(12-22-2014 04:34 PM)omniorange Wrote: Hail JRsec!
Good analysis overall, but I think you give way too much power to the networks involved. They will have a hand in it, sure, but if they really controlled things the way you imply then wouldn't certain programs within conferences be kicked to the curb?
Anyway, I want to focus in on your analysis from the weakest three conferences perspective. I realize you presented an analysis where they may be dependent upon what happens with the two major power conferences.
(12-21-2014 02:31 AM)JRsec Wrote: The Big 12: I've said what they want. Texas wants its own conference, and if it can't have that they want their friends to be available to them in their new home whether by making the same move with Texas or being set up in an annual cross conference game with them. They will wait upon ESPN and the ACC's response to ESPN plans to learn their fate.
Fully agree with your first statement. Texas wants its own fiefdom which is really the B12's best hopes of remaining in tact as is, or at worse case scenario expanding to 12 in the future. However, I can only see expansion to 12 or more in the future if the new CFP unofficially forces it (still very debatable even with what happened this year) or the ACC implodes (possible with further SEC or BiG expansion involving ACC teams).
As for your latter statement, interesting that you say "friends" plural. If Texas were to come on board fully, then that likely only leaves 1 friend spot to get to 16 or the ACC would have to be willing to go to 18 just for Texas. I don't see that happening because the ACC will want room for ND (and that most likely entails a spot for Navy as ND's price for full football membership).
If Texas were to be given an ND type deal, then that leaves two spots available for "friends" - I believe this is the Heinous One plan of taking Baylor and TCU. However, again, the hopes of possibly getting both ND and Texas on board fully would likely then mean expanding to 20 in the future. Again, I doubt the ACC will allow this to happen either, unless of course they see themselves losing 2-4 teams along the way to either the SEC or BiG or both (perhaps this is what you are implying with the rest of your analysis?) or having two programs decide enough is enough and give up 1-A football entirely.
Quote:The ACC: If they are willing to do what is best for ESPN they will flourish because the network can really reconstruct them in a healthy fashion as a business model. But if the recalcitrant core of the ACC rebuffs such plans then the factions within that conference that almost blew it apart earlier could resurface in force. Three to five schools can no longer stand in the way of progress for 9 and half others. If they are accommodative the network will virtually assure their competitiveness in all areas, athletically, financially, and in merchandising. If that is what they choose then Texas and friends will pack their luggage for new digs. If the core rejects the progressive plans of their benefactor then their underdeveloped markets and their real value will be parsed out to where the network can make more of the various parts of that conference than they presently make as a whole. In that case the Big 10 expands to meet their needs, the SEC is sated, and Texas gains a new kingdom.
I think this hinges more on the health of FSU, UNC, and Miami with a little of whether the ACC ever sees ND giving up their current semi-independent status mixed in slightly. That health looks bleak now, but a lot less bleak than it looked just two years ago. Time will tell.
Quote:The PAC: The PAC is secure no matter what. But they could be maximized in value with the right additions. They will get those if the ACC refuses progress. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and T.C.U. could well head West to spread the coverage of the PACN in a very large and sustainable way. The SEC and Big 10 won't care because that will save them the travel miles in the lower Mid-West and they will be too busy counting the cash they will make off of former ACC product.
I don't see the PAC expanding without one of the teams being either Texas or Oklahoma. Obviously they want both, I just don't see them expanding with TTU, TCU, Kansas and either Oklahoma State or Kansas State as some seem to imply lately - just so those teams have "homes" per se appears to be the reason given but not much thought given to why the PAC would want that. Remember, they basically already said no to Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.
Quote:IN CONCLUSION:
ESPN and their plans versus what the ACC is willing to do will dictate how the future of college football plays out. And in the whizzing contests between the payer and the payee the payer always wins. So if you love the ACC encourage their old heads to play ball with Disney. You can't win by refusing to make yourself more profitable and it's a business now. So sit back accept their boons and enjoy the ride of the next few decades of American Collegiate Sports. Because, if you don't you might not have a conference at all in a few years.
The Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and PAC are way more profitable long term (or in the case of the Big 12 at least individual brands are) than you are. Obstacles to what everyone else wants won't be humored for very long. Otherwise buy a good overcoat for the Fall games in Madison, State College, Ann Arbor, and Columbus.
I think the above is basically accurate in terms of the fact that the two most powerful conferences BiG and SEC covet teams from the ACC moreso than teams from the B12. Only Texas and Oklahoma are desired by those two whereas "lesser programs" like UNC, UVA, VT, and NC State are desired in the ACC.
Which is why I still believe that a strong FSU, UNC, and Miami gets the ACC on firmer ground than most think. Whether that happens or not is still the question.
Cheers,
Neil
Thanks for a thoughtful reply Neil.
One ancillary point that needs to be elucidated broadly is that the commandants at the three service academies have quietly agreed not to pursue P5 membership. I think Navy would remove itself from Notre Dame requiring a spot for them. The height and weight standards virtually insure that the offensive and defensive lines for the service academies will be outweighed close to 80 pounds per man by the average P5 school. They are courageous enough to schedule a few of those games a year but prefer to spread them out and essentially realize that the injury rate for their cadets would spike if they played a full conference schedule of such. Also playoffs don't really coincide with their calendar and their primary mission focus is to produce career military officers. Ideally they are suited to an Ivy League schedule, but realistically they will remain in a G5 conference and have a couple of those historic and special P5 games as long as the P5 permits such.
Ideally just Texas and N.D. coming on board in the ACC would be the route to take to 16. If Texas insisted on a couple of buddies for full membership then the best solution is one that was originally considered to be possible with the surrendering of only 2 present ACC schools. In the original SEC talk of gaining Virginia Tech and N.C. State a raid was never an option. The original concept was that Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa State or another Texas school would be the foursome to the ACC and the SEC would pick up the Wolfpack and Hokies for the markets. In that swap the ACC gains 35 million viewers, loses none, and the Irish could come in fully or not. If the Irish come in then only Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas make the move and Louisville slips over to the new Western division.
Boston College, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse
Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Kansas, Louisville, Oklahoma, Texas
If the Horns want the N.D. deal then travel companions are really not an issue because they have 6 or 7 non conference games with which to schedule whomever.
In that scenario the ACC stays at the present 14 with two partials. The SEC would pick up Oklahoma and either another Texas school, Kansas (as a present ESPN product), or even West Virginia.
As for ESPN restructuring the ACC into the good business model what I was referring to specifically is what is detailed above. Cut redundant schools inside the footprint by two, but do so in a way that profits not only the ACC, but the SEC as well since both are essentially ESPN properties. I think this would be their preference. Content will drive all future value after the realignment/conference network market model is over. ESPN may like to bolster content with the market transfers and maximize both with one set of realignment moves. If you place Texas, Kansas and Oklahoma in the ACC and give the SECN the 19 million viewers in North Carolina and Virginia you take care of all of your priorities at once.
1. You morph the economic loser of the LHN into the largest existing TV market footprint for any conference and add between 32 to 35 million viewers to it depending upon what N.D. chooses to do. (Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas = 35 million, leave out Iowa and add Indiana and Catholics everywhere and you are unofficially north of that figure). Now an LHN becomes the ACCN and is fully developed essentially at the launch.
2. You add 19 million households to the most successful conference network opening ever for the SECN.
3. You take a conference that has had great difficulty (outside of F.S.U.) of garnering significant rating numbers and exponentially increase it by having content games involving Texas, Oklahoma, possibly N.D. fully, to mix and match with Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech. Throw in Louisville who is a growing brand and Syracuse should your Orange right the ship and you have a ratings bonanza waiting to grow. Double down on that with Kansas vs Duke, Cuse, UNC, Pitt, etc in hoops and voila for the Winter network programming.
