The much ballyhooed NCAA Convention is over. What was it about? Was it an attempt to acclimate the G5 and FCS to changes coming for the P5? Maybe, in part. Was it an introduction of certain changes coming for the P5? Not at all. I think it was exactly what one should expect from a bureaucracy, a big damn stalling attempt designed to limit the amount of change and maintain power. From my perspective it was a big fail.

Sure they will grant the P5 the right to govern student athlete welfare and grant stipends, but there is little else in their talk of autonomy that should excite or please any P5 school or its administration. So what do we do now? And how does that affect realignment?

The first things that must be done is that the commissioners and presidents of the P5 schools need to build consensus for change within the NCAA, or plan their breakaway. They are under time constraints however. The Big 10 must be free to move on further realignment prior to 2016. The SEC will be past their start up expenses and into full profit mode with the SECN by 2016. Most moves from conferences require a two year notice (unless the conference is dissolved) and that means that August 15th of 2014 is the last date that a leaving school may file exit notifications. My point?

Mark Emmert is fully aware of these timelines and that is why this NCAA conference was a big piece of touchy feely do nothing fluff. By pushing back action on recommending changes to April, and approval to late Summer, should a problem arise (and bet the damn farm it will) between now and then it would push implementation of "any" changes into 2015 if then. That derails notifications and final expansion moves. Why?

No conference can afford to move to 16 teams until structure issues are addressed. Nobody seems to know for sure whether "autonomy" includes the ability to modify conference structures or offer more access to conference playoffs by expanding them by 1 round of play. For the Big 10 or SEC or anyone to expand further for the sake of their networks, their markets and content, they must first know that they have the ability to adapt their structure to accommodate rivalries and to implement new scheduling strategies that would insure that all teams would play each other team at least within the athlete's four years of eligibility or even sooner if possible. Currently the NCAA restrictions have us teetering on an uncomfortable 14 because to push beyond in a two division structure where play is round robin mandated would mean to essentially eliminate cross divisional play.

So, the likely outcomes:

1. Our presidents and commissioners wuss out like they have done so many times in dealing with the NCAA and realignment stops essentially where it is but our schools are granted the right to pay stipends and other minor perks to athletes.

2. Our commissioners organize our presidents and we insist that if we remain in the NCAA that we need a much broader definition of autonomy than the one that Emmert so weakly suggested. In mass we force the changes and realignment continues to its ultimate destination (which is yet to be determined by other factors which I will explain in a moment).

3. We finally grow a brain and get the hell out of the NCAA and its gross waste of time, resources, and energy. This would be a tougher course because it would require some intensive efforts to pick up management of our post seasons, but what the heck there are firms that would gladly handle such for much less than what we have to pay the NCAA to do it. This too would allow realignment to continue, but with much greater freedom.

Let's look at the likely differences between option 2 and option 3.

Under option 2 realignment will be limited to current timelines, contracts, and GOR's. It will still take 12 votes to dissolved the ACC and 8 to dissolve the Big 12. There will still be GOR's that must be negotiated. There will still be schools under contract to FOX and ESPN and others that will have to get networks involved to work out the differences before movement could occur. Realignment will proceed by with those limitations imposed and with a much greater passage of time. On the plus side the GOR's will mean that an orderly brokering of landing spots for all teams within target conferences would be necessary for practical reasons, and would be done so behind the scenes and with consensus by the conferences and networks involved. That kind of orderly progression would be good in that it would not involve a lot of public rancor.

Under option 3 realignment would not be limited except by the desires of the conferences and schools and still with the networks directing from a position of what they would like to see and be willing to pay. Since the new association of schools would not be under the NCAA it could be reconstituted with entirely new guidelines that would necessitate a wholesale drawing of new contracts and a temporary suspension of GOR's.
I still think that all of the present 65 schools would be included (unless they opted out of the stipends and minimum requirements that would have to be established to keep the new association fluid and accessible to prevent restraint of trade cases). I think 64 to 72 would be the range in which realignment would end. There are 71 schools that essentially pay significantly to develop athletics for the sake of competitiveness. The drop off beyond that is rather stark.

Option 2 would be hampered by all of the time constraints that Emmert is banking on.

Option 3 would not be hampered by anything but the cooperation of those leaving and their networks. And with option 3 there is no need for some former conference members to have to hold onto relationships with old conference members they way they would have to in option 2.

What about basketball and baseball?

If we could pare down to a P4 and a G4 why not have the G4 schools breakaway too. They could have their own playoff structure for football and could be assigned to the conference that was their P4 neighbor for OOC baseball, basketball, and minor sports play. They would not be conference members and would maintain their own conference structure, but the proximity for playing OOC games for minor sports would be essential for profit and the cutting of overhead. They would participate in the same basketball and baseball tournaments that we do.

