(07-28-2018 01:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-27-2018 11:16 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 10:03 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think that Oklahoma's overall economic strength would merit OSU's inclusion if they were headed to the SEC for instance. But if the SEC secures Texas then its need for Oklahoma diminishes significantly. Would we turn down Texas and Oklahoma alone? Nobody would. But if we've taken Texas and one of their buddies and then Oklahoma wants in too it might be that OSU couldn't tag along then. On paper their inclusion would still be merited, but the SEC's priorities might shift if we already had Texas. That's a wait and see.

OSU would have a very hard time getting into the PAC/B1G or ACC even with Oklahoma.

Kansas doesn't have the overall value to get KState in anywhere. KState though on their own has more pluses than OSU with regard to research and academics in general so with Kansas to the PAC that might be a possibility.

The best play that the PAC would have for these schools would be to move to 18 with 3 divisions of 6 and take in all six. Outside of that the Big 10 and SEC offer too much more for the PAC to be competitive and selective.

The numbers say that OSU/KSU bring value to the PAC on their own.

But the PAC doesn't go just by the numbers. They don't like OSU's R2 research categorization. Kansas State might make it but they California schools don't like their academic rating either. The PAC is schizo when it comes to accepting candidates. They need the revenue so will take one of these if they are getting a prize like OU or UT, but on their own they switch to the academics alone standard and reject the same schools that would have been acceptable with a bigger brand. In OSU's case they may have rejected them even if OU was applying as seemed to be the case in 2010.

In times like these, I bet flagships for small states that have to intervene for little brother are jealous of states like Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Arkansas, etc., that have managed to keep the flagship as their single unifying institution. I sometimes think about what powerhouses that states with low populations but split P5 loyalties would become if they had rallied around one school years ago. The only states with less than 5 million residents that generate more than $100 million athletic revenue from each of their two major institutions are Alabama and Kentucky, and a large part of that can be attributed to Alabama, Auburn, Louisville, and Kentucky serving the need for non-alumni locals who treat those schools as their pro sports substitutes.

I know it would not be as simple as adding the revenue of schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State because of the overlap in TV revenue, limitation of seating for tickets, proximity for fans, etc., but I don't think it would be unreasonable to believe that states like Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Mississippi would kick up into at least the top quarter of revenue programs if the smaller State school had never ascended to what became the P5 conferences. I am definitely not suggesting relegation at this point, but I wonder if G5 or FCS states with two competing state institutions, like New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, and New York, could be proactive in striking a deal where the flagship took preeminence in sports and the other school was given more support to ascend in other areas.

Last thing... if the college football playoffs were expanded to allow an automatic bid and T1-T3 rights revenue could be arranged to be in the same ballpark as what is currently being received, a "State" conference in the Big 12 region could be interesting and successful. The profiles of these schools outside of athletics are quite similar, and little brothers would become the big dogs for a change. I also think the accompanying schools who are not currently in the G5 would step up their game. Maybe this could be a long range solution for the Big 12 expansion dilemma:

"State" conference (maybe Heartland Conference or something?)

Texas Tech
Houston
New Mexico
Colorado State
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Missouri State
Iowa State
Arkansas State
Wyoming

Those are 10 state or small flagship schools that will rarely compete for the highest level of championships because of national interest competition with a big brother and their recruiting landscapes, but it is a heck of a cultural fit that would be sustainable for athletic rivalries and regional interest. If some of those programs feel like a stretch right now, privates like TCU, BYU, SMU, and Baylor (???) could be substituted if that ended up being their best landing spot. If all of these schools had a guaranteed annual football game with big brother or someone comparable (like Wyoming vs. Nebraska) in order to make this arrangement work, I think everyone could happily coexist.

I've waffled back and forth between the inclusion of more schools or the reduction of the 65 we currently have in the P5. I think there were only 4 of the P5 schools that had more than a 10% subsidy for athletics. The only G5 school which ranked in the top 65 in revenue was Connecticut at 49th. However, the Huskies were 50% subsidized. Only Washington State 66th and Wake Forest 65th were below 70 million in total revenue.

