(02-25-2013 09:03 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  A couple of theories on this:

1) Schools are starting to doubt the revenue numbers the Big 10 is throwing out there so now it's a "wait and see" approach.
2) Maryland may have to pay more than the Big 10 bargained for so they can't take too many at the same time especially if they offered to pay for some of the fee.

Personally I think everyone's reading into it too much. The Big Ten which usually moves at a glacial pace in the last 6 years has started a television/digital network, added 3 schools in Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. This is a league that in the nearly 60 years prior to that added only Michigan State (to replace Chicago) and Penn State. I'm sure they are pausing to see what happens next and to work on integrating the latest members.

If they're silent they're planning expansion. If they're vocal they're lying.

(02-25-2013 09:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 08:39 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 08:26 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:34 PM)krux Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 05:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Smoke and mirrors. Just an easy way to back down expectations until the networks sort things out, particularly ESPN.

Or to allow a little more of that GOR to expire...

JR is right, realignment is in the hands of the networks now.

I'd agree for the most part, EXCEPT for the Big Ten. They are the big dog conference in a lot of ways. If Big Ten wants a team they're going to get them(at least from the ACC). Not a damn thing ESPN can do to really stop that from happening.

A FOX versus ESPN bidding war is inevitable. The lull in the action is probably over strategy. I think the issue for ESPN will boil down to volume of product versus quality of product with quality being measured in national eyeballs.

I think they (ESPN) are trying to decide whether it makes more sense to save the ACC and pillage the Big 12, or pillage both the ACC and Big 12 in order to assimilate their own version of a super conference. They could decide to siphon off the best of the Big 12 into the SEC and ACC and have quantity of product to offer versus the two new FOX stations, or take Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas add them to North Carolina, Duke, and Florida State or Virginia Tech to create a 20 team SEC that maximizes eyeballs, sends content through the roof, and maximizes those brands profits while leaving everything else to either reform a minor version of the ACC/BigEast/Big12 for mid-week games, or just let them go period.

The concept of taking the highest percentage of viewership from the national brands and putting them in the conference that already leads the nation in eyeballs maximizes the audience for advertising profits, and minimizes the number of teams they have to support in the process. Fox could then profit by a very large Big 10, part of the PAC, and the leftovers of the ACC and Big 12, but they would not be able to capture the numbers with close to 50 schools that ESPN could with 20. Let's say that ESPN decides to make it 24 teams. You could add the remainder of F.S.U./Virginia Tech, West Virginia, N.C. State, and Clemson or Miami. That would leave FOX 40 schools that would not net them the % of profit versus the outlay that ESPN would have with 24 teams and less overhead.

I think this is the kind of thinking that is going on right now. I also believe that it is likely that we won't have the answer to this kind of question for a month or two, or perhaps until the Maryland decision. If Maryland's 52 million dollar exit fee stands then it may not be so costly for ESPN to shore up the ACC and shoot for control in a 20 team SEC and a 20 team ACC. Sure there is CBS to contend with in the SEC but they are not the threat that FOX is and ESPN has tier 2 & 3 of the SEC's content which is enormous. If the fee is drastically lowered it will probably be economically advantageous to go for the 1 large conference with uber content.

Don't be fooled by the Big 10's projections. They are based on models that may not be steady, and on FOX's willingness to build inventory. ESPN has deep pockets too and sports programming has the highest yield per dollar investment of any kind of TV entertainment. Plus the sports market is a bubble that may be nearing capacity. There is a lot to weigh before the final strategies of these two Networks are implemented.

The Big 10 will come out of this fine one way or the other and so will the SEC. The question is how the other product is divided up, or bolstered. On that we will all just have to wait and see.

Delusional. There are several schools that you mentioned that wouldn't even think twice about the SEC or would hear everything they're pitching and go right to the Big Ten. And Big 12 schools aren't going to the ACC. period. And you forgot about a major factor. The Pac 12. They're not going to sit back and let the SEC and Big Ten evolve and they sit back. That's just foolish. ESPN is not in control of things by ANY stretch of the imagination.

From my perspective, all this means is that Ohio State is saying they are at the forefront of leading the Big Ten in this matter. First their President and now their AD chiming in?

