(10-26-2019 10:35 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 11:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-25-2019 10:51 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 07:40 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I just re-read. An outstanding assessment and overview. Should be required reading for realignment enthusiasts. I truly can't counter your points, JRSec. You know this stuff exceedingly well (dare I say to a "Frank The Tank-esque" level).

I realize I'm probably in the minority of those who are a fan of an SEC school but ... I would rather have "the states of N.C. and Virginia" than a duplicate of "the state of Texas" and "the state of Oklahoma."

Now I have many biases related to my wishes (including a family member background and my preference for the East Coast over the Southwest). I just see N.C. State as a sleeping giant in both football and hoops. And NCST would bring with it a blockbuster state (in terms of population, national cache, recruiting talent, cool cities, etc.) to the SEC. VaTech is an established football brand that nicely fits the SEC culture and geography.

Texas just seems like it might not be worth the trouble (that university, though outstanding on so many levels, has a "hyper-pro-me mindset").

Anyway, keep up the fine posts.

The interesting thing about your post Bill was that in 2010 (when Slive had asked for the "gentlemen's agreement" which was actually requested so that South Carolina and Florida did not nominate Clemson and Florida State as they then desired to do, so totally opposite of the reasoning championed by chat room posters) the SEC was set to add 4 schools to get to 16, as was the ACC. We needed 2 new markets to be able to renegotiate our payout from ESPN. And if the ACC had added the schools initially considered for them so that their footprint had expanded with more football brands then what you say you would prefer may well have happened.

The SEC allegedly met with Va Tech officials at the Greenbriar in West Virginia (prompting the Dude's rumors of WVU meeting with the SEC) to discuss possible movement and were supposed to meet with N.C. State, later on. The initial plan was supposedly for Missouri, Texas A&M, Virginia Tech and N.C. State to round the SEC out at 16 (very different than the original plans in 1991). The ACC was rumored to have been in the running for 3 from the Big 12 and N.D.: Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas from the Big 12 and Notre Dame. Now whether it was 4 or just Texas and Notre Dame is debatable. But either way, that would have given them stronger football brands and possibly 1 more blue blood for hoops. Their revenue would have jumped, their network would have gotten off the ground a year later, and realignment would have taken a much different turn.

Supposedly there were reservations in the old core schools. With the loss of N.C. State and Va Tech their voting block of 7 schools (including Clemson) would have diminished to 5 and the fear was Clemson might side with the football first schools in the voting. So the old core would have lost their political control over the conference.

The move would have been coup for ESPN. They would have expanded the TV market of the SEC and the ACC by over 40 million each which would have netted the conference networks even more, and would have sewn up 75% of the top brands in football for ESPN and goodly share of the top hoops programs.

Remember the GOR had not put in an appearance yet so the schools in the Big 12 were free to move. When the ACC supposedly rejected the deal at the last moment it screwed up a lot of things, including the amount of money that Maryland would have stood to make in the new ACC. It was the last straw for them and having had conversations already with the Big 10 they bolted. Missouri got cold feet initially before deciding to go ahead. It created part of the divisional problems within the SEC. And it really screwed up plans for the corporate network. On top of that it alerted FOX as to how ESPN almost nabbed all of the key product that under their contracts at that time they split 50/50. So no ACC network for more than a few years, and no big payout either were just a couple of the results of that period and that plan.

Then came the GOR's first by the Big 12 for fear more would bolt, and then by the ACC when football first members Florida State and Clemson were temporarily announced on the ESPN crawler as moving to the SEC to take us to 16 anyway.

The rupture was advantageous for Notre Dame who was able to then wangle their partial membership rumored to be contingent upon F.S.U. and Clemson remaining. Promises were made and those two signed the GOR.

Now I use words like alleged, supposedly, and rumored because in the business of college athletic realignment if it didn't go through, it never happened.

But clearly Mr.SEC and Clay Travis spent loads of time hyping and selling the N.C. State and Va Tech moves in an effort to bring support behind their inclusion because SEC fans until that point had only ever considered Texas, Texas A&M, Clemson and Florida State openly and indeed all 4 of those had been on the target list in '92. I don't think either of them would have been that informed if they had not been utilized to sell the idea to the public.

If the ACC loses Va Tech and N.C. State they lose no footprint as both are duplicating existing markets for the ACC. The only hint as to the possible movement of the other schools were Deloss Dodds comments about Texas looking East, and his then regular conversations with Swarbrick at N.D. Kansas and Oklahoma either had no leaks or may not have been a part of it after all. But either way Maryland's departure sent things into a tizzy that we haven't recovered from yet.

Now as to why that deal, or anything like it, will not happen in the future. The pay model in 2010 was the market footprint model. Duplicates didn't really add any value to the conference so those 2 were expendable provided it also profited them to do so.

Today as streaming lurks ready to take over the pay model the value is in brand on brand match ups which drive a national audience. Under that model and at the current payout levels of the SEC Virginia Tech and N.C. State simply don't bring enough value. Texas and Oklahoma bring enough that they still add value even if they bring a tag along.