So I guess what I'm saying here is monetarily speaking, whether that is in terms of total revenue, or in terms of their economic impact (as estimated by the WSJ), none of the G5 schools currently have metrics that indicate their ability to sustain athletics without subsidy (as all of them exceed 25% in subsidy), and none of them show an ability to positively impact the revenue of any existing P5 conference.

My suspicion is that we are much more likely to see contraction within the P5 than we are to see expansion with the current G5. Now the good new there is that in the right location even Baylor has value. Washington State and Wake Forest had better hope that the PAC and ACC are never raided, or at least never raided again.

The SEC earned an average of 15 million more than the Big 10 per school in total revenue last year. We earned 24 million more than the Big 12, and 43 million more on average than an ACC school. My point being that with those kinds of differences, ESPN not withstanding, the Big 10 and SEC are so far ahead of the rest that the lure of larger revenue will remain a constant moving forward. Furthermore, any additions they make will only increase the gravity of the draw they have toward acquiring even more schools as long as they can add to the revenue base.

The only governing factor that inhibits their consumption of everything of value is that they are both so well paid now that very few schools add to their bottom line and in the next expansion both are likely to take a school valuable enough to cover their taking of one that could not have gotten in on their own.

Should either the SEC or Big 10 land both Texas and Oklahoma it would be game changing lock for the conference that did scoop them. The revenue difference between that conference and either the PAC or ACC would be staggering and wholly destabilizing as a force moving forward.

The networks know this and that is why I thing if the SEC lands one of Oklahoma or Texas then the Big 10 will get the other. Even the networks realize that for the game to remain profitable that some competitive balance must be maintained.

The best balancing that could be done would be for the PAC to take the Texa-homa package. That would help the PAC play catch up without destabilizing the already strained competitive balance. If N.D. ever goes all in with the ACC that could help as well. But if I'm the ACC then I don't want to see the PAC expand that way because it eliminates the Big 12 as a power conference and forever locks the ACC into an inferior position, even with N.D. all in. If I'm ESPN who has coveted the possession of Texas more completely, and has interest in Kansas as well then unless I get a big piece of the PACN, and get it cheaply, I have no interest in seeing Texas head west either.

In this next round of realignment I fully expect to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks.

ESPN will likely be content to keep part ownership in Notre Dame and will covet the possibility of one day owning their rights as an independent where they can monetize Notre Dame and U.S.C. and Notre Dame and Stanford.

If I am ESPN and concerned about the viability of the ACCN then nailing down West Virginia and adding T.C.U. would go a long way to increasing the reach of the fledgling network.

If I'm the PAC I would be trying to lock down T.C.U. and Texas Tech to move to 14 and depending upon what carriers wanted to buy, or lease, eyeballing Kansas State and Oklahoma State for the expanded markets and for a new time slot in which to play. The PAC won't want any of those schools so they may be content sitting on their hands.

But I don't see any promotions for the G5. The Florida twins are best positioned but for whom? The ACC has it covered in Florida and the SEC for now is happy with just the Gators. If USF research continues to grow and their subsidy level drops below 20% then maybe one day they would be a good catch for the SEC as they deliver a part of Florida where the Gators don't draw as well and they are on the Gulf side of the state where we have nothing. But that's probably 20 years away from being viable.

So what I'm saying is that I could easily see the Big 10 and SEC move only to 16 in this next expansion, and that to increase markets the ACC would as well. So if the Big 12 makes this move possible then we could easily see the present P5 shrink to 60 full time P4 conference members with Notre Dame as a partial.

When you say you expect: "to see at least FOX and ESPN try to restore lost key rivalries in what is likely to be a final move for quite some time. I look for them to reunite Nebraska and Oklahoma, insure the survival of Iowa State and Iowa, reunite Texas and Texas A&M, keep the Red River Shootout as what it was for decades, a cross conference rivalry which will split revenue between the SEC and Big 10, and reunite Kansas with Missouri and establish a behemoth basketball rivalry between the Wildcats and Jayhawks."

Are you saying that you expect Fox/ESPN to try to place OU/ISU in the B1G and UT/KU in the SEC? That would be consistent with your belief that UT and OU would be split between B1G and SEC.