The best of the Sunbelt/CUSA could be assigned to the SEC, the MAC to the Big 10, the AAC to the ACC, and the MWC to the PAC. If each of the P4 football conferences schedule 10 conference games then two G4 games could be played at home each year utilizing teams from your assigned G4 partner.

Being independent of the NCAA would profit the G4 as well. If there are basketball only schools they could gain access by joining with the G4 grouping.

Final analysis:
I am very afraid that we stay inside the NCAA and only pay stipends. I give that option a 60% chance of happening.

I give option 2 a 30% chance of happening and option 3 a 10% chance.

We could be in for a very long wait to resolve this mess. The best thing we have going in our favor right now is Jim Delany's need to resolve some issues prior to the Big 10's next contract period. And I don't know how much of a factor it might be, but ESPN and FOX might very well like being able to shape, and exhibit product outside of the current entanglements of the NCAA. They wouldn't be able to say that publicly because of the risks, but they might very well like to see a breakaway. Here's hoping!

But folks I believe there is a Judas among us in the P5 and it is not the Big 12 or the PAC, or the Big 10. It is a core of members within the ACC that I feel are working with Emmert and against what the Big 10 and SEC would like. They are the ones that are working for stall. The tepid wording of the what the P5 would like smacks of that as well. I think if we move we need to treat them like that core is treating Maryland. We need to move on our best interests without involving them in the discussion. If the Big 10, SEC and PAC work together we can breakaway, bring the Big 12 members with us, and those members of the ACC who desire better football. Let the others stay behind and linger without their football cash to prop up their other sports interests and without a goodly number of fine basketball schools to play. Then when they want in, it will be on our terms and that will include busting up their little cluster of power. There is no need to hold something this critical to so many schools hostage to a few selfish institutions when we have the leverage.

Why do you make me look in SEC-land for this JR? Good stuff.

Delany will have the cash to make a move for the new contract. I'm not sure that he has to wait on the NCAA.

Only a very big dog like Texas would require significant knowledge of the future.

Very good summary, JR. That NCAA convention actually reminds me of something going on here in Nashville. A good portion of the local government and Chamber of Commerce are trying to push through a bus rapid transit system (think subway on rubber using surface streets), and a good portion of the population here see it as a money pit that will actually hurt traffic flow. Without getting into the weeds, they decided to hold a series of town hall meetings. It turns out they were not there to discuss whether or not to do it; they were there to let people vent and then proceed as though the BRT is a foregone conclusion. Instead of asking if the BRT should be done, they are asking for input on how to make it better (classic re-direction tactic).

My point is that the proper questions did not seem to be asked at the NCAA Convention. At this point, the topic should be whether the NCAA continues to exist, not that it is a certainty to stay and we need to find how to improve it. It is frustrating that the NCAA was supposed to be a tool for schools to use for organizational purposes, similar to what JR suggests the major conferences hire to run events and other league matters (which I agree should be done, as well). It turns out that the tool has become the boss.

It is not far-fetched to think that some ACC core members are on the Emmert wagon. The UNC/VA gang knows that the status quo is the best way to force the other attractive schools from bolting for greener pastures.

I think your note about letting the cream of the G5 schools compete as OOC against an eventually P4 or P3 is a good idea. I brought up something similar on the Big Board a while back and was summarily tarred and feathered. It is impossible to hash out how that would look without know the eventual composition of the power conferences, but I counted 22 G5 schools (including BYU) that would easily be valuable enough to use as OOC fillers for the power conferences. I am going to play with some numbers and add more on this item...

(01-23-2014 11:29 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Why do you make me look in SEC-land for this JR? Good stuff.

Delany will have the cash to make a move for the new contract. I'm not sure that he has to wait on the NCAA.

Only a very big dog like Texas would require significant knowledge of the future.

I motion for JR to be given his own board.

The SEC and Big 10 have much more in common than differences in most matters on this topic. SeaBlue, let me get your initial reaction to something we discussed on a different thread; if the SEC did not pursue Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UNC, or UVA and let the PAC and Big 10 hash out those schools, would there be any issue with the SEC taking Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh or Colorado State to get to 24 schools? Basically, it would be taking little brother in new markets and solidifying the geographical southeast in exchange for staying away from the golden geese.

(01-23-2014 09:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The much ballyhooed NCAA Convention is over. What was it about? Was it an attempt to acclimate the G5 and FCS to changes coming for the P5? Maybe, in part. Was it an introduction of certain changes coming for the P5? Not at all. I think it was exactly what one should expect from a bureaucracy, a big damn stalling attempt designed to limit the amount of change and maintain power. From my perspective it was a big fail.

Sure they will grant the P5 the right to govern student athlete welfare and grant stipends, but there is little else in their talk of autonomy that should excite or please any P5 school or its administration. So what do we do now? And how does that affect realignment?

