Maybe realignment is over for a while, and maybe it isn't. But if there is more movement I don't think there will be any leaks in the press, or any drama. It likely will come in the form of a final announcement of what conferences the Big 12 schools are moving to and then crickets. So when this train wreck has stopped tumbling off the tracks and the dust settles what triage issues do yo think will remain to be dealt with? Will they be relational as new schools slowly realize that they have no real history with their new conference mates? How will schools energize their alumni base under such circumstances? Will the preferred scheduling of old rivals in effect lock out some of the new schools from developing similar relationships between fellow conference school? What strategies in scheduling do you believe would be most effective and why? Are there other issues that you think will arise and if so what are they and how would we deal with them?

The Post Realignment World is coming relatively soon to most of the conferences so these issues will start to gain speed once the process is over. You don't have to limit your observations and comments to just the SEC. I think the PAC, Big 10, ACC, and SEC will all have some similar issues and all of them will have some distinct issues. I would like to hear what you think about each of them if you would care to comment, or at least just about the SEC if you are limited for time. Also, should the Big 12 survive what kind of long term issues might arise for them with the additions of T.C.U. and West Virginia?

I do think these matters will be at the forefront of our conversations in the not too distant future so let's get a leg up on them now.

(02-17-2014 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe realignment is over for a while, and maybe it isn't. But if there is more movement I don't think there will be any leaks in the press, or any drama. It likely will come in the form of a final announcement of what conferences the Big 12 schools are moving to and then crickets. So when this train wreck has stopped tumbling off the tracks and the dust settles what triage issues do yo think will remain to be dealt with? Will they be relational as new schools slowly realize that they have no real history with their new conference mates? How will schools energize their alumni base under such circumstances? Will the preferred scheduling of old rivals in effect lock out some of the new schools from developing similar relationships between fellow conference school? What strategies in scheduling do you believe would be most effective and why? Are there other issues that you think will arise and if so what are they and how would we deal with them?

The Post Realignment World is coming relatively soon to most of the conferences so these issues will start to gain speed once the process is over. You don't have to limit your observations and comments to just the SEC. I think the PAC, Big 10, ACC, and SEC will all have some similar issues and all of them will have some distinct issues. I would like to hear what you think about each of them if you would care to comment, or at least just about the SEC if you are limited for time. Also, should the Big 12 survive what kind of long term issues might arise for them with the additions of T.C.U. and West Virginia?

I do think these matters will be at the forefront of our conversations in the not too distant future so let's get a leg up on them now.

Scheduling

Assuming everyone goes to 16. I think pod scheduling would work best obviously. There are a lot of ways to do it and it would depend on the number of conference games played. I like the 8 game model and that allows more OOC match-ups and scheduling flexibility than 9 games. There are options to play schools from every pod each year, but I like something like this:

8 games
Play 3 games in pod and play 4 games versus another pod, plus 1 rivalry game outside your pod each year. Designate a main rival and a secondary rival for when your main rival is in the pod you are playing that year. Allows you to split up the best teams among the pods, yet maintain strong rivalries so you don't have a NU/OU situation like in the B12 where new divisions/pods destroy a great yearly rivalry.

9 Games
You could do a 3 games in pod and 2 games versus the other pods, but that means you might have to keep better schools in the same pod to maintain the rivalry and there will be a much weaker pod or 2. I think 3 games versus your pod, 4 games versus another pod, 1 rivalry game like above, and 1 rotating game versus a school from one of the other pods might work. You would play the 10 schools in the other pods, minus your main and secondary rival over 10 years as a rotating game. You could also do 2 rivals (with a tertiary rival as well), but that might mean some schools have a more difficult schedule on average than 1 rival plus a rotating game.

For both 8 and 9 game schedules, the 2 pods playing each other can be set up as one side of the bracket in a conference semi-final format to give a greater chance (25% for 9 game and 12.5% for 8 game) that the CCG is not a rematch of an earlier game than other formats.

(02-17-2014 11:09 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 11:01 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Maybe realignment is over for a while, and maybe it isn't. But if there is more movement I don't think there will be any leaks in the press, or any drama. It likely will come in the form of a final announcement of what conferences the Big 12 schools are moving to and then crickets. So when this train wreck has stopped tumbling off the tracks and the dust settles what triage issues do yo think will remain to be dealt with? Will they be relational as new schools slowly realize that they have no real history with their new conference mates? How will schools energize their alumni base under such circumstances? Will the preferred scheduling of old rivals in effect lock out some of the new schools from developing similar relationships between fellow conference school? What strategies in scheduling do you believe would be most effective and why? Are there other issues that you think will arise and if so what are they and how would we deal with them?

The Post Realignment World is coming relatively soon to most of the conferences so these issues will start to gain speed once the process is over. You don't have to limit your observations and comments to just the SEC. I think the PAC, Big 10, ACC, and SEC will all have some similar issues and all of them will have some distinct issues. I would like to hear what you think about each of them if you would care to comment, or at least just about the SEC if you are limited for time. Also, should the Big 12 survive what kind of long term issues might arise for them with the additions of T.C.U. and West Virginia?

I do think these matters will be at the forefront of our conversations in the not too distant future so let's get a leg up on them now.

Scheduling

Assuming everyone goes to 16. I think pod scheduling would work best obviously. There are a lot of ways to do it and it would depend on the number of conference games played. I like the 8 game model and that allows more OOC match-ups and scheduling flexibility than 9 games. There are options to play schools from every pod each year, but I like something like this:

8 games
Play 3 games in pod and play 4 games versus another pod, plus 1 rivalry game outside your pod each year. Designate a main rival and a secondary rival for when your main rival is in the pod you are playing that year. Allows you to split up the best teams among the pods, yet maintain strong rivalries so you don't have a NU/OU situation like in the B12 where new divisions/pods destroy a great yearly rivalry.

