights for less, rearranges the college football world into those 4 regional conferences that guarantees each CFP involves all areas of the country, and they sublet all the games that FOX wants without regard to confining FOX to just half of the PAC, half of the Big 12, and roughly a little more than half of the Big 10. Now FOX can take a marketable SEC / ACC / Big 10 / & PAC game for each of its time slots. So you have 4 stations airing the games of the 4 conferences for each of their time slots on Saturday. CBS gets the #1 pick of the SEC right now but what if ESPN bids for that too in 2024? Or what if CBS doesn't bid and simply sublets their 2:30 game from ESPN every week? If ESPN sublets to FOX / NBC / ABC / & CBS they can sell up to 8 more mid afternoon and early night games. They make the #2 choice for ESPN and the #5 choice for ESPN2 each week and keep 8 games from the 4 power conferences. Then the conference networks pick 2 each and any left over are available for streaming services to run.

Heck they could even bid out the top selections every week and since they own the bowls they can sublet them as well.

And what's more, the best of basketball follows suit and they have the best of college baseball to air as well and complete coverage of the softball from regionals to finals.

That's a lot of product.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-09-2017 09:26 AM

(12-09-2017 02:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 12:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think maybe so. But we'll see. However I do agree the variables were just multiplied and the end of realignment is in sight if ESPN does wind up with the PAC.

That's really my angle. If purchasing the PAC makes reorganizing the entire landscape easier then it might be worth it. Get the PAC and you get the rest of it so to speak.

That and if ESPN wants decent content for their RSNs in the West then it wouldn't hurt to have the PAC on board even if people in the East aren't watching very much. Really, the PAC's only other choice would be to go all in with FOX and hope what little exposure that network gives them is enough to keep from being raided.

Don't you get the feeling that FOX is waiving the white flag on their pursuit of college football? What I think they get out of this is a much broader inventory to sublease from ESPN without having the overhead of rights deals. Face it, if Fox doesn't bid against ESPN then the Mouse gets the Big 10 and PAC rights for less, rearranges the college football world into those 4 regional conferences that guarantees each CFP involves all areas of the country, and they sublet all the games that FOX wants without regard to confining FOX to just half of the PAC, half of the Big 12, and roughly a little more than half of the Big 10. Now FOX can take a marketable SEC / ACC / Big 10 / & PAC game for each of its time slots. So you have 4 stations airing the games of the 4 conferences for each of their time slots on Saturday. CBS gets the #1 pick of the SEC right now but what if ESPN bids for that too in 2024? Or what if CBS doesn't bid and simply sublets their 2:30 game from ESPN every week? If ESPN sublets to FOX / NBC / ABC / & CBS they can sell up to 8 more mid afternoon and early night games. They make the #2 choice for ESPN and the #5 choice for ESPN2 each week and keep 8 games from the 4 power conferences. Then the conference networks pick 2 each and any left over are available for streaming services to run.

Heck they could even bid out the top selections every week and since they own the bowls they can sublet them as well.

And what's more, the best of basketball follows suit and they have the best of college baseball to air as well and complete coverage of the softball from regionals to finals.

That's a lot of product.

It does feel like that, yes.

FS1 never got as much distribution as ESPN did. FS2 is unavailable on a lot of packages. For the rest, outside of BTN, the other channels they have seem nonexistent.

Considering everything 21st Century Fox might be selling, sounds like they're streamlining. I'm a little surprised by that as I figured every major media company would end up with their own OTT service to offer their content. FOX looks like they want to rely on nothing but sports, news, and whatever they stick on the FOX broadcast network. I'm not savvy enough to understand why they would want to go in that direction, but I suppose they think simpler is better...at least right now.

The thing I've always wondered about Fox Sports is being that they were overpaying for everything in order to buy into the market, would it pay off in the long run? Maybe they decided it wasn't going to work and that bidding up everything just to compete with ESPN wasn't a battle worth winning?

On the flip side, seems like Disney is buying out the competition more than anything which could save them a lot of money when it comes to sports rights fees. That alone could justify the expenditure.

I'm not sure ESPN would lease out very many games if they gain so much control though...

1. I'm not sure FOX or any other network will have a large enough platform to make the expenditure worthwhile.

2. ESPN could probably jack up the price for their OTT service if they've got a number of games you can't catch anywhere else.

3. Probably most importantly, their RSN network would allow them to tailor their broadcast schedule to max out ratings. The biggest games would be on the national channels, but most of the others could be reserved for regional broadcasts. Kind of like how the major pro sports use these RSNs to broadcast in-market games. They're all on at the same time basically so it makes sense from that perspective.

What makes even more sense is that it gives ESPN the leverage to offer an "out of market" package. That's essentially what all the major pro sports do. They confine their biggest games to national broadcasts and show most of their content locally, BUT they will offer you a separate package(for a nominal fee of course) if you live outside the market where your favorite teams are. And these days, with people moving all over the country, this is an easy way to take advantage of demand and keep overhead low.

That sort of option could be constructed a lot of different ways, but I bet you would see something like that.

4. The conferences will still want as much good content on their channels as they can get because they directly profit from that.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-09-2017 03:41 PM

(12-09-2017 09:26 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 02:12 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 12:50 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I think maybe so. But we'll see. However I do agree the variables were just multiplied and the end of realignment is in sight if ESPN does wind up with the PAC.

That's really my angle. If purchasing the PAC makes reorganizing the entire landscape easier then it might be worth it. Get the PAC and you get the rest of it so to speak.

