(04-12-2021 09:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 08:42 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 04:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-13-2021 03:58 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(02-12-2021 05:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  I like 20. Shoot for Clemson, Florida St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, and Texas Tech. Actually 21 is not terrible - add Kansas.

21
East: Clemson, Florida, Florida St, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee
West: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech
South: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt

(02-13-2021 03:29 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  This is what bothers me. Conferences may expand with schools thinking they are adding great new markets. It does not always synthesize very well. Even when Penn State moved to the BIG, there were plenty of disgruntled fans when it first happened. Much of the fan base travels, and heading deep into the midwest often wasn't so favorable.

West Virginia in the Big 12 is the blatant example of awkward placement. They would have fit well into the ACC, and provided the ACC fb (and bb really) more quality in the northern tier of the conference.

I am more optimistic about Mizzou. They are not an extreme outlier. They are cultivating good SEC rivalries. Note, being placed in the SEC-east, trips to/from Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and even Tennessee, cannot be described as close. On most other measures, it is a positive association.

1. Adding new markets opened a clause in the SEC TV contracts to reevaluate its value for the new members and add more cable boxes to the SeEC Network to aid its startup and success.

2. Mizzou playing in the East in football helped re-establish new recruiting grounds and connections. Winning the East twice proved Mizzou could succeed, not sure they would finish that high in the west.

3. We have a window for another round of expansion coming up, but is there a need or desire for teams to switch conferences. More importantly, is there a way to monetize it so all members come out ahead?

1. Missouri won the East twice because Pinkel was a better coach than those in the East at that time. Their fans want closer games, and preferably more meaningful ones to them.

2. Nobody really gets added for footprint anymore, but they will be added for national draw.

3. The reason things "could" change by 2024 is that the GOR's in the Big 12 and PAC expire meaning you don't have to make it profitable for everyone affected by a move. I doubt that corporate entities will let this opportunity pass without trying to utilize it to their advantage. Texas and Oklahoma also realize this is their only chance to make moves without having to insure the other 8.

Personally I think the SEC should consider moving to 18 and split the divisions in a truer East / West alignment. I say expand by 4 because you can accommodate Texas who already has 2 chief rivals and likely third in the SEC (A&M, Arky, & LSU) and add Kansas in the process with whichever other school is needed to make the deal whether that is Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Baylor, or T.C.U.. At that point it doesn't really matter. UT and OU give you 57% of the value of the Big 12. Add Kansas and it is 62%. And any of the other 3 and you get close to 70% of the value of the Big 12 for the cost of 4 schools ( and actually get 70% with OSU as the choice). Even ESPN will be interested in that.

West: Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M

East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt.

Only Mississippi/Mississippi State would need a protection and the easiest way to do that is for them to make each other an OOC P game and not count the win or loss against the conference record.

To me, that could be a major hindrance in expansion as scheduling in football will start getting more difficult unless the conference rules or structure changes.

I find it fascinating that this round of potential realignment has an ACC willing to put all options on the table to catch up to th dc SEC and B1G. The Pac is ditching their commissioner and reevaluating their rights and networks structure to close the financial gap. The Big 12 schools will have some options as they’ll be highly coveted. Now my only question is could any ACC school leave the conference before the early 2030’s and retain their tv rights or are they definitely trapped in the ACC GOR.

This is the round of realignment where the Big 12 could survive. ACC AD's are in desperation mode and the PAC is so remote, and so politically out of touch with the Big 12 I just don't see that happening.

Truly you could dissolve the ACC this go around if ESPN acquires all of the rights to the Big 12 and if the ACC doesn't get a boost in pay that would have to be massive to make them competitive. North Carolina and Duke basketball are slipping. Florida State football is fading, Miami is irrelevant, Virginia Tech is a shadow of its former self, and B.C., Syracuse and Pitt are hardly relevant. Wake Forest and Georgia Tech are revenue laggards and Clemson knows what it faces if they can't get what they could easily exceed elsewhere. The whole conference has been out of touch with reality in focus, and poorly led under Swofford. Even Louisville is slipping and N.C. State is a doing nothing in any sport.

Was this true 10 years ago? No! So what has happened? They are getting lapped in revenue by their neighbors the SEC and B1G! Money and recruiting go hand in hand whether the whole hypocritical institution of the NCAA wants to admit it or not.

Since N.D. will never fully join them and will have much better options if forced to join in full by a structure change, the schools of the ACC have finally awakened to reality, only they did so after signing an egregious long term contract for which they only have 1 out for more revenue.....dissolution. It takes 12 to do it and ordinarily people would say, "No way!" and be correct, but not now. Not if the Big 12's new contract makes moving there an in house move for the ACC, or an SEC move an in house move the the SEC, or a Big 12 move a move in which ESPN would retain half of the rights to an ACC school they would then only pay half for in the Big 10, meaning no more than what they are currently paying for that product, and likely a product they don't make much money from even at ACC payout levels.

So 2 to the Big 10 (pick'em: Duke, North Carolina, Pitt, Virginia, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and 2 to the SEC of the same schools, and 8 to the Big 12 from: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, N.C. State, or Virginia Tech and it's done. Notre Dame will attach itself wherever they wish and likely would get a partial deal (through ESPN help) with the Big 12.

Being able to pit the Irish against the Horns or Sooners would be mega dollars for ESPN, more than they make from them under the same deal now with the ACC.

Anyone placed from the football schools of the ACC against the Big 12 would generate more money.

Dividing the states of North Carolina and Virginia between the Big 10 and SEC would only put more eyes, and therefore more money, upon those two states.

Take the SEC and Big 10 to roughly 70 million and bounce the Big 12 up to about 55 million each by adding more than double their current market and putting 3 top 10 brands in the mix with N.D. as a partial and ESPN can certainly monetize it, especially by adding some of the better ACC brands to a dedicated football conference.

So move 12 and it can be done. Mover 10 of them in house and create larger conference market reach and add to the number of brands playing in each conference, or in the case of the SEC improving their hoops branding and it can be done.

What would happen if, say, Duke and Wake Forest decided they're not going to bother with trying to win in football and took their programs to the Big East? How would the breakdown change?