The first things that must be done is that the commissioners and presidents of the P5 schools need to build consensus for change within the NCAA, or plan their breakaway. They are under time constraints however. The Big 10 must be free to move on further realignment prior to 2016. The SEC will be past their start up expenses and into full profit mode with the SECN by 2016. Most moves from conferences require a two year notice (unless the conference is dissolved) and that means that August 15th of 2014 is the last date that a leaving school may file exit notifications. My point?

Mark Emmert is fully aware of these timelines and that is why this NCAA conference was a big piece of touchy feely do nothing fluff. By pushing back action on recommending changes to April, and approval to late Summer, should a problem arise (and bet the damn farm it will) between now and then it would push implementation of "any" changes into 2015 if then. That derails notifications and final expansion moves. Why?

No conference can afford to move to 16 teams until structure issues are addressed. Nobody seems to know for sure whether "autonomy" includes the ability to modify conference structures or offer more access to conference playoffs by expanding them by 1 round of play. For the Big 10 or SEC or anyone to expand further for the sake of their networks, their markets and content, they must first know that they have the ability to adapt their structure to accommodate rivalries and to implement new scheduling strategies that would insure that all teams would play each other team at least within the athlete's four years of eligibility or even sooner if possible. Currently the NCAA restrictions have us teetering on an uncomfortable 14 because to push beyond in a two division structure where play is round robin mandated would mean to essentially eliminate cross divisional play.

So, the likely outcomes:

1. Our presidents and commissioners wuss out like they have done so many times in dealing with the NCAA and realignment stops essentially where it is but our schools are granted the right to pay stipends and other minor perks to athletes.

2. Our commissioners organize our presidents and we insist that if we remain in the NCAA that we need a much broader definition of autonomy than the one that Emmert so weakly suggested. In mass we force the changes and realignment continues to its ultimate destination (which is yet to be determined by other factors which I will explain in a moment).

3. We finally grow a brain and get the hell out of the NCAA and its gross waste of time, resources, and energy. This would be a tougher course because it would require some intensive efforts to pick up management of our post seasons, but what the heck there are firms that would gladly handle such for much less than what we have to pay the NCAA to do it. This too would allow realignment to continue, but with much greater freedom.

Let's look at the likely differences between option 2 and option 3.

Under option 2 realignment will be limited to current timelines, contracts, and GOR's. It will still take 12 votes to dissolved the ACC and 8 to dissolve the Big 12. There will still be GOR's that must be negotiated. There will still be schools under contract to FOX and ESPN and others that will have to get networks involved to work out the differences before movement could occur. Realignment will proceed by with those limitations imposed and with a much greater passage of time. On the plus side the GOR's will mean that an orderly brokering of landing spots for all teams within target conferences would be necessary for practical reasons, and would be done so behind the scenes and with consensus by the conferences and networks involved. That kind of orderly progression would be good in that it would not involve a lot of public rancor.

Under option 3 realignment would not be limited except by the desires of the conferences and schools and still with the networks directing from a position of what they would like to see and be willing to pay. Since the new association of schools would not be under the NCAA it could be reconstituted with entirely new guidelines that would necessitate a wholesale drawing of new contracts and a temporary suspension of GOR's.
I still think that all of the present 65 schools would be included (unless they opted out of the stipends and minimum requirements that would have to be established to keep the new association fluid and accessible to prevent restraint of trade cases). I think 64 to 72 would be the range in which realignment would end. There are 71 schools that essentially pay significantly to develop athletics for the sake of competitiveness. The drop off beyond that is rather stark.

Option 2 would be hampered by all of the time constraints that Emmert is banking on.

Option 3 would not be hampered by anything but the cooperation of those leaving and their networks. And with option 3 there is no need for some former conference members to have to hold onto relationships with old conference members they way they would have to in option 2.

What about basketball and baseball?

If we could pare down to a P4 and a G4 why not have the G4 schools breakaway too. They could have their own playoff structure for football and could be assigned to the conference that was their P4 neighbor for OOC baseball, basketball, and minor sports play. They would not be conference members and would maintain their own conference structure, but the proximity for playing OOC games for minor sports would be essential for profit and the cutting of overhead. They would participate in the same basketball and baseball tournaments that we do.

The best of the Sunbelt/CUSA could be assigned to the SEC, the MAC to the Big 10, the AAC to the ACC, and the MWC to the PAC. If each of the P4 football conferences schedule 10 conference games then two G4 games could be played at home each year utilizing teams from your assigned G4 partner.

Being independent of the NCAA would profit the G4 as well. If there are basketball only schools they could gain access by joining with the G4 grouping.

Final analysis:
I am very afraid that we stay inside the NCAA and only pay stipends. I give that option a 60% chance of happening.

I give option 2 a 30% chance of happening and option 3 a 10% chance.