That and if ESPN wants decent content for their RSNs in the West then it wouldn't hurt to have the PAC on board even if people in the East aren't watching very much. Really, the PAC's only other choice would be to go all in with FOX and hope what little exposure that network gives them is enough to keep from being raided.

Don't you get the feeling that FOX is waiving the white flag on their pursuit of college football? What I think they get out of this is a much broader inventory to sublease from ESPN without having the overhead of rights deals. Face it, if Fox doesn't bid against ESPN then the Mouse gets the Big 10 and PAC rights for less, rearranges the college football world into those 4 regional conferences that guarantees each CFP involves all areas of the country, and they sublet all the games that FOX wants without regard to confining FOX to just half of the PAC, half of the Big 12, and roughly a little more than half of the Big 10. Now FOX can take a marketable SEC / ACC / Big 10 / & PAC game for each of its time slots. So you have 4 stations airing the games of the 4 conferences for each of their time slots on Saturday. CBS gets the #1 pick of the SEC right now but what if ESPN bids for that too in 2024? Or what if CBS doesn't bid and simply sublets their 2:30 game from ESPN every week? If ESPN sublets to FOX / NBC / ABC / & CBS they can sell up to 8 more mid afternoon and early night games. They make the #2 choice for ESPN and the #5 choice for ESPN2 each week and keep 8 games from the 4 power conferences. Then the conference networks pick 2 each and any left over are available for streaming services to run.

Heck they could even bid out the top selections every week and since they own the bowls they can sublet them as well.

And what's more, the best of basketball follows suit and they have the best of college baseball to air as well and complete coverage of the softball from regionals to finals.

That's a lot of product.

It does feel like that, yes.

FS1 never got as much distribution as ESPN did. FS2 is unavailable on a lot of packages. For the rest, outside of BTN, the other channels they have seem nonexistent.

Considering everything 21st Century Fox might be selling, sounds like they're streamlining. I'm a little surprised by that as I figured every major media company would end up with their own OTT service to offer their content. FOX looks like they want to rely on nothing but sports, news, and whatever they stick on the FOX broadcast network. I'm not savvy enough to understand why they would want to go in that direction, but I suppose they think simpler is better...at least right now.

The thing I've always wondered about Fox Sports is being that they were overpaying for everything in order to buy into the market, would it pay off in the long run? Maybe they decided it wasn't going to work and that bidding up everything just to compete with ESPN wasn't a battle worth winning?

On the flip side, seems like Disney is buying out the competition more than anything which could save them a lot of money when it comes to sports rights fees. That alone could justify the expenditure.

I'm not sure ESPN would lease out very many games if they gain so much control though...

1. I'm not sure FOX or any other network will have a large enough platform to make the expenditure worthwhile.

2. ESPN could probably jack up the price for their OTT service if they've got a number of games you can't catch anywhere else.

3. Probably most importantly, their RSN network would allow them to tailor their broadcast schedule to max out ratings. The biggest games would be on the national channels, but most of the others could be reserved for regional broadcasts. Kind of like how the major pro sports use these RSNs to broadcast in-market games. They're all on at the same time basically so it makes sense from that perspective.

What makes even more sense is that it gives ESPN the leverage to offer an "out of market" package. That's essentially what all the major pro sports do. They confine their biggest games to national broadcasts and show most of their content locally, BUT they will offer you a separate package(for a nominal fee of course) if you live outside the market where your favorite teams are. And these days, with people moving all over the country, this is an easy way to take advantage of demand and keep overhead low.

That sort of option could be constructed a lot of different ways, but I bet you would see something like that.

4. The conferences will still want as much good content on their channels as they can get because they directly profit from that.

Seriously, what if the PAC doesn't play ball and they get nibbled away. It could change realignment thought altogether.

Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington

Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State


Big 10:

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers


SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia


ACC:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami


That's not too bad really.


If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Transic_nyc - 12-10-2017 08:21 PM

(12-09-2017 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously, what if the PAC doesn't play ball and they get nibbled away. It could change realignment thought altogether.

Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington

Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State


Big 10:

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers


SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia


ACC:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami


That's not too bad really.

It would fittingly ironic for the PAC to break up due to their inflexibility contributing to their failure to finish off the Big 12 when they had the chance. Yes, Texas has the LHN issue but Larry Scott should have stood up to the Pac-12 presidents and negotiate a deal for the Texahoma foursome. They may believe that there would not be necessarily a Power 4 in the future or they may not think it would matter all that much but, as you've said many times, money and time pressure carry their own momentum not controlled by academic eggheads.

The thing I see if I don't know if Kansas would choose the Big Ten over a Big 12 that brings over several top-notch AAU schools and new markets from Phoenix to Seattle. Yes, the Big Ten would have time zone advantages over that expanded Big 12 but also would mean playing a lot of games on the Eastern seaboard, which is a good distance from Lawrence. Also, schools in that part of Big 12 country are very traditionalist in outlook. A lot of Kansas fans are still unhappy over Nebraska and Colorado (maybe not as much Mizzou) leaving. They would not be able to play Iowa State, Texas and Oklahoma yearly and may just be able to swing a deal to play Kansas State OOC if they leave.

I'm interested in what kind of deal Disney would make with the Fox people (if it ever happens at all). With a lot of RSNs in the Midwest there's a question over whether they may think BTN may be worth a buy. What would eventually happen with BTN after a sale, anyway?


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-11-2017 11:50 AM

In order to raid the PAC, I think ESPN would first have to make a significant investment in the Big 12 including but not limited to giving them a network. Once that is done then the tide turns if you will. Instead of buying the PAC Network they can just let the thing go defunct...it can't be worth that much anyway.

