(12-31-2013 11:28 AM)oliveandblue Wrote: (12-20-2013 08:57 PM)JRsec Wrote: Lurker I totally agree about eventually needing to monopolize the Southeast. I am of the firm opinion that when this realignment is completed that the next round of TV contracts will suffer a bait and switch. Networks aren't going to want to pay full price for the same state twice. So if the ACC and SEC share Florida and ESPN owns both conference contracts eventually they are going to say to the SEC I'll give you 1/3rd of the market value for Florida and 2/3rd to the ACC, or they will apportion payment based on actual viewership. So I foresee that we will move from a market footprint model of payment to an eventual market saturation model.
Compound that with the fact that the ACC truly has better basketball and we have better football as a whole and that the Southeast has the most loyal viewership of any region of the country and the leverage that the ACC and SEC needs resides in that monopoly of product.
The SEC is the most valuable product in the nation with regards to football. I get tired of not being paid accordingly. Jackie Sherrill says that we will be the best paid but that he never expects to hear the actual value of the SECN discussed because both the conference and ESPN want to keep it quiet. We'll see. But of the Big 3 sports the SEC and ACC combined either dominate or are coequals with another conference as the best. The Big 10 and ACC in basketball are on par, and the SEC and PAC in baseball are on par. But our most valuable product is hands down dominated by the SEC and a few other Southeastern brands.
The leverage we could obtain by taking Clemson, Florida State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas would be enormous. Add the markets in North Carolina and Virginia and you have the premier athletic conference in the nation for all sports. West Virginia, Miami, and Louisville could be considered as well. Such regionalism will only intensify rivalries, permit fan bases to travel more easily, assist minor sports with expenses, and allow the region of the country that supports its athletics to keep and divide all of its revenue. The others need us. The bowls rely on our fans to fill their seats. If you don't believe this to be true then look at all the bowls located elsewhere and what they charge for tickets and how empty their venues are when our teams aren't playing in them.
The Big 10 is reportedly about to renew with ESPN for more money for less product. They will brag again about being the best paid. The estimate is 30 million per team. The networks will proclaim their markets superior. But...it is our teams that swamp the Big 10 in actual ratings. It is our teams that draw the most national attention. And, it is because it is our teams that put the best product on the field and play in the most compelling match ups. I for one am damned sick of not being the leader in all forms of revenue from ESPN. Quite frankly I see the fat salary for fewer eyeballs as a form of Rust Belt welfare. And before I draw hoots and hollers from my Northern brethren I would simply ask how you would feel if you dominated ratings, dominated championships, had the best product and got paid less? With complete ownership of the Southeast this kind of stuff would never happen again. If your product is superior in every category your pay should reflect it.
ESPN's compensation to the Big 10 is the corporate means of trying to balance the playing field. They subsidize the weaker product at a time they are looking to expand in hopes that the money can buy them some better product to prop up what is fast becoming a hard sell. The PAC like some of the ACC has little regional loyalty and many competing forms of entertainment and recreation. The Big 12 is just too small. The Big 10 has a very large and passionate fan base, but their talent pool is limited and it reflects on the football field. Right now networks are trying to figure out how to bolster their plight. Relocating Southern or Southwestern schools to the Big 10 isn't going to rejuvenate them but it will alienate the Southern fan bases of schools selected to go.
I think it is in the best interest of college football to revitalize the Big 10, but not by making Southern schools their conference members. It is time to kill all FCS games and lower FBS games. Let the BCS schools only play BCS schools. We can have the Spring game moved to August against a local FBS school as kind of a preseason game the ticket for which will be included in the season book which then gives every BCS team 7 home games. Let's play 10 conference games and partner the Big 10 with the SEC and PAC so that every BCS school plays 10 games in conference, and 1 game each against the other two conferences the games to be determined by the previous year's conference finishing positions. Without crappy games against MAC, Sunbelt, CUSA and Mountain West schools the Big 3 will have a compelling game each week. The Big 10 would be guaranteed access and exposure to the Southeast and Pacific West. They would better be able to measure themselves annually against those two conferences and they could build relationships with institutions they otherwise have limited exposure to. Then let all three conferences sell their rights together to ameliorate television revenue. Nothing will ever be truly equal but with that equalized then alumni and states will be the largest differences between them. Let their internal conference championships become the first rounds of the National Championship playoffs, the finals of which would still be 4 teams comprised of the best at large team and the 3 champions.
3 conferences of between 20 to 24 is all we need to do it. Better games weekly will mean more eyeballs on the tube and more fannies in the seats eating 5 dollar hotdogs and drinking 4 dollar cokes while cushioned by a 3 dollar stadium cushion rental. The advertisers will be happier, the networks should have little to gripe about, and it engages all regions of the country and builds to the climax that is the playoffs.
Dump the polls, committees, computers, bowl tie ins and crappy games and we will all be better off.
Here are your problems:
1. ND isn't going to join the B1G under any circumstances. They could be coaxed into joining a modified version of today's ACC, however. ND is too big of a program to just shoehorn into whatever you want.
2. I don't think the ACC can be efficiently carved up. I also don't think that the B1G/PAC/SEC have an interest in all of the Big XII schools.
3. If I'm a lower-half-of-the-P5 school, why should I accept these measures? My teams will suddenly go from being average in the current top division to being hideous in a truncated top division.