9 Games
You could do a 3 games in pod and 2 games versus the other pods, but that means you might have to keep better schools in the same pod to maintain the rivalry and there will be a much weaker pod or 2. I think 3 games versus your pod, 4 games versus another pod, 1 rivalry game like above, and 1 rotating game versus a school from one of the other pods might work. You would play the 10 schools in the other pods, minus your main and secondary rival over 10 years as a rotating game. You could also do 2 rivals (with a tertiary rival as well), but that might mean some schools have a more difficult schedule on average than 1 rival plus a rotating game.

For both 8 and 9 game schedules, the 2 pods playing each other can be set up as one side of the bracket in a conference semi-final format to give a greater chance (25% for 9 game and 12.5% for 8 game) that the CCG is not a rematch of an earlier game than other formats.

I feel that having no more than 1 protected rival will be a key as well. Just keep your pods geographically grouped and most rivalries will be taken care of in the pod. Then the one protected game works out fine. There is another way however. You play your three pod mates, and have 1 protected rival in each of the other 3 pods and you rotate the other two schools from each of the other pods annually. That way you can have up to 6 protected annual games and still play everyone every three years. While I don't consider that to be the best option for schools that have rivalries that aren't necessarily grouped closely in their conference they have a workaround.

I'll start with the SEC.

Right now at 14 our divisions worked fairly well. Designating Arkansas as a permanent rival of Missouri was key. Of all of our additions Mizzou will have the toughest time feeling like they have somebody particular to play and focus their attention upon. Arkansas is a neighbor and at least (oddly) by playing in the Eastern division they also get Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Columbia vs Columbia thing is contrived but since they are divisional mates that too might develop over time. For players and coaches it won't be that different, it's the fans we need to do more for. I think for a few years it would be great for the schools of the eastern division to schedule some kind of big game day mixer so that Missouri fans and the fans of the Eastern division schools have an official way to mingle and get to know a few of each other. When personal contacts are made that way it makes looking forward to a particular event that much more fun. Missouri can do the same at their home games. Traveling crowds are much easier to accommodate and usually fairly friendly before the games. Friday nights and Saturday mornings would be great times to schedule something that is well publicized to the ticket holders ahead of time.

Ultimately two additions would help a lot with some scheduling issues but for the purposes here we must assume that things are over and we still sit at 14.

A&M at least has a renewed long standing rivalry with L.S.U. and they do get the Hogs every year. Throw in the annual Bear lovers match up with Alabama and they seem to fit in quite well. I don't see the SEC having to many residual realignment issues other than the need to go out of the way to make Missouri feel more a part of the family. I'll tackle the other conferences one by one.

But, if we look to add a 9th game to the conference schedule I do think we need to take a serious look at divisional alignments.

Because it is hard to guess where schools might move (since all the prime candidates have several suitors) I will list problems I see for each conference currently and how they can solve them with the right expansion or moves. If their expansion (or lack of expansion) does not address the problem then obviously it will continue to be a problem most likely. Feel free to add more major or minor problems or argue against any of these. These are off the top of my head to help get discussion started. I probably forgot a few problems.

SEC - Very strong. Really no pressing problems.They have the most flexibility of all the conferences in who they add IMO.
1) Weak BB overall. SEC is very competitive in all sports except BB. UK and UF mask this a bit because they have won quite a few titles the last decade or so, but the SEC really could use another 1-2 top BB schools to help elevate the quality of play overall and also provide more interesting BB match-ups for the SECN and national TV. Fix: Add UNC, Duke, or Kansas.
2) Scheduling issues with 14 schools. Fix: Expand to 16, or even 20, and go to pod scheduling.

B1G - Very strong. FB needs help.
1) Lacks a major FB recruiting hotbed in their footprint (CA, TX or GA/FL) which has resulted in underwhelming results on the field the last decade. Fix: Add Texas, FSU, GT and/or Miami. OU would help some in the DFW area somewhat.
2) Scheduling issues with 14 schools. Fix: Expand to 16, or even 20, and go to pod scheduling.

PAC
1) PST/MST is hurting their ratings and exposure to Americans in the CST/EST. Fix: Add B12 schools in the CST or even consider an EST pod if the ACC falls apart.
2) Lack suitable expansion candidates outside of the B12. Fix: Do what it takes to land Texas and OU. If it means working out a deal on the LHN then do it. If it means taking some B12 little brothers to get the big fish then do it. If it means going past 16 then do it.
3) PACN carriage. Fix: If it struggles to get carriage long term then add FOX or ESPN as a partner.

ACC
1) Too many lower value schools and duplicate markets. Fix: Let NC State and VT (SEC) or VA (B1G) leave if they want. If the B1G wants any of Pitt, BC, or Syracuse let them go as well. This opens up more room to add schools from the B12 with new markets and greater value.
2) Poor TV contract and no network. The contract they have with ESPN is killing their value, plus ESPN already sold off most of the less valuable games to regional networks which means they lack content to start up an ACC network. Fix: Go large (18-20 schools) with Texas and it's B12 friends. Provides content for an ACC network and would reopen the ESPN contract for renegotiation. LHN could become the ACCN.
3) Poor football outside of FSU and Clemson. The ACC recruits well enough. Talent is not the issue for the most part. Getting results with that talent is. Fix: Spend more on coaches to attract better coaches. Upgrade facilities. Add Texas and/or OU.
4) Scheduling issues with 14 schools. Fix: Expand to 16, or even 20, and go to pod scheduling.