I think Texas would be amenable to reworking the LHN contract if they knew PAC schools were coming aboard. So creating a Big 12 Network using that entity wouldn't be that difficult or costly.

If they take the key properties of the PAC at that point then a P4 could be established and ESPN would soon dominate every region. Then all the advantages of the RSNs start to come into play.

I don't know that you'd see a full on shuffling though. That would seem to involve too many moving parts to really make the schools all that happy about their destinations.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-13-2017 12:31 AM

(12-10-2017 08:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously, what if the PAC doesn't play ball and they get nibbled away. It could change realignment thought altogether.

Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington

Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State


Big 10:

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers


SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia


ACC:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami


That's not too bad really.

It would fittingly ironic for the PAC to break up due to their inflexibility contributing to their failure to finish off the Big 12 when they had the chance. Yes, Texas has the LHN issue but Larry Scott should have stood up to the Pac-12 presidents and negotiate a deal for the Texahoma foursome. They may believe that there would not be necessarily a Power 4 in the future or they may not think it would matter all that much but, as you've said many times, money and time pressure carry their own momentum not controlled by academic eggheads.

The thing I see if I don't know if Kansas would choose the Big Ten over a Big 12 that brings over several top-notch AAU schools and new markets from Phoenix to Seattle. Yes, the Big Ten would have time zone advantages over that expanded Big 12 but also would mean playing a lot of games on the Eastern seaboard, which is a good distance from Lawrence. Also, schools in that part of Big 12 country are very traditionalist in outlook. A lot of Kansas fans are still unhappy over Nebraska and Colorado (maybe not as much Mizzou) leaving. They would not be able to play Iowa State, Texas and Oklahoma yearly and may just be able to swing a deal to play Kansas State OOC if they leave.

I'm interested in what kind of deal Disney would make with the Fox people (if it ever happens at all). With a lot of RSNs in the Midwest there's a question over whether they may think BTN may be worth a buy. What would eventually happen with BTN after a sale, anyway?

I think Kansas might choose the Big 10 West because it would be a relatively easy division to win in hoops with a decent RPI. Plus the hoops fans of the Big 10 would be a huge step up for that program, especially the programs in the East. And remember that Kansas, like Michigan State, Kentucky, and North Carolina recruits nationally. They have their ties to the South and their OOC schedule could continue to hold games like Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, etc, but through the Big 10 they not only have a presence in the Northern Midwest, but now along the Atlantic Coast and New England. And the CIC (whatever it's called now) would be an incentive for them.

As to the BTN it essentially would give Disney all of the key Conference Networks which would be an advertising coup. A bundled package of the B12N, SECN, ACCN, and BTN would be a heckuva four successive channel lineup. It gives them a national interest by having them bundled but allows them to target advertising to each of the regions. The SEC & B1G would still be the leaders but the B12 & ACC would close the gap a bit. It would be healthy for the game, particularly if we could institute a champs only model for the CFP and extend the conference playoffs to semis & finals.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - Transic_nyc - 12-13-2017 01:27 AM

Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-13-2017 04:18 AM

(12-13-2017 01:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.
To make sense of it all you have to do is follow the folly to realize it's a haphazard developing conspiracy and there's nothing grand about it. Imagine that all of the following is true.03-wink

Delaney and the Big 10 add Penn State. The Big East's dreams of landing them are shot. ESPN takes notice.

Roy Kramer wants the SEC to profit by a loophole rule established for lower levels of the NCAA and adds two schools so he can have a CCG. Secretly he tries to move to 16 taking the cream of the programs on his perimeter. ESPN in its infancy of trying to cobble together respect for the ACC learns of the plan when valuations are sought by the SEC so they divert an important burgeoning program to build the ACC cred and F.S.U. joins the ACC.

Delaney rejects a contract with ESPN and starts his own network (independent at first).

ESPN realizes that he will need strong Northeast markets to make it really work so they start bleeding the Big East to try to sew up product Delaney might like and in the meantime they let him fumble with carriage issues they don't lift a finger to help.

So Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech get poached first and ESPN parks them in the closest and cheapest parking lot they can. Connecticut threatens to sue and ticks of what might have been their future home (the ACC).

People, including the network scoff at the CCG idea of the SEC. So the SEC makes a ton of money on it and the idea catches on.

Delaney says, "I got to have me some CCG money too!" So in order to accomplish this end they take Nebraska. Ouch! With ESPN having covered the better football properties of the Big East by parking them in the ACC and with them thinking that things were sewed up enough to prevent Big J1M from improving the outlook for his private network Nebraska comes as a big surprise. I mean they knew that Texas and A&M and Oklahoma were in talks with the SEC in '91, but they thought all of that died down with the disintegration of the SWC and the birth of the Big 12. Holy Huskers Batman how in the hell did Jim land Nebraska? What else is afoot?

Scott sees this and makes a play for Texahoma. When that falls through he takes Colorado and Utah. Now he's got his CCG too! A&M remembers their talks with the SEC and ESPN warms up to a huge plan to move Missouri & A&M to the SEC and to pull Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame right out from under FOX and NBC and really build a valuable product out of the ACC. But it's going to cost the ACC markets for the SEC with N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving over. Chapel Hill counts the division of votes with the new fantastic four and the football first schools and bails on the deal.

The LHN is born to lasso Bevo but it pisses off A&M and the Big 12 brethren.

ESPN panics and Missouri and A&M go ahead and join the SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse are scarfed up and Notre Dame wangles a partial deal like they had in the Big East.