We could be in for a very long wait to resolve this mess. The best thing we have going in our favor right now is Jim Delany's need to resolve some issues prior to the Big 10's next contract period. And I don't know how much of a factor it might be, but ESPN and FOX might very well like being able to shape, and exhibit product outside of the current entanglements of the NCAA. They wouldn't be able to say that publicly because of the risks, but they might very well like to see a breakaway. Here's hoping!

But folks I believe there is a Judas among us in the P5 and it is not the Big 12 or the PAC, or the Big 10. It is a core of members within the ACC that I feel are working with Emmert and against what the Big 10 and SEC would like. They are the ones that are working for stall. The tepid wording of the what the P5 would like smacks of that as well. I think if we move we need to treat them like that core is treating Maryland. We need to move on our best interests without involving them in the discussion. If the Big 10, SEC and PAC work together we can breakaway, bring the Big 12 members with us, and those members of the ACC who desire better football. Let the others stay behind and linger without their football cash to prop up their other sports interests and without a goodly number of fine basketball schools to play. Then when they want in, it will be on our terms and that will include busting up their little cluster of power. There is no need to hold something this critical to so many schools hostage to a few selfish institutions when we have the leverage.

Not so fast my friend...........
the only ACC member that is known to try to slow any progress is Notre Dame. The Irish can't keep all that power with just ACC votes alone. Somebody else has to be supporting Notre Dame and it's positions. Don't place the blame on your known foe (ACC), you had better find your friend with his hand on the hilt of the knife sticking in your back.

Here is a question:

This autonomy to make new rules like stipends...does it only apply to the P5?

IOW, lets say the American wants to do this too...will they be unable to do so because they are not part of the special P5 rule making group?

Because if thats the case...they just pulled off the biggest secret break away ever.

Because if so, no talented kid will pick a G5 school over a P5 school if the P5 school can actively pay him more to go there (not to mention that no G5 school is ever making the playoffs) and while it will benefit football, basketball is where this will really kill the mid-majors in favor of the P5.

You've just effectively created a separate division not just for football but for ALL sport without actually separating (and therefore giving the G5 nothing they can sue over. And you've done it in a manner where its invitation only with no criteria a G5 school can actually meet and demand to be included.

That just might be the most brilliant political maneuvering ever.

(01-23-2014 01:43 PM)XLance Wrote:  Not so fast my friend...........
the only ACC member that is known to try to slow any progress is Notre Dame. The Irish can't keep all that power with just ACC votes alone. Somebody else has to be supporting Notre Dame and it's positions. Don't place the blame on your known foe (ACC), you had better find your friend with his hand on the hilt of the knife sticking in your back.

The ACC and Maryland are locked up in dueling lawsuits and will not settle when the Big 10, the networks and everyone else would like to move on. Why? A settlement doesn't negate future exit fees and Maryland didn't vote for increased fees, everyone else but FSU did. The only reason not to settle is to delay. But why? For starters, in order to get the GOR signed concessions were made to the football first schools like F.S.U. and the hope of a network was held out to the membership. That's a promise they can't fulfill. ESPN saying they would look into it isn't a hopeful sign. The fact that Swofford's Son was aided with the Raycom contract makes regaining the rights tougher to carry out. The subletting of some of that property to FOX affiliates in New York makes it even tougher. Add to that the fact that the footprint doesn't capitalize on its size as is and the ability to close the gaps on those who have networks comes into play. The Big 10 and SEC will approach $40 million in payouts per member within a few years. The longer the ACC stalls the more time they buy to try to work their issues out, clear their product, and pressure ESPN into some kind of a network. And, the longer they tie up the most profitable brands and markets from SEC & Big 10 expansion. So they stall.

That's not Notre Dame who doesn't care about whether the ACC has a network or not. That's the basketball first schools who are afraid that the lure of Big 10 dollars and SEC dollars are going to leave them high and dry. A breakaway makes it happen sooner. So enter Wake Forest who isn't fond of the stipend issue anyway and they get to introduce the P5 proposals to the NCAA convention. The proposal was way to tepid for what has been discussed and the timeline for proposal acceptance is ticking and the slightest problem could push it into 2015 or beyond. Why? Stall, stall, stall. If they can delay past August of this year they know that hampers the Big 10's contract negotiations which puts them even farther behind in terms of revenue.

No, XLance the committee actions, the motives for stalling, the promises that can't be fulfilled for a network all indicate further stalling by Tobacco Road. The rest of us don't have time for it. You've gotta do what's best for you and we have to do what's best for us. I think an effective breakaway can happen with 3 but certainly 4 of the P5 without any trouble at all. I think the foot dragging is a much greater symptom of vulnerability than many realize. The sad thing is that it takes greater unity to get what we want and stay within the NCAA, but the proposals and the discussion at the convention show no real good faith on behalf of Emmert and that's because he thinks he has factions among us that will not work with the group. He thinks that is his leverage. If just the Big 10, PAC and SEC stand together that will be enough. Now our job is to find consensus among ourselves to do what needs to happen and to leave lesser differences for another day when we will determine the rules that will govern us going forward.