So now that the ACC is under a GOR until 2037 they won't be involved in future moves to either the SEC or Big 10 unless there is a wholesale reason for 12 of their conference schools to desire to do so. It takes 12 schools to dissolve their conference and end the GOR. So it is a remote possibility at best.

The battle simply will be for the 2 schools which bring a billion plus in economic impact with them, which both are in the top 7 in revenue generated among all FBS programs and which both are national brands with long history.

The question Texas and Oklahoma have to answer is, "Do we move now for an increase in pay, greater access to recruiting, and for what will be a heightened schedule with multiple national audience games to maximize our profits under a new pay model, or do we want to keep the familiar?" There are good reasons to do either. So we wait and see.

That is why many believe that taking a Kansas first could trigger the moves. While I'm ambivalent on that matter, and think that the SEC could do as well with Kansas and Oklahoma as with Texas or Texas Tech, I think the Big 10 is the more likely to pull that trigger first, unless it is what ESPN wants done.

As realignment wraps up there is a perceived need to fix much of what has been broken. Oklahoma reunited with Nebraska, Texas with A&M, and Kansas with Missouri would be a great start to restoration. Right now Kansas]s T3 and Texas's T3 rights are tied up with ESPN. Oklahoma will renew soon and it will be interesting to see if theirs remain with FOX. And then there are the state legislatures who are concerned for 2nd state schools. Does OU have to safeguard OSU or not? There are two schools of thought on that and they do not reconcile. Does Texas need, or want to, take care of Tech. I see this one as the most likely to be true.

So what happens if ESPN wants Texas and Kansas in the SEC for their own network reasons? After all they do write the check. Who would OU take with them to the Big 10? Would Colorado head to the Big 10 with Oklahoma? Would the Big 10 take Iowa State with OU even if it didn't really earn them more? These seem less likely, but not quite out of the realm of possibility. Or does the PAC and Big 12 dissolve and reform a more affluent new conference with the best of both?

It will be fun to see how all of this plays out.

Who knows we may wind up with even a wilder finish, involving more moving parts.

OU and UT to the SEC is quite possible, but would it be good for the sport? Would it be any different if they went Big 10? No.

So Bill, we have conference commissioners thinking one set of outcomes, networks thinking another set of outcomes, the kingpins trying to negotiate the best possible outcome for themselves and quite possibly other state schools. And we are staring down a P4 of ~ 16 schools each but with the SEC and Big 10 way ahead in earnings over the PAC and ACC, or possibly a P3 of 20 schools each but with much more competitive and brand balance.

So soak that up and tell me what you think.

This is the key takeaway from your assessment, JRSec (and I agree fully):

"And we are staring down a P4 of ~ 16 schools each but with the SEC and Big 10 way ahead in earnings over the PAC and ACC, or possibly a P3 of 20 schools each but with much more competitive and brand balance.

And this is the second key point you make:

"That is why many believe that taking a Kansas first could trigger the moves. While I'm ambivalent on that matter, and think that the SEC could do as well with Kansas and Oklahoma as with Texas or Texas Tech, I think the Big 10 is the more likely to pull that trigger first, unless it is what ESPN wants done."

I've read your take twice and some of the chronological presentations you offer are now jogging may memory (I like it). I recall the days (and quite well) when the late Mike Slive oversaw C-USA (he did, as many agree, a very good job with that league). You're taking me down memory row. The years go fast.

The dissolving of leagues and ends of GORs ... noteworthy but perhaps not the key. Kansas and its next move ... perhaps, but not the key.

I just have to wonder if the Pac-12 is THE key... Probably not. But this goes to the hypothetical you raise: "Or does the PAC and Big 12 dissolve and reform a more affluent new conference with the best of both?"

It's late and I have a beer to finish and some popcorn to consume. Keep up the quality posting.

Well IMO if the Big 12 and PAC both dissolve and form that more affluent new conference that means the pressure on the ACC to do the same by portions merging with both the Big 10 and SEC leads us to that more balanced and competitive P3 of 20 schools each.

That route is IMO the only way the future of the sport is secured and the interest of all parts of the country preserved. It provides both the SEC and Big 10 a more natural growth path to 20 and domination of their respective regions, and it is the only way the PAC and Big 12 can move to preserve any geographical integrity, while providing the extra time zone markets to help level out the revenue from media.

Agree fully. It also might yield a "No. 4" league that, though not a "power football league" would be a very strong 20-member group (picture a combo of some of the "leftovers" from the big shakeup you hypothetically note, BYU and the "best of" the AAC and MWC).

I've thought that this would be more likely than not if for no other reason than it would incorporate the schools most likely to pose a legal threat to a breakaway formation of a new governing organization.

Army, Boston College, Navy, Pittsburgh, West Virginia
Air Force, Boise State, Brigham Young, San Diego State, Wyoming
Central Florida, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Wake Forest
Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, S.M.U., Tulane