Fearful of losing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ESPN pursues sweet T3 deals but OU signs one with FOX. Things are precarious for landing that top product and Texas may bolt West with OU on the second round of Texahoma talks only this time it would be Tech and OSU with UT and OU anyway so T.C.U. and WVU join the Big 12 and a GOR is slapped in place.

Maryland bolts for money they had hoped to make when the Fantastic Four coming on board fell through making the ACC shaky so Louisville is added and a GOR slapped into place.

So the PAX of Mouse settles in with all the GOR's and sweet T3 deals, but no ACCN because the programs needed to pull it off were rejected.

Meanwhile Newbie FOX gets a wake up call as to how ESPN was going to scoop the goody out of the Big 12 so they get proactive and buy into the BTN and a network cold war settles over the field. Problem is it cost them a lot of money for a 51% stake and they still don't have a dog in the hunt in the Southeast where between the SEC, ACC, and AAC ESPN has all of the property sewed up.

Enter technology which makes the old cable market model suddenly vulnerable and probably obsolete in short order.

The brakes are slammed to the floor and realignment halts until probably 2021-23.

Then the proposed Disney FOX deal is hatched and if it goes through resolution fo the LHN (which heretofore has been the source of major discontent in that conference) becomes resolvable since all of the Big 12 T3 would be in ESPN's hands and the creation of the Big 12N becomes a real possibility.

Meanwhile the changing pay model and the lack of carriage for the PACN has the West Coasters in a financial drought when it comes to TV revenue. Maybe this PACN thing isn't going to pay off after all. Maybe something else is needed.

So you see there was never a grand plan, but there were plenty of backroom manipulations going on, but not by brainiacs but by fumble fisted reactionaries responding to unfolding events.

And lost in all of that is a 1970's model for how Super Conferences of 16 could maximize market penetration.

So duh! Maybe it happens or maybe it doesn't, but the tumblers have never been more aligned for resolution to such a set up as right now. If the don't screw it up it might finally actually happen.

Stay tuned boys and girls! Same Mouse Time! Same Mouse Channels!


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-13-2017 05:48 AM

(12-13-2017 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2017 08:21 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-09-2017 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Seriously, what if the PAC doesn't play ball and they get nibbled away. It could change realignment thought altogether.

Big 12:

Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Los Angeles, Southern Cal

California, Oregon, Stanford, Washington

Baylor, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State


Big 10:

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska

Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers


SEC:

Arkansas, Missouri, Texas A&M, T.C.U.

Alabama, L.S.U., Mississippi, Mississippi State

Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt

Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia


ACC:

Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Syracuse

Louisville, Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Duke, North Carolina, N.C. State, Wake Forest

Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami


That's not too bad really.

It would fittingly ironic for the PAC to break up due to their inflexibility contributing to their failure to finish off the Big 12 when they had the chance. Yes, Texas has the LHN issue but Larry Scott should have stood up to the Pac-12 presidents and negotiate a deal for the Texahoma foursome. They may believe that there would not be necessarily a Power 4 in the future or they may not think it would matter all that much but, as you've said many times, money and time pressure carry their own momentum not controlled by academic eggheads.

The thing I see if I don't know if Kansas would choose the Big Ten over a Big 12 that brings over several top-notch AAU schools and new markets from Phoenix to Seattle. Yes, the Big Ten would have time zone advantages over that expanded Big 12 but also would mean playing a lot of games on the Eastern seaboard, which is a good distance from Lawrence. Also, schools in that part of Big 12 country are very traditionalist in outlook. A lot of Kansas fans are still unhappy over Nebraska and Colorado (maybe not as much Mizzou) leaving. They would not be able to play Iowa State, Texas and Oklahoma yearly and may just be able to swing a deal to play Kansas State OOC if they leave.

I'm interested in what kind of deal Disney would make with the Fox people (if it ever happens at all). With a lot of RSNs in the Midwest there's a question over whether they may think BTN may be worth a buy. What would eventually happen with BTN after a sale, anyway?

I think Kansas might choose the Big 10 West because it would be a relatively easy division to win in hoops with a decent RPI. Plus the hoops fans of the Big 10 would be a huge step up for that program, especially the programs in the East. And remember that Kansas, like Michigan State, Kentucky, and North Carolina recruits nationally. They have their ties to the South and their OOC schedule could continue to hold games like Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, etc, but through the Big 10 they not only have a presence in the Northern Midwest, but now along the Atlantic Coast and New England. And the CIC (whatever it's called now) would be an incentive for them.

As to the BTN it essentially would give Disney all of the key Conference Networks which would be an advertising coup. A bundled package of the B12N, SECN, ACCN, and BTN would be a heckuva four successive channel lineup. It gives them a national interest by having them bundled but allows them to target advertising to each of the regions. The SEC & B1G would still be the leaders but the B12 & ACC would close the gap a bit. It would be healthy for the game, particularly if we could institute a champs only model for the CFP and extend the conference playoffs to semis & finals.

Great for ESPN as a producer of content, but a nightmare trying to place so much content on limited platforms even with streaming options.
It's why they need partners.
More distribution means more money for Disney and increased viewership all over the country. But how? College football is still a regional sport. Where is the market to broadcast Missouri vs. Kentucky?
8 conferences, four divisions, two leagues, two OTA Networks doing most of the heavy lifting and ESPN becomes the seller not the purchaser of rights fees.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - murrdcu - 12-13-2017 04:22 PM

(12-13-2017 04:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 01:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.
To make sense of it all you have to do is follow the folly to realize it's a haphazard developing conspiracy and there's nothing grand about it. Imagine that all of the following is true.03-wink

Delaney and the Big 10 add Penn State. The Big East's dreams of landing them are shot. ESPN takes notice.