(02-25-2013 09:28 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 09:03 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  A couple of theories on this:

1) Schools are starting to doubt the revenue numbers the Big 10 is throwing out there so now it's a "wait and see" approach.
2) Maryland may have to pay more than the Big 10 bargained for so they can't take too many at the same time especially if they offered to pay for some of the fee.

Personally I think everyone's reading into it too much. The Big Ten which usually moves at a glacial pace in the last 6 years has started a television/digital network, added 3 schools in Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. This is a league that in the nearly 60 years prior to that added only Michigan State (to replace Chicago) and Penn State. I'm sure they are pausing to see what happens next and to work on integrating the latest members.

I probably would have believed this if that were the stance after they got Maryland, but for a good two months even their own people kept saying they were going to expand. Now all of a sudden it's a complete 180.

(02-25-2013 10:30 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 09:28 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 09:03 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  A couple of theories on this:

1) Schools are starting to doubt the revenue numbers the Big 10 is throwing out there so now it's a "wait and see" approach.
2) Maryland may have to pay more than the Big 10 bargained for so they can't take too many at the same time especially if they offered to pay for some of the fee.

Personally I think everyone's reading into it too much. The Big Ten which usually moves at a glacial pace in the last 6 years has started a television/digital network, added 3 schools in Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers. This is a league that in the nearly 60 years prior to that added only Michigan State (to replace Chicago) and Penn State. I'm sure they are pausing to see what happens next and to work on integrating the latest members.

I probably would have believed this if that were the stance after they got Maryland, but for a good two months even their own people kept saying they were going to expand. Now all of a sudden it's a complete 180.

Maybe they could get the schools they desired (UVA/UNC)

(02-25-2013 09:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A FOX versus ESPN bidding war is inevitable. The lull in the action is probably over strategy. I think the issue for ESPN will boil down to volume of product versus quality of product with quality being measured in national eyeballs.

I think they (ESPN) are trying to decide whether it makes more sense to save the ACC and pillage the Big 12, or pillage both the ACC and Big 12 in order to assimilate their own version of a super conference. They could decide to siphon off the best of the Big 12 into the SEC and ACC and have quantity of product to offer versus the two new FOX stations, or take Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas add them to North Carolina, Duke, and Florida State or Virginia Tech to create a 20 team SEC that maximizes eyeballs, sends content through the roof, and maximizes those brands profits while leaving everything else to either reform a minor version of the ACC/BigEast/Big12 for mid-week games, or just let them go period.

The concept of taking the highest percentage of viewership from the national brands and putting them in the conference that already leads the nation in eyeballs maximizes the audience for advertising profits, and minimizes the number of teams they have to support in the process. Fox could then profit by a very large Big 10, part of the PAC, and the leftovers of the ACC and Big 12, but they would not be able to capture the numbers with close to 50 schools that ESPN could with 20. Let's say that ESPN decides to make it 24 teams. You could add the remainder of F.S.U./Virginia Tech, West Virginia, N.C. State, and Clemson or Miami. That would leave FOX 40 schools that would not net them the % of profit versus the outlay that ESPN would have with 24 teams and less overhead.

I think this is the kind of thinking that is going on right now. I also believe that it is likely that we won't have the answer to this kind of question for a month or two, or perhaps until the Maryland decision. If Maryland's 52 million dollar exit fee stands then it may not be so costly for ESPN to shore up the ACC and shoot for control in a 20 team SEC and a 20 team ACC. Sure there is CBS to contend with in the SEC but they are not the threat that FOX is and ESPN has tier 2 & 3 of the SEC's content which is enormous. If the fee is drastically lowered it will probably be economically advantageous to go for the 1 large conference with uber content.

Don't be fooled by the Big 10's projections. They are based on models that may not be steady, and on FOX's willingness to build inventory. ESPN has deep pockets too and sports programming has the highest yield per dollar investment of any kind of TV entertainment. Plus the sports market is a bubble that may be nearing capacity. There is a lot to weigh before the final strategies of these two Networks are implemented.

The Big 10 will come out of this fine one way or the other and so will the SEC. The question is how the other product is divided up, or bolstered. On that we will all just have to wait and see.

I'm not sure a bidding war is inevitable. They both have rights deals with most of the same leagues and often sell content back and forth.