Such a move would either come at or near the end of the GOR for the Big 12. The overhead investment for ESPN is simply going all in on Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas's T1 & T2 partial inventory which is currently shared with FOX, buying out a meager Oklahoma T3 deal with FOX, and elevating the pay accordingly to both the ACC and SEC. In the world of collecting sports inventory that's a steal. If you have to go to 18 to accommodate more of the Big 12 that's no problem either. Then you add T.C.U. and either Baylor or T. Tech to the ACC and let ESPN worry about paying for them and go to three divisions of 6. The SEC adds Oklahoma State and West Virginia or Kansas State or Baylor if they want another Texas school and it's done. I just don't think we have to go to 18.
If however the Chapel Hill core is afraid of losing their power and don't want to consider any of the moves that would be money makers for the network then as I explained in the original post there are other ways for ESPN to turn a profit on that inventory and content value for them would be in putting football brands in the SEC and basketball brands in the Big 10 in exchange for a long term T1 contract renewal. In that scenario then 8 to the PAC is not so far fetched provided that all three AAU schools and the three national brands were involved. T.C.U. has secularized so I think they would be in for the demographic and Baylor would be out. WVU would be out of the question for the PAC and in such a case as having the Big 10 and SEC parse the ACC we would be looking at 60 total schools anyway. That is when the 3 x 20 model becomes very probable. You would have something like this:
Big 10:
Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Penn State
Boston College, Notre Dame/Pitt, Ohio State, Rutgers, Syracuse
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
SEC:
Clemson, Kentucky, N.C. State, South Carolina, Virginia Tech
Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami
Alabama, Florida State, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas A&M
PAC:
Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Colorado, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech, Utah
Arizona, Arizona State, California, U.C.L.A., U.S.C.
Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Washington, Washington State
Those back on the outside would be Wake Forest, Louisville, likely Pitt, Baylor, and West Virginia. This is why I believe it would be even more essential to strike the compromise that allows the SEC and ACC to absorb the best of the Big 12. It preserves Louisville, Pitt, and Wake Forest, and could preserve Baylor and West Virginia, or at least one of them with T.C.U. being in that mix now as well.
As for the Irish if we move to four conferences of power schools then I think we also move to a four champions model which will keep all 4 regions of the country involved at least tangentially until the semifinals are over. I think they would have to go all in with the ACC or risk being left out of the playoffs. The conference playoffs would be comprised of the 4 division winners and that would be the expansion of the playoffs. It would be internal of the conferences and not external to them.
For ESPN to control the two 16 member conferences proposed above and to pair them off against one another (in house so to speak) is nothing but a money maker. You are marrying the two most viewer saturated markets (SEC & Big 12) with the largest potential market and boosting content in the process. Even if FOX continues to lease 50% of the PAC content and tries to marry that more completely to the Big 10 property (that they might well own totally at that point) they will still finish way down the rankings for all but the biggest names playing each other. But even in this eventuality ESPN would still be leasing the other 50% of the PAC games. Having the superior share of two top conferences and 50% of the third while not being invested at all in the one that is the weakest in content, would not be an untenable situation.
If this season has shown us anything it is that the Big 10, who added for just markets, is already vulnerable in a large way to what will be a future shift to content. Wisconsin and Michigan and Penn State have to pick it up quickly because the Buckeyes can't carry the load by themselves.
And yes I do put heavy emphasis on the Network approach because that is what I truly believe to be the hand on the strings, .....and cash. And BTW, I don't think the networks are as concerned with kicking some programs to the curb as they are with needlessly adding to the meal ticket. That is why I don't think we will see expansion in the Big 12 and if it is the Big 12 that is parsed that we will not see all of the 10 programs find new homes. Maybe 9, maybe 8 of them do. As for the SEC and ACC I think they would like to see the footprints maximized and redundancy eliminated. Should Wake ever bow out, then Connecticut or Cincinnati could make some sense. Other than that they do realize for their stars to shine they need several in house patsies. Take care, JR