Roy Kramer wants the SEC to profit by a loophole rule established for lower levels of the NCAA and adds two schools so he can have a CCG. Secretly he tries to move to 16 taking the cream of the programs on his perimeter. ESPN in its infancy of trying to cobble together respect for the ACC learns of the plan when valuations are sought by the SEC so they divert an important burgeoning program to build the ACC cred and F.S.U. joins the ACC.

Delaney rejects a contract with ESPN and starts his own network (independent at first).

ESPN realizes that he will need strong Northeast markets to make it really work so they start bleeding the Big East to try to sew up product Delaney might like and in the meantime they let him fumble with carriage issues they don't lift a finger to help.

So Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech get poached first and ESPN parks them in the closest and cheapest parking lot they can. Connecticut threatens to sue and ticks of what might have been their future home (the ACC).

People, including the network scoff at the CCG idea of the SEC. So the SEC makes a ton of money on it and the idea catches on.

Delaney says, "I got to have me some CCG money too!" So in order to accomplish this end they take Nebraska. Ouch! With ESPN having covered the better football properties of the Big East by parking them in the ACC and with them thinking that things were sewed up enough to prevent Big J1M from improving the outlook for his private network Nebraska comes as a big surprise. I mean they knew that Texas and A&M and Oklahoma were in talks with the SEC in '91, but they thought all of that died down with the disintegration of the SWC and the birth of the Big 12. Holy Huskers Batman how in the hell did Jim land Nebraska? What else is afoot?

Scott sees this and makes a play for Texahoma. When that falls through he takes Colorado and Utah. Now he's got his CCG too! A&M remembers their talks with the SEC and ESPN warms up to a huge plan to move Missouri & A&M to the SEC and to pull Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame right out from under FOX and NBC and really build a valuable product out of the ACC. But it's going to cost the ACC markets for the SEC with N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving over. Chapel Hill counts the division of votes with the new fantastic four and the football first schools and bails on the deal.

The LHN is born to lasso Bevo but it pisses off A&M and the Big 12 brethren.

ESPN panics and Missouri and A&M go ahead and join the SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse are scarfed up and Notre Dame wangles a partial deal like they had in the Big East.

Fearful of losing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ESPN pursues sweet T3 deals but OU signs one with FOX. Things are precarious for landing that top product and Texas may bolt West with OU on the second round of Texahoma talks only this time it would be Tech and OSU with UT and OU anyway so T.C.U. and WVU join the Big 12 and a GOR is slapped in place.

Maryland bolts for money they had hoped to make when the Fantastic Four coming on board fell through making the ACC shaky so Louisville is added and a GOR slapped into place.

So the PAX of Mouse settles in with all the GOR's and sweet T3 deals, but no ACCN because the programs needed to pull it off were rejected.

Meanwhile Newbie FOX gets a wake up call as to how ESPN was going to scoop the goody out of the Big 12 so they get proactive and buy into the BTN and a network cold war settles over the field. Problem is it cost them a lot of money for a 51% stake and they still don't have a dog in the hunt in the Southeast where between the SEC, ACC, and AAC ESPN has all of the property sewed up.

Enter technology which makes the old cable market model suddenly vulnerable and probably obsolete in short order.

The brakes are slammed to the floor and realignment halts until probably 2021-23.

Then the proposed Disney FOX deal is hatched and if it goes through resolution fo the LHN (which heretofore has been the source of major discontent in that conference) becomes resolvable since all of the Big 12 T3 would be in ESPN's hands and the creation of the Big 12N becomes a real possibility.

Meanwhile the changing pay model and the lack of carriage for the PACN has the West Coasters in a financial drought when it comes to TV revenue. Maybe this PACN thing isn't going to pay off after all. Maybe something else is needed.

So you see there was never a grand plan, but there were plenty of backroom manipulations going on, but not by brainiacs but by fumble fisted reactionaries responding to unfolding events.

And lost in all of that is a 1970's model for how Super Conferences of 16 could maximize market penetration.

So duh! Maybe it happens or maybe it doesn't, but the tumblers have never been more aligned for resolution to such a set up as right now. If the don't screw it up it might finally actually happen.

Stay tuned boys and girls! Same Mouse Time! Same Mouse Channels!

JR, you had a link on landthieves about a story from the editor of a major Southern Cal website making the case for USC to evaluate independence or realignment due to poor revenue in the PAC and poor strength of schedule.

Imagine if the SEC landed USC. The money would have to jump significantly, not to mention increasing the odds of landing a Texas or Oklahoma after that.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - JRsec - 12-13-2017 05:15 PM

(12-13-2017 04:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 04:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 01:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.
To make sense of it all you have to do is follow the folly to realize it's a haphazard developing conspiracy and there's nothing grand about it. Imagine that all of the following is true.03-wink

Delaney and the Big 10 add Penn State. The Big East's dreams of landing them are shot. ESPN takes notice.

Roy Kramer wants the SEC to profit by a loophole rule established for lower levels of the NCAA and adds two schools so he can have a CCG. Secretly he tries to move to 16 taking the cream of the programs on his perimeter. ESPN in its infancy of trying to cobble together respect for the ACC learns of the plan when valuations are sought by the SEC so they divert an important burgeoning program to build the ACC cred and F.S.U. joins the ACC.

Delaney rejects a contract with ESPN and starts his own network (independent at first).

