Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a 1 to 5 score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support)

2. U.S. News World Report score - Has limitations, but good indicator of general health and prestige of undergraduate program and arts programs.

3. ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) - Good indicator of research focus and capacity.

4. 2013 football attendance - It doesn't matter how good a school is if no one shows up.

5. 2012-13 gross athletic revenue - Sure, the school accountants work the numbers, but it is a good indicator of a school's ability to fund athletics through the AD and contribute the overflow to university causes.

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JR that the future of realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

I am posting on this board rather than the general board because I do not want it to devolve into a pissing match between Texas Tech and Houston.

So, without further ado, the breakdown of scores. I used some judgment here and found the most natural breaking points:

1. Undergraduate Students - (5) 25,000+, (4) 20,000+, (3) 15,000+, (2) 10,000+, (1) less than 10,000

2. USNWR - (5) 1-74, (4) 75-149 and service academies, (3) 150-200, (2) 201 + National or high ranked regional, (1) average to low ranked regional

3. ARWU - (5) 1-75, (4) 75-200, (3) 201-300, (2) 300-499, (1) Not Ranked

4. Football Attendance - (5) 75,000+, (4) 55,000+ (3) 40,000+ (2) 20,000+ (1) less than 20,000

5. Revenue - (5) $87 mil +, (4) $65 mil +, (3) $40 mil +, (2) $25 mil +, (1) less than $25 mil

Tally up the totals for each school and divide by 5 to give a score on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being the most valuable schools/programs.

5 - Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Wisconsin
4.8 - none
4.6 - California, Florida State, Georgia, Minnesota, Texas A&M, UCLA, Washington
4.4 - Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers, Southern Cal
4.2 - Iowa, Virginia Tech
4 - Arizona, Arizona State, Indiana, LSU, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama (this low because they are not ranked in ARWU since the med school is UAB)

3.8 - Auburn, BYU, Clemson, Colorado, Iowa State, Maryland, NC State, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Stanford
3.6 - Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Virginia
3.4 - Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, Miami, Northwestern, Oregon State, Utah
3.2 - Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Washington State
3 - Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, Mississippi State, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia

2.8 - Baylor, Buffalo, Houston, Louisville, Mississippi, San Diego State
2.6 - Boston College, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rice, TCU, Wake Forest
2.4 - East Carolina, Ohio, SMU
2.2 - Appalachian State, Kent State, North Texas, Tulane, Utah State
2 - Air Force, Army, Central Michigan, Florida International, Memphis, Miami-Oxford, Navy, Nevada, UAB, UTSA, Western Michigan

1.8 - Akron, Ball State, Fresno State, Northern Illinois, Old Dominion, San Jose State, Texas State, Tulsa, UNC-Charlotte, UNLV, UTEP, Wyoming
1.6 - Boise State, Bowling Green, Florida Atlantic, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Idaho, LA-Lafayette, MTSU, New Mexico State, Southern Miss
1.4 - Louisiana Tech, Marshall, Toledo, Western Kentucky
1.2 - Arkansas State, Eastern Michigan, South Alabama
1 - LA-Monroe, Troy

Highlights: 1) The private schools get hit by undergraduate population, but many also have football attendance below 40,000 (BC, WF, Duke, Vandy, Cuse, NW). 2) The Mississippi schools are fortunate that they are squeezed between many powerhouses and that the SEC is loyal. 3) Boise State is doing a heck of a job, because their raw data suggests they are virtually identical to Fresno State. 4) An asterisk may be needed beside Army, Navy, Air Force, BYU, and Notre Dame because of their unique national followings by non-alumni. I was not sure how to objectively score "following" for them but leave out special cases like Nebraska, USC, etc. TV following is probably the best indicator if anyone has a good set of numbers we can use.

If anyone has legit TV market share data, I'd love to add it to this data and see what comes up. Yes, in a vacuum, UCF, USF, Temple, and UMass look good, but that is not the whole story.

Alabama will always suffer in rankings because of the limitations it faced decades ago, not being a grant university, which forced it to organize itself as it has.

I like this mathematical breakdown a lot though. It's an easy to follow and great general guide.

Look at those Cajuns! Not bad!

(01-08-2014 10:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Alabama will always suffer in rankings because of the limitations it faced decades ago, not being a grant university, which forced it to organize itself as it has.

I like this mathematical breakdown a lot though. It's an easy to follow and great general guide.

Look at those Cajuns! Not bad!

I thought UL-Lafayette beating out La. Tech was interesting, too. Your undergraduate population really helps, and their football attendance took a huge dive this year compared to the last few. That was the case with quite a few of the CUSA/Sunbelt/MWC schools. They have huge attendance percentage swings depending on if they have a good team that year. If you can bust into the top 200 on the USNWR rankings, you would be a better long term consideration for the AAC than Tech.

In your rankings, Rutgers was the top AAC (and non-P5 school)

Tulane is at a 2.4 by my figures.

Undergrad: 1
ARWU: 2
USNEWS: 5
Attendance: 2
Revenue: 2

That's 12/5 = 2.4

Tulane's home attendance - when extended over 4-5 years - sits at around 19-22k. It really depends on what numbers you use and when. I'm guessing you got to 2.2 by just applying a floor figure of "1" to attendance - which isn't wrong by any means.

Great stuff, though.

(01-08-2014 02:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  In your rankings, Rutgers was the top AAC (and non-P5 school)

Big wonder why the got the call-up, right?

(01-08-2014 02:29 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane is at a 2.4 by my figures.

Undergrad: 1
ARWU: 2
USNEWS: 5
Attendance: 2
Revenue: 2

That's 12/5 = 2.4

Tulane's home attendance - when extended over 4-5 years - sits at around 19-22k. It really depends on what numbers you use and when. I'm guessing you got to 2.2 by just applying a floor figure of "1" to attendance - which isn't wrong by any means.

Great stuff, though.