(01-23-2014 12:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  to get to 24 schools?

Larry Scott once said that if the Big Ten was to make a move, PAC would as well. I think he said "have to make a move".

I don't know what it is with those guys (commissioners) but size seems to matter to them.

So no, the SEC going to 24 (and Slive letting everyone know it) would probably meet heavy resistance.

(01-23-2014 03:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Here is a question:

This autonomy to make new rules like stipends...does it only apply to the P5?

IOW, lets say the American wants to do this too...will they be unable to do so because they are not part of the special P5 rule making group?

Because if thats the case...they just pulled off the biggest secret break away ever.

Because if so, no talented kid will pick a G5 school over a P5 school if the P5 school can actively pay him more to go there (not to mention that no G5 school is ever making the playoffs) and while it will benefit football, basketball is where this will really kill the mid-majors in favor of the P5.

You've just effectively created a separate division not just for football but for ALL sport without actually separating (and therefore giving the G5 nothing they can sue over. And you've done it in a manner where its invitation only with no criteria a G5 school can actually meet and demand to be included.

That just might be the most brilliant political maneuvering ever.

No! While anyone in the G5 can opt to pay stipends the real issue here is about structure. The brilliant political move is on the part of the NCAA to take the only issue the public is sympathetic to, stipends, and to give in on that alone. In one fell swoop extra scholarships for football are gone, structural issues are left unaddressed by design thereby thwarting those who have networks from expanding inventory and markets. How? The requirement for no more than two divisions and the necessity for round robin play within those divisions. To move beyond 14 would mean truly never getting to play teams from the other division. Multiple divisions and internal playoffs are necessary for further expansion. Those who cannot have a network are advantaged by this move. The PAC, Big 10 and SEC are disadvantaged. Texas, Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Duke, all know that if structural issues fall under the domain of autonomy granted to the P5 that they will eventually be absorbed. This is Mark Emmert working with Swarbrick, Swofford, and now Patterson to throw a monkey wrench in the advantages that those with networks would have.

It's time to flex our resolve and breakaway. Such a move negates any attempt to hold us back. It also makes those schools in the Big 12 and ACC have to pick sides. I think the Big 12 would move with us. I think the ACC will split right down the middle and that is why they are being the obstructionists in this.

(01-23-2014 03:55 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  to get to 24 schools?

Larry Scott once said that if the Big Ten was to make a move, PAC would as well. I think he said "have to make a move".

I don't know what it is with those guys (commissioners) but size seems to matter to them.

So no, the SEC going to 24 (and Slive letting everyone know it) would probably meet heavy resistance.

Network content and a "If I don't get them, someone else will..." mentality is surely coming into play with the desire to go bigger. Good points. JR and I were discussing the merits of all the schools that the SEC should be considering.

(01-23-2014 03:55 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  to get to 24 schools?

Larry Scott once said that if the Big Ten was to make a move, PAC would as well. I think he said "have to make a move".

I don't know what it is with those guys (commissioners) but size seems to matter to them.

So no, the SEC going to 24 (and Slive letting everyone know it) would probably meet heavy resistance.

I think you are missing his point. What BBB is asking is if the SEC didn't seek North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas and operated under the assumption that Delany would like to have them would there be any great opposition to the SEC expanding with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech? If Scott finally wanted in on the action I'm sure we could negotiate out the product. Each conference with a network would benefit from additional content and new markets. So if we opted for the low hanging fruit would that not facilitate resolution?

(01-23-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are missing his point. What BBB is asking is if the SEC didn't seek North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas and operated under the assumption that Delany would like to have them would there be any great opposition to the SEC expanding with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech? If Scott finally wanted in on the action I'm sure we could negotiate out the product. Each conference with a network would benefit from additional content and new markets. So if we opted for the low hanging fruit would that not facilitate resolution?

But he's talking about the SEC going it alone into the realm of 24 teams, correct? I don't think that would sit well with Scott and Delany.

But sure, on the surface most of the schools mentioned look like schools that would be accepted as peers in the Big Ten and the absence of football history might be acceptable to the Execs given the academic strength.

(01-23-2014 05:49 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are missing his point. What BBB is asking is if the SEC didn't seek North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas and operated under the assumption that Delany would like to have them would there be any great opposition to the SEC expanding with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech? If Scott finally wanted in on the action I'm sure we could negotiate out the product. Each conference with a network would benefit from additional content and new markets. So if we opted for the low hanging fruit would that not facilitate resolution?

But he's talking about the SEC going it alone into the realm of 24 teams, correct? I don't think that would sit well with Scott and Delany.