ESPN realizes that he will need strong Northeast markets to make it really work so they start bleeding the Big East to try to sew up product Delaney might like and in the meantime they let him fumble with carriage issues they don't lift a finger to help.

So Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech get poached first and ESPN parks them in the closest and cheapest parking lot they can. Connecticut threatens to sue and ticks of what might have been their future home (the ACC).

People, including the network scoff at the CCG idea of the SEC. So the SEC makes a ton of money on it and the idea catches on.

Delaney says, "I got to have me some CCG money too!" So in order to accomplish this end they take Nebraska. Ouch! With ESPN having covered the better football properties of the Big East by parking them in the ACC and with them thinking that things were sewed up enough to prevent Big J1M from improving the outlook for his private network Nebraska comes as a big surprise. I mean they knew that Texas and A&M and Oklahoma were in talks with the SEC in '91, but they thought all of that died down with the disintegration of the SWC and the birth of the Big 12. Holy Huskers Batman how in the hell did Jim land Nebraska? What else is afoot?

Scott sees this and makes a play for Texahoma. When that falls through he takes Colorado and Utah. Now he's got his CCG too! A&M remembers their talks with the SEC and ESPN warms up to a huge plan to move Missouri & A&M to the SEC and to pull Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame right out from under FOX and NBC and really build a valuable product out of the ACC. But it's going to cost the ACC markets for the SEC with N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving over. Chapel Hill counts the division of votes with the new fantastic four and the football first schools and bails on the deal.

The LHN is born to lasso Bevo but it pisses off A&M and the Big 12 brethren.

ESPN panics and Missouri and A&M go ahead and join the SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse are scarfed up and Notre Dame wangles a partial deal like they had in the Big East.

Fearful of losing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ESPN pursues sweet T3 deals but OU signs one with FOX. Things are precarious for landing that top product and Texas may bolt West with OU on the second round of Texahoma talks only this time it would be Tech and OSU with UT and OU anyway so T.C.U. and WVU join the Big 12 and a GOR is slapped in place.

Maryland bolts for money they had hoped to make when the Fantastic Four coming on board fell through making the ACC shaky so Louisville is added and a GOR slapped into place.

So the PAX of Mouse settles in with all the GOR's and sweet T3 deals, but no ACCN because the programs needed to pull it off were rejected.

Meanwhile Newbie FOX gets a wake up call as to how ESPN was going to scoop the goody out of the Big 12 so they get proactive and buy into the BTN and a network cold war settles over the field. Problem is it cost them a lot of money for a 51% stake and they still don't have a dog in the hunt in the Southeast where between the SEC, ACC, and AAC ESPN has all of the property sewed up.

Enter technology which makes the old cable market model suddenly vulnerable and probably obsolete in short order.

The brakes are slammed to the floor and realignment halts until probably 2021-23.

Then the proposed Disney FOX deal is hatched and if it goes through resolution fo the LHN (which heretofore has been the source of major discontent in that conference) becomes resolvable since all of the Big 12 T3 would be in ESPN's hands and the creation of the Big 12N becomes a real possibility.

Meanwhile the changing pay model and the lack of carriage for the PACN has the West Coasters in a financial drought when it comes to TV revenue. Maybe this PACN thing isn't going to pay off after all. Maybe something else is needed.

So you see there was never a grand plan, but there were plenty of backroom manipulations going on, but not by brainiacs but by fumble fisted reactionaries responding to unfolding events.

And lost in all of that is a 1970's model for how Super Conferences of 16 could maximize market penetration.

So duh! Maybe it happens or maybe it doesn't, but the tumblers have never been more aligned for resolution to such a set up as right now. If the don't screw it up it might finally actually happen.

Stay tuned boys and girls! Same Mouse Time! Same Mouse Channels!

JR, you had a link on landthieves about a story from the editor of a major Southern Cal website making the case for USC to evaluate independence or realignment due to poor revenue in the PAC and poor strength of schedule.

Imagine if the SEC landed USC. The money would have to jump significantly, not to mention increasing the odds of landing a Texas or Oklahoma after that.

I did post it and the guy was a donor that wanted them to explore independence. I still think it was a ploy to get some movement on getting carriage for the PACN, but even if they went independent I think they would want to keep the Cali schools on the schedule. They might join the Big 12, but I don't think they would head elsewhere.

It would be fun to watch this play out however.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - murrdcu - 12-13-2017 08:40 PM

(12-13-2017 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 04:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 04:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 01:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.
To make sense of it all you have to do is follow the folly to realize it's a haphazard developing conspiracy and there's nothing grand about it. Imagine that all of the following is true.03-wink

Delaney and the Big 10 add Penn State. The Big East's dreams of landing them are shot. ESPN takes notice.

Roy Kramer wants the SEC to profit by a loophole rule established for lower levels of the NCAA and adds two schools so he can have a CCG. Secretly he tries to move to 16 taking the cream of the programs on his perimeter. ESPN in its infancy of trying to cobble together respect for the ACC learns of the plan when valuations are sought by the SEC so they divert an important burgeoning program to build the ACC cred and F.S.U. joins the ACC.

Delaney rejects a contract with ESPN and starts his own network (independent at first).

ESPN realizes that he will need strong Northeast markets to make it really work so they start bleeding the Big East to try to sew up product Delaney might like and in the meantime they let him fumble with carriage issues they don't lift a finger to help.

So Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech get poached first and ESPN parks them in the closest and cheapest parking lot they can. Connecticut threatens to sue and ticks of what might have been their future home (the ACC).

People, including the network scoff at the CCG idea of the SEC. So the SEC makes a ton of money on it and the idea catches on.