B12
1) Lacks population footprint. Fix: Add schools with value from states with large populations (CA, FL, OH, etc.) in states where the B12 has no current presence.
2) Texas and OU, and to a smaller extent Kansas, are most of the value and hold the conference together. Texas itself might be 40-50% of the value of the conference. Fix: Hard to do, but add schools like FSU, VT and Clemson who can grab national interest. Failing that continue to keep UT and OU happy (good luck doing that long term).
3) B12 TV model. The big 3 make competitive (or better) money to conferences with networks, but the other schools will struggle to keep up. Lacking a conference network hurts building the B12 brand and exposure nationwide. Fix: Difficult. LHN deal runs 20 years and all the schools have sold their T3 to someone. Maybe roll the LHN into an ESPN B12 conference network. Unlikely UT would go for that even though they have been losing exposure by showing 2-3 FB games on the LHN each year.
4) Lack of CCG/round robin. The 9 game round robin results in more losses than conferences with divisions. This will hurt getting schools into the playoff. Going to divisions with 12 or more schools would allow a CCG for a little more money. Fix: Add 2 schools to get to 12. Problem is no available schools are worth adding based on current value, outside of maybe BYU, even with the extra value of a CCG. They would have to add 2 project schools similar to TCU.
5. Lacks suitable expansion candidates. Fix: Out of it's hands mostly. Expand with G5 project schools, or work with G5 schools to get to P5 standards in a decade, or hope the ACC is mortally wounded by the B1G/SEC and they can pick up some valuable pieces later.

(02-17-2014 11:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'll start with the SEC.

Right now at 14 our divisions worked fairly well. Designating Arkansas as a permanent rival of Missouri was key. Of all of our additions Mizzou will have the toughest time feeling like they have somebody particular to play and focus their attention upon. Arkansas is a neighbor and at least (oddly) by playing in the Eastern division they also get Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Columbia vs Columbia thing is contrived but since they are divisional mates that too might develop over time. For players and coaches it won't be that different, it's the fans we need to do more for. I think for a few years it would be great for the schools of the eastern division to schedule some kind of big game day mixer so that Missouri fans and the fans of the Eastern division schools have an official way to mingle and get to know a few of each other. When personal contacts are made that way it makes looking forward to a particular event that much more fun. Missouri can do the same at their home games. Traveling crowds are much easier to accommodate and usually fairly friendly before the games. Friday nights and Saturday mornings would be great times to schedule something that is well publicized to the ticket holders ahead of time.

Ultimately two additions would help a lot with some scheduling issues but for the purposes here we must assume that things are over and we still sit at 14.

A&M at least has a renewed long standing rivalry with L.S.U. and they do get the Hogs every year. Throw in the annual Bear lovers match up with Alabama and they seem to fit in quite well. I don't see the SEC having to many residual realignment issues other than the need to go out of the way to make Missouri feel more a part of the family. I'll tackle the other conferences one by one.

But, if we look to add a 9th game to the conference schedule I do think we need to take a serious look at divisional alignments.

I think the relationship and rivalry building just takes time too develop. Not much you can do about that. It's best to let it develop organically from competition or familiarity rather than forcing it. Arkansas and South Carolina probably felt like SEC outsiders once too (maybe still do a bit to some old school SECers).

I guess it would be easier when you have 4 or more schools from a conference join together like the Big East schools in the ACC or the 4 SWC schools that joined the Big 8 schools. If the B12 comes apart some former B12 schools might be getting some old friends back to ease that transition to their new conference.

(02-18-2014 01:02 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  

(02-17-2014 11:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I'll start with the SEC.

Right now at 14 our divisions worked fairly well. Designating Arkansas as a permanent rival of Missouri was key. Of all of our additions Mizzou will have the toughest time feeling like they have somebody particular to play and focus their attention upon. Arkansas is a neighbor and at least (oddly) by playing in the Eastern division they also get Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Columbia vs Columbia thing is contrived but since they are divisional mates that too might develop over time. For players and coaches it won't be that different, it's the fans we need to do more for. I think for a few years it would be great for the schools of the eastern division to schedule some kind of big game day mixer so that Missouri fans and the fans of the Eastern division schools have an official way to mingle and get to know a few of each other. When personal contacts are made that way it makes looking forward to a particular event that much more fun. Missouri can do the same at their home games. Traveling crowds are much easier to accommodate and usually fairly friendly before the games. Friday nights and Saturday mornings would be great times to schedule something that is well publicized to the ticket holders ahead of time.

Ultimately two additions would help a lot with some scheduling issues but for the purposes here we must assume that things are over and we still sit at 14.

A&M at least has a renewed long standing rivalry with L.S.U. and they do get the Hogs every year. Throw in the annual Bear lovers match up with Alabama and they seem to fit in quite well. I don't see the SEC having to many residual realignment issues other than the need to go out of the way to make Missouri feel more a part of the family. I'll tackle the other conferences one by one.

But, if we look to add a 9th game to the conference schedule I do think we need to take a serious look at divisional alignments.

I think the relationship and rivalry building just takes time too develop. Not much you can do about that. It's best to let it develop organically from competition or familiarity rather than forcing it. Arkansas and South Carolina probably felt like SEC outsiders once too (maybe still do a bit to some old school SECers).

I guess it would be easier when you have 4 or more schools from a conference join together like the Big East schools in the ACC or the 4 SWC schools that joined the Big 8 schools. If the B12 comes apart some former B12 schools might be getting some old friends back to ease that transition to their new conference.

Really nice job in your breakdown in the first post above. I think letting nature take its course with Mizzou is fine athletically. We've had a baseball series with them each of the last two years and of course the CCG in Atlanta. They have some really nice fans whose love for all things Mizzou is very SEC like. Their tailgating is a bit foreign to most Southerners who aren't brat grillers. I just noticed that there was the kind of reticence that people have when they come into a new place present with many of their fans. That wasn't so much the case in Atlanta because of all the SEC sponsored pre-game events which really do a good job of mixing the crowd. I just felt that if similar mixers were intentionally offered at most of their traveling venues for a year or two that it would help that portion of their fan base gain a sense of comfort and belonging when they head to those sites for games. For kids tagging along that gives them a memory to build traditions upon. Concerts, barbecues, arts and crafts fairs are the kinds of things I had in mind.