I think it was pretty obvious they agreed to over-pay the Big XII after the defections to keep Texas from leaving. Sure the Pac-12 was going its own way on the lower tier but Texas added to the Big 10 or even the improbable SEC would hand a lot of clout to the league getting them.

I don't believe TV wanted the Big East to spin apart like it did. ESPN had to hate the WAC dying because it gave them flexibility for non-Saturday games. I don't believe they want to see the sports columnist dream of four leagues happen either.

It is in TV's best interest to have the top teams spread across many leagues because no one holds enough leverage to drive prices way up

(02-25-2013 10:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 09:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  A FOX versus ESPN bidding war is inevitable. The lull in the action is probably over strategy. I think the issue for ESPN will boil down to volume of product versus quality of product with quality being measured in national eyeballs.

I think they (ESPN) are trying to decide whether it makes more sense to save the ACC and pillage the Big 12, or pillage both the ACC and Big 12 in order to assimilate their own version of a super conference. They could decide to siphon off the best of the Big 12 into the SEC and ACC and have quantity of product to offer versus the two new FOX stations, or take Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas add them to North Carolina, Duke, and Florida State or Virginia Tech to create a 20 team SEC that maximizes eyeballs, sends content through the roof, and maximizes those brands profits while leaving everything else to either reform a minor version of the ACC/BigEast/Big12 for mid-week games, or just let them go period.

The concept of taking the highest percentage of viewership from the national brands and putting them in the conference that already leads the nation in eyeballs maximizes the audience for advertising profits, and minimizes the number of teams they have to support in the process. Fox could then profit by a very large Big 10, part of the PAC, and the leftovers of the ACC and Big 12, but they would not be able to capture the numbers with close to 50 schools that ESPN could with 20. Let's say that ESPN decides to make it 24 teams. You could add the remainder of F.S.U./Virginia Tech, West Virginia, N.C. State, and Clemson or Miami. That would leave FOX 40 schools that would not net them the % of profit versus the outlay that ESPN would have with 24 teams and less overhead.

I think this is the kind of thinking that is going on right now. I also believe that it is likely that we won't have the answer to this kind of question for a month or two, or perhaps until the Maryland decision. If Maryland's 52 million dollar exit fee stands then it may not be so costly for ESPN to shore up the ACC and shoot for control in a 20 team SEC and a 20 team ACC. Sure there is CBS to contend with in the SEC but they are not the threat that FOX is and ESPN has tier 2 & 3 of the SEC's content which is enormous. If the fee is drastically lowered it will probably be economically advantageous to go for the 1 large conference with uber content.

Don't be fooled by the Big 10's projections. They are based on models that may not be steady, and on FOX's willingness to build inventory. ESPN has deep pockets too and sports programming has the highest yield per dollar investment of any kind of TV entertainment. Plus the sports market is a bubble that may be nearing capacity. There is a lot to weigh before the final strategies of these two Networks are implemented.

The Big 10 will come out of this fine one way or the other and so will the SEC. The question is how the other product is divided up, or bolstered. On that we will all just have to wait and see.

I'm not sure a bidding war is inevitable. They both have rights deals with most of the same leagues and often sell content back and forth.

I think it was pretty obvious they agreed to over-pay the Big XII after the defections to keep Texas from leaving. Sure the Pac-12 was going its own way on the lower tier but Texas added to the Big 10 or even the improbable SEC would hand a lot of clout to the league getting them.

I don't believe TV wanted the Big East to spin apart like it did. ESPN had to hate the WAC dying because it gave them flexibility for non-Saturday games. I don't believe they want to see the sports columnist dream of four leagues happen either.

It is in TV's best interest to have the top teams spread across many leagues because no one holds enough leverage to drive prices way up

I appreciate your reasoning, but the elimination of 1 more conference, maybe even 2 nets each team in three twenty team conferences a little more than 2 million more per year in addition to any other income they may be about to receive. In total that is a lot of encouragement for more realignment. But, I do think they are going to have to consider that against the strength of staying more regional in composition, at least as regional as 20 teams permit.

The AD will always be in CYA mode in public, but what the University President says behind closed doors means exponentially more:

http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content/...going.html

Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee told the school’s Athletic Council in December that discussions about further expansion for the Big Ten conference are “ongoing.”