Delaney says, "I got to have me some CCG money too!" So in order to accomplish this end they take Nebraska. Ouch! With ESPN having covered the better football properties of the Big East by parking them in the ACC and with them thinking that things were sewed up enough to prevent Big J1M from improving the outlook for his private network Nebraska comes as a big surprise. I mean they knew that Texas and A&M and Oklahoma were in talks with the SEC in '91, but they thought all of that died down with the disintegration of the SWC and the birth of the Big 12. Holy Huskers Batman how in the hell did Jim land Nebraska? What else is afoot?

Scott sees this and makes a play for Texahoma. When that falls through he takes Colorado and Utah. Now he's got his CCG too! A&M remembers their talks with the SEC and ESPN warms up to a huge plan to move Missouri & A&M to the SEC and to pull Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame right out from under FOX and NBC and really build a valuable product out of the ACC. But it's going to cost the ACC markets for the SEC with N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving over. Chapel Hill counts the division of votes with the new fantastic four and the football first schools and bails on the deal.

The LHN is born to lasso Bevo but it pisses off A&M and the Big 12 brethren.

ESPN panics and Missouri and A&M go ahead and join the SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse are scarfed up and Notre Dame wangles a partial deal like they had in the Big East.

Fearful of losing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ESPN pursues sweet T3 deals but OU signs one with FOX. Things are precarious for landing that top product and Texas may bolt West with OU on the second round of Texahoma talks only this time it would be Tech and OSU with UT and OU anyway so T.C.U. and WVU join the Big 12 and a GOR is slapped in place.

Maryland bolts for money they had hoped to make when the Fantastic Four coming on board fell through making the ACC shaky so Louisville is added and a GOR slapped into place.

So the PAX of Mouse settles in with all the GOR's and sweet T3 deals, but no ACCN because the programs needed to pull it off were rejected.

Meanwhile Newbie FOX gets a wake up call as to how ESPN was going to scoop the goody out of the Big 12 so they get proactive and buy into the BTN and a network cold war settles over the field. Problem is it cost them a lot of money for a 51% stake and they still don't have a dog in the hunt in the Southeast where between the SEC, ACC, and AAC ESPN has all of the property sewed up.

Enter technology which makes the old cable market model suddenly vulnerable and probably obsolete in short order.

The brakes are slammed to the floor and realignment halts until probably 2021-23.

Then the proposed Disney FOX deal is hatched and if it goes through resolution fo the LHN (which heretofore has been the source of major discontent in that conference) becomes resolvable since all of the Big 12 T3 would be in ESPN's hands and the creation of the Big 12N becomes a real possibility.

Meanwhile the changing pay model and the lack of carriage for the PACN has the West Coasters in a financial drought when it comes to TV revenue. Maybe this PACN thing isn't going to pay off after all. Maybe something else is needed.

So you see there was never a grand plan, but there were plenty of backroom manipulations going on, but not by brainiacs but by fumble fisted reactionaries responding to unfolding events.

And lost in all of that is a 1970's model for how Super Conferences of 16 could maximize market penetration.

So duh! Maybe it happens or maybe it doesn't, but the tumblers have never been more aligned for resolution to such a set up as right now. If the don't screw it up it might finally actually happen.

Stay tuned boys and girls! Same Mouse Time! Same Mouse Channels!

JR, you had a link on landthieves about a story from the editor of a major Southern Cal website making the case for USC to evaluate independence or realignment due to poor revenue in the PAC and poor strength of schedule.

Imagine if the SEC landed USC. The money would have to jump significantly, not to mention increasing the odds of landing a Texas or Oklahoma after that.

I did post it and the guy was a donor that wanted them to explore independence. I still think it was a ploy to get some movement on getting carriage for the PACN, but even if they went independent I think they would want to keep the Cali schools on the schedule. They might join the Big 12, but I don't think they would head elsewhere.

It would be fun to watch this play out however.

The PAC is where the financial realignment fires burn. They’ll be the ones looking at massive changes. USC and UCLA have said they don’t need to be in the same conference. Also, if flying to the Big 12 for games, why not examine one more time zone for a chance to add eastern SEC schools to their schedule.

That article has a purpose 05-stirthepot.


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - XLance - 12-13-2017 08:53 PM

(12-13-2017 08:40 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 05:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 04:22 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 04:18 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2017 01:27 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Just saw your post on the main board detailing some unhappiness from a USC booster about the PAC schedule. Yet another wrinkle in the realignment speculation saga. I can't make hay over what will happen out there. They may iron out their differences or come to some compromise before the end of the contract.

As time goes on it may become apparent that having one major conference representing the western states may be the best chance of achieving competitive balance. Imagine if you're Colorado and you join a conference so that you can play USC. Years later USC decides that they'd rather leave the conference than play Wazzu and Colorado...or would they be open to a new conference that allows them to play a few of their old rivals plus programs like Oklahoma?

I'm not sure there is some grand conspiracy to radically rearrange affiliations across the country but there seems to be so much activity behind the scenes that I would not be surprised if everything we know about college football gets turned upside-down.
To make sense of it all you have to do is follow the folly to realize it's a haphazard developing conspiracy and there's nothing grand about it. Imagine that all of the following is true.03-wink

Delaney and the Big 10 add Penn State. The Big East's dreams of landing them are shot. ESPN takes notice.