The baseball series in Auburn was a great time to get to know some of them and I was surprised how well they traveled.

The PAC:

The odd thing about realignment if it ends now is that the PAC really made the poorest additions for long term purposes of anyone. Utah may well work out they appear to be a clear case of a school that was once used to playing a few key games a year learning how to get up for that level of competition every week. Utah adds a school close to the heart of the footprint that has the population to eventually contend. The addition that if things stand as they are that doesn't make much sense other than from a market perspective is Colorado. Their level of commitment to college football has been questionable and if they aren't used as a bridge to Midwest expansion then all they become is an outlier to which people will not be inspired to go. If that's the case the PAC might well have been better served considering a Nevada school instead.

However I do understand the academics angle for Colorado But that said I'll mention again that in the modern era there should be academic conferences and athletic conferences and the two should have nothing to do with one another. Academic conferences should be controlled through the presidents and athletic conferences should be controlled through the AD's. The former should be for collective research and for the advancement of their student's endeavors and the latter should be for competitive purposes with an emphasis on keeping sports more regional for fan accessibility and expense purposes. I might add that such flexibility would help conferences like the PAC and Big 10 with competitiveness. Also conference play for athletics should essentially be for Football and Basketball and maybe Baseball. All other sports should be even more regional for economic reasons. With multiple regional play for minor sports season ending earned trips to regional playoffs and national playoffs should be the only major expenses involved. More esoteric sports like equestrian would be excepted due to the relatively low number of entrants.

I say this because West Coast and Northern athletics all would be bolstered tremendously if they could accept baseball, hockey, and basketball competition that is much closer to home and that came from schools they might not choose to have academic associations with. The present rigid standards for conferences to be fully integrated within the conference structure and fully segregated athletically from other schools in their region simply isn't a fluid enough model to serve the public's interest regionally and the schools purpose academically at the same time. And now that we are bleeding sports fans nationally more regional athletic associations might help with the development of a new generation of fans by eliminating what appears to be the snootiness of academic stratification and by peaking the interest of all the people in a region by making the product more available in ways more meaningful to them.

The PAC as an isolated conference would benefit the most from this kind of approach. And the present realignment efforts illuminate their obstacles and the difficulty they will find in trying to overcome them.

This is a great conversation, guys, and I am going to jump in soon. Keep the thoughts coming.

The Big 10 with the 14 that they have positioned themselves nicely from a market perspective. Fitting Rutgers into the Big 10 East isn't really that much of a stretch in my opinion. Maryland might not be such a great fit initially but will grown into it with time. The footprint is still contiguous and fairly tight for having expanded to the East. Penn State should feel much more comfortable now.

What the present realignment configuration has not done for the Big 10 is enhance their football credentials. This is another reason that despite claims to the contrary there could be further realignment to come. If so and the Big 10 meets the needs of additional football strength then this round of realignment will have been very successful for them.

I think the need to integrate Maryland is the only issue pressing for the Big 10 at this time. Like the SEC their adds didn't compromise their footprint.

There are some things that the Big 10 and SEC will need to do in the aftermath of realignment but I'll address those at the end.

(02-20-2014 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 with the 14 that they have positioned themselves nicely from a market perspective. Fitting Rutgers into the Big 10 East isn't really that much of a stretch in my opinion. Maryland might not be such a great fit initially but will grown into it with time. The footprint is still contiguous and fairly tight for having expanded to the East. Penn State should feel much more comfortable now.

What the present realignment configuration has not done for the Big 10 is enhance their football credentials. This is another reason that despite claims to the contrary there could be further realignment to come. If so and the Big 10 meets the needs of additional football strength then this round of realignment will have been very successful for them.

I think the need to integrate Maryland is the only issue pressing for the Big 10 at this time. Like the SEC their adds didn't compromise their footprint.

There are some things that the Big 10 and SEC will need to do in the aftermath of realignment but I'll address those at the end.

JR, I agree that Maryland and New Jersey will fit in the Big 10 just fine. For football, getting into Virginia and North Carolina, and perhaps trying to own it, is their best avenue to improved football. Virginia and North Carolina are consistently among the top 10 states in football recruiting, as is New Jersey. They already possess Ohio and Pennsylvania, so they would have half of the top 10 recruitment states, albeit mainly from the lower half. That strategy makes much more sense than pursuing the hotbeds of California, Texas, or Florida. The talent poor states of the Big 10 will be hard pressed to bring any kids from those areas.

Furthermore, if the Big 10 splits the states of Virginia and North Carolina with the SEC, the Big 10 will lose that recruiting battle. If they are serious about improving football and maintaining a high level of basketball, they should strongly consider providing a home for all four of VT, UVA, UNC, and NCSU. If it requires Duke to get that deal done, so be it. The states of Virginia and North Carolina are only going to become more populous, wealthy, and influential. Round out with Kansas, and that is a very solid 20 school league that essentially owns the midwest, northeast, and mid-atlantic. Much further south, and the Big 10 risks losing their culture.

Of course, the SEC would have a major say in that move, but if they see absolutely no chance of entrance into VA or NC, then fortifying with Clemson, GT, FSU, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would be prudent.

(02-20-2014 09:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 with the 14 that they have positioned themselves nicely from a market perspective. Fitting Rutgers into the Big 10 East isn't really that much of a stretch in my opinion. Maryland might not be such a great fit initially but will grown into it with time. The footprint is still contiguous and fairly tight for having expanded to the East. Penn State should feel much more comfortable now.

What the present realignment configuration has not done for the Big 10 is enhance their football credentials. This is another reason that despite claims to the contrary there could be further realignment to come. If so and the Big 10 meets the needs of additional football strength then this round of realignment will have been very successful for them.

I think the need to integrate Maryland is the only issue pressing for the Big 10 at this time. Like the SEC their adds didn't compromise their footprint.