In November, the league announced the addition of Maryland from the Atlantic Coast Conference and Rutgers from the Big East. Nebraska joined the Big Ten for the 2011-12 school year after leaving the Big 12.

It doesn’t appear that the Big Ten is necessarily content to stay at 14 members. According to the minutes of the Dec. 5 Athletic Council meeting obtained by the Dispatch, Gee said “there has been ongoing discussion” about expansion and “believes there is movement towards three or four super conferences that are made up of 16-20 teams.”

When a student member of the Athletic Council asked Gee what direction the Big Ten might take, Gee said “there are opportunities to move further south in the (E)ast and possibly a couple of Midwest universities.”

He did not specify any potential targets but said they will make sure any new school has “like-minded academic integrity.”

If we move from five major conferences to three, that would mathematically lead to more top tier combinations for games. There would be no reason for FOX and ESPN to enter into a bidding war. They would end up just decreasing each other's profits. Yes, FOX is expanding to cover more college football but with this realignment looming, they wont have to challenge ESPN at the top to fill all those programming slots.

They just need to make sure no one else, aka NBC, moves up to challenge them at their position in the pecking order.

If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

so half of the SEC.

(02-26-2013 01:20 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

so half of the SEC.

No, it is more like the bottom third every conference has. Besides the bottom 1/3 of the SEC has to play the top 2/3 every year. It is more like the majority of the PAC, over half of the Big 10, and 2/3 of the ACC.

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

Ahhh That ladder, I thought you meant the conference membership ladder.

As to your assertion that is true. That is what competition breeds. They all will make more money though.

If you mean the rankings ladder, I don't think that will be true. There will still be plenty of easy games in those conferences. They will be well balanced and they will also have an iron grasp on the reigns of schedule strengths.

(02-26-2013 01:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

Ahhh That ladder, I thought you meant the conference membership ladder.

As to your assertion that is true. That is what competition breeds. They all will make more money though.

If you mean the rankings ladder, I don't think that will be true. There will still be plenty of easy games in those conferences. They will be well balanced and they will also have an iron grasp on the reigns of schedule strengths.

The rankings ladder will adjust some as well. As the size of the conferences grow, the number of OOC games diminish. There will be fewer easy wins outside of conference games, especially if the conferences follow through with the elimination of OOC games with FCS and non-major conference schools. There won't be enough patsies to go around...

(02-26-2013 01:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 01:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-26-2013 12:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If we move to 3 major conferences, a lot of big name programs will move down the ladder...

Such as?

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure that out for yourself...

It would be the teams that start losing more games as a result of having to play teams better than themselves, instead of the patsies they line up every year...

Ahhh That ladder, I thought you meant the conference membership ladder.

As to your assertion that is true. That is what competition breeds. They all will make more money though.

If you mean the rankings ladder, I don't think that will be true. There will still be plenty of easy games in those conferences. They will be well balanced and they will also have an iron grasp on the reigns of schedule strengths.

The rankings ladder will adjust some as well. As the size of the conferences grow, the number of OOC games diminish. There will be fewer easy wins outside of conference games, especially if the conferences follow through with the elimination of OOC games with FCS and non-major conference schools. There won't be enough patsies to go around...

Yeah but the SoS of those conferences would allow them to have at least 1 loss if not 2 more than schools in similar rankings that come from the lesser conferences.

Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

(02-26-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Easy wins will be much harder to come by...

The Big Ten is adding Maryland and Rutgers already, if they add Virginia, UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and one more then that is not exactly a line up that is going to step in and annihilate the Big Ten across the board. FSU will definitely provide stout competition. The rest, equal competition to their counterparts in the Big Ten but the top teams in the Big Ten will beat them more often than lose.

In the SEC if they take as I stated, not saying that they will but just that they could, then how do TCU, WVU, Louisville, NC State, Virginia Tech and either Clemson or Miami throw the SEC hierarchy into disarray? If anything the strongest teams will have even stronger SoS's and equivalent records to what they have now.

Two losses in these leagues will not be looked down upon in comparison to some undefeated teams from lesser leagues.

It all comes down to the scheduling. Some years it will be tough, some years it won't be. Just speculating though, it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.