But sure, on the surface most of the schools mentioned look like schools that would be accepted as peers in the Big Ten and the absence of football history might be acceptable to the Execs given the academic strength.

The question presupposes simultaneous moves by the Big 10 and PAC to move to a P3 arrangement absorbing the Big 12 and ACC between us. It is not about the SEC going it alone.

(01-23-2014 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 05:49 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are missing his point. What BBB is asking is if the SEC didn't seek North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas and operated under the assumption that Delany would like to have them would there be any great opposition to the SEC expanding with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech? If Scott finally wanted in on the action I'm sure we could negotiate out the product. Each conference with a network would benefit from additional content and new markets. So if we opted for the low hanging fruit would that not facilitate resolution?

But he's talking about the SEC going it alone into the realm of 24 teams, correct? I don't think that would sit well with Scott and Delany.

But sure, on the surface most of the schools mentioned look like schools that would be accepted as peers in the Big Ten and the absence of football history might be acceptable to the Execs given the academic strength.

The question presupposes simultaneous moves by the Big 10 and PAC to move to a P3 arrangement absorbing the Big 12 and ACC between us. It is not about the SEC going it alone.

Thinking it through, I'm not sure the PAC could survive in the scenario I set up unless the Big 10 did not push any further west. If we took Iowa St, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St, the PAC would have to get all of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to even be in the conversation with the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise, they can't get to 16 teams worth a toot, much less 20 or 24. They would be left with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and the cream of the MWC (some of which double existing footprints).

I'm just trying to think of an arrangement that makes the PAC, Big 10, and SEC happy. JR has done a good job of it in recent posts. Maybe the best approach is a list of "Stay away from" rather than "We want". For the SEC, I think that list is the following in order:

SEC "Stay away from"
1) FSU
2) Clemson
3) Georgia Tech
4) Leave at least one of UNC or NC State
5) Leave at least one of UVA or VT

I really think from the SEC's standpoint, that is all we would ask of the Big 10. Assuming the PAC goes only as far east as the existing Big 12 footprint, I don't think there is anyone that we must have them stay away from.

(01-24-2014 10:39 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 06:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 05:49 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 04:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are missing his point. What BBB is asking is if the SEC didn't seek North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas and operated under the assumption that Delany would like to have them would there be any great opposition to the SEC expanding with Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado State, N.C. State, and Virginia Tech? If Scott finally wanted in on the action I'm sure we could negotiate out the product. Each conference with a network would benefit from additional content and new markets. So if we opted for the low hanging fruit would that not facilitate resolution?

But he's talking about the SEC going it alone into the realm of 24 teams, correct? I don't think that would sit well with Scott and Delany.

But sure, on the surface most of the schools mentioned look like schools that would be accepted as peers in the Big Ten and the absence of football history might be acceptable to the Execs given the academic strength.

The question presupposes simultaneous moves by the Big 10 and PAC to move to a P3 arrangement absorbing the Big 12 and ACC between us. It is not about the SEC going it alone.

Thinking it through, I'm not sure the PAC could survive in the scenario I set up unless the Big 10 did not push any further west. If we took Iowa St, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St, the PAC would have to get all of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas to even be in the conversation with the SEC and Big 10. Otherwise, they can't get to 16 teams worth a toot, much less 20 or 24. They would be left with Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and the cream of the MWC (some of which double existing footprints).

I'm just trying to think of an arrangement that makes the PAC, Big 10, and SEC happy. JR has done a good job of it in recent posts. Maybe the best approach is a list of "Stay away from" rather than "We want". For the SEC, I think that list is the following in order:

SEC "Stay away from"
1) FSU
2) Clemson
3) Georgia Tech
4) Leave at least one of UNC or NC State
5) Leave at least one of UVA or VT

I really think from the SEC's standpoint, that is all we would ask of the Big 10. Assuming the PAC goes only as far east as the existing Big 12 footprint, I don't think there is anyone that we must have them stay away from.

No matter how you carve up this turkey the PAC has to have the Big 12 to survive without tremendous disparity with the SEC and Big 10. Delany and Slive need to both expand with 12 of the ACC teams between the two of them. If they did this the GOR in the ACC is void. The PAC could take 8 of the Big 12 schools and dissolve them. We would each have 20 at that point. Then if networks were willing to pay for more schools each of us could add 4 more schools at our own discretion.

The PAC with Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Texas Tech, T.C.U. Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State could stop and try to develop San Diego State, Nevada, New Mexico, or Hawaii if they wanted to. Or they might get concessions from B.Y.U. to be able to add them.

If the SEC added 4 more it could be any of the 3 remaining ACC schools or Baylor, West Virginia and Cincinnati.