There are some things that the Big 10 and SEC will need to do in the aftermath of realignment but I'll address those at the end.

JR, I agree that Maryland and New Jersey will fit in the Big 10 just fine. For football, getting into Virginia and North Carolina, and perhaps trying to own it, is their best avenue to improved football. Virginia and North Carolina are consistently among the top 10 states in football recruiting, as is New Jersey. They already possess Ohio and Pennsylvania, so they would have half of the top 10 recruitment states, albeit mainly from the lower half. That strategy makes much more sense than pursuing the hotbeds of California, Texas, or Florida. The talent poor states of the Big 10 will be hard pressed to bring any kids from those areas.

Furthermore, if the Big 10 splits the states of Virginia and North Carolina with the SEC, the Big 10 will lose that recruiting battle. If they are serious about improving football and maintaining a high level of basketball, they should strongly consider providing a home for all four of VT, UVA, UNC, and NCSU. If it requires Duke to get that deal done, so be it. The states of Virginia and North Carolina are only going to become more populous, wealthy, and influential. Round out with Kansas, and that is a very solid 20 school league that essentially owns the midwest, northeast, and mid-atlantic. Much further south, and the Big 10 risks losing their culture.

Of course, the SEC would have a major say in that move, but if they see absolutely no chance of entrance into VA or NC, then fortifying with Clemson, GT, FSU, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would be prudent.

I understand your reasoning here and agree that should be their plan A. In reality I think they either split those states with the SEC or more likely Virginia and Virginia tech go to the Big 10 and Duke and North Carolina go to the SEC. But truly, I don't think we are going to move to 3 conferences now. It's just not in the interest of ESPN to do so, unless they get a bigger interest in the Big 10.

I guess you could say BBB that it might well be a test of wills between North Carolina and Texas. If ESPN thought they could morph the Longhorn Network into something more profitable in either the ACC or Big 12 there would be some options to be considered.

Let's try this hypothetical, and these are big ifs:
If the Big 10 signs Tier 1 rights with ESPN, if Texas agrees to take the Big 12 into growth and morph the LHN into a Big 12 network provided by ESPN, and if FOX were willing to sign off on this for any reason, then you could see Virginia & Virginia Tech to the Big 10, North Carolina and Duke to the SEC, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, N.C. State, Louisville, and Miami to the Big 12, and Notre Dame, Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the PAC at as Eastern Pod with big TV markets.

Do I think this happens? No but it is possible.

More than likely though we would be back to some kind of division of the Big 12 with Texas going to either the ACC or SEC and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State going with them with somebody moving over or something of that ilk.

But back to the point of this thread if Virginia and North Carolina are not options I think the Big 10 will make a push for Oklahoma and failing that maybe some workaround with the SEC as we've discussed before. But they have to push for some kind of football strength if overall they are to come out of this realignment still in contention with the SEC.

The ACC's additions of Pittsburgh and Syracuse were a nice offensive move to finish off what they began when they took B.C.. It gives them a basketball loving new market with some top brands to play against the ACC basketball product. Notre Dame as a partial member adds prestige and good non-football sports. Louisville was an upgrade athletically from a struggling Maryland which other than being a charter member and providing continuity to the footprint of the conference was really just a space filler athletically.

So as far as the machinations of realignment are concerned the ACC did quite well. But, they only placed a bandage on the wounds of the football first schools. They are still a conference of 15 schools in which participating football first schools only comprise 6 of the schools and of those only 2 compete regularly on a competitive footing with the rest of the nation. The non intersecting interests of two divergent groups of schools within this conference will continue to be their greatest source of instability. What F.S.U. accomplished for them this year was some respect, but in the same fashion that Kentucky and Florida accomplish some occasional respect for SEC basketball. With minor exceptions the ACC remains two conferences existing inside of 1 with the predominant dividing line between the two factions existing on the North Carolina/South Carolina border. Virginia Tech and to a lesser extent N.C. State may be included with the football first schools. Louisville will be joinig that group next year.

If the ACC wants to finish off realignment in a powerful way they should consider making a play for 4 football schools from the Big 12. If they for instance were to land the Texahoma group and make room for them by giving up schools in the states where the ACC footprint was redundant then by working with the SEC instead of competing against it they could probably elevate their total profile in football and in income to a level equal to, or nearly equal to the SEC and Big 10.

Failing that they will remain a house divided by a schism in sports identity.

The Big 12 is the Big 12, well 10. Texas is still the most profitable program in the nation. Oklahoma is still top ten in the same. For all of the talk about the Big 12 being the Big 2 and little 8 that simply isn't so. The middle of the Big 12 is quite competitive. The problem is it's not a big middle by comparison to the middle of 14 team conferences. Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Baylor, and to a lesser extent Texas Tech and West Virginia which are still rebuilding form a really competitive middle. Iowa State shows flashes, but nothing that is sustained and Kansas....well they have basketball. From an additions standpoint West Virginia while respectable on field simply travels way too far to play and doesn't bring many teams to Morgantown that have a local appeal to the fan base outside of Texas and Oklahoma. T.C.U. has not been able to sustain performance against the competition that they have stepped up to meet weekly.

The issues for the Big 12 remain the same. They have no network with which to monetize tier 3 rights in a way that lifts all Big 12 boats and keeps the conference competitive with the networks of other larger conferences. For a small conference it does not have a homogeneous feel to it. There are two privates one which is strong in multiple sports and one that is not. There are 8 state schools of which 4 are reflective of the Southwest in culture and 3 of which are reflective of the Midwest in culture and 1 that is from Appalachian culture. Two schools are elite football brands, two regional football brands, and 1 that is a national basketball brand. Academics are across the spectrum. Their footprint is the smallest of the present P5 conferences and will prove an obstacle to keeping pace with the other 4. They've waited so long to decide whether or not to expand that they have essentially made their decision by indecision. There are no compelling targets for them to pursue. So now we wait.