4. Why would TV networks - who run on eyeballs, literally - want to do ANYTHING that could be taken into a negative light by some of their current market? You're going to lose a small chunk (I'll put it about 10%) of long-time viewers when you make this move forward. Who do you replace those lost viewers with? Does consolidating the top division net you a new viewership base?
-----
Assuming that you can answer #1 and #4, I would say that your new top division would end up looking like this:
1. The 3 primary conferences will need to consist of 22 teams each. This will allow you to include all of the P5 (65 schools) and Notre Dame. That's 66 teams.
2. The TV networks - which will want to be viewed as the good guy in all of this to make sure they hold a captive audience - are going to make you have some sort of provision for independents in this new top flight. They'll probably all make around 1.5m-6m a year in TV revenue. Schools such as Cincy, BYU, UConn, Navy, etc. will probably opt-in under this provision. TV networks do have a desire for certain mid-majors - but TV is NOT going to pay 30m+ for those properties.
3. All schools in this league will have to approve the ruleset that has been established by the new P3 (66). The top 66 will run the division top-to-bottom.
4. Your full top flight will consist of 68-80 teams. Expect lawsuits from at least half of the 40 or so that get cut out. The good news is that your TV revenue will spike so hard that you should be living just fine AFTER you pay those out.
5. Adopt an eight team playoff with the following format:
- SEC Champ
- SEC #2
- B1G Champ
- B1G #2
- PAC Champ
- PAC #2
- At-Large (B1G/SEC/PAC #3)
- At-Large (May include the #1 Indy IF they are Top 8)
I don't think any 3x model works, JR - but if one does, I think this is it.
A significant percentage of viewers of sports are people who just want to see something different on television. They aren't anywhere near the largest percentage but they tend to watch whatever they can find that isn't a rerun and these days that's precious little. New programming overhead costs are significant. Sports overhead costs are not. This segment of viewers also tend to watch the brand name teams in whatever sport is in season. Even the major college football viewers are tired of seeing the Big 10 vs the MAC, the SEC vs the Sunbelt, the PAC vs the MWC, the Big 12 vs Tulsa and the smaller Texas teams, and the ACC vs CUSA. There will be no sustained long term damage to the number of viewers if changes are made or not. There isn't going to be a problem with a 3 x 20 model other than some triage.
1. N.D. will join if they are forced (only way to inclusion for playoffs) to join. For the time being an affiliation with a division within a larger conference is all that is necessary for their, or B.Y.U.'s inclusion. Win the division and you are in the conference playoffs which if you win places you in the national mix. With 3 conferences the three champions advance and the best at large team advances. There is no need to extend the season beyond the first week of January. Ultimately this will please college presidents, the basketball coaches, players and fans who will have the public's undivided attention once football is concluded, and the coaches and players themselves who risk injuries at a higher rate toward the end of a season when their bodies need rest and healing.
2. So far the TV networks have managed not to be seen as the bad guy although it is clear from the money trail that they have a major hand in the process. Nothing will change with further realignment and people will still tune in because they are too lazy to garden, too impulsive to read, don't like the high cost of travel, and have been conditioned to despise silence. So the tube will be on and the channel selection will be something that doesn't require their complete attention, but is different and not a rerun. That's sports and since we are really only talking about two major sports providers it will likely be ESPN or to a lesser extent FOX that they will be watching. People will do this whether they are pissed about realignment or not.
3. The rules will be pre-agreed upon by the entire upper tier. So there will only be 60 to 68 schools in it. It is possible that once the 3 x 20 is selected that additions could take place, particularly in the Southeast where there are many schools in close proximity that are FBS, but if there are further additions it will be to 24 (no more). That figure still fits within the overall structure. There aren't enough qualified candidates to permit the Big 10 and SEC to both expand to 20 and then have enough teams left that fit the Big 10 profile. The PAC could eventually grow to 24, but it would require a decade or two to permit other Western schools to grow into their requirements. So I just don't see your point in #3. The upper tier will be by nature and design, exclusionary.
4. Once the entrance criteria are established for the upper tier the lawsuit aspect will be gone. Entrance requirements are self exclusionary and not all of the schools presently in the P5 will want to meet the established standards. Some have already expressed reluctance over just stipends.
Look for the entrance requirements to include:
a. Minimum Athletic Endowment Requirements
b. Minimum Required Sports to be Offered
c. Stipends for All Scholarship Athletes
d. Minimum Requirements for Profitability
e. Minimum Requirements for Facilities
f. Minimum Actual Attendance Requirements
g. Standardized Entrance Requirements (SAT, ACT, High School Grades)
h. Minimum Requirements for Full Scholarships on All Varsity Sports Teams
i. Minimum % of Graduation Requirements
j. Minimum Requirement of Investment in Athletics
to name just a few and give you a clearer picture.
Presently there is a slight drop off on the level of investment in athletics by FBS schools between postions 60 to 66 depending on where you want to set the breaks and again a more significant one between postions 70 to 74 depending upon where you want to set the breaks. Once a few of the present P5 schools opt out (likely some small private schools who won't meet the above requirements) and you take in up to 68 schools there won't be any left that can come close to the requirements.
That's how it will be done whether we have a P5, P4, or P3 model. Unless the ACC gets a network they can't keep pace long term. Give them a network and they will be solid enough to remain as they are, plus a couple of additions. The Big 12 model is not sustainable.