I agree that we must make it clear to the Big 10 that we will pick up at least one Virginia and North Carolina school and that Clemson and F.S.U. are off limits, but Georgia Tech I'm ambivalent about. Even if the Big 10 had Georgia Tech it wouldn't affect who owns Atlanta.

Truthfully and simply there are only 4 ways for realignment to play out.

1. All 5 P5 conferences stay in spite of growing disparity. Some of them add project schools and some do not.

The problem here is that the Big 10 and SEC will distance themselves from the PAC which will distance itself from the Big 12 and ACC in income.

2. A P4 emerges the only way that it can. The ACC takes in West Virginia. The SEC takes Oklahoma and a school it otherwise might not have wanted from the Big 12 (either Baylor or T.C.U. or possibly Oklahoma State). The PAC takes Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas State (or possibly T.C.U.). The Big 10 takes Kansas and Iowa State. The ACC reconnects their footprint, and each of the top 3 get 1 National brand school.

The problem here is that there is simply not the motivation for that kind of brokered move to take place.

3. The three conferences with networks work out the division of the remaining schools and do so with geography for the sake of minor sports in mind.
This could work. The Big 12 might even accept being able to move essentially intact. The ACC will fight it tooth and nail. What you would wind up with were 3 relatively equal strength conferences comprised of between 20 to 24 schools depending.

In my opinion this is the only outcome that will bring a lasting peace.

4. The Big 10 and SEC both take what they want from the Big 12 to grow the disparity between themselves and the ACC. When the income disparity is right they will strike dividing the ACC between them. The only problem now is that they both dwarf the PAC. The eventual outcome is that the California schools with Washington and Colorado would move to the Big 10 and the SEC West would have to pick up the Arizona's, Utah's, and likely the Oregon's. Yech! What we would wind up with are two 32 to 36 team leagues that are so spread out that minor sports would suffer terribly.

Excuse me but there is a 5th option. ESPN could choose to hold the ACC intact and glean what it desires from the Big 12 to be placed in the SEC so that it has immediate access to the largest television market (ACC) and the most viewed product (SEC). If all FOX gains is a piece of the PAC (least watched) and a piece of the Big 10 (weakest on field performance) then ESPN wins. The network angle should never be underestimated.

(01-23-2014 12:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 11:29 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Why do you make me look in SEC-land for this JR? Good stuff.

Delany will have the cash to make a move for the new contract. I'm not sure that he has to wait on the NCAA.

Only a very big dog like Texas would require significant knowledge of the future.

I motion for JR to be given his own board.

The SEC and Big 10 have much more in common than differences in most matters on this topic. SeaBlue, let me get your initial reaction to something we discussed on a different thread; if the SEC did not pursue Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UNC, or UVA and let the PAC and Big 10 hash out those schools, would there be any issue with the SEC taking Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh or Colorado State to get to 24 schools? Basically, it would be taking little brother in new markets and solidifying the geographical southeast in exchange for staying away from the golden geese.

With schools like Iowa State , K State, and Okie State, joining a conference like the SEC might update their status to Big Brother.

(01-24-2014 12:16 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 12:03 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(01-23-2014 11:29 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Why do you make me look in SEC-land for this JR? Good stuff.

Delany will have the cash to make a move for the new contract. I'm not sure that he has to wait on the NCAA.

Only a very big dog like Texas would require significant knowledge of the future.

I motion for JR to be given his own board.

The SEC and Big 10 have much more in common than differences in most matters on this topic. SeaBlue, let me get your initial reaction to something we discussed on a different thread; if the SEC did not pursue Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, UNC, or UVA and let the PAC and Big 10 hash out those schools, would there be any issue with the SEC taking Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Clemson, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh or Colorado State to get to 24 schools? Basically, it would be taking little brother in new markets and solidifying the geographical southeast in exchange for staying away from the golden geese.

With schools like Iowa State , K State, and Okie State, joining a conference like the SEC might update their status to Big Brother.

My thought, too, Medic. Same could be said for NC State and VT. That would not be unusual for us. Alabama and Auburn work just fine together looking eye to eye. Same with Miss. St. and Ole Miss. We don't even need those schools to be better than their flagship brother in everyone's eyes; we just need them to be the better fit in our eyes. JR spelled out some compelling reasons outside of athletics that such could be the case.

Good breakdown, JR. I agree that your 1st and 2nd realignment possibilities are not preferred or practical in the long run. We have spelled out Option 3 in previous threads, and I agree that it is the most harmonious. Option 4 is an abomination, and I hope it does not come to that. Option 5 would fracture the conferences so much that the SEC may just end up playing itself, which would actually be fine with me at some level. It would not be good for college athletics, though. For those who have not been playing along, Option 3 would look something like this (JR, give your modifications where needed):

PAC - existing 12 plus Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State (18 schools)
Big 10 - existing 14 plus BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA, and UNC (19 schools)
SEC - existing 14 plus FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech (19 schools)

Iowa State and Duke are finding homes. Notre Dame can name their home if they want it or be independent with BYU. Neither Notre Dame or BYU will be left out of top tier football. Like JR said, the only caveat is that at least 8 have to leave the Big 12 and 12 have to leave the ACC.