If Texas wants to keep a conference they will. It won't hurt Texas to take that approach but it won't help the other 9. We'll see.

(02-20-2014 09:36 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-20-2014 08:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 with the 14 that they have positioned themselves nicely from a market perspective. Fitting Rutgers into the Big 10 East isn't really that much of a stretch in my opinion. Maryland might not be such a great fit initially but will grown into it with time. The footprint is still contiguous and fairly tight for having expanded to the East. Penn State should feel much more comfortable now.

What the present realignment configuration has not done for the Big 10 is enhance their football credentials. This is another reason that despite claims to the contrary there could be further realignment to come. If so and the Big 10 meets the needs of additional football strength then this round of realignment will have been very successful for them.

I think the need to integrate Maryland is the only issue pressing for the Big 10 at this time. Like the SEC their adds didn't compromise their footprint.

There are some things that the Big 10 and SEC will need to do in the aftermath of realignment but I'll address those at the end.

JR, I agree that Maryland and New Jersey will fit in the Big 10 just fine. For football, getting into Virginia and North Carolina, and perhaps trying to own it, is their best avenue to improved football. Virginia and North Carolina are consistently among the top 10 states in football recruiting, as is New Jersey. They already possess Ohio and Pennsylvania, so they would have half of the top 10 recruitment states, albeit mainly from the lower half. That strategy makes much more sense than pursuing the hotbeds of California, Texas, or Florida. The talent poor states of the Big 10 will be hard pressed to bring any kids from those areas.

Furthermore, if the Big 10 splits the states of Virginia and North Carolina with the SEC, the Big 10 will lose that recruiting battle. If they are serious about improving football and maintaining a high level of basketball, they should strongly consider providing a home for all four of VT, UVA, UNC, and NCSU. If it requires Duke to get that deal done, so be it. The states of Virginia and North Carolina are only going to become more populous, wealthy, and influential. Round out with Kansas, and that is a very solid 20 school league that essentially owns the midwest, northeast, and mid-atlantic. Much further south, and the Big 10 risks losing their culture.

Of course, the SEC would have a major say in that move, but if they see absolutely no chance of entrance into VA or NC, then fortifying with Clemson, GT, FSU, Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State would be prudent.

Very good point BBB.

The bigger issues facing us all (P5) have only a little to do with realignment or who we choose or fail to get. It has to do with the social milieu. The largest portion of the fan base are Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers while causing many of the social ills are now having to face the mess that they intentionally and inadvertently created.

Boomers left the family businesses behind and looked for lucrative jobs in large companies. The large companies utilized the Boomer education factor (which was significant) to grow larger. Boomers voted to deregulate business restrictions because they were the majority and it affected their companies. In comes Reagan, out go regulations. In comes H.W. Bush and in comes a solidification of the marriage of government and corporate enterprise. With Clinton, a member of the same political think tank as the Bush's, we get NAFTA which opens the door for China through its companies set up in Canada and provides for a cheap labor source through Mexico. W Bush pushes this even further and we begin to see the dissipation of family business which doesn't receive the same tax breaks as those purchased by their larger chain competitors. The source of cheap labor balloons and the deregulation of the banks hits a peak allowing for inflationary measures to spur Wall Street in spite of large trade deficits and a growing national debt. Multinational corporations can now use treaties to suck the wealth out of the nation and into regions where taxation rates favor them. Under W record numbers of foreign exchange students find their way into the U.S. where they work on degrees and research. The numbers coupled with a second baby boom that occurred between 1988 and 2000 swells the ranks in college further inflating the cost of an education. Unfortunately mixed in with some of those foreign students engaged in research studies are spies who send information home that destroys patent rights held in the U.S. & Europe and which compromises other R&D. Corporate interests builds the infrastructure of China and China becomes a major trafficker in counterfeited goods cutting corporate profits at a time when the purchasing power of the average American consumer is falling due to rising energy costs as Chinese with jobs start buying cars and fuel increasing the demand upon petroleum products, and buying imported food directly affecting costs in the rest of the world including the U.S. The downturn in credit usage coupled with Boomer retirements in 2006 and ballooning in 2009 become the main stressors in the banking crisis. Derivatives and gross misconduct lead to financial instruments that are hard to trace and even harder to value and which have been a multiplier on the balance sheet allowing banks to hold less actual funds in reserve at the very time that Boomers who are facing higher inflation and sagging stock values try to liquidate their portfolios in order to provide for their retirement. When portfolios are showing declines the Boomers in large numbers opt to sell second homes to boost disposable income or lessen obligations. Now we add a large glut of high priced homes to an underemployed marketplace. A mortgage industry already in questionable standing because of business practices hits its limits and the housing bubble that had existed pops and coupled with the product coming on the market from retirees the market collapses.

In comes the Obama administration promising change but delivering more of the same. Confidence tanks and Affordable Health Care is offered to take stress off of one of the last bastions of capital left, the insurance companies, which face with the retirement of the Boomers record payouts of insurance policies both due to death and to the cashing in of policies for cash value. Limited payback plans can go into place but that would erode consumer confidence in their products. Along with retirement of Boomers go all of those company guaranteed health care plans that will have to pay out major amounts in retirement as Boomers face life ending issues. Health Care bails out those companies to an extent both through the limitations placed on services offered and because the mere passage of it permits major corporations to transition out of providing employees health care packages.