Roy Kramer wants the SEC to profit by a loophole rule established for lower levels of the NCAA and adds two schools so he can have a CCG. Secretly he tries to move to 16 taking the cream of the programs on his perimeter. ESPN in its infancy of trying to cobble together respect for the ACC learns of the plan when valuations are sought by the SEC so they divert an important burgeoning program to build the ACC cred and F.S.U. joins the ACC.

Delaney rejects a contract with ESPN and starts his own network (independent at first).

ESPN realizes that he will need strong Northeast markets to make it really work so they start bleeding the Big East to try to sew up product Delaney might like and in the meantime they let him fumble with carriage issues they don't lift a finger to help.

So Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech get poached first and ESPN parks them in the closest and cheapest parking lot they can. Connecticut threatens to sue and ticks of what might have been their future home (the ACC).

People, including the network scoff at the CCG idea of the SEC. So the SEC makes a ton of money on it and the idea catches on.

Delaney says, "I got to have me some CCG money too!" So in order to accomplish this end they take Nebraska. Ouch! With ESPN having covered the better football properties of the Big East by parking them in the ACC and with them thinking that things were sewed up enough to prevent Big J1M from improving the outlook for his private network Nebraska comes as a big surprise. I mean they knew that Texas and A&M and Oklahoma were in talks with the SEC in '91, but they thought all of that died down with the disintegration of the SWC and the birth of the Big 12. Holy Huskers Batman how in the hell did Jim land Nebraska? What else is afoot?

Scott sees this and makes a play for Texahoma. When that falls through he takes Colorado and Utah. Now he's got his CCG too! A&M remembers their talks with the SEC and ESPN warms up to a huge plan to move Missouri & A&M to the SEC and to pull Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame right out from under FOX and NBC and really build a valuable product out of the ACC. But it's going to cost the ACC markets for the SEC with N.C. State and Virginia Tech moving over. Chapel Hill counts the division of votes with the new fantastic four and the football first schools and bails on the deal.

The LHN is born to lasso Bevo but it pisses off A&M and the Big 12 brethren.

ESPN panics and Missouri and A&M go ahead and join the SEC.

Pitt and Syracuse are scarfed up and Notre Dame wangles a partial deal like they had in the Big East.

Fearful of losing Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas ESPN pursues sweet T3 deals but OU signs one with FOX. Things are precarious for landing that top product and Texas may bolt West with OU on the second round of Texahoma talks only this time it would be Tech and OSU with UT and OU anyway so T.C.U. and WVU join the Big 12 and a GOR is slapped in place.

Maryland bolts for money they had hoped to make when the Fantastic Four coming on board fell through making the ACC shaky so Louisville is added and a GOR slapped into place.

So the PAX of Mouse settles in with all the GOR's and sweet T3 deals, but no ACCN because the programs needed to pull it off were rejected.

Meanwhile Newbie FOX gets a wake up call as to how ESPN was going to scoop the goody out of the Big 12 so they get proactive and buy into the BTN and a network cold war settles over the field. Problem is it cost them a lot of money for a 51% stake and they still don't have a dog in the hunt in the Southeast where between the SEC, ACC, and AAC ESPN has all of the property sewed up.

Enter technology which makes the old cable market model suddenly vulnerable and probably obsolete in short order.

The brakes are slammed to the floor and realignment halts until probably 2021-23.

Then the proposed Disney FOX deal is hatched and if it goes through resolution fo the LHN (which heretofore has been the source of major discontent in that conference) becomes resolvable since all of the Big 12 T3 would be in ESPN's hands and the creation of the Big 12N becomes a real possibility.

Meanwhile the changing pay model and the lack of carriage for the PACN has the West Coasters in a financial drought when it comes to TV revenue. Maybe this PACN thing isn't going to pay off after all. Maybe something else is needed.

So you see there was never a grand plan, but there were plenty of backroom manipulations going on, but not by brainiacs but by fumble fisted reactionaries responding to unfolding events.

And lost in all of that is a 1970's model for how Super Conferences of 16 could maximize market penetration.

So duh! Maybe it happens or maybe it doesn't, but the tumblers have never been more aligned for resolution to such a set up as right now. If the don't screw it up it might finally actually happen.

Stay tuned boys and girls! Same Mouse Time! Same Mouse Channels!

JR, you had a link on landthieves about a story from the editor of a major Southern Cal website making the case for USC to evaluate independence or realignment due to poor revenue in the PAC and poor strength of schedule.

Imagine if the SEC landed USC. The money would have to jump significantly, not to mention increasing the odds of landing a Texas or Oklahoma after that.

I did post it and the guy was a donor that wanted them to explore independence. I still think it was a ploy to get some movement on getting carriage for the PACN, but even if they went independent I think they would want to keep the Cali schools on the schedule. They might join the Big 12, but I don't think they would head elsewhere.

It would be fun to watch this play out however.

The PAC is where the financial realignment fires burn. They’ll be the ones looking at massive changes. USC and UCLA have said they don’t need to be in the same conference. Also, if flying to the Big 12 for games, why not examine one more time zone for a chance to add eastern SEC schools to their schedule.

That article has a purpose 05-stirthepot.

Depends on which out one of them can get out first.

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/101611/rick-neuheisel-speculates-on-ucla-jumping-to-big-12


RE: If the SEC did expand again and did so from the Big 12 who should we take and why? - AllTideUp - 12-13-2017 11:49 PM

Recent developments...

1. Disney looking to buy a huge chunk of FOX and that would give ESPN a huge advantage if they take over the RSNs.

2. Texas is apparently looking at establishing a new vision and being a leader in the Big 12 again rather than simply the most powerful vote.

3. There appears to be growing discontent within the PAC 12.

Interesting how this could all work out.