The PAC would have to pick two from Iowa State, Baylor, and TCU or a Notre Dame agreeing out of spite toward the Big 10 and SEC.
The Big 10 would have to pick from Iowa State, Duke, or a pissed off Notre Dame.
The SEC could fit anyone left. I think the order of preference would be Duke, Iowa State, West Virginia, Louisville, Miami, Baylor, TCU, or Wake Forest, assuming Notre Dame would rather cancel athletics than join.

(01-24-2014 12:50 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good breakdown, JR. I agree that your 1st and 2nd realignment possibilities are not preferred or practical in the long run. We have spelled out Option 3 in previous threads, and I agree that it is the most harmonious. Option 4 is an abomination, and I hope it does not come to that. Option 5 would fracture the conferences so much that the SEC may just end up playing itself, which would actually be fine with me at some level. It would not be good for college athletics, though. For those who have not been playing along, Option 3 would look something like this (JR, give your modifications where needed):

PAC - existing 12 plus Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State (18 schools)
Big 10 - existing 14 plus BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA, and UNC (19 schools)
SEC - existing 14 plus FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech (19 schools)

Iowa State and Duke are finding homes. Notre Dame can name their home if they want it or be independent with BYU. Neither Notre Dame or BYU will be left out of top tier football. Like JR said, the only caveat is that at least 8 have to leave the Big 12 and 12 have to leave the ACC.

The PAC would have to pick two from Iowa State, Baylor, and TCU or a Notre Dame agreeing out of spite toward the Big 10 and SEC.
The Big 10 would have to pick from Iowa State, Duke, or a pissed off Notre Dame.
The SEC could fit anyone left. I think the order of preference would be Duke, Iowa State, West Virginia, Louisville, Miami, Baylor, TCU, or Wake Forest, assuming Notre Dame would rather cancel athletics than join.

I think you are right in that N.D. would head West.

Add these 8 to the PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame. (to 24 in time they could develop New Mexico, Nevada/UNLV, San Diego State, B.Y.U., or T.C.U.)

SEC add these 6: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, and either West Virginia/Louisville/or Miami.
(to 24 the SEC adds the two left off of number 20 choice plus Baylor and possibly Cincinnati/Wake Forest)

The Big 10 adds these 6: Boston College, Duke, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia. (to 24 they can develop Buffalo, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Temple if they desire, but they will not.)

(01-24-2014 01:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 12:50 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Good breakdown, JR. I agree that your 1st and 2nd realignment possibilities are not preferred or practical in the long run. We have spelled out Option 3 in previous threads, and I agree that it is the most harmonious. Option 4 is an abomination, and I hope it does not come to that. Option 5 would fracture the conferences so much that the SEC may just end up playing itself, which would actually be fine with me at some level. It would not be good for college athletics, though. For those who have not been playing along, Option 3 would look something like this (JR, give your modifications where needed):

PAC - existing 12 plus Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State (18 schools)
Big 10 - existing 14 plus BC, Pitt, Syracuse, UVA, and UNC (19 schools)
SEC - existing 14 plus FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, NC State, and Virginia Tech (19 schools)

Iowa State and Duke are finding homes. Notre Dame can name their home if they want it or be independent with BYU. Neither Notre Dame or BYU will be left out of top tier football. Like JR said, the only caveat is that at least 8 have to leave the Big 12 and 12 have to leave the ACC.

The PAC would have to pick two from Iowa State, Baylor, and TCU or a Notre Dame agreeing out of spite toward the Big 10 and SEC.
The Big 10 would have to pick from Iowa State, Duke, or a pissed off Notre Dame.
The SEC could fit anyone left. I think the order of preference would be Duke, Iowa State, West Virginia, Louisville, Miami, Baylor, TCU, or Wake Forest, assuming Notre Dame would rather cancel athletics than join.

I think you are right in that N.D. would head West.

Add these 8 to the PAC: Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame. (to 24 in time they could develop New Mexico, Nevada/UNLV, San Diego State, B.Y.U., or T.C.U.)

SEC add these 6: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech, and either West Virginia/Louisville/or Miami.
(to 24 the SEC adds the two left off of number 20 choice plus Baylor and possibly Cincinnati/Wake Forest)

The Big 10 adds these 6: Boston College, Duke, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia. (to 24 they can develop Buffalo, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Temple if they desire, but they will not.)

That is a pretty good deal for everyone, JR. If the PAC were to take Notre Dame under such circumstances, they better not deny BYU with a straight face. The SEC and Big 10 will be fine; the PAC has got to find a way to make this or something comparable work.