So how does this affect our conferences? While alive the WWII generation contributed 75% of all charitable contributions in our society. The WWII generation attended church in high percentages. The WWII generation held little debt and actually owned what they owned. Only 1 in 4 of their children go to church and the Boomers are the first generation to head into retirement with net debt. The 1 in 4 Boomers that attend church only give 25% of the total givings to the organization. So what does church have to do with anything? The contributions to churches roughly parallel other charitable and philanthropic contributions. That means that as Boomers retire all subsequent generations only contribute around 5% of all charitable funds. Corporations are now the leading donors to charitable and philanthropic endeavors. The reason for this is because today's generation of young men and women who are becoming adults and having families are paid less on average than preceding generations when the purchasing power of their income is taken into consideration. This is a first for our nation. They face higher inflation (even though government statistics won't show it due to the government not considering food and fuel as part of inflation stats) than we did. And there are more of them competing for fewer jobs. Therefore they can't afford (in the numbers that we did) to buy expensive tickets to athletic events or to contribute large sums for athletic club donations. So it brings us to a conflict that has to be resolved.

Schools will rely more and more upon corporate grants and donations. The government is already having to feed a national debt that is out of control and the revenues, due to shrinking jobs and underemployment, are less. If Boomer demand and television have driven college athletic prices to their present rates, the forces that will force them down are already in place. Studies have proven that once fans quit buying tickets it is very difficult to get them to start doing it again. As Boomer's die out if we don't replace them with younger people the industry that is college sports will die as a commercial enterprise. Since tickets are too expensive for young families those kids will not be developed as a customer base. In 25 years the decline will be concretized. We have a short window to do the intelligent thing, offer cheaper tickets for young families in an attempt to bridge the loss of the Boomers with new generations of fans. To miss this window of opportunity is to doom the sports themselves as marketable products.

Piggybacking on these issues is the discontent and mistrust of a nation. Realignment, which started as a social interest has turned into a turn off for many fans of marginalized schools. This too is going to add to declining numbers. Therefore it is in the interest of all of the conferences to complete and end realignment as soon as is possible, to offer a long period of stasis, to encourage young family participation, and to try to regrow both a base of support and a demand for their product. How crucial all of this is can not be overstated.

People will have to make much tougher choices about their expenses in the future, entertainment will be one of the first budget lines that will be cut. Live entertainment because of cost will go before TV will. The best leverage our schools have for their contracts is their popularity. Keeping it is crucial. People are tired of change. Stasis is needed. Larger conferences have more leverage. Further realignment will occur. It's time to get it done. We are losing customers and future business by waiting.

So the biggest issues facing realignment right now are ending it as soon as possible and making our product an affordable part of the culture of our youngest adults and their families.

The football program was asked by Bubba Cunningham what it would take to be competitive in football in the B1G and in the SEC about two years ago.
The short version of the report was that Carolina was already competitive with the B1G schools and could without any changes compete for conference championships. The report went on to say that to have an chance to compete with Alabama, Auburn et al, that UNC would have to cancel at least 7 of its athletic programs and channel all of the resources of those programs into football. Discussions with other conferences ceased.

(02-21-2014 03:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  The football program was asked by Bubba Cunningham what it would take to be competitive in football in the B1G and in the SEC about two years ago.
The short version of the report was that Carolina was already competitive with the B1G schools and could without any changes compete for conference championships. The report went on to say that to have an chance to compete with Alabama, Auburn et al, that UNC would have to cancel at least 7 of its athletic programs and channel all of the resources of those programs into football. Discussions with other conferences ceased.

If the ACC members had to choose new homes and North Carolina picked the Big 10 for that reason then all I could say would be, "I hoped it wouldn't come to that, but I certainly would understand if it did."

Awesome, awesome summary of the post realignment future, JR. Noting the immediate need of finalizing realignment and engaging my generation is spot on. As I've said before and you agreed, universities need to strongly consider running football Saturday as a miniature and more localized level of how the NFL runs Super Bowl week. A football Saturday should be where every citizen in the state or area feels like they HAVE to go at least once a year. Why? Because that is where and when the absolute best local and regional musicians will be playing on outdoor stages and in local venues around the stadium. It is also the place to buy local art or team apparel with the best selection and best prices you can find, including the internet. The equivalent of the County Fair is set up within walking distance of where the tailgates are going on, which also happens to be where every major restaurant and food truck in the city is set up serving everything from hot dogs to prime rib sandwiches. Local companies have hired past athlete legends to mingle at their booths and tents to talk with starstruck fans who just might be in the market for a new Honda, and young moms who could care less about football absolutely will not miss out on taking the little ones to the petting area where the the school's ag department is working with local farmers to showcase piglets and baby goats. Take the tarps off the upper bowl seating and let these people pop in and out of the game for no charge.

What happens? Conservatively, tens of thousands more people of all ages will be in and around every major college campus about 8 weekends a year. What do all people need? Food, Shelter, and Stimulation, most of which people are glad to purchase. Give the leery mom a petting zoo and an awesome play area, and they'll tag along with the football loving husband and drop $200 in the town, not including the husband's football ticket to go to the game with his buddy since both of their wives and kids are more than happy to take part in all the other festivities going on in the area. Security is handled just like a major music festival, and riff-raff and trouble that would make women with children uncomfortable is virtually non-existent. The soccer and field hockey teams also play before or after the football game, and just the remnants of all those people hanging around fill their stands and have standing room around the field like big time high school football.

Local pride, local business, local connections, local entertainment.... local, local, local. If that can be accomplished, conference affiliation and even the on-field success of the team is secondary. Auburn, Starkville, Oxford, Tuscaloosa, Athens, Corvallis, West Lafayette, Chapel Hill... a successful post realignment future will have these cities being spoken of because of cultural and community offerings, not just a school and sports teams in a particular conference. When you take care of the people and the culture, athletics will take care of itself.

(02-21-2014 03:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The bigger issues facing us all (P5) have only a little to do with realignment or who we choose or fail to get. It has to do with the social milieu. The largest portion of the fan base are Baby Boomers. Baby Boomers while causing many of the social ills are now having to face the mess that they intentionally and inadvertently created.