You're right, Tulane did not get the benefit of rounding up, which is how I got 2.2. Their attendance this year was 19,747, which was just under the line between a 1 and 2 score. There are enough close calls for many schools that everybody should probably have a +/- .2 assumed on their score.

Thanks for the compliment! It was fun to see how things unfolded.

Another thing you need to look at is how ARWU breaks rankings. They use different cutoff points than you do.

Tulane and Wake Forest are in the 301-400 range. We do not know whether that is 150-349 or 350-500.

There are a few other cutoff points that REALLY can affect things when moved.

Furthermore, I think the next step in this - and this is something others could help you out with - is to think about what conference weigh which criteria over others.

(01-08-2014 05:12 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Another thing you need to look at is how ARWU breaks rankings. They use different cutoff points than you do.

Tulane and Wake Forest are in the 301-400 range. We do not know whether that is 150-349 or 350-500.

There are a few other cutoff points that REALLY can affect things when moved.

Furthermore, I think the next step in this - and this is something others could help you out with - is to think about what conference weigh which criteria over others.

I hope this brings you comfort... you are right about the ARWU lump rankings. Even if my breakdown description above is not true to how they lump, all of the schools with a 250 score are a "3", the 350 and 450 schools are a "2", and those not ranked (assume 500 or worse) are a "1". So, Tulane is in the same grouping as the rest of the 350 schools. There are 22 "5" schools, 21 "4" schools, 16 "3" schools, 19 "2" schools, and 51 "1" schools (no ranking at all). It was about as good as I could separate the ranked schools without arbitrarily deciding who is a "better" 250 rank school. I updated the OP description to be more clear and correct.

Feel free to use weights based on what conferences value! It would be educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless.

(01-08-2014 10:17 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Now that the 2012-13 revenue figures have been released by the NCAA, I slapped together some of the facts and figures that we toss around about a school's worth in realignment. I have taken all of the FBS schools and given them a 1 to 5 score in the following categories:

1. Undergraduate population (indicator of alumni quantity and current ability to support)

2. U.S. News World Report score - Has limitations, but good indicator of general health and prestige of undergraduate program and arts programs.

3. ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) - Good indicator of research focus and capacity.

4. 2013 football attendance - It doesn't matter how good a school is if no one shows up.

5. 2012-13 gross athletic revenue - Sure, the school accountants work the numbers, but it is a good indicator of a school's ability to fund athletics through the AD and contribute the overflow to university causes.

The glaring item missing is TV markets, but I agree with JR that the future of realignment will be value, not market potential. Also missing is the subjective "legacy" and "future potential". This is just an indicator of where things now stand.

I am posting on this board rather than the general board because I do not want it to devolve into a pissing match between Texas Tech and Houston.

So, without further ado, the breakdown of scores. I used some judgment here and found the most natural breaking points:

1. Undergraduate Students - (5) 25,000+, (4) 20,000+, (3) 15,000+, (2) 10,000+, (1) less than 10,000

2. USNWR - (5) 1-74, (4) 75-149 and service academies, (3) 150-200, (2) 201 + National or high ranked regional, (1) average to low ranked regional

3. ARWU - (5) 1-75, (4) 75-200, (3) 201-300, (2) 300-499, (1) Not Ranked

4. Football Attendance - (5) 75,000+, (4) 55,000+ (3) 40,000+ (2) 20,000+ (1) less than 20,000

5. Revenue - (5) $87 mil +, (4) $65 mil +, (3) $40 mil +, (2) $25 mil +, (1) less than $25 mil

Tally up the totals for each school and divide by 5 to give a score on a 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being the most valuable schools/programs.

5 - Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Texas, Wisconsin
4.8 - none
4.6 - California, Florida State, Georgia, Minnesota, Texas A&M, UCLA, Washington
4.4 - Illinois, Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers, Southern Cal
4.2 - Iowa, Virginia Tech
4 - Arizona, Arizona State, Indiana, LSU, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama (this low because they are not ranked in ARWU since the med school is UAB)

3.8 - Auburn, BYU, Clemson, Colorado, Iowa State, Maryland, NC State, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, Stanford
3.6 - Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Virginia
3.4 - Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, Miami, Northwestern, Oregon State, Utah
3.2 - Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Washington State
3 - Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, Mississippi State, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia

2.8 - Baylor, Buffalo, Houston, Louisville, Mississippi, San Diego State
2.6 - Boston College, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rice, TCU, Wake Forest
2.4 - East Carolina, Ohio, SMU
2.2 - Appalachian State, Kent State, North Texas, Tulane, Utah State
2 - Air Force, Army, Central Michigan, Florida International, Memphis, Miami-Oxford, Navy, Nevada, UAB, UTSA, Western Michigan

1.8 - Akron, Ball State, Fresno State, Northern Illinois, Old Dominion, San Jose State, Texas State, Tulsa, UNC-Charlotte, UNLV, UTEP, Wyoming
1.6 - Boise State, Bowling Green, Florida Atlantic, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Idaho, LA-Lafayette, MTSU, New Mexico State, Southern Miss
1.4 - Louisiana Tech, Marshall, Toledo, Western Kentucky
1.2 - Arkansas State, Eastern Michigan, South Alabama
1 - LA-Monroe, Troy

Highlights: 1) The private schools get hit by undergraduate population, but many also have football attendance below 40,000 (BC, WF, Duke, Vandy, Cuse, NW). 2) The Mississippi schools are fortunate that they are squeezed between many powerhouses and that the SEC is loyal. 3) Boise State is doing a heck of a job, because their raw data suggests they are virtually identical to Fresno State. 4) An asterisk may be needed beside Army, Navy, Air Force, BYU, and Notre Dame because of their unique national followings by non-alumni. I was not sure how to objectively score "following" for them but leave out special cases like Nebraska, USC, etc. TV following is probably the best indicator if anyone has a good set of numbers we can use.

If anyone has legit TV market share data, I'd love to add it to this data and see what comes up. Yes, in a vacuum, UCF, USF, Temple, and UMass look good, but that is not the whole story.