Boomers left the family businesses behind and looked for lucrative jobs in large companies. The large companies utilized the Boomer education factor (which was significant) to grow larger. Boomers voted to deregulate business restrictions because they were the majority and it affected their companies. In comes Reagan, out go regulations. In comes H.W. Bush and in comes a solidification of the marriage of government and corporate enterprise. With Clinton, a member of the same political think tank as the Bush's, we get NAFTA which opens the door for China through its companies set up in Canada and provides for a cheap labor source through Mexico. W Bush pushes this even further and we begin to see the dissipation of family business which doesn't receive the same tax breaks as those purchased by their larger chain competitors. The source of cheap labor balloons and the deregulation of the banks hits a peak allowing for inflationary measures to spur Wall Street in spite of large trade deficits and a growing national debt. Multinational corporations can now use treaties to suck the wealth out of the nation and into regions where taxation rates favor them. Under W record numbers of foreign exchange students find their way into the U.S. where they work on degrees and research. The numbers coupled with a second baby boom that occurred between 1988 and 2000 swells the ranks in college further inflating the cost of an education. Unfortunately mixed in with some of those foreign students engaged in research studies are spies who send information home that destroys patent rights held in the U.S. & Europe and which compromises other R&D. Corporate interests builds the infrastructure of China and China becomes a major trafficker in counterfeited goods cutting corporate profits at a time when the purchasing power of the average American consumer is falling due to rising energy costs as Chinese with jobs start buying cars and fuel increasing the demand upon petroleum products, and buying imported food directly affecting costs in the rest of the world including the U.S. The downturn in credit usage coupled with Boomer retirements in 2006 and ballooning in 2009 become the main stressors in the banking crisis. Derivatives and gross misconduct lead to financial instruments that are hard to trace and even harder to value and which have been a multiplier on the balance sheet allowing banks to hold less actual funds in reserve at the very time that Boomers who are facing higher inflation and sagging stock values try to liquidate their portfolios in order to provide for their retirement. When portfolios are showing declines the Boomers in large numbers opt to sell second homes to boost disposable income or lessen obligations. Now we add a large glut of high priced homes to an underemployed marketplace. A mortgage industry already in questionable standing because of business practices hits its limits and the housing bubble that had existed pops and coupled with the product coming on the market from retirees the market collapses.

In comes the Obama administration promising change but delivering more of the same. Confidence tanks and Affordable Health Care is offered to take stress off of one of the last bastions of capital left, the insurance companies, which face with the retirement of the Boomers record payouts of insurance policies both due to death and to the cashing in of policies for cash value. Limited payback plans can go into place but that would erode consumer confidence in their products. Along with retirement of Boomers go all of those company guaranteed health care plans that will have to pay out major amounts in retirement as Boomers face life ending issues. Health Care bails out those companies to an extent both through the limitations placed on services offered and because the mere passage of it permits major corporations to transition out of providing employees health care packages.

So how does this affect our conferences? While alive the WWII generation contributed 75% of all charitable contributions in our society. The WWII generation attended church in high percentages. The WWII generation held little debt and actually owned what they owned. Only 1 in 4 of their children go to church and the Boomers are the first generation to head into retirement with net debt. The 1 in 4 Boomers that attend church only give 25% of the total givings to the organization. So what does church have to do with anything? The contributions to churches roughly parallel other charitable and philanthropic contributions. That means that as Boomers retire all subsequent generations only contribute around 5% of all charitable funds. Corporations are now the leading donors to charitable and philanthropic endeavors. The reason for this is because today's generation of young men and women who are becoming adults and having families are paid less on average than preceding generations when the purchasing power of their income is taken into consideration. This is a first for our nation. They face higher inflation (even though government statistics won't show it due to the government not considering food and fuel as part of inflation stats) than we did. And there are more of them competing for fewer jobs. Therefore they can't afford (in the numbers that we did) to buy expensive tickets to athletic events or to contribute large sums for athletic club donations. So it brings us to a conflict that has to be resolved.

Schools will rely more and more upon corporate grants and donations. The government is already having to feed a national debt that is out of control and the revenues, due to shrinking jobs and underemployment, are less. If Boomer demand and television have driven college athletic prices to their present rates, the forces that will force them down are already in place. Studies have proven that once fans quit buying tickets it is very difficult to get them to start doing it again. As Boomer's die out if we don't replace them with younger people the industry that is college sports will die as a commercial enterprise. Since tickets are too expensive for young families those kids will not be developed as a customer base. In 25 years the decline will be concretized. We have a short window to do the intelligent thing, offer cheaper tickets for young families in an attempt to bridge the loss of the Boomers with new generations of fans. To miss this window of opportunity is to doom the sports themselves as marketable products.

Piggybacking on these issues is the discontent and mistrust of a nation. Realignment, which started as a social interest has turned into a turn off for many fans of marginalized schools. This too is going to add to declining numbers. Therefore it is in the interest of all of the conferences to complete and end realignment as soon as is possible, to offer a long period of stasis, to encourage young family participation, and to try to regrow both a base of support and a demand for their product. How crucial all of this is can not be overstated.

People will have to make much tougher choices about their expenses in the future, entertainment will be one of the first budget lines that will be cut. Live entertainment because of cost will go before TV will. The best leverage our schools have for their contracts is their popularity. Keeping it is crucial. People are tired of change. Stasis is needed. Larger conferences have more leverage. Further realignment will occur. It's time to get it done. We are losing customers and future business by waiting.

So the biggest issues facing realignment right now are ending it as soon as possible and making our product an affordable part of the culture of our youngest adults and their families.

Well put.
A couple of things that are of great concern is:
With increased corporate involvement, will the university athletic departments be able to stay "independent"?
and more importantly, where is the money going to come from?
If fans aren't going to come back with higher pricing structures, will FOX and ESPN (CBS & NBC too) continue to pay higher and higher TV rights fees?
If prices are lowered and TV won't pay more, the outrageous salaries paid to coaches will have to end. This should actaully help to level the playing field for all P5 schools.