First of all nice work BBB. Second lets boil your data down to a hit list:

Available at 5.0: Texas
4.8: Nobody
4.6: Florida State
4.4: Nobody
4.2: Virginia Tech
4.0: North Carolina
3.8: B.Y.U., Clemson, Iowa State, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Pittsburgh
3.6: Virginia
3.4: Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, and Miami
3.2: Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
3.0: Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple and West Virginia

Lets make a list now for the 4 surviving conferences with the ACC surviving intact:
1. Texas
2. B.Y.U.
3. Oklahoma
4. Iowa State
5. Kansas
6. Central Florida
7. Oklahoma State
8. Kansas State
9. Texas Tech
10. Connecticut
11. West Virginia
12. Cincinnati
13. Colorado State
14. South Florida
15. Massachusetts
16. Temple

******************************************************************************************************************
My cut off was at 3.0 on BBB's rating system.

There are 67 teams that receive a rating of 3.0 or higher.

Note there are 2 Big 12 schools that don't make that cut off point: Baylor at 2.8 and T.C.U. at 2.6.

There are 3 ACC teams that don't make that cut off: Boston College 2.6, Wake Forest 2.6, and Louisville 2.8.

The SEC has 1 that doesn't make the cut off: Ole Miss at 2.8

All of the PAC and Big 10 schools make the 3.0 cut off line.

Let's assume that the only one of the 6 P5 teams not making the cut off that would automatically be accepted (or grandfathered in is Ole Miss).

(Teams scoring 3.0 or higher not in a present P5 conference: B.Y.U. at 3.8, Central Florida at 3.4, Connecticut at 3.2, Cincinnati at 3.0, Colorado State at 3.0, Massachusetts at 3.0, South Florida at 3.0, and Temple 3.0)

*******************************************************

If you assume that the Big 10 keeps their state school AAU requirements then their targets are limited to: 1. Texas, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas. If they are expanded beyond AAU and state status you may add 3. Oklahoma and 10. Connecticut.

Given the SEC's penchant for keeping things geographically confined to contiguous states with more Southern cultures our list would be:
1. Texas, 3. Oklahoma, 6. Central Florida, 7. Oklahoma State, 9. Texas Tech, 11. West Virginia, 14. South Florida

The ACC's list would be to keep things geographically contiguous and not redundant to existing footprints: 10. Connecticut, 11. West Virginia, 12 Cincinnati, 15. Massachusetts

The PAC's list would/should be: 1. Texas, 2. B.Y.U., 3. Oklahoma, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas, 7. Oklahoma State, 8. Kansas State, 9. Texas Tech, and 13. Colorado State

The interesting thing about breaking it down this way is that Iowa State and B.Y.U. show that it is not just about football and Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech are not the dogs that realignment posters would seem to think.

*******************************************************
Let's assume the goal is 16.

I doubt that if the Big 12 breaks up that Texas will head North. I equally doubt that Oklahoma would alienate its fan base with such a move either.
Iowa State and Kansas therefore become the best two options for the Big 10 to maintain its culture and a concise geographical footprint and expand to 16 although Connecticut could well get a look.

The SEC would have advantages for landing the pair of Oklahoma's and could do far worse.

The PAC might take Texahoma to get to 16 and if they did it would limit the SEC expansion to Central Florida, Kansas State or West Virginia. Since I don't think Mike Slive would let that happen things could get interesting.

How does that change opinions? Let's try 20 teams for 3 conferences.

Now lets say that the PAC moves to 20 with essentially the 7 Big 12 teams and B.Y.U.. If that happens then the ACC comes into play and 11 of them with considerations to West Virginia, Connecticut, and Central Florida would be utilized to get the Big 10 and SEC to 20 each. 20 for the SEC and Big 10 is not far fetched since they have networks which need an extra supply of content to insure annual programming needs are met. .

Let's say the Big 10 gets essentially what they want (Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Boston College/ Pittsburgh/ or Connecticut) to get to 20. That's 3 national brands and two lock downs for New York and New England. The SEC would be looking at Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and either (West Virginia/Miami/Louisville/or Pittsburgh).

Do you see what happens at 3 x 20? The PAC is expanded to compete more equitably for time slots with the SEC and Big 10. The Big 10 solidifies New England and gets to do so without great compromise to their academic profile. The SEC gets into several new states which are all contiguous with their profile and they solidify the Deep South. And most importantly the power in terms of region, name brands, and likely earnings are all more balanced.

The interesting part of BBB's work here is that the schools the SEC would take would have a higher value across the board than those of the Big 10 in spite of AAU status.

When I first analyzed all of the teams (about 2 years ago) I determined that 4 targets from the ACC were essential: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State. All 4 were top money makers, top ACC television draws for football, and led the ACC in attendance in 2012. North Carolina and Duke were more profitable for all sports than N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Virginia finished out of all metrics except academics.

*******************************************************

In analysis if the Big 10 can't land Texas there simply isn't enough value for them to raid the Big 12 first. If Texas is off the table to the Big 10 and as long as Oklahoma is left the SEC can find some value in expanding out of the Big 12. If Texas and Oklahoma or both off the table whether in a move to the PAC, or some other scenario, there will be little incentive for the SEC or the Big 10 to take any of the remaining schools. It is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC monetarily to encourage the PAC to 20 and for the two of them to work on the dissolution of the ACC.

Food for thought.

Now guys play with those facts and see what you think.

AWRU really hurts ECU. Throw that out and we avg a 3 (im assuming our revenue is a 2...not sure?). We need to focus on raising academics....Which we are, so i'm not upset. Pouring money into medicine and bioengineering. Here's to moving up.

Thanks for taking the time to break this information down - this is a really good list.

And finally we can all agree that Texas Tech and Houston are both better then North Texas. Or maybe we can just agree that there's Texas and Texas A&M and then everybody else in the state.

On a serious note though, as someone who lives in the DFW area I noticed that North Texas isn't that far behind TCU and SMU. I knew they had a pretty good sized student body but I didn't expect them to be that high, thinking they would be down with Texas State and UTSA.

DFW is obviously a huge market but most of the population cheers for A&M, UT, and OU, with a decent few as Tech fans as well. TCU got really popular the year they went to the Rose Bowl, but you don't really find many people that are fans of TCU, SMU, or UNT first.

UNT has been trying to improve their image in the metroplex and their new stadium and the series with SMU should help that quite a bit. If they can continue their improvement, especially on the football field, I'm beginning to think they might be in line for a Central Florida type of growth in the G5.

(01-08-2014 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 10:17 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

First of all nice work BBB. Second lets boil your data down to a hit list:

Available at 5.0: Texas
4.8: Nobody
4.6: Florida State
4.4: Nobody
4.2: Virginia Tech
4.0: North Carolina
3.8: B.Y.U., Clemson, Iowa State, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Pittsburgh
3.6: Virginia
3.4: Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, and Miami
3.2: Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
3.0: Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple and West Virginia

Lets make a list now for the 4 surviving conferences with the ACC surviving intact:
1. Texas
2. B.Y.U.
3. Oklahoma
4. Iowa State
5. Kansas
6. Central Florida
7. Oklahoma State
8. Kansas State
9. Texas Tech
10. Connecticut
11. West Virginia
12. Cincinnati
13. Colorado State
14. South Florida
15. Massachusetts
16. Temple

******************************************************************************************************************
My cut off was at 3.0 on BBB's rating system.

There are 67 teams that receive a rating of 3.0 or higher.

Note there are 2 Big 12 schools that don't make that cut off point: Baylor at 2.8 and T.C.U. at 2.6.

There are 3 ACC teams that don't make that cut off: Boston College 2.6, Wake Forest 2.6, and Louisville 2.8.

The SEC has 1 that doesn't make the cut off: Ole Miss at 2.8

All of the PAC and Big 10 schools make the 3.0 cut off line.

Let's assume that the only one of the 6 P5 teams not making the cut off that would automatically be accepted (or grandfathered in is Ole Miss).

(Teams scoring 3.0 or higher not in a present P5 conference: B.Y.U. at 3.8, Central Florida at 3.4, Connecticut at 3.2, Cincinnati at 3.0, Colorado State at 3.0, Massachusetts at 3.0, South Florida at 3.0, and Temple 3.0)

*******************************************************

If you assume that the Big 10 keeps their state school AAU requirements then their targets are limited to: 1. Texas, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas. If they are expanded beyond AAU and state status you may add 3. Oklahoma and 10. Connecticut.

Given the SEC's penchant for keeping things geographically confined to contiguous states with more Southern cultures our list would be:
1. Texas, 3. Oklahoma, 6. Central Florida, 7. Oklahoma State, 9. Texas Tech, 11. West Virginia, 14. South Florida

The ACC's list would be to keep things geographically contiguous and not redundant to existing footprints: 10. Connecticut, 11. West Virginia, 12 Cincinnati, 15. Massachusetts

The PAC's list would/should be: 1. Texas, 2. B.Y.U., 3. Oklahoma, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas, 7. Oklahoma State, 8. Kansas State, 9. Texas Tech, and 13. Colorado State

The interesting thing about breaking it down this way is that Iowa State and B.Y.U. show that it is not just about football and Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech are not the dogs that realignment posters would seem to think.

*******************************************************
Let's assume the goal is 16.

I doubt that if the Big 12 breaks up that Texas will head North. I equally doubt that Oklahoma would alienate its fan base with such a move either.
Iowa State and Kansas therefore become the best two options for the Big 10 to maintain its culture and a concise geographical footprint and expand to 16 although Connecticut could well get a look.

The SEC would have advantages for landing the pair of Oklahoma's and could do far worse.

The PAC might take Texahoma to get to 16 and if they did it would limit the SEC expansion to Central Florida, Kansas State or West Virginia. Since I don't think Mike Slive would let that happen things could get interesting.

How does that change opinions? Let's try 20 teams for 3 conferences.

Now lets say that the PAC moves to 20 with essentially the 7 Big 12 teams and B.Y.U.. If that happens then the ACC comes into play and 11 of them with considerations to West Virginia, Connecticut, and Central Florida would be utilized to get the Big 10 and SEC to 20 each. 20 for the SEC and Big 10 is not far fetched since they have networks which need an extra supply of content to insure annual programming needs are met. .

Let's say the Big 10 gets essentially what they want (Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Boston College/ Pittsburgh/ or Connecticut) to get to 20. That's 3 national brands and two lock downs for New York and New England. The SEC would be looking at Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and either (West Virginia/Miami/Louisville/or Pittsburgh).

Do you see what happens at 3 x 20? The PAC is expanded to compete more equitably for time slots with the SEC and Big 10. The Big 10 solidifies New England and gets to do so without great compromise to their academic profile. The SEC gets into several new states which are all contiguous with their profile and they solidify the Deep South. And most importantly the power in terms of region, name brands, and likely earnings are all more balanced.

The interesting part of BBB's work here is that the schools the SEC would take would have a higher value across the board than those of the Big 10 in spite of AAU status.

When I first analyzed all of the teams (about 2 years ago) I determined that 4 targets from the ACC were essential: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State. All 4 were top money makers, top ACC television draws for football, and led the ACC in attendance in 2012. North Carolina and Duke were more profitable for all sports than N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Virginia finished out of all metrics except academics.

*******************************************************

In analysis if the Big 10 can't land Texas there simply isn't enough value for them to raid the Big 12 first. If Texas is off the table to the Big 10 and as long as Oklahoma is left the SEC can find some value in expanding out of the Big 12. If Texas and Oklahoma or both off the table whether in a move to the PAC, or some other scenario, there will be little incentive for the SEC or the Big 10 to take any of the remaining schools. It is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC monetarily to encourage the PAC to 20 and for the two of them to work on the dissolution of the ACC.

Food for thought.

Now guys play with those facts and see what you think.

I love when you feed the machine, JR. Very good insights, and I think you finally convinced me that fighting for UNC and UVA is not only unnecessary but maybe even less desirable. Any move to 16 by just breaking up the Big 12 is going to end with someone as the loser, as you show. The PAC's aversion to BYU is really making things difficult. They do not fit anywhere else except a surviving Big 12 that releases WVU for greener pastures.

If Texas really wants to do whatever is necessary to keep their top dog status in a major conference, I think the time is soon coming where they need to tap the quickly growing Mountain West. Utah and Colorado are the #2 and #3 fastest growing states, respectively, and both have available schools that would seamlessly merge into the conference because of existing peers. BYU is not going to find peers closer than TCU or Baylor, and Colorado State is a 20,000 undergraduate school that is 121 USNWR and 175 ARWU. That makes them a better academic school than everyone in the Big 12 except Texas and Iowa State. Their drawback is a 35,000 seat stadium, but it was built in 1968. With a guarantee of Big 12 money, I'm sure they could get that up by a bit. Heck, if they sell out as-is, they will be the same draw as Kansas and just several thousand short of TCU and Baylor.

I'm sure the Big 12 would love to move east into Florida instead of west, but there is untapped value to the west for which the PAC is unwilling to sully their hands. San Diego State is like picking up Kansas State, adding 6,000 more students, and placing it in a top 30 market in one of the most gorgeous places on earth with direct access to elite recruits. It is part of the California State University system, so if it makes them feel better, change the name to California State University - San Diego, and just go by California State or Cal State. New Mexico is a 250 ARWU rank (same as Kansas), and brings in an entirely new contiguous state, not to mention a natural rival for Texas Tech. UNLV has some major academic improvements to make, but we have seen other universities improve quickly and dramatically when motivated.

Anyway, I agree with your analysis about 16, JR. It will be hard to break up the Big 12 with each conference taking 2-3 teams without someone feeling shafted. If 12 to 14 schools is going to be the way of the near future, the Big 12 need to chose their path.

If 3 conferences of 20 is what emerges, I love that SEC lineup, JR. FSU and Clemson are peas and carrots, Georgia Tech would get that loving feeling back soon enough when they see half of their ACC mates coming along, NC State would thrive similar to TAMU by getting out of brother's shadow, and Virginia Tech would feel like they had always been there. The Big 10 should love their lineup, too, as should the PAC. If we are ever to see a scenario with 3 satisfied parties, I think that is it.

(01-09-2014 11:54 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 08:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 10:17 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

First of all nice work BBB. Second lets boil your data down to a hit list:

Available at 5.0: Texas
4.8: Nobody
4.6: Florida State
4.4: Nobody
4.2: Virginia Tech
4.0: North Carolina
3.8: B.Y.U., Clemson, Iowa State, N.C. State, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, and Pittsburgh
3.6: Virginia
3.4: Central Florida, Duke, Georgia Tech, Kansas, and Miami
3.2: Connecticut, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech
3.0: Cincinnati, Colorado State, Massachusetts, South Florida, Syracuse, Temple and West Virginia

Lets make a list now for the 4 surviving conferences with the ACC surviving intact:
1. Texas
2. B.Y.U.
3. Oklahoma
4. Iowa State
5. Kansas
6. Central Florida
7. Oklahoma State
8. Kansas State
9. Texas Tech
10. Connecticut
11. West Virginia
12. Cincinnati
13. Colorado State
14. South Florida
15. Massachusetts
16. Temple

******************************************************************************************************************
My cut off was at 3.0 on BBB's rating system.

There are 67 teams that receive a rating of 3.0 or higher.

Note there are 2 Big 12 schools that don't make that cut off point: Baylor at 2.8 and T.C.U. at 2.6.

There are 3 ACC teams that don't make that cut off: Boston College 2.6, Wake Forest 2.6, and Louisville 2.8.

The SEC has 1 that doesn't make the cut off: Ole Miss at 2.8

All of the PAC and Big 10 schools make the 3.0 cut off line.

Let's assume that the only one of the 6 P5 teams not making the cut off that would automatically be accepted (or grandfathered in is Ole Miss).

(Teams scoring 3.0 or higher not in a present P5 conference: B.Y.U. at 3.8, Central Florida at 3.4, Connecticut at 3.2, Cincinnati at 3.0, Colorado State at 3.0, Massachusetts at 3.0, South Florida at 3.0, and Temple 3.0)

*******************************************************

If you assume that the Big 10 keeps their state school AAU requirements then their targets are limited to: 1. Texas, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas. If they are expanded beyond AAU and state status you may add 3. Oklahoma and 10. Connecticut.

Given the SEC's penchant for keeping things geographically confined to contiguous states with more Southern cultures our list would be:
1. Texas, 3. Oklahoma, 6. Central Florida, 7. Oklahoma State, 9. Texas Tech, 11. West Virginia, 14. South Florida

The ACC's list would be to keep things geographically contiguous and not redundant to existing footprints: 10. Connecticut, 11. West Virginia, 12 Cincinnati, 15. Massachusetts

The PAC's list would/should be: 1. Texas, 2. B.Y.U., 3. Oklahoma, 4. Iowa State, 5. Kansas, 7. Oklahoma State, 8. Kansas State, 9. Texas Tech, and 13. Colorado State

The interesting thing about breaking it down this way is that Iowa State and B.Y.U. show that it is not just about football and Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Texas Tech are not the dogs that realignment posters would seem to think.

*******************************************************
Let's assume the goal is 16.

I doubt that if the Big 12 breaks up that Texas will head North. I equally doubt that Oklahoma would alienate its fan base with such a move either.
Iowa State and Kansas therefore become the best two options for the Big 10 to maintain its culture and a concise geographical footprint and expand to 16 although Connecticut could well get a look.

The SEC would have advantages for landing the pair of Oklahoma's and could do far worse.

The PAC might take Texahoma to get to 16 and if they did it would limit the SEC expansion to Central Florida, Kansas State or West Virginia. Since I don't think Mike Slive would let that happen things could get interesting.

How does that change opinions? Let's try 20 teams for 3 conferences.

Now lets say that the PAC moves to 20 with essentially the 7 Big 12 teams and B.Y.U.. If that happens then the ACC comes into play and 11 of them with considerations to West Virginia, Connecticut, and Central Florida would be utilized to get the Big 10 and SEC to 20 each. 20 for the SEC and Big 10 is not far fetched since they have networks which need an extra supply of content to insure annual programming needs are met. .

Let's say the Big 10 gets essentially what they want (Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Boston College/ Pittsburgh/ or Connecticut) to get to 20. That's 3 national brands and two lock downs for New York and New England. The SEC would be looking at Florida State, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and either (West Virginia/Miami/Louisville/or Pittsburgh).

Do you see what happens at 3 x 20? The PAC is expanded to compete more equitably for time slots with the SEC and Big 10. The Big 10 solidifies New England and gets to do so without great compromise to their academic profile. The SEC gets into several new states which are all contiguous with their profile and they solidify the Deep South. And most importantly the power in terms of region, name brands, and likely earnings are all more balanced.

The interesting part of BBB's work here is that the schools the SEC would take would have a higher value across the board than those of the Big 10 in spite of AAU status.

When I first analyzed all of the teams (about 2 years ago) I determined that 4 targets from the ACC were essential: Clemson, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and N.C. State. All 4 were top money makers, top ACC television draws for football, and led the ACC in attendance in 2012. North Carolina and Duke were more profitable for all sports than N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Virginia finished out of all metrics except academics.

*******************************************************

In analysis if the Big 10 can't land Texas there simply isn't enough value for them to raid the Big 12 first. If Texas is off the table to the Big 10 and as long as Oklahoma is left the SEC can find some value in expanding out of the Big 12. If Texas and Oklahoma or both off the table whether in a move to the PAC, or some other scenario, there will be little incentive for the SEC or the Big 10 to take any of the remaining schools. It is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC monetarily to encourage the PAC to 20 and for the two of them to work on the dissolution of the ACC.

Food for thought.

Now guys play with those facts and see what you think.

I love when you feed the machine, JR. Very good insights, and I think you finally convinced me that fighting for UNC and UVA is not only unnecessary but maybe even less desirable. Any move to 16 by just breaking up the Big 12 is going to end with someone as the loser, as you show. The PAC's aversion to BYU is really making things difficult. They do not fit anywhere else except a surviving Big 12 that releases WVU for greener pastures.

If Texas really wants to do whatever is necessary to keep their top dog status in a major conference, I think the time is soon coming where they need to tap the quickly growing Mountain West. Utah and Colorado are the #2 and #3 fastest growing states, respectively, and both have available schools that would seamlessly merge into the conference because of existing peers. BYU is not going to find peers closer than TCU or Baylor, and Colorado State is a 20,000 undergraduate school that is 121 USNWR and 175 ARWU. That makes them a better academic school than everyone in the Big 12 except Texas and Iowa State. Their drawback is a 35,000 seat stadium, but it was built in 1968. With a guarantee of Big 12 money, I'm sure they could get that up by a bit. Heck, if they sell out as-is, they will be the same draw as Kansas and just several thousand short of TCU and Baylor.

I'm sure the Big 12 would love to move east into Florida instead of west, but there is untapped value to the west for which the PAC is unwilling to sully their hands. San Diego State is like picking up Kansas State, adding 6,000 more students, and placing it in a top 30 market in one of the most gorgeous places on earth with direct access to elite recruits. It is part of the California State University system, so if it makes them feel better, change the name to California State University - San Diego, and just go by California State or Cal State. New Mexico is a 250 ARWU rank (same as Kansas), and brings in an entirely new contiguous state, not to mention a natural rival for Texas Tech. UNLV has some major academic improvements to make, but we have seen other universities improve quickly and dramatically when motivated.

Anyway, I agree with your analysis about 16, JR. It will be hard to break up the Big 12 with each conference taking 2-3 teams without someone feeling shafted. If 12 to 14 schools is going to be the way of the near future, the Big 12 need to chose their path.

If 3 conferences of 20 is what emerges, I love that SEC lineup, JR. FSU and Clemson are peas and carrots, Georgia Tech would get that loving feeling back soon enough when they see half of their ACC mates coming along, NC State would thrive similar to TAMU by getting out of brother's shadow, and Virginia Tech would feel like they had always been there. The Big 10 should love their lineup, too, as should the PAC. If we are ever to see a scenario with 3 satisfied parties, I think that is it.

There is a solution for the PAC dilemma over B.Y.U.. The Big 10 could release Nebraska (no longer AAU) to move to the PAC and simply add another Eastern team. Although I think B.Y.U. deserves a spot at the table and the PAC is really the only geographical fit for them.

Yes, that Nebraska swap is a plausible solution if it comes down to it. Talk about clear geographical separations... the winner of such a scenario is definitely Colorado. In the end, they would have their cake and eat it, too.

Maybe the Big 10 would go for that if the arrangement meant they would get UNC and UVA without SEC interference.

(01-09-2014 03:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Yes, that Nebraska swap is a plausible solution if it comes down to it. Talk about clear geographical separations... the winner of such a scenario is definitely Colorado. In the end, they would have their cake and eat it, too.

Maybe the Big 10 would go for that if the arrangement meant they would get UNC and UVA without SEC interference.

Yep they could pick up both Pittsburgh and Connecticut / Boston College and while the football product was weaker their net gain in TV sets would be greater.

(01-08-2014 10:17 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  I am posting on this board rather than the general board because I do not want it to devolve into a pissing match between Texas Tech and Houston.

(01-09-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 03:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Yes, that Nebraska swap is a plausible solution if it comes down to it. Talk about clear geographical separations... the winner of such a scenario is definitely Colorado. In the end, they would have their cake and eat it, too.

Maybe the Big 10 would go for that if the arrangement meant they would get UNC and UVA without SEC interference.

Yep they could pick up both Pittsburgh and Connecticut / Boston College and while the football product was weaker their net gain in TV sets would be greater.

In order for a 3x20 structure to work, the PAC, SEC and B1G need to be convinced that such a structure will improve per team payouts. I could see the B1G going to 20 if they can run the table and get UVA, UNC, GT, and three of ND, TX, OK, KS, or FSU (but not BC, Pitt or UConn). That might keep B1G payouts the same or maybe even grow them.

JR, your structure results in lots of overlaps in the SEC, while the B1G seems to get a combination of both overlaps and teams that may not bring sufficient revenue with them. I see per team payouts more likely going down than up in that scenario. And the scenario requires some seismic events to occur. Think of how many highly unlikely things need to happen at roughly the same time. For starters, UNC has to decide to break up the ACC, TX has to decide to break up the Big 12, and ND has to decide to not be independent anymore. Maybe sometime in the latter part of this century but not in my lifetime. Expansion is much more likely to happen incrementally, with a couple teams moving as occurred last time around.

If the Big 12 gets carved up and the B1G can't get two of TX, OK and KU, then maybe it gets one of them (KU most likely) and looks for #16. In that scenario, even if the ACC holds together the B1G might be able to pick off one ACC team and the usual suspect has been UVA.

BBB's message highlighted one point that most posters have missed. I've wondered why UVA rather than VT seemed to be the consensus choice to join the B1G. Maybe it's because the UVA talk occurred when UVA and UNC were rumored to be thinking about a move, and in that scenario UNC and UVA would be more likely to move as a pair than UNC and VT.

I've been to both UVA and VT campuses when my kids were looking at colleges. UVA is an old line, blue blood school founded by Thomas Jefferson. It has the look and feel of an eastern liberal arts college. VT on the other hand looks and feels like the B1G campuses we visited. It is big, with a huge grassy oval at the center that's used by the Corp of Cadets as a parade ground. It has a large sports complex at one end of campus.

UVA is a great school, but VT has larger research expenditures, a larger student body, larger facilities and, according to the NYT article a few years ago, a much larger fan base. UVA has a better overall academic ranking. VT is first and foremost an engineering school (like GTech) and a really good one, ranked #14 nationally. That puts them right behind Illinois, Michigan, Purdue (ranked in top 10 for engineering) and Wisconsin. The B1G is all about research and VT seems to fit in well. VT certainly thinks so. Here's the list of "Benchmark Institutions" posted on VT's website as having academic profiles similar to VT:

• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
• University of Florida, Gainesville
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• Iowa State University, Ames
• University of Maryland, College Park
• University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• Michigan State University, East Lansing
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
• University of Missouri, Columbia
• North Carolina State University, Raleigh
• The Ohio State University, Columbus
• Pennsylvania State University, University Park
• University of Pittsburgh
• Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
• Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
• State University of New York at Buffalo
• University of Southern California, Los Angeles
• Stony Brook University, State University of New York
• Texas A&M University, College Station
• University of Texas at Austin
• University of Washington, Seattle
• University of Wisconsin, Madison

If you're keeping track, it's B1G schools 10; SEC schools 3; ACC schools 2; Big 12 schools 2. VT is not an AAU school, but they're otherwise a better fit than UVA for the B1G.

VT has only been an ACC member since 2004, so VT is much more likely than UVA to move out of the ACC. I think VT actually may be angling for a B1G spot. They've scheduled a bunch of OOC football games against B1G opponents over the next 8 years or so, kinda like showin' a little leg to get Delaney's attention. So if the B1G thought it would not be able to get UNC, and wanted to find a partner for a team from the Big 12, I would not be surprised if they picked VT.

The Big Ten already has said that AAU isn't a requirement. So you can say that they would do such in order to help a particular position but we already have proof that it is not a requirement. If it was, Missouri would be part of the Big Ten, not Nebraska.

(01-09-2014 10:51 PM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 03:27 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Yes, that Nebraska swap is a plausible solution if it comes down to it. Talk about clear geographical separations... the winner of such a scenario is definitely Colorado. In the end, they would have their cake and eat it, too.

Maybe the Big 10 would go for that if the arrangement meant they would get UNC and UVA without SEC interference.

Yep they could pick up both Pittsburgh and Connecticut / Boston College and while the football product was weaker their net gain in TV sets would be greater.

In order for a 3x20 structure to work, the PAC, SEC and B1G need to be convinced that such a structure will improve per team payouts. I could see the B1G going to 20 if they can run the table and get UVA, UNC, GT, and three of ND, TX, OK, KS, or FSU (but not BC, Pitt or UConn). That might keep B1G payouts the same or maybe even grow them.

JR, your structure results in lots of overlaps in the SEC, while the B1G seems to get a combination of both overlaps and teams that may not bring sufficient revenue with them. I see per team payouts more likely going down than up in that scenario. And the scenario requires some seismic events to occur. Think of how many highly unlikely things need to happen at roughly the same time. For starters, UNC has to decide to break up the ACC, TX has to decide to break up the Big 12, and ND has to decide to not be independent anymore. Maybe sometime in the latter part of this century but not in my lifetime. Expansion is much more likely to happen incrementally, with a couple teams moving as occurred last time around.

If the Big 12 gets carved up and the B1G can't get two of TX, OK and KU, then maybe it gets one of them (KU most likely) and looks for #16. In that scenario, even if the ACC holds together the B1G might be able to pick off one ACC team and the usual suspect has been UVA.

BBB's message highlighted one point that most posters have missed. I've wondered why UVA rather than VT seemed to be the consensus choice to join the B1G. Maybe it's because the UVA talk occurred when UVA and UNC were rumored to be thinking about a move, and in that scenario UNC and UVA would be more likely to move as a pair than UNC and VT.

I've been to both UVA and VT campuses when my kids were looking at colleges. UVA is an old line, blue blood school founded by Thomas Jefferson. It has the look and feel of an eastern liberal arts college. VT on the other hand looks and feels like the B1G campuses we visited. It is big, with a huge grassy oval at the center that's used by the Corp of Cadets as a parade ground. It has a large sports complex at one end of campus.

UVA is a great school, but VT has larger research expenditures, a larger student body, larger facilities and, according to the NYT article a few years ago, a much larger fan base. UVA has a better overall academic ranking. VT is first and foremost an engineering school (like GTech) and a really good one, ranked #14 nationally. That puts them right behind Illinois, Michigan, Purdue (ranked in top 10 for engineering) and Wisconsin. The B1G is all about research and VT seems to fit in well. VT certainly thinks so. Here's the list of "Benchmark Institutions" posted on VT's website as having academic profiles similar to VT:

• University of California, Berkeley
• University of California, Davis
• University of Colorado, Boulder
• Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
• University of Florida, Gainesville
• University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• Iowa State University, Ames
• University of Maryland, College Park
• University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• Michigan State University, East Lansing
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
• University of Missouri, Columbia
• North Carolina State University, Raleigh
• The Ohio State University, Columbus
• Pennsylvania State University, University Park
• University of Pittsburgh
• Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.
• Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick
• State University of New York at Buffalo
• University of Southern California, Los Angeles
• Stony Brook University, State University of New York
• Texas A&M University, College Station
• University of Texas at Austin
• University of Washington, Seattle
• University of Wisconsin, Madison

If you're keeping track, it's B1G schools 10; SEC schools 3; ACC schools 2; Big 12 schools 2. VT is not an AAU school, but they're otherwise a better fit than UVA for the B1G.

VT has only been an ACC member since 2004, so VT is much more likely than UVA to move out of the ACC. I think VT actually may be angling for a B1G spot. They've scheduled a bunch of OOC football games against B1G opponents over the next 8 years or so, kinda like showin' a little leg to get Delaney's attention. So if the B1G thought it would not be able to get UNC, and wanted to find a partner for a team from the Big 12, I would not be surprised if they picked VT.

You are looking at the situation through internet realignment rules. That will have little bearing upon the final realignment moves. The overlap in the SEC is with Georgia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State. N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and possibly a third depending upon who it is would be new state adds.

In the "bogus internet rules of realignment" those won't add enough. But in the network structuring of those teams into a final movement they don't have to add, although Florida State and Clemson both do, just not as much as a new state, all they have to do is not devalue anyone's amount. When conferences were building for new contracts then new markets were the issue. In the final movement while some new markets will be acquired the issue will become securing homes for the schools required to make movement happen. The schools will be worth what the networks say they will pay and not a dime more or less. Market models will be moot. If ESPN & FOX agree for 7 of the Big 12 schools to move West and they are willing to pay to make that happen then so be it.

Now people will say why would the networks pay more to move teams around? The answer is in a 3 x 20 model they are paying much less for the 5 schools left out when the next round of contracts come up. Each team in the AAC is earning but a fraction of what the P5 presently get. At minimum most P5 teams currently earn 20 million plus for contracts. The networks would have 100 million more to pay out minus approximately the 5 million per team that those left out might make in the G5 structure. So each of the 60 teams could receive another million over their present contracts plus bumps and the investment by the networks would be minimal to acquire much better content in the surviving conferences. The added content from a 20 team league will also help to boost subscriptions for the respective networks.

As to your suggestion that the Big 10 would take Kansas there are two points to consider. 1. Kansas would rather move with Kansas State. 2. East coast additions add more viewers for the Big 10 Network so Delany would rather expand East than West.

Virginia, North Carolina, and Duke are AAU. Syracuse could be again and up until recently was. Notre Dame is a given exception and without a Big 12 or ACC to run to I think the Irish would have to join somewhere and if their choice was between the SEC and Big 10 I think they would swallow hard and join the Big 10. But who knows maybe they will form the 8th team with 7 from the Big 12 to go to the PAC.

The SEC would be just as happy with Virginia as Virginia Tech so even if those two were swapped by the Big 10 and SEC it wouldn't be a big deal. But it would be a Big Deal to North Carolina and Duke and therein lies the rub as to why the Cavaliers would likely go Big 10 and the Hokies SEC in that scenario. I suppose the Georgia Tech could go Big 10, but it really is a geographical outlier for a school that brings no sporting props with it. And Tech operates on a reduced athletic budget so travel would be an issue. They would rather stay local is my guess. Remember that it is easier to sell cable network subscriptions to a well defined market area than to a disparate one.

Further Clemson vs Alabama, Clemson vs Tennessee, Clemson vs Auburn, Clemson vs Georgia just to name a few would generate far more television revenue than Clemson vs the average ACC team. Multiply that factor by a few more points for Florida State and by a few less points by Georgia Tech and they still pay the bills. Maybe Miami or Louisville could do that, but nearly as well. Virginia Tech and N.C. State would bring markets and content boost with the Hokies.

Right now the SEC and Big 10 have well defined contiguous, and culturally secure conferences. The additions to 20 suggested fulfill both their sense of identity and their vision for the future of a region. The suggested placements work very well.

The PAC gains central time zone slots, 3 brand names (possibly 4) and greater exposure for their product in slots heretofore unobtainable. That all equals more profit. The Big 12 teams get to stay together minus West Virginia, Baylor and T.C.U.. That will be as good as it gets for them. Texas avoids having to follow the Aggies, Oklahoma gets OSU in and ditto for Kansas State and Texas Tech (who also gets a share of oil revenue from Texas annually as do the Aggies and Horns).

In the end the payouts to all 60 teams will be relatively equal bringing added stability. Cross conference play will be mandated and there is strong reason to believe that all 12 games would be contained within the upper division. We'll see.

But there is no way to make a 3 x 20 model work if the SEC and Big 10 poach Big 12 schools. The PAC can never reach equal strength without them. So the failure to balance the three will inevitably lead to the weakening of the PAC and further division. If we want this mess to stop then the SEC and Big 10 need to absorb the ACC and let the PAC do the same for